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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
haha let the goverment try to deny this debunkers should have a challenge on there hands




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
here is an older thread about this.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I think it was a Haunebu. You can tell by it's shape, and the Nazis were using the Haunebu at this time. I guess there is no moving picture film footage though. I'd love to see a Haunebu in flight.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
there was a very interesting video on alien contacts on history channel here is the link



www.history.com...-aliens-alien-contacts



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 
Thanks for the clarification on what Collins said, yes I see what you're saying. Well maybe we can't reconcile Collins' sighting as balloons, if not then I don't know what he saw.

But regarding the military witnesses, balloons were the last thing the military wanted to admit to in this case in my opinion. Ammunition was precious and they wasted a lot of it if the military witnesses were correct, in fact Timm said he was threatened with being locked up if he didn't lie and told the truth about the balloons.

www.historynet.com...

When Captain Harris gave him my story,' 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.'
So Yes I believe Timm about a conspiracy to cover up the truth, and that it happened pretty much as he tells it. I could be wrong, but I find his story quite credible.

His unit commander, colonel Ray Watson was forced into retirement over the balloon incident:


For Watson, it was a lot worse. He was called on the carpet for ordering the entire regiment to 'hold their fire because he said he knew a meteorological balloon when he saw one, and they weren't going to shoot.' Sergeant Orville Hayward, who accompanied Watson to headquarters that day, remembered, 'Ray was simply relieved of command, with two options: be reassigned to a desk with some other outfit, or retire. He chose to retire.'


Regardless of what the military commanders were shooting at, it was quite embarrassing for them, as they apparently shot nothing down regardless of what it was they were firing at. It apparently ended Watson's career, perhaps because he refused to shoot at the balloons. Again, there's probably a conspiracy here with Watson, as with Timm, but balloons aren't the cover story, it's what they were trying to cover up.

And while you may find it hard to believe they shot at smoke, I guess you and I both might not be able to appreciate what it feels like to have a case of war nerves if we aren't in the middle of a war, maybe you have to be there to experience it to understand it. Do you want to hear another story that's even harder to believe than shooting at smoke? How about shooting at absolutely nothing, but just shooting because everyone else was shooting, like the 211th artillery regiment says they did?

www.historynet.com...


Regardless of what was or was not overhead, once the shooting started nobody seemed to care. Whenever and wherever searchlights stopped probing and focused on something, orange-colored bursts of exploding anti-aircraft shells quickly filled the sky around it. At least one unit, the 211th Coast Artillery Regiment, admitted that although its members did not see any planes, they shot anyway.

First Sergeant Leon Earnest from the 203rd observed that as the searchlights followed the targets down the coast and the big guns opened up, 'the smaller ones, unable to stand the strain, also opened up.' Sergeant John Ziesler, with the 122nd Coast Artillery in Downey, said that as soon as his battery went into action everyone went crazy: 'Guys were seen firing .45 pistols, rifles, submachine guns; even the 37mm guns from the roof of the aircraft plant were firing. You could hear the expended ordnance landing all around.'


Well you had to be there I guess, to understand why some folks would shoot into the sky even if they didn't see anything. If they would do that, it's a little easier to understand how they might shoot at smoke.


While it is easy to look back and laugh at the excitability of Los Angeles' defenders, their reaction to the possibility of an enemy air attack reflects the anxiety that gripped much of the West Coast in the months after Pearl Harbor.
Yes well let's not forget Pearl Harbor, plus the attack on the refinery that occurred just up the coast right before this. They were expecting another attack.


edit on 25-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Just the images and the CBS radio man going on about a "ship" convince me that this wasn't a weather balloon. On and ON with the weather balloons. Example : Roswell, NM 1947, weather balloon...to 2010 NYC UFO's "balloons". It appears to me that the govt. is very good at lying right in your face. A report from the 80's doesn't convince me. It just confirms for me that the govt. would have you believe it couldn't shoot down some balloons for a few hours in the middle of the night. I mean really, how did the spotlights all focus on that single spot in the sky IF they didn't see anything. I think its obvious there was a large unidentified object in the sky, and artillery couldn't bring it down.

