Battle of LA - Army Fires on UFO in 1942

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
While some of us are aware of this, here's the full text of the articles...as well as pics. There is another thread somewhere, but I couldn't see it in the search, and we didn't have the article text, just a pic of the front page.

www.rense.com...

Yes, I know it's Rense, but in this instance, I've verified the headline, and you can even order it from the LA Times (though it'll cost you $40 minimum). It is the February 25th and 26th, 1942 editions that carry the story (on the front page of course). The two stories are "Chilly Throng Watches Shells Bursting In Sky" and "Army Says Alarm Real".

Here's an excerpt:


"The object...caught in the center of the lights like the hub of a bicycle wheel surrounded by gleaming spokes. The fire seemed to burst in rings all around the object."



WATCHERS SHIVER

The fire seemed to burst in rings all around the target. But the eager watchers, shivering in the early morning cold, weren't rewarded by the sight of a falling plane. Nor were there any bombs dropped. "Maybe it's just a test," someone remarked. "Test, hell!" was the answer. "You don't throw that much metal in the air unless you're fixing on knocking something down." Still the firing continued, muttering angrily off toward the west like a distant thunderstorm. The targeted object inched along high, flanked by the cherry red explosions. And the householders shivered in their robes, their faces set, watching the awesome scene.



[edit on 8-2-2005 by Gazrok]




posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
This is an amazing story and i dont understand why it never got more attention, i believe it should have gotten as much attention as Roswell. Maybe because of when it happened? (at night, during the start of WWII when air attacks from Japan on the west coast of the U.S. were anticipated). It was probably easy enough to explain away to the people of the 1940's.

And damn, if you look close enough you can really make out the object that the spot lights are targetted on as saucer shaped.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Exactly.

Many of the links also show an alleged memo from Marshal, explaining that the Army doesn't know the origins of the attacking craft. This document is still in dispute, but last I checked, majesticdocuments.com, a UFO doc research group, had it listed as high confidence it was authentic.

I've seen different debunking attempts, with the two primary ones being a weather balloon (which wouldn't hold up, due to the reported size of the object, nor would it survive AAA fire that even came close to hitting it) or a small group of Japanese planes (which wouldn't hold up, again due to the size of the object, as well as the slow movement reported, nor standing up to the AAA fire).

There incidentally, was a Japanese sub attack on the US that night (this was shortly after Pearl Harbor), but it was not of the "carrier" sub type, so this is ruled out as a source for the planes hypothesis anyhow, even with the other reasons ruling out planes.

While I don't believe it's mentioned thoroughly in the article, there are some other articles from other local papers, citing that multiple objects were sighted in a V formation along with a larger object.

I'm still digging into this one, but as above, it's fascinating that this story never really got a lot of attention. I'm supposing that this is because it was technically before the modern UFO era truly began (with Arnold's sighting in '47 generally considered to be the start), but there were some interesting things going on in '42 with UFO's....



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Just admit it Gazrok, the aliens are american middle class men from the future. Having finally brought peace to the middle east and led the world into democratic harmony the only way they can watch war is to go back in time.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Hehe...if only you were right...


All it takes is one lunatic with a bomb to shatter the recent agreements between Israel and the PLO... And we're still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with more to come as promised by our not so elected Commander in Chief. If anything, I think we're in for another big UFO flap as WWIII goes from simmer to boil...



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
You know gaz I am far from an optimst, more of a hopeful pessimist most times. But I really believe that we will see peace between isreal and palestine by the end of Bush's term along with a fully democratic, free, and self reliant Iraq.
Never underestimate the power of a peoples need for freedom.


BTW thanks for cluing me in to this its interesting as all hell.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by mwm1331]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
That's just it though...they don't WANT freedom. Have you ever lived in the middle east? I have. They will be perfectly content with a zealous theocracy. Democracy doesn't mesh well with them. Here in the west, religion is pretty much a separate and more personal thing. With them, it isn't just a PART of their life, religion IS their life. It's an important difference that people in the west must realize in order to understand them.

Even if Iran and Afghanistan were to suddenly and magically be stabilized tomorrow, we've still got the issue with the rhetoric directed at Iran and it's alleged nuke weapons program, as well as that directed to North Korea for it's attempts to go nuclear as well. There's rhetoric towards Syria as well. So, we've got a President who has stated his goal of spreading democracy in the middle east, QUITE plainly in his speeches, directing rhetoric to sovereign middle eastern states. Bush's father was a foreign policy genius (with the exception of not knowing which direction to puke), but Dubya seems content to simply stir up the hornets' nests with no particular resolve to complete the job.

Still, quite a departure from the original thread, so I'll get back on track....


I'll keep looking for more info about this "attack". By the way, for those unfamiliar with this...the "blackout" wasn't caused by the UFO, but it is a tactic used in cities back in the days before night vision, thermal imaging, laser targetting, etc. to make it harder for bombers to see their targets....

EDIT: Another good link on this, with more description of the object as described by witnesses...

ufocasebook.com...


"They sent fighter planes up and I watched them in groups approach it and then turn away. There were shooting at it but it didn't seem to matter."



"I'll never forget what a magnificent sight it was. Just marvelous. And what a gorgeous color!", she said


[edit on 9-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Yes, as I've said before, if this had happened recently, it could not have gone unnoticed it also goes to show just how easily people forget. Really, this case alone is proof that there are ET UFO's.

As I've learnt, there is proof for everything from psychic phenomena, ufos to advanced ancient civilizations and there is lots of it. Yet, there is still a certain segment of society that denies it, not because they are logical, but because they don't want to know or don't care.

Henceforth, why I am finding a lot of these discussions where advanced civilizations, psychic phenomena or ET's are trying be proved, quite monotonous now. It's like still discussing whether the Earth is flat or spherical after all the mathematical proofs and even satellite imagery.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

In Feb 1942, the Japanese launched a submarine based plane to
drop firebombs in the forests of Oregon. It was unsuccessful.
The bombs were dropped but caused no fires.


I found this, but no other details... It's interesting as other references I've seen indicated it wasn't a carrier sub on the night in question.

EDIT: Here's the detail on the CONFIRMED sub attack in the area, but it was a couple of days prior to the LA incident...


On Monday night, February 23,1942, while President Roosevelt was speaking to the nation on the radio, alarge Japanese submarine surfaced and shelled an oil refinery in Santa Barbara.Timed to have a great political significance, the submarine fired 15-25 shell sat the Bankline Oil Co. in Goleta, Ca. just north of Santa Barbara. The attack did little damage, but it did shake up the locals and increase the cries for removal of the Japanese from coastal areas.


The link gives some more details as well....

www.ufo.it...

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Hey Gazrok -

Good work verifying the articles - there was so much information regarding the LA Times article, I didn't think it was a hoax, but it's good to know it is actually there in the Archives. I might order a copy anyway, as it might make a cool wall poster... right next to my "I want to believe" poster...

I've mentioned it to a few people who were around back then, but they don't remember and look at me like I'm bananas. I've seen the Marshall documents and the Majestic 12 stuff - something seems to be going on here...

The evidence does seem to be pointing toward UFO involvement, either extra-terrestrial or not, however, for the sake of discussion -

I keep thinking about the possibility of an early military 'holographic projection' exercise. The 'thing' materialized over MGM studios in Culver City - I don't know exactly why, but the mention of a major movie studio in the article makes me wonder. Also, eyewitnesses say the shells fired at it had no effect, and seemed to pass right through the thing. Thirdly, the air raid sirens were sounded, and the city was blacked out - if this was a holographic exercise, a black out would have helped focus a projected image in the sky.

So, possibly a special ops hologram team was testing this technology with an image of a "classic" flying saucer, which would soon be introduced into society with a variety of sightings. They used the ruse of an air raid to see if the regular army and coastal defense would actually see the thing and believe it real enough to shoot at it. They did. Success - regular folks on the ground bought it - even reports to the president said, "looks like a UFO to me, sir".

I'm not anti-alien theory - I'm just suspicious of everything, I guess. Gaz, what'cha think?

Also, I heard a story from a Santa Barbara resident regarding the sub attack. This is one of the "legends" of the attack in the area. Apparently, this was a rouge japanese sub, and the captain of the sub actually used to live in Santa Barbara before the war. He had a personal vendetta against some people in the area, and under his own initiative, he took the sub off course and lobbed the bombs into the SB oil refinery. Yes, this is simply a story, but it's a popular belief among Santa Barbarians.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I'm sure the sub was legit and not rogue...this was fairly common on the Pacific coast after Pearl it seems....


Good work verifying the articles - there was so much information regarding the LA Times article, I didn't think it was a hoax, but it's good to know it is actually there in the Archives. I might order a copy anyway, as it might make a cool wall poster... right next to my "I want to believe" poster...


If you do, don't go the research fee route, order the front page as if you were ordering it as a keepsake, and go for the smaller copy of it (it's $39). Be sure to reference the headline, in case there were other editions (like Extras) that day....

I can't concur with the holograph theory.... For one, I simply don't think we had the tech to do this in '42. I'm not so sure we have the tech to do it now (as described by witnesses), let alone then. There were reports of planes also prior and after the event, but then of course, these were likely army planes (air force not around yet). Later reports mention the unidentified object/s as registering on radar. Radar was still rather secret in those days, so you wouldn't see that mentioned in the papers.

The bottom line seems to be that a slow moving, unidentified flying object was seen, lit up, and fired upon, and was impervious to the barrage by both the AAA fire, and plane squadrons that attacked it.

The arguments that it was a blimp, weather balloon, or enemy plane/s simply don't hold up to scrutiny, as if it were any of them, they'd have been blown out of the sky travelling so slow and under so much firepower. ANYTHING that we, or any other terrestrial enemy could have had in the air at that time would have come crashing down after 30 minutes of concentrated "dead on" AAA fire and aircraft fire...so we're left with some invulnerable unknown.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

I can't concur with the holograph theory.... For one, I simply don't think we had the tech to do this in '42. I'm not so sure we have the tech to do it now (as described by witnesses), let alone then. There were reports of planes also prior and after the event, but then of course, these were likely army planes (air force not around yet). Later reports mention the unidentified object/s as registering on radar. Radar was still rather secret in those days, so you wouldn't see that mentioned in the papers.


Not to mention all the explosions from the AAA shells hitting the object that you can clearly see in the photograph and the reports of civilians killed on the ground from falling debris from the AAA rounds. If it was a hologram, the AAA fire would have shot right out to sea away from the city.

The explosions register as bold white dots above the lit up object in the image. Really looks to me like a UFO deflecting the large explosive AAA rounds as they explode off the UFO's exterior.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

The explosions register as bold white dots above the lit up object in the image. Really looks to me like a UFO deflecting the large explosive AAA rounds as they explode off the UFO's exterior.


Yep, likely the photographer used a long exposure time, in order to get the searchlights to show right in the pics. The interesting thing for me was the witnesses description of the AAA exploding in rings, and comments that it was a large object.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Good NICAP article on this..

www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk...

Note, in some of the research, there is an alleged police statement of a downed plane. I have yet to find any confirmation of this, nor any inkling as to whether or not it's a US Army or other (civilian? Japanese) plane. My guess is that if this is so, it was probably an Army or civilian plane, so they definitely would have been quick to censor that one....in those days, and would have easily gotten away with it.

Again though, we've got a large object, moving 6mph over the city, fired upon by concentrated AAA fire and it simply moved away!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I found this in the Rense article:



It is said by some locals that the skipper or one of the officers on the Japanese sub had worked in the Ellwood oil field some years prior to the outbreak of the war. The story claims that the man had been mistreated by some of his co-workers during that time, had returned to Japan before the war began, and had then subsequently helped lead the submarine back to the area to make it's attack.


so I'm not the only one who has heard this, although it does sound preposterous.

US forces never fired a single shot against the sub, and no planes chased after it. Very very wierd. The "attack" did make gunners on the coast remain at full ready, as was praised by Dept. of War Head Stimson [raises eyebrow], and reports of a Japanese attack certainly helped fuel public support of the round up the japanese movement. After pearl harbor, I'm sure a fair amount of locals simply wrote the fireworks off to another japanese coastal attack.

As I also would assume US forces would immediately send up planes to identify and contain the object, reports are extremely conflicted as to whether or not US planes were involved. The reports suggest no planes went after it.



from the Wendy Connors article
It is a strange fact that the Army Air Corps 4th Interceptor Command’s aircraft were warmed up and ready to go throughout the whole ordeal, but orders to action was never received. It appears obvious that the “enemy” over Los Angeles was neither Japanese military aircraft nor U.S. commercial aircraft. 


Yes it seems like we do have a slow moving UFO over LA, but we also have a lot of confusing and unusual military activity involving the coastal attack, and a combination of conflicting news stories, government reports, and alleged top secret documents explaining the shelling.

