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.

 

The Battle of Los Angeles: 69 Years Later, Still No Explanation

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
This article seems to be a mix of history and advertisement. But I thought it was worth posting nevertheless. I've often wondered if this was a false flag event to garner support for the war. Or maybe something else altogether.
Battle of Los Angeles...


CULVER CITY, Calif., Feb. 23, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Tomorrow marks the 69th anniversary of The Battle of Los Angeles, which remains one of the strangest events of WWII and is still a mystery to this day. The event took place during the night between February 24-25, 1942. Never fully explained, these events remain shrouded in mystery and the subject of intense speculation.



Descriptions of the UFOs varied widely. General George C. Marshall, in his initial memo to President Roosevelt regarding the event, wrote that the "unidentified airplanes... [traveled at speeds ranging from] 'very slow' to as much as 200 mph and from elevations of 9000 to 18,000 feet." (The memo may be viewed at www.militarymuseum.org....) The number of craft reported by observers ranged from 9 to 15 to 25.



At first, officials offered a very vague explanation. According to the Los Angeles Times (February 26, 1942), the secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, dismissed the event as a "false alarm" due to "jittery nerves," but when this failed to satisfy the press and the public, the Army responded with a definitive answer that the craft and the battle were real, and the next day, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson confirmed that. Santa Monica's US Representative, Leland Ford, was quoted in the Times on February 27 calling for a Congressional investigation into the incident, but this went nowhere. In the years since, various explanations have been offered – from Japanese planes to German craft launched from secret bases in Mexico to unidentified aircraft to weather balloons to sky lanterns to blimps.

Ah yes. The infamous sky lanterns. These things really make the rounds don't they? They're everywhere.


Columbia Pictures' Battle: Los Angeles, what were once just sightings will become a terrifying reality when Earth is attacked by unknown forces. As people everywhere watch the world's great cities fall, Los Angeles becomes one of the last stands for mankind in a battle no one expected. It's up to a Marine staff sergeant (Aaron Eckhart) and his new platoon to draw a line in the sand as they take on an enemy unlike any they've ever encountered before. The film is directed by Jonathan Liebesman, written by Chris Bertolini, and produced by Neal H. Moritz and Ori Marmur. The film will be released on March 11, 2011.


Nazi ufo's maybe?

edit on 25-2-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I think this post in another thread on this topic explains very well what went down at the "Battle of Los Angeles":

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's the best, most logical explanation I have read.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
As much as I used to subscribe to this being a UFO event...I think I'm now more in the camp of it being a comedy of errors event these days.

First, false reports of enemy planes, then nighttime sightings of balloons (hard to identify at night), leading to the city blackout, and rounds of AA fire. Then, you've got lots of areas of smoke up there, shine a spotlight on it, and it could resemble a solid-looking craft. More fire, etc.

In the end, you've hit nothing, with the shots going through illuminated "solid" smoke looking as if they are having no effect, etc.

Granted, I'm not completely SOLD on this idea, but I can't dismiss the fact that it does have some merit, and at least does offer another, more mundane explanation. We'll never really know though, unless we did actually down something that night.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
there's no need for explanation the goverment knows what u saw and knows what your theory is so why make up a lie for something thats no disscussed about



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
ive read a lot about this, lots of people saw something. lots of people saw something over long beach right after the AA started and saw it move out over the ocean. is this from credible witnesess? i dont know

the baloon story adds up in my book and AA smoke clouds can apear very wierd looking in spotlights after they explode and at time in history everybody was trigger happy.................the japanese did attack santa barbara shortly before or after this event (cant remember)





be safe people



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I have participated in a thread on this, and the whole floating lantern theory does not hold water.

Maybe it was all nerves, and false sightings, but that requires portraying a lot of capable people as having been completely duffed. I find that unlikely.

UFOs, as in Unidentified Flying Objects, were spotted at the coast by military observers, that could not have been floating lanterns. These UFOs were also detected on Radar, however the technology was still new then. These UFOs then disappeared, and reappeared in other places.

This was a bizarre incident in WW II history that is still a long ways from being explained.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Fantastic , very well researched thread here ,

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
How many different threads do we need to open to discuss this event? I wonder how many times the film studio that created the new Battle of LA movie is going to plaster ATS & other conspiracy sites with repetitive posts and stories about the event?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggyproductions05
 

Point well taken Ziggy. But since it was the anniversary of the event, and there's a movie coming out, I figured what the heck. Although the movie, from what I've read, isn't even loosely based on the actual event.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


It may not be based on the actual event but it sure does seem cool.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 

I normally don't watch TV or Movies anymore, but I'll probably wind up watching this, and a few other movies coming out this year.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Where does the idea that the movie has something to do with the LA incident come from? There are some pictures of famous UFO sightings in the trailer but it has nothing to do with the actual movie. They are just for the trailer. Nothing else.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Perfectenemy
 


I think the archival footage is supposed to lend credence to the idea that we have been warned that this was coming. So they use the old footage and incorporate it into the new fictional story. It's a pretty cool idea and it works because it gets you thinking.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Perfectenemy
 

Yeah. What jackflap said.

edit on 25-2-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Sorry I don't buy it. Just more sad debunking in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join