I guess my question is, would you believe differently if you actually had an up-close encounter with a UFO? Having experienced an out-of-this world episode with a UFO myself, my opinion would be that its more likely a UFO than a weather balloon.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nrd101
 
Oh I believe in UFOs, but we have a photo of this incident and my enhancement shows it looks like puffs of smoke, not an object and not a balloon, so I'm not sure how you got the idea I thought it was a balloon in the photo, I didn't say that.

There could have been something else in the sky besides a the smoke (after the balloons were shot down), but since all the witnesses contradict each other, it's hard to place much credibility with any of them, with the exception of the guys who knew what they were looking at because they launched it.

And on a side note, if it was an alien spacecraft we fired on, we are on the intergalactic blacklist for shooting first and asking questions later!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
i was readign somewhere and they said the aa shells or the tank rounds werent doing nothing to this craft. they said it had somessort of a shield anhyone esle read this/



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by burntoast
 


clearly this is this case. No one can deny there were direct hits with this object after thousands of shells were fired. This raises a serious question about what it was because no human being had the technology in 1942 to build an aircraft with shields. We don't even have that technology today (not publicly) This fact alone proves it was an alien space craft and for the army to turn around and say they were firing at a balloon is just ludacris. It amazes me how the public accepts such crazy explanations the government gives.
edit on 25-1-2011 by Greensboro1978 because: edit text



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensboro1978
No one can deny there were direct hits with this object after thousands of shells were fired.
The real problem is that no one can prove that there were any direct hits on an object.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Greensboro1978
No one can deny there were direct hits with this object after thousands of shells were fired.
The real problem is that no one can prove that there were any direct hits on an object.


Quite so. It's pretty difficult for artillery shells to do much damage to a cloud.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by nrd101
 
Oh I believe in UFOs, but we have a photo of this incident and my enhancement shows it looks like puffs of smoke, not an object and not a balloon, so I'm not sure how you got the idea I thought it was a balloon in the photo, I didn't say that.



lol, 2 people died as a result of shells hitting the ground, everybody witnessed this thing all the way from south Orange County up through LA, you gotta believe my friend. They release this information now because they think that since its been so long that people won't understand or believe.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HRegressor
lol, 2 people died as a result of shells hitting the ground, everybody witnessed this thing all the way from south Orange County up through LA, you gotta believe my friend.
That's another part of the problem, some people saw what they identified as Japanese aeroplanes, so what should we do? Should we accept all testimonies? If we do then it means that it was one Japanese aeroplane (identified as two different types of aeroplane) but at the same time it was several Japanese aeroplanes, and it was one oval shape, and it was several oval shapes, etc.

Why should we accept one type of testimony over the other types? There's no evidence to support one and ignore the others.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HRegressor
lol, 2 people died as a result of shells hitting the ground, everybody witnessed this thing all the way from south Orange County up through LA, you gotta believe my friend.


Actually, those people died from car accidents when they tried to drive through the streets of Long Beach with no lights during a blackout.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Well you had to be there I guess, to understand why some folks would shoot into the sky even if they didn't see anything. If they would do that, it's a little easier to understand how they might shoot at smoke.


Actually, laying down a barrage of fire when you can't see a target, but have an idea of where it "might" be, is pretty standard for those kinds of guns, I'd imagine, in those situations (i.e. night, and before heavy use of radar, no laser targeting or night vision, etc.)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But regarding the military witnesses, balloons were the last thing the military wanted to admit to in this case in my opinion. Ammunition was precious and they wasted a lot of it if the military witnesses were correct, in fact Timm said he was threatened with being locked up if he didn't lie and told the truth about the balloons.

www.historynet.com...

When Captain Harris gave him my story,' 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.'
So Yes I believe Timm about a conspiracy to cover up the truth, and that it happened pretty much as he tells it. I could be wrong, but I find his story quite credible.

It sounds credible for sure. I know you will think that the conspiracy theorist in me is getting the better of me here - probably correctly.
However, indulge me...

