"Fact or Faked" Concludes "Battle of LA" may have been UFO...

If you're a fan of "Fact or Faked?" as I am on the SyFy channel, you really appreciated this episode.

For those of you unfamiliar with this case, here is a pretty thorough writeup for you -

en.wikipedia.org...

The people on Fact or Faked tried every possible scenario on there to try to account for these infamous photos below. They even got a 50 caliber machine gun and blasted the hell out of a miniature blimp (which exploded immediately). The conclusion they reached was, well, there's nothing that couldve sustained an AA battery pointed right at it for several minutes. And this show is pretty efficient in disproving a lot of viral videos, photos, urban legends, etc.

Look at these pictures below. Tell me you cant clearly see the outline of an object within them. Each one of those exploding artillery flaks (the surrounding white dots) throw off a spray of shrapnel that would've ripped apart any airborne blimp/zeppelin within seconds.




and better yet, the negative -

reply to post by dtrock78


In my opinion it roughly resembles the Turkey UFO that has been filmed a few times. But the perspective makes this one look bigger. I'm not sure how to perceive the size of this object.

ETA: Now that I think about it, the Turkey UFO was filmed from much further away. So the size may be comparable. My guess it was the military testing some type of craft. It definitely is an interesting story.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by dtrock78

 

In my opinion it roughly resembles the Turkey UFO that has been filmed a few times. But the perspective makes this one look bigger. I'm not sure how to perceive the size of this object.

ETA: Now that I think about it, the Turkey UFO was filmed from much further away. So the size may be comparable. My guess it was the military testing some type of craft. It definitely is an interesting story.

edit on 16-11-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

They were testing the newly found engineering procured from GERMANY.....

I get spooked every time i see he video for this.

let the truth be known!

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by dtrock78

 

In my opinion it roughly resembles the Turkey UFO that has been filmed a few times. But the perspective makes this one look bigger. I'm not sure how to perceive the size of this object.

ETA: Now that I think about it, the Turkey UFO was filmed from much further away. So the size may be comparable. My guess it was the military testing some type of craft. It definitely is an interesting story.

edit on 16-11-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

I've always found this topic very interesting.
There isn't any logical explanation that fits better than UFO.
You could say that it military testing, but why shoot with live rounds?
That doesn't make sense.

Battle of LA is in my opinion one of most significant cases in UFO's history.
1. It happened before whole UFO hype that hit in late 40's and following decades.
2. It never been debunked. Myriads of explanations had been given though, none of them actually checked-out.
3. We have radar readings, photo, testimonies, there had been strong response from AA units, which actually caused deaths of 3 civilians. Yet military simply explained whole thing as "false alarm" due to "war nerves", hmm, couldnt be simplier.
However Secretary of War at the times Henry L. Stimson (Rockefeller's man to the bone, notably) leaned to conclusion that it was some sort of undendtified airplanes, yet how they could withstand every AA battery in area, for such a long time wasn't discussed.

BTW, recent movie Battle Los Angeles is supposedly inspired by this event, but I don't recall it being said in MSM anywhere besides the teasers. More like grooming young people to always dismiss it as a fiction, and some sci fi hollywoodish stuff. Tactic that is in place for 60 years, and worked propably better than expected.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed



In addition to the basic 4 welded together 0.50 caliber machine guns the US used (they didnt really have much of a need for AA guns and lagged behind the Brits and Germans), the explosive shells they used were fairly large, so when they exploded they weren't exactly like an m80 going off at your 4th of July picnic. Can't really use that for scale though, in this photo.

Maybe we can get a true mathematics guru on here that can attempt to discern distance and height based on the angle, decreasing width of the AA battery lights?

And remember, the Department of the Navy initally claimed this was cuased by 4 Japanese aircraft, one of which was shot down. Then when they realized that the object(s) were actually hovering for several minutes, they changed their story to "inadequately trained AA batteries and itchy trigger fingers". Oh, really? lol

Soooooo, what exactly is that shape in the sky? Some mass-induced telekinetic illusion or something, that just happens to show up in photos?

The picture in the OP is evidently the retouched image of the "Battle of LA" picture. Here's the undoctored image:



According to an article on this picture by forgetomori, Larry Harnisch is quoted saying...

it’s nothing but a convergence of light beams with some randomly clustered dots of light

Apparently, it's not unlikely that it's a cloud or smoke. Read the article above, and be prepared to get disappointed.

There were eye-witness counts of many rounds physically hitting your "Clouds or Smoke" ...so...no

Originally posted by Droogie
The picture in the OP is evidently the retouched image of the "Battle of LA" picture. Here's the undoctored image:

You can get quite interesting effect if increase saturation in this picture, then zoom in to middle.

reply to post by Droogie



With all due respect Droogie, your photo looks more heavily retouched than any other I've seen.

Here is the supposed original that surfaced earlier this year.



Here is a picture of what a lot of the skeptics are claiming this can be attributed to - converging light beams.



I really dont buy the explanation this was a small cloud, either. The contrast surrounding it is too great. I have a high-powered flood light a mile from my house (restaurant). When it is cloudy, the entire beam produces a much more vague, broader glow, similar to how car headlights look in heavy fog. This certainly looks like a solid object. Oh, and one with radar returns. Let's not forget that minor detail.

reply to post by Garmon

Can you provide a source for that statement?

