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: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You questioned my account of:

blackout description
witnesses at the scene
number of civilians killed
length of the aerial barrage
and implied the balloon was fact

With all due respect, I think your reply is longer than the link.
The above discrepancies are all in the information I provided you.
Whether you want to read is up to you. I already know of your source.
Like I said, it's not the only one. Your alleged facts are just as debatable as mine.
Thus, different sources have different documentations. (that's all)




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
You questioned my account of:
number of civilians killed
length of the aerial barrage
I was primarily questioning your claim about HOW the civilians were killed. The wiki source you cited doesn't support your claim that:


Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
According to records, no less than six civilians were killed in the event due to falling shrapnel.

What we find in the Wiki is a different claim that:

In addition to several buildings damaged by friendly fire, three civilians were killed by the anti-aircraft fire, and another three died of heart attacks attributed to the stress of the hour-long bombardment. ...[4]
Note hour long bombardment is the singular "hour", not the plural "hours" as you claimed, and it says 3 deaths are due to heart attack and 3 are due to AA fire which appears to be completely made up as far as I can tell. When you follow source 4 which is referenced in the wiki, it doesn't even say what is cited about "three civilians were killed by the anti-aircraft fire, and another three died of heart attacks"

The source cited by Wikipedia cites only ONE death:

www.sfmuseum.net...


(there was at least one death from heart failure)
The other citations are referred to as damage:


the only damage which resulted to the city was such as had been caused by the excitement..., by traffic accidents in the blacked-out streets, or by shell fragments from the artillery barrage
It doesn't refer to any deaths from shelling.

In contrast the source I cited was an excerpt of the primary front page story of the LA times from February 26th, 1942. While I don't claim this is infallible, I'd say it's at least 1000 times better than something written down in Wikipedia that as far as I can tell, has virtually no source at all even though it claims a source.

Just some friendly advice, in the future, instead of saying "According to records..." and then not saying who the source is, you may want to cite the source, and then quote from the source, that would avoid this type of misunderstanding. If you even quoted what was in wikipedia, I could forgive the fact that the wiki is completely unsourced itself on this issue.

I use Wikipedia as a source myself sometimes, and realize it's not perfect, but I've never seen it this bad when it quotes a source, so I guess I'll have to be more careful myself about using it in the future.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
I like the avatar...
Thanks.



en.wikipedia.org...
check through the references at the bottom of Wiki.
I did, and I didn't see any reference to "witnesses numbering in excess of a million".

I did noticed that on the CBS radio news piece they say that Los Angeles was a city of "million and a quarter population", so that would mean that everybody in LA witnessed the event, which is, at least, extremely unlikely, specially at that time and during a blackout.


As far as the video, it's on U tube.
I can make a video of a flying-saucer shaped cookie attacking Almada, that doesn't mean it's real.


That's all I can tell you about the origin. Looks exactly like the stills.
Probably because it was made with the only known photo.


The million witnesses, well, it's LA county man. The numbers are in the link.
Didn't see them, could you please point them to me? Thanks in advance.


Anti-air-craft shells fired for hours will produce allot of witnesses. Think it over.
That's speculation.
People were supposed to be inside their houses during that time, you are not supposed to go out and look at the air during an air raid.


It's all a matter of historical documentation. That's why I want to revisit the event.
Then where are the real historical documents? A YouTube video from an unknown source cannot be considered a historical document from an event for which there are no filmed documentation.


But everyone's entitled to an opinion!
Yes, as long as it's not presented as historical facts.



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.
Yes, they do celebrate it, and they say:

The Great LA Air Raid of 1942 is a fundraiser for the Fort MacArthur Museum and attempts to recreate the atmosphere of a 1942 social evening out, interrupted by the reality of war.

edit on 23/1/2011 by ArMaP because: misspelled "thanks"




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


There were hundreds of witnesses, but they could by grouped in something like this:
- the ones that saw several aeroplanes
- the ones that saw one aeroplane
- the ones that saw one indistinct shape
- the ones that saw several indistinct shapes
- the ones that saw only the searchlights and the anti-aircraft artillery.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
Unfortunatley due to the lack of camera quality in that time period nothing can be discerned besides that.
The problem is not camera quality, it's the conditions in which the photo was taken and the fact that some reproductions use the printed photo as source, and a photo printed on a newspaper looks much worse than the original.

If it was today the result wouldn't be much different.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

One of the most interesting witnesses was Paul Collins. He claimed to have seen red spots, "appear(ing) from nowhere and then zigzagging from side to side. Some disappeared, not diminishing in brilliance at all, but just vanishing into the night."

At first I thought flares. But then the spots were fired on. Flares don't zigzag either do they?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Flares don't zigzag, but his testimony would be more interesting if we had someone else saying the same thing.

And an interesting witness doesn't mean that he was the closest to what really happened, right?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Pimander
 


There were hundreds of witnesses, but they could by grouped in something like this:
- the ones that saw several aeroplanes
- the ones that saw one aeroplane
- the ones that saw one indistinct shape
- the ones that saw several indistinct shapes
- the ones that saw only the searchlights and the anti-aircraft artillery.
Don't forget the balloon witnesses I quoted on the previous page.


Originally posted by ArMaP
Flares don't zigzag, but his testimony would be more interesting if we had someone else saying the same thing.
We do. The guys who launched the balloons said that's what the balloons were doing and they had what appeared to be red lights on them. I quoted it on the previous page but I'll requote it here:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.”
So that matches the color red description and here's the motion:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

... '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.'
That dancing around the sky I interpret very similarly to the zig zag motion.


Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by ArMaP
 

One of the most interesting witnesses was Paul Collins. He claimed to have seen red spots, "appear(ing) from nowhere and then zigzagging from side to side. Some disappeared, not diminishing in brilliance at all, but just vanishing into the night."

At first I thought flares. But then the spots were fired on. Flares don't zigzag either do they?
If dancing around is anything like zigzagging then apparently yes they do. The quotes I cited are from the witnesses that launched the balloons stating that they appeared to be "dancing around", presumably from the shock waves from the AA fire. The only plausible explanation I have for this observation relates to the distribution pattern of shrapnel from the AA explosion and the distance the shell exploded from the balloon. This could (and apparently, did) allow a basically spherical shockwave to knock the balloons around without shooting them down. I tried to research the shrapnel distribution pattern of the 3" AA shells, but didn't have much luck. There should have been lots of shrapnel all over the ground, photos of that would help but I didn't find good photos of that either.

Some people have argued that if a shell exploded anywhere near a balloon that it would have shredded the balloon with shrapnel. If the distance from the balloon was the width of my hand, I'd have to agree.
But what if the distance was say, 15 meters? 25 meters? Specifically, at what distance is the likelihood of getting hit by shrapnel from the exploding AA shell reduced? At 25 meters, is it possible the shock wave from the explosion could move the balloon but shrapnel might not hit it? Since my research was inconclusive it's hard to say, but I certainly don't know of anything that makes it impossible, and the reason I find the testimony from the guys who launched the balloons some of the most credible, is that they were the ones who launched the balloons, so they are the most likely to know what they were looking at when they say they were looking at the balloons they launched.

I also find the testimony by Timm credible that he was told he'd be thrown in jail if he said they were shooting at balloons because that's sort of the reaction I'd expect from commanders who wanted to hide the fact that there were really no airplanes and they had wasted all those shells.
edit on 23-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I don't think that "zigzag" describes the movement of a balloon being pushed from a place to another by explosions, to me "zigzag" means more something like a rapid but constant motion, not the fast acceleration followed by the relatively fast deceleration of a balloon being pushed by explosions.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
1- Did our military mistakenly see a mirage in the sky and fire at it for multiple hours with thousands of shells, showering over Los Angels County with twenty thousand pounds of metal shrapnel; killing at least six innocent civilians with their actions; and cause millions of dollars in damages for no real reason?

2- In addition to 1… Were the members of the press able to photograph the oval mirage from multiple angels; print and publish the obvious pictures of a solid mass; and follow the object, or objects, as it/they cruised up the coast?

3- Was it just a “lost weather balloon”; but the entire U.S. military firing directly at it, and scoring visible strikes for multiple hours on end, were unable to take down the Bullet resistant and Shell proof, indestructible, “Lost Weather Balloon”?

4- Or was the object (or objects) in question, what it had been, and still is, deemed to be by definition: an Unidentified Flying Object, or UFO.

I’d like to think that our military even back in 1942, would be more competent than to engage nothing, “a mirage” for MULTIPLE HOURS; endangering the lives of not only themselves, but also every civilian man, woman, child, and structure within the heavily populated city.

I’d also like to believe that if it was something simply terrestrial like a “lost weather balloon”, or possibly a similar object; that our military’s anti aircraft barrage could take it down in seconds. (Not hours) But they remained utterly unsuccessful in grounding the Unidentified Flying Object, even though photographers were able to shoot it multiple times with cameras.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I just read this description of Collins observations:

forums.yellowworld.org...

· What about the flares seen near the defense plants? Who was firing them and why? Douglas Aircraft Company employee, Paul Collins, reported seeing bright red lights low on the horizon. He stated that they initially shot upward and then fell in a zigzag motion. He also stated an artillery unit opened fire on these lights.

I'd have to say that sounds EXACTLY like a balloon, first ascending, then perhaps it did get hit by shrapnel and the zigzagging while descending could be caused by gas escaping from the balloon?

It sure sounds consistent with a balloon with a red light attached to it to me.


edit on 23-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


It seems that your dead set on proving it was no big deal at all...
Your entitled to opinion, but so are we. you've stated yours.
Why not let us make our own conclusions and share
what is without a doubt a controversial happening?
It's easy to say: no... your wrong... look it up
It's a little harder to prove your case with
any better evidence than anyone else.
Please don't be negative regarding
a standpoint. We're all entitled.
Thanks for your past input.

I look forward to seeing evidence that supports your cause.
Learning is an ever-progressive process of change.
Support positive progression, not negativity.
Thank you for your support.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I see where you are coming from Arbitrageur. I can't help thinking that a balloon slowly rising up from the ground would look to a witness as though it, "appeared from nowhere.."

I'm not convinced that the zigzag motion would be explained by shells either. Surely the military air defences would have taken balloons out quicker???

Collins also said:-
"Taking into account our distance from Long Beach, the extensive pattern of firing from widely seperated anti-aircraft batteries, and the movement of the unidentified red objects among and around the bursting shells in wide orbits, we CONSERVATIVELY estimated their top speed to be five miles per second..."

Balloons with a speed of 5 miles per second?

The balloon story might not be credible after all. For me the Jury's still out...
edit on 23/1/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012

1- Did our military mistakenly see a mirage in the sky and fire at it for multiple hours with thousands of shells, showering over Los Angels County with twenty thousand pounds of metal shrapnel; killing at least six innocent civilians with their actions; and cause millions of dollars in damages for no real reason?
According to some witnesses what was seen was a radar signal that was interpreted as enemy aeroplanes (probably because there were no US aeroplanes in the air on that area), so they could be shooting at something that they were not seeing.

The collateral damage is usually a secondary thought in cases like this, even on home ground.


2- In addition to 1… Were the members of the press able to photograph the oval mirage from multiple angels; print and publish the obvious pictures of a solid mass; and follow the object, or objects, as it/they cruised up the coast?
Could you point to some of those photos from "multiple angles" (I suppose you meant angles)? I don't remember seeing any photos besides that famous one.
Thanks in advance.


3- Was it just a “lost weather balloon”; but the entire U.S. military firing directly at it, and scoring visible strikes for multiple hours on end, were unable to take down the Bullet resistant and Shell proof, indestructible, “Lost Weather Balloon”?
I think it's possible, weather balloons are made to expand only at high altitude, so, at low altitudes, so they are less likely to be affected by explosions or even shrapnel. I don't know why you talk about "multiple hours on end", when in all reports I have seen they said that the barrage lasted for 50 minutes or so, with sporadic fire for some hours more, but not multiple hours on end.

I also think it's possible that the balloon (if it was a balloon) was really hit but they kept shooting at the smoke clouds because they looked like the original target.


4- Or was the object (or objects) in question, what it had been, and still is, deemed to be by definition: an Unidentified Flying Object, or UFO.
Considering that not all people saw it, it can only be considered a UFO by those that did saw it.


I’d like to think that our military even back in 1942, would be more competent than to engage nothing, “a mirage” for MULTIPLE HOURS; endangering the lives of not only themselves, but also every civilian man, woman, child, and structure within the heavily populated city.
Never underestimate the human capability to make mistakes and then hide the fact that they were mistaken, specially when the admission of an error by the involved at the time could be considered a matter of national security.


I’d also like to believe that if it was something simply terrestrial like a “lost weather balloon”, or possibly a similar object; that our military’s anti aircraft barrage could take it down in seconds. (Not hours) But they remained utterly unsuccessful in grounding the Unidentified Flying Object, even though photographers were able to shoot it multiple times with cameras.
We can believe what we want to, but that doesn't mean that we are right.

And by saying "something simply terrestrial" are you implying the possibility of something that was not simple and/or not from Earth, so jumping from the "Unidentified Flying Object" version to the "Alien craft" version?

