The Smoking (Anti-Aircraft) Guns (of Los Angeles, 1942)

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Excellent! If you don't mind my asking, which analysis was yours, and could you explain what you did and which image you used? Please feel free to retain your anonymity if you choose, I'm really interested in the techniques used more than the identity of the person who did the work

That way, others can repeat your work, and repeatable testing showing the same results... well I'd call that Scientific Analysis indeed

The Rense article I wrote is this one.
Rense Article
I didn't have anything new other than the image adjustments I'd made, so I just put together a short commentary to jaz it up a bit. I was pretty excited by my discovery and eager to share what I had found.

I got a copy of the photo that made the cover of the newspaper. It was supposed to have been taken from the original negative. It had been posted in one of the stories on Rense. The photo I used is at the top of my article.

Since the image is in black and white the only real adjustment that could make a difference is brightness and contrast.

I used Adobe Photoshop to make the adjustments. The tool I used is called the Levels tool. You can access it by choosing from the drop down menu Image / Adjustments / Levels or you can use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+L. Unfortunately, I can't give you the numbers I ended up with. When you open an image again everything goes back to default.

Using the levels tool I adjusted the brightness and contrast in the photo so that the mid tones were brought out. I lowered the brightness and balanced the light in the image to bring more detail into focus. There are three controls for what the control calls the Input. As I remember I brought the two outside ones closer together and adjusted the middle one until the image was clearer.

It was several years ago when I worked on the image. As I recall I made quite a few attempts at getting it right and finally lucked out by getting one that was clearer than the rest.

I also inverted the image which seemed to make the shape more distinct.

I agree, repeatability is a good method of proving something. I welcome others to see for themselves that the original photