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: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I only have one question concerning my validity of the opening video, because it looks damn real...

are they commies ?




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
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.."
The account I posted doesn't say that, it says: "Paul Collins, reported seeing bright red lights low on the horizon. He stated that they initially shot upward " shot upward, just like a balloon! Not appeared from nowhere.

Regarding what parts of a withess story to believe and what parts to not believe, things like the color red, the zig zag motion, are worth paying attention to. But estimates of size, distance, and speed of an unknown object are simply not the least bit credible even from trained observers. The only thing a trained observer can tell you is information about a KNOWN object, not an unknown object. As Dr Hynek said:

home.comcast.net...

it is obvious that it would usually be impossible for observers to make reliable estimates of the speed, distance, or size of such stimulus objects. It is not possible to estimate accurately the distance of small bright objects viewed against a clear sky, UNLESS THE OBJECT IS IDENTIFIED FIRST… It must be concluded, therefore, that most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude and size ARE EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED (My emphasis). THIS IS DOUBLY TRUE OF OBSERVATIONS MADE AT NIGHT (My emphasis).
He's right, it's obvious to him and it should be obvious to all of us that it's impossible for such estimates to be reliable.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Please read the post above. Collins has been misrepresented I'm afraid...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Do you mean this one?
It looks like a frame from the video below it, I will try to get more information about it.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
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.
It makes it easier for me to write an answer when I split the posts in smaller parts, that way is easier for me to organise my thoughts, something a little difficult to do in a foreign language.

Sorry if it looks like I am picking you apart, it's not my intention.


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?
The problem is that, in my opinion, there is nothing to show that this was an extraterrestrial related event. If something unusual happens in your home do you think first of your neighbours as the responsible for it, even if there are no clues for that?

And I am not implying anything, much less that it was a balloon. I even said that I don't think a balloon could be responsible for the zigzag movement reported by one witness, so I don't understand why you say that.


I may have missed it, or maybe you never introduced it, but exactly what do you believe happened? In your own words please...
I think that it was mostly a case of nervousness, and that what most people saw (but only after the start of the shooting) were smoke clouds illuminated by the explosions. If that was the case then it would explain why nothing was shot down, there wasn't anything there to shoot down.

And I always write my own words, when I do not I use the appropriate tags for quoted text or external source, no need to remind me of that.


Without just telling someone else they're wrong. (it's not a productive process)
Where did I told someone that they were wrong?


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
Not my "account of reality", my thoughts are always just that, my thoughts. Reality doesn't care about my (or anyone else's) thoughts, reality just happens regardless of what we think.



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

Originally posted by ArMaP
Do you mean this one?

That's the only other one I have seen. No worries.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 



I just hunted down the footage. Sorry, my bad.
I opened the thread with a fudged video. oops.
I found it on U Tube. I never claimed otherwise.
It doesn't take away from the story in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, they made a movie about the Kennedy assassination too.
(That was a factual event as well) Check out the trailer below...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Very interesting hypothesis and possible explanation.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


actually there is film of this event. You can find it on youtube. But the most startling thing is the photo the L.A. Times took which show spot lights beaming up at a glowing disk shaped object. No one can deny that photo. There was never really a good explanation from the army as to what they fired at and I'm surprised this case doesn't receive as much attention as Roswell. Based on the shape of the object, the only other thing it could have been was a blimp but we know thats not the case because thousands of rounds of ammo was fired at the object. I just don't see how you cant bring a blimp down firing thousands of rounds at it.

www.youtube.com...


edit on 24-1-2011 by Greensboro1978 because: edit text



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I just watched about ten trailers on U tube related to the movie.
On one hand, I'm terribly excited they're making a movie about this.
I have a feeling it was based on the book that's linked below.
Ever since I read it I've been waiting for a copy-cat or movie.
I guess the wait is over. Books are always better than the movies.
I hope this draws more mainstream media than the Roswell movie.
This looks like it might actually be based on a good premise.
I hope it's not the same director as 2012! (BOMB)

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Armageddon.2truth.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Howtosurvive2012
 


Judging from the movie trailer, it seems to have ZERO in common with the actual event, so I'd suggest away from linking the two things. They seem completely unrelated.

The big thing that bothers me though, about the balloon theory, is the lack of finding balloon debris, and the sheer amount of time and ammo used in this. The ideas about the altitude though, seem to counter this, but then I have to wonder about the range on the spotlights illuminating objects also (as captured in the LA Times photo). Seems that if in range of that, would be in range of the guns.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
It's easy for me to believe this is an extraterrestrial event. For one it is a glowing UFO, secondly all the shells used to fire the UFO didn't phase it one bit. Nobody had that kind of technology back then



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensboro1978
Based on the shape of the object,
My claim is that there is no object. I can understand why people might see an object at first, but import the photo into a photo editor and start adjusting it.


the only other thing it could have been was a blimp but we know that's not the case because thousands of rounds of ammo was fired at the object. I just don't see how you cant bring a blimp down firing thousands of rounds at it.
Here is the photo after adjusting the gamma/brightness/contrast:



it really doesn't look like an object after the enhancement, but instead, puffs of smoke, and you can't "bring down" puffs of smoke and it appears to me that's exactly what they were firing at (after the balloons which started the shooting were gone).

In this case the puffs of smoke vaguely resemble a disk (before the image is enhanced), but in other cases they thought the puffs of smoke were enemy planes, that's what they were shooting at.

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.
First they shot at a couple of balloons,

www.historynet.com...

Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes.
then once the shooting started no balloons were needed, they were shooting at puffs of smoke.

The AA gunners were mistaking the puffs of smoke for enemy planes and now we are mistaking them for a disk. At least it sure looks that way to me.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The big thing that bothers me though, about the balloon theory, is the lack of finding balloon debris
I only know of 2 balloons that started the shooting, and 2 balloons don't make much debris, so I can't say I'd really have any expectations about people finding much balloon debris and I'm not sure why you would. How much debris is something like this going to have?

www.toreuse.com...


I don't have the exact specifications on the balloons they launched, but if they were anything like that one as I suspect, the debris would be about 200 grams for the balloon plus whatever was attached to it, if it even came down in the same place or stayed together when it did. I think the debris would be pretty unremarkable. Besides, even if someone did find balloon debris, it could just as easily be from balloons launched at different days/times and not necessarily the ones that started this event. The balloon launches weren't exceptional but were regular events several times a day, so the balloons were routinely coming down wherever the winds took them. I don't have their exact launch schedule but a typical launch schedule I've seen from researching other cases is 4 times a day at 0300, 0900, 1500, and 2100 hours. It was the 0300 balloon launch that started the shooting, in this case, according to the guys that launched the balloons.

I expect the balloons that started this shooting eventually got shot down so that by the time the famous photo was made, they were just shooting at smoke.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensboro1978
actually there is film of this event.
I don't think there is any film of the event.

The conditions of use of the movie cameras from that time were not compatible with the conditions during this event, during a blackout it would be very hard to get any useful images, even if there was any cameraman that wanted to try it.

And the video you posted is the same from the opening post.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by Pimander
 

I just hunted down the footage. Sorry, my bad.
I opened the thread with a fudged video. oops.
I found it on U Tube. I never claimed otherwise.
It doesn't take away from the story in my opinion.

Don't worry. It's easy to make a mistake. I'm glad you made us revisit the case anyway, so thanks.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Arbitrageur,

Your criticism of Paul Collins' speed estimates are reasonable. However, I can't help feeling like drawing your attention to a few points again.

Can you see that Paul Collins' own words DO NOT appear to describe a balloon and he has been misrepresented in the forum you quoted? It's just that you haven't conceded that anywhere as far as I can see.

The description you cited which is just a thread by somebody in a forum is here. I am trying to point out that it is an inaccurate description of Collins' observations.

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.
forums.yellowworld.org...

From which you concluded:-

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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?

However in Collins' own words:-


"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.

Which does NOT sound like a balloon.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.historynet.com...

Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes.
then once the shooting started no balloons were needed, they were shooting at puffs of smoke.

The AA gunners were mistaking the puffs of smoke for enemy planes and now we are mistaking them for a disk. At least it sure looks that way to me.

Sorry, but I have serious doubts about them firing at puffs of smoke for over an hour. I know Americans can be trigger happy but....

For me the only real evidence you have for the balloon theory is of military witnesses claiming it is balloons. Remember Roswell anyone? Are we sure that hasn't been used as a standard cover up story on other occasions?
edit on 24/1/11 by Pimander because: changed last 3 words



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by galactictuan
There's a movie of this coming out later this year.


Have a link?
Thanks.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
sorry if i missed something, but why should be that video "fudged"? not real?
I have seen it few years ago already, and it was uploaded in 2006, thats quite before making this movie to be viral for it.

it looks as crappy as any 16mm/8mm camera footage would look in that condition, and they were able to pick up something, iam quite sure , becouse by that time analog process was already on good level, take all the war footage ..

and that movie, will be imho another crap where bloodthirsty (water thirsty) aliens invades earth to kick our asses.. like they always do..

I would love to see/make movie according to End of childhood by A.C.Clarke, thats greatest human-alien-relation story ever told.
edit on 25-1-2011 by ClevererRunbeening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's a convincing logical argument, I'll give you that.

You may have just changed my mind about this case.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join