Because if you are then you have even more to explain that those that defend the weather balloon hypothesis. After all, we know that weather balloons exist.


And where are those multiple photos that you keep talking about?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
forums.yellowworld.org...

· What about the flares seen near the defense plants? Who was firing them and why? Douglas Aircraft Company employee, Paul Collins, reported seeing bright red lights low on the horizon. He stated that they initially shot upward and then fell in a zigzag motion. He also stated an artillery unit opened fire on these lights.



That is a quote of somebody reporting what Collins said. In fact I am shocked that a well respected sceptic would even take 'a description' of somebodies observations as anything but hearsay. I have given the accurate quote below - which does not sound exactly like a balloon at all!

I'd better give the beginning of the whole quote too.

"They seemed to be 'functioning' or navigating mostly on a level plane at that moment - that is, not rising up from tha ground in an arc, or trajectory, or in a straight line and then falling back to earth, BUT APPEARING FROM NOWHERE and then zigzagging from side to side. Some disappeared, not diminishing in brilliance at all, but just vanishing into the night. Others remained pretty much at the same level and we could only guess their elevation to be about ten thousand feet." (My emphasis obviously)

Source: Collins, Paul T. 'The UFOs of 1942', Exploring The Unknown, No. 48, September 1968.
edit on 23/1/11 by Pimander because: edit to give the whole quote and source.

edit on 23/1/11 by Pimander because: add my shock lol

edit on 23/1/11 by Pimander because: typo!!!! GRRRRRR!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
It seems that your dead set on proving it was no big deal at all...
I'm not "dead set" on anything, but as I do not see anything that shows that this was a big deal (at least when related to Aliens and UFOs), so my posts may reflect that.


Why not let us make our own conclusions and share
what is without a doubt a controversial happening?
I didn't noticed that I was preventing you or anyone else from making your own conclusions. If I really did it please point where, so I can correct my actions.


It's easy to say: no... your wrong... look it up
It's a little harder to prove your case with
any better evidence than anyone else.
That's just what I am asking for, for evidences that there were more than a million witnesses, that there are several photos from different angles, that there really was an object being hit, etc.


I look forward to seeing evidence that supports your cause.
I don't have a cause, I just want supporting evidence from reliable sources.


Learning is an ever-progressive process of change.
Support positive progression, not negativity.
Thank you for your support.
I am always learning something new every day (I learned about the Zoot suit riots just some minutes ago, for example), and the things I learn better are the one I learn by myself, so I always support learning, but learning supported in facts (or at least learning knowing that our learning is not supported by facts by only by theories), because when we think we are learning new things just to discover some time latter that they were wrong is worse than not learning them in the first place.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by starless and bible black
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.


It's February, 1942, on the west coast of the US. Ring any bells? How about Pearl Harbor in Dec, 1941. People were freaked out and the US was only recently on war footing, and the stance was shaky.

At this point, UFO did not mean little green men from Mars or Greys from the hollow Earth or moon or Aquaman from Planet Aqaurium or anything like that. It simply meant unidentified flying object. In science fiction you'd be more likely to see the term flying saucer or some other word describing the craft. WWII is actually when "UFO" meaning alien space ship gets popular.

This was not at all likely to be a case of opening fire on a presumed alien visitor.

The assumption would have been that it was Japanese, not from another planet. The similarity in look to something like a Zeppelin, and the lack of any response from the "craft" were enough to freak out people who were all still spooked by one of history's truly epic sneak attacks.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Balloons - The enemy of UFO believers everywhere.


I have always been intrigued by the story. This video is older but I thought it was interesting and worth sharing.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
And where are those multiple photos that you keep talking about?


There is only other (edit) one that I know of about half way down this page. It looks like it was taken from closer to the action looking up more steeply.
edit on 23/1/11 by Pimander because: added other



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I don't know how to do that individual highlighting, and even if I did, I wouldn't, because I feel like it makes the receiver feel like he/she is being picked apart. But to answer your question, as far as I'm aware, a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. (terrestrial and/or other) Are you implying you found evidence of balloon debris; or anything else that might support your cause? I may have missed it, or maybe you never introduced it, but exactly what do you believe happened? In your own words please... Without just telling someone else they're wrong. (it's not a productive process)
Let's hear your belief... Put your own thoughts on the chopping block.
Tell us your account of reality from start to stop. I'm very curious.
edit on 23-1-2011 by Howtosurvive2012 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join