Could it be that the balloons story was a cover initiated by higher up the command but the local commanders were embarrassed by that story and tried to shut Timms up?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

For Watson, it was a lot worse. He was called on the carpet for ordering the entire regiment to 'hold their fire because he said he knew a meteorological balloon when he saw one, and they weren't going to shoot.' Sergeant Orville Hayward, who accompanied Watson to headquarters that day, remembered, 'Ray was simply relieved of command, with two options: be reassigned to a desk with some other outfit, or retire. He chose to retire.'



If we assume Timms was lying about the balloons as a cover story, could it be that the real reason Watson chose to resign/retire was it was untenable to remain in command after his entire regiment ignored his command to hold fire? Do we have any records of what Watson's version of the event was? Surely it was sensible to relieve Watson of his command if the most of the regiment ignored the order to hold fire.

I could well be wrong about this of course. Remember though, a high level of alert or nerves would also cause an overreaction to something other than a balloon surely? Let us not forget that some witnesses claimed to see larger structures that were not effected by AA fire. We also have Collins' description of what appears to be lights moving in an anomalous way.

If there was a policy of using balloons as a cover for UFO activity then the balloons story would be likely to rear its head somewhere among the conflicting stories. If the local command were not in on the story this would have caused embarrassment for them though and they might well have tried to shut Timms up. Then we have Watson removed - perhaps even to stop him interfering with the cover up?

Watson would be a useful witness here.

Sorry to bring a bit of doubt into the equation mate. Just throwing another idea into the pot really. I'm not going to hang my hat on this one



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
Do we have any records of what Watson's version of the event was? Surely it was sensible to relieve Watson of his command if the most of the regiment ignored the order to hold fire.
Watson's personnel confirmed it was a balloon the others were shooting at. He informed the central command that's what was happening, and orders came back to Watson to shoot down the balloon.

Watson didn't follow those orders because he thought it was stupid to shoot at what he was sure was a balloon. So he ordered his folks to NOT fire and it's that order he issued in contradiction to the orders he received, that cost him his command. And then people say "but they wouldn't have shot at balloons..."


Here's the story about why Watson lost his command: 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....

He was called on the carpet for ordering the entire regiment to 'hold their fire because he said he knew a meteorological balloon when he saw one, and they weren't going to shoot.' Sergeant Orville Hayward, who accompanied Watson to headquarters that day, remembered, 'Ray was simply relieved of command, with two options: be reassigned to a desk with some other outfit, or retire. He chose to retire.'
Yes there could be a more complicated conspiracy, but I don't really see any need for it.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Why should we accept one type of testimony over the other types? There's no evidence to support one and ignore the others.
For the vast majority of witness accounts, I agree completely. Many of them are very contradictory, and in some accounts the number of planes reported was quite large but the quantity and type of craft varied greatly.

But there is one class of witnesses that have more credibility than all the other witnesses: The people who launched the objects they were looking at. They have more reason to know what they were looking at (the weather balloons they had just launched) than any other witness, who did not launch the items they were looking at.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I don't think of them as witnesses, I think of them as part of the problem.


If they were shooting at balloons then the people that released the balloons were in a special position to know what they were, and if they were not shooting at balloons then the people that released the balloons thought the other people were shooting at the balloons and (probably) didn't thought of other possibilities.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Watson didn't follow those orders because he thought it was stupid to shoot at what he was sure was a balloon. So he ordered his folks to NOT fire and it's that order he issued in contradiction to the orders he received, that cost him his command. And then people say "but they wouldn't have shot at balloons..."

Oh, I believe that they would shoot at anything. That's the most convincing part of the theory for me. American 'friendly fire' killed more Brits in the first Gulf War than were killed by the Iraqis. Say no more...

I suspect you are probably right about this case. Once you have seen documents proving that the US government were lying about the UFO phenomenon it is easy to start seeing conspiracies where there isn't one. Although I still have some doubts about this case I was just toying with the idea really.

edit on 26/1/11 by Pimander because: changed last line

edit on 26/1/11 by Pimander because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join