This could be more evidence of government UFO coverup, but I'm not ruling out wartime military psy-op of some sort yet either. Thanks for these new links.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by yellocake]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Gaz,
Thanks for bringing this up again on ATS. Things like the Battle of LA are what people who are just getting into UFOLogy need to hear about.

Here we have a case, witnessed by thousands, where a glowing, disc or football shaped object absorbed 1470+ rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition over the course of several minutes while hovering over the heights of hollywood. It not only held position during the 'battle'... but also seemed to float unscathed as these rounds clearly (as evidenced by photographs available at the time) deflected off of it. It was, clearly, not just a balloon.

Someone else asked why this hasn't become a bigger deal in UFO circles. Here's my answer: Most people who are interested in UFOs never dig further back than the 1980s. Seriously... outside of the Roswell incident, if you ask anyone who is interested in UFOs about famous cases they can't tell you anything about what happened before their own lifespans.

This is PRECISELY because UFOs have not yet made their way into popular education/awareness. Most people aren't aware of older UFO reports simply because the subject is self-taught.

Anyways, the Battle of LA has fascinated me for years. I've even written two short stories about it... believe it or not, neither was ever published (OIMD laughs at himself, hoping that everyone who is interested in UFOs will realize that it will be decades before even fiction about serious UFO incidents are considered acceptible by mainstream artists). It's always good to see the subject brought up.

Two parting thoughts:

1.At the time, it was reported that a street was closed off due to an 'unexploded shell'. Could this have been a downed UFO?

2.Bob Lazar -- who is most likely a government dupe or patty given just enough true information to make his story believable -- stated that he saw a damaged UFO in the S4 hanger. The ship was reported to have been shot through as if with a high caliber shell. Could this be a craft downed during the Battle of LA?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Interestingly enough, in my research on this, I saw a blurb that Spielberg made a movie based on this story, but it tanked (before his successes). I'll try and see if that's legit or not...

yellocake: I suspect that the sub likely disappeared before aircraft got to it... Yes, the US plane involvement seems conflicting. There are witness accounts of planes, and oddly enough, these accounts agree that the planes fired upon the object, and nothing happened, and then the planes left and returned from the direction they came.

OIMD: Yep, the early cases are often the best, because it was before the coverup program was put firmly into place. That's one of the reasons Roswell is such an excellent case as well.

EDIT: Found the Spielberg movie..."Firelight"
www.imdb.com...

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Gazrok]


niv

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Interestingly enough, in my research on this, I saw a blurb that Spielberg made a movie based on this story, but it tanked (before his successes). I'll try and see if that's legit or not...



Spielberg did make a movie called 1941 that did do poorly. I haven't seen the movie since it debuted, but I don't recall aliens as part of the plot. Then again, it was almost 30 years ago.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Nope, I'm aware of that one....I found the movie (see above edit).

Here's a little more info on it...
www.mrboy.com...

and then more than you ever wanted to know on it...
www.boxoff.com...

Just an interesting tidbit is all...sorry to go off topic. Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was somewhat of a remake of this first film....

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I thought I remembered hearing an eyewitness (and one of the air raid warden volunteers at that) describe that yes, planes were sent first, and then recalled, and then the target was shelled...(from the article cited in Rense and corraborated by other sources...as I try to do with anything from Rense...
)


The U.S. Army anti-aircraft searchlights by this time had the object completely covered. "They sent fighter planes up (the Army denied any of its fighters were in action) and I watched them in groups approach it and then turn away. There were shooting at it but it didn't seem to matter." Katie is insistent about the use of planes in the attack on the object. The planes were apparently called off after several minutes and then the ground cannon opened up. "It was like the Fourth of July but much louder. They were firing like crazy but they couldn't touch it." The attack on the object lasted over half an hour before the visitor eventually disappeared from sight. Many eyewitnesses talked of numerous "direct hits" on the big craft but no damage was seen done to it. "I'll never forget what a magnificent sight it was. Just marvelous. And what a georgeous color!", said Katie.


Check this out! They re-enact it every year now!!! Even using a Blimp as the target! Re-enacting war jitters? I doubt it!


www.ftmac.org...

More great info (including photos of other newspaper headlines of the event) from the same group here...

www.maxwelldemille.com...

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Gazrok]





top topics
 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join