There were also eyewitness reports from the people of LA that there were; at least two waves of bombers (200 planes, dropping bombs), one wave of planes (couldn't tell if they were American or Japanese), a "giant butterfly" that might have been a blimp, bombs dropping everywhere, a plane or planes were shot down, the planes were high, the planes were low, the planes were fast, the planes were slow. If you want to select just one of the reports and throw the rest out, be my guest.

Here's the caption that the Syracuse Herald Journal attached to the "famous" photo;

This was the scene over Los Angeles when anti-aircraft guns pumped shells into a patch of sky on which numerous searchlights converged after an air raid warning.

www.bookmice.net...
Nothing about an object. Nothing about anything being hit.

The Oakland Tribune;

About 3:05 a.m. anti-aircraft guns went into action on a 25 mile front along the coast, firing shrapnel and tracer bullets at a slowly moving, and still unidentified, target. Some observers said it appeared to be a blimp. Firing was steady for nearly 30 minutes, ceased suddenly. It was resumed briefly at long intervals for another 90 minutes.

www.bookmice.net...
Nothing about anything being hit.

The Reno Evening Gazette;

Still others who watched the spectacle, if it can be called that, sighted no planes in the glare of the army's searchlights.

www.bookmice.net...
Nothing but the glare of searchlights.

The Galveston Daily News;

But one watcher near an aircraft factory said he had long-range field glasses trained to the sky areas raked by searchlights, and saw "not one single plane in all the time the firing-was going on."

www.bookmice.net...
No object seen.

reply to post by dtrock78

What radar returns?
I've seen no reports of radar returns from an object over LA, only the offshore contact before the "event".

reply to post by dtrock78

Here is a picture of what a lot of the skeptics are claiming this can be attributed to - converging light beams

Those are diverging beams.

This is a bit more representative of converging beams.

reply to post by Phage

During the night of 24/25 February 1942, unidentified objects caused a succession of alerts in southern California. On the 24th, a warning issued by naval intelligence indicated that an attack could be expected within the next ten hours. That evening a large number of flares and blinking lights were reported from the vicinity of defense plants. An alert called at 1918 [7:18 p.m., Pacific time] was lifted at 2223, and the tension temporarily relaxed. But early in the morning of the 25th renewed activity began. Radars picked up an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Antiaircraft batteries were alerted at 0215 and were put on Green Alert—ready to fire—a few minutes later. The AAF kept its pursuit planes on the ground, preferring to await indications of the scale and direction of any attack before committing its limited fighter force. Radars tracked the approaching target to within a few miles of the coast, and at 0221 the regional controller ordered a blackout.

The Army Air Forces in World War II, prepared under the editorship of Wesley Frank Craven, James Lea Cate. v.1, pp. 277-286, Washington, D.C. : Office of Air Force History


I guess this is "offshore event" you refer to, you say it's not related?

reply to post by stainlesssteelrat

Yes.
As I said, I am aware of the radar contact offshore. I was asking for reports of radar contact of an object over LA during the event.

Originally posted by Phage

Yes.
As I said, I am aware of the radar contact offshore. I was asking for reports of radar contact of an object over LA during the event.

edit on 11/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I dont think there is any indeed, I misread your post, edited but bit too late.
So the tracked object is not the one that been shot at?
BTW, i remember another thread about BLA, and there were some miltiary people who supposedly were releasing balloons at the same time, which were shot upon.
There's just so many versions of this story, wonder why they never officialy fully explained it.

Generally whatever it was, cloud or airplane, be it conventional it should be gone after an extensive AA barrage like that?

The only possible thing it could be is some type of technology that can withstand that. It's hovering and impenetrable to projectiles and explosions, its either superman or well... completely alien in nature, at that time especially.

Originally posted by stainlesssteelrat

Originally posted by Phage

Yes.
As I said, I am aware of the radar contact offshore. I was asking for reports of radar contact of an object over LA during the event.

edit on 11/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I dont think there is any indeed, I misread your post, edited but bit too late.
So the tracked object is not the one that been shot at?
BTW, i remember another thread about BLA, and there were some miltiary people who supposedly were releasing balloons at the same time, which were shot upon.
There's just so many versions of this story, wonder why they never officialy fully explained it.

edit on 16-11-2011 by stainlesssteelrat because: (no reason given)

As was quoted below earlier in this thread i always smell a rat when the official,(military), explanation is found wanting and then is changed by them, in these kind of incidents you would think they would get it right the FIRST time around so they could be seen as knowing what they are doing;Something caused the military at that time to bombard a section of the sky relentlessly with anti air craft shells, is it to be believed that a trained and experienced military intelligence responsible for protecting American air space from attack at that time could NOT differentiate between a set of clouds/light configurations and a possible real physical object;Sorry but i am not buying that one;

the Department of the Navy initally claimed this was cuased by 4 Japanese aircraft, one of which was shot down. Then when they realized that the object(s) were actually hovering for several minutes, they changed their story to "inadequately trained AA batteries and itchy trigger fingers"

reply to post by dtrock78


You cant use the word "conclude" and then qualify it with "may". They don't jive.
I saw this episode from last season. They were unable to conclude that it was a UFO or that it was not.
It was a good episode for sure.
This "event" was followed just a few weeks later with the Washington DC event of Dec 1952. The one where during a press conference Pres.Truman admitted that UFO's were a known element but didnt know if they were a national threat.