It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revisiting "The Battle of Los Angeles": 70 years of cover-up

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

One of the first and most significant modern accounts of a mass public sighting is ironically one of the least remembered. This incredible encounter occurred on February 25, 1942 between 3 & 7 a.m. a full five years before the infamous Roswell Incident. The time period involved could possibly explain why the account was forgotten about. Generally speaking, it was a terrifying time in history. It could also explain why the military was so prepared to silence the Roswell Incident as fast as they did. Practice makes perfect.

The name given to this historical mass sighting was: “The Battle of Los Angeles” or “The Great Los Angeles Air Raid”. As you may have surmised from the title, it took place over Los Angeles County, California. This incident included an Anti-aircraft artillery barrage aimed toward the sky for hours on end. According to records, no less than six civilians were killed in the event due to falling shrapnel. There were witnesses numbering in excess of a million who witnessed what was later described as:
“a large oval shaped object” floating silently through the heavens. The incident was printed as front page news along the Pacific coast; in addition, it was later covered by the national press. Headlines read: “Air Raiders Over L.A.” More below...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 22-1-2011 by Howtosurvive2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Howtosurvive2012
 


This is one of the better UFO accounts, in my opinion. The government can't deny there was something there because it was caught on film and they were firing AA guns at it!

Here is that video imbeded:



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Howtosurvive2012
 


I am a firm believer in life outside our solar system (or within, I don't know). You would have to be pretty narrow minded to think that of all the billion universes, of all the billion suns within those universes, of all the billions of planets - we're the only one with life.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
There were witnesses numbering in excess of a million who witnessed what was later described as:
“a large oval shaped object” floating silently through the heavens.
More than a million witnesses during a blackout? Where did you find that information? I never heard of anything like that.

And, as far as I know, there are no moving images of the event, only photos.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I didn't know about any film of this case. I seem to remember seeing a newspaper clipping saying there were hundreds of witnesses though.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I read somewhere that people were finding unexploded shells for months after the incident ..

and they are worth a lot now if you have one....

great thread, i always loved to read about this incident!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
There's a movie of this coming out later this year.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
This is one of the more convincing cases IMHO. The still photographs don't just show shots being fired--they show shots being fired at an object. Unfortunatley due to the lack of camera quality in that time period nothing can be discerned besides that. With that being said the claims of "weather balloons" on this one don't really fly because why would you CONTINUE to bombard an object that was not firing back at you? And why was this debris never recovered? And don't you think intelligence would have made sure it wasn't a simple balloon before they start waking up one of America's largest cities with anti-aircraft fire for hours?

Stuff just doesn't jive there. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Much like the vanishing water cases in South America, I've been poking around (not seriously though to be honest) a bit here and there and trying to find accounts of these stories actually appearing on the internet before 2010. Upon first glance, both of these (the water vanishings and the 1940s pictures and newsclips) smell of viral marketing for the movie. I've been following a bit of the viral marketing for the movie and the resource that they're invading for is our water supply.

-TM



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Click on the link I provided



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Click on the link I provided in the post.
I got the info from the link below.
edit on 22-1-2011 by Howtosurvive2012 because: SORRY DOUBLE POST



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Howtosurvive2012
 




The Battle of Los Angeles": 70 years of cover-up


I think we err because we take these things as individual events.

The Battle of LA
Cape Girardeau
Roswell

... just to name a few historic encounters

The secret has become too big, too deep and far to old now to disclose. To admit the lie would place numerous famous figures in the cross-hairs for indictment. You can't tell 300 million Americans that you've lied to them for 70 years... that all those people whom they elected and trusted, deceived them with a straight face.

Aliens? Demons? Whatever... makes no difference because whatever they are are, they hold the cards. The human governments of the planet have been led here to be frozen in their own deceit. They are helpless... and running scared.

The plan to put all the planet under single rule has been in the works for centuries. They failed, of course, with Napoleon and Hitler... and they've failed with the US now as well. It's on to China where there will be no hand wringing over this conquest. The advanced technology will be in the hands of those who won't fear using it.

But in the meantime, the meat must be marinaded a bit more... tenderized for the final cut. Economies must collapse, military alliances must fail, peace treaties must be broken and hatred between faiths, races and nations must be turned into bloodshed.

Only that will finally bring humanity to its knees where a false savior will be welcomed to rule with as mush animosity and cruelty as any ever seen.

Then and only then will all the promises and all the prophesies be opened and exposed because by then, the die will be cast. There will be no turning back... no changes of heart.

It's close now.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Ok, ran the image through TinEye and I can't find any references to it earlier that 2010.

The only reference to "Air Raiders Over LA” is in a book about Steven Speilburg:


"Battle Enemy Air Raiders Over L.A."

Reading on, they learned that on February 23, 1942, a Japanese submarine had surfaced along the California coast, near Sata Barbara, lobbing some twenty-five shells at the Richfield Oil Refinery and inflicting minor damage.


Still digging...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Ok, took a little digging but I did find this:

www.militarymuseum.org...

No telling what really happened. Tension was high right after Pearl Harbor. Not to mention the Orson Wells War of the Worlds fiasco not long before either. Eye witness accounts are always the worst. But the photo looks like it did exist.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
This incident included an Anti-aircraft artillery barrage aimed toward the sky for hours on end.
The blackout lasted for hours, but the shelling wasn't really continuous for the entire blackout period.


According to records, no less than six civilians were killed in the event due to falling shrapnel.
What records? That's not what all the popular accounts state. They state this:

www.rense.com...

Only two persons were reported wounded by falling shell fragments...
The blackout was not without its casualties, however. A State Guardsman died of a heart attack while driving an ammunition truck, heart failure also accounted for the death of an air raid warden on duty, a woman was killed in a car-truck collision in Arcadia, and a Long Beach policeman was killed in a traffic crash enroute to duty.
Driving around in a blackout killed some people, I guess because they couldn't see with no lights. And a couple of heart attacks, but I only read about injuries and no deaths due to falling shrapnel.

The people that launched the balloons know that's exactly what started the shooting. They are the only witnesses we can really believe because they personally launched the balloons so they knew what they were looking at.

None of the other witnesses knew what they were looking at and all the witness accounts were hopelessly at variance and contradicted each other regarding what was in the sky, so almost all of them must be false because almost all of them contradicted each other.

So what happened is, some balloons were launched, guys with itchy trigger fingers fired at them, and then everyone went nuts firing even at other puffs of smoke from the AA fire, which is what's shown in the famous photo, puffs of smoke in the spotlights.

Here are the accounts from the guys who launched the balloons confirming that's what the guns were firing at:
www.historynet.com...

At 3 a.m. on the morning of the raid, the 203rd launched two balloons, one from its headquarters on the Sawtelle Veterans Hospital grounds in Westwood and the other from Battery D, located on the Douglas Aircraft plant site in Santa Monica. So that the balloons could be tracked at night, a candle placed inside a simple highball glass was suspended under each balloon, whose silver color would reflect the light enough to be tracked to heights usually well above 25,000 feet. Lieutenant Melvin Timm, officer in charge of Battery D’s meteorological operations, ordered his balloon launched and had notified the filter room-also known as the Flower Street Control Center, where all planes, identified or otherwise, were tracked on a giant, flat table map-of its departure, when ‘all hell broke loose.’

By the time Timm released his balloon, the city had been under red-alert conditions for more than half an hour; searchlights were on and probing the sky; and anti-aircraft gunners, fingers on their triggers, were nervously following the searchlight beams in hopes of spotting the anticipated enemy planes. It was at this time that Sergeant George Holmes, who had launched Battery D's balloon, called Timm, saying he was no longer able to track it, that someone was shooting at it.

At regimental headquarters they were having the same problem. The officer in charge of the meteorological operations at Sawtelle, Lieutenant John E. Moore, recalled: 'As soon as [their] balloon attained altitude and was carried up the coast by the wind, searchlights came on, picked up the balloon and shortly thereafter, 3-inch anti-aircraft guns began firing. Corporal John O'Connell, in charge of tracking the balloon, ran to me and reported, `Lieutenant, they're firing at my balloon!' I went to the theodolite to verify his report and, sure enough, bursts of AA fire were exploding all around it causing it to bounce and dance all over the sky. I immediately reported to our regimental commanding officer, Colonel Ray Watson, that the guns were firing at our balloon and that there were no aircraft in sight.'
Can you see the clarity of that statement? He doesn't say "They shot down our balloon", he says: "`Lieutenant, they're firing at my balloon!' I went to the theodolite to verify his report and, sure enough, bursts of AA fire were exploding all around it causing it to bounce and dance all over the sky." That's a pretty amazing report, and I must admit I'm a bit surprised by it. But to add credibility to that report, he's not the only one and that wasn't the only balloon that was being shot at without being shot down, at least not immediately:

www.militarymuseum.org...

At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon “the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano.” From this point on reports were hopelessly at variance.
Is that just a coincidence that all hell broke loose shortly after those balloons were released? I don't think so.
www.historynet.com...

I immediately reported to our regimental commanding officer, Colonel Ray Watson, that the guns were firing at our balloon and that there were no aircraft in sight

Watson sent out the order that none of the 203rd’s 3-inch guns were to fire, then notified the Flower Street Control Room of what was happening. Astonishingly, the order came back from Flower Street to shoot down the balloon.
So the other balloon is also being shot at, without being shot down, and orders come back to shoot down the balloon. If it was already shot down, that wouldn't have happened.

Are you starting to get the picture? was there a coverup? apparently so based on this:


said Timm, ‘I was summoned. I was told to keep my mouth shut, and that there had been seven Japanese planes up there. I was also told that if I repeated my story about shooting at a balloon and not enemy planes, I would be put behind bars.
Since this is a conspiracy site, there is actually a good conspiracy story here, in that statement by Timm, right? He basically says he was told he'd be put behind bars if he told the truth. But the truth in this case was balloons.

As for the suggestion that if they had shot at a balloon, the balloon would have been shot down: Possibly so, however what seems clear from that story is that the balloons STARTED the shooting. Once everyone was shooting like crazy, there didn't have to be a balloon to shoot at any more, they could be firing at previous bursts of AA fire.

What about all the witness testimony? well we know that was pretty divergent from this excerpt from the same source:

Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes.


This seems very likely since the photographic evidence supports exactly this statement, we see the spotlights focused on a barrage of air bursts, and if there's a real solid object in there, I certainly don't see it after analyzing the photo. Here's the image as provided:

Adjust the brightness and contrast and you see it doesn't look like a solid object but rather puffs of smoke, and puffs of smoke were everywhere from the roughly 1500 AA shells fired:


One possibility is that the balloons reached heights over 25000 feet which was probably outside of the range of the 3 inch AA shells, they couldn't shoot that high, so the balloons would have only been vulnerable while they were still ascending and as these reports show, they might have made it since they were clearly not getting shot down right away from the witness testimony. Remember the quote "'As soon as [their] balloon attained altitude and was carried up the coast by the wind, searchlights came on, picked up the balloon and shortly thereafter, 3-inch anti-aircraft guns began firing. " well that doesn't define what's meant by "attained altitude" but we know it was normal for these balloons to attain altitudes over 25000 feet and that was too high for the 3 inch guns.

Anyway I suspect the balloons may have got shot down eventually, or they eventually lost sight of them, but they kept on firing anyway, at basically nothing but other puffs of smoke from other AA shell explosions, highlighted by the searchlights. Anybody who says "they wouldn't have shot at balloons or puffs of smoke" has no idea what the tensions were like at the time. They were ready to shoot at anything that moved, or even anything that didn't move. All evidence points to it being a case of an understandable overly "itchy" trigger finger:

www.historynet.com...

it is almost certain that the excitement that evening stemmed from a misread radar contact that placed the city on a red alert, and underexperienced and overanxious anti-aircraft gunners who chose to shoot first and ask questions later when the balloons began floating over the city.
If you research the case as thoroughly as I have, I expect you'll come to the same conclusion.

But it still has a nice conspiracy angle with them threatening to put Timm in jail if he told the truth about what happened.
edit on 22-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Different sources say different things. This seems to be the most popular.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Terrormaster
 


en.wikipedia.org...
For the title reference you couldn't find.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I like the avatar... en.wikipedia.org...
check through the references at the bottom of Wiki.
I did ALLOT of reading. As far as the video, it's on U tube.
That's all I can tell you about the origin. Looks exactly like the stills.
The million witnesses, well, it's LA county man. The numbers are in the link.
Anti-air-craft shells fired for hours will produce allot of witnesses. Think it over.
It's all a matter of historical documentation. That's why I want to revisit the event.
I'm sure there's someone somewhere, with a bombshell of their own.
No, I don't refer to the disinformation stated earlier.
But everyone's entitled to an opinion!

Another fun fact:
They still celibate the event in LA county every year.
There's allot more witnesses than publicly known;
that's why the title reads: 70 years of cover-up.
edit on 23-1-2011 by Howtosurvive2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Riddle me this. What did the ufo do to us that we shot at it? Was this some sort of precedent for our behavior toward anything we don't understand? It's too bad they didn't film the event with cameras which could focus.

cavemen.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Different sources say different things. This seems to be the most popular.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sorry I don't get your point?

What's different?

That source says:

In 1983, the Office of Air Force History concluded that an analysis of the evidence points to meteorological balloons as the cause of the initial alarm
That's pretty much what I said.

If there's some other point you're trying to make, or sentence you want me to read in that long article, please point it out. I've already read dozens of other articles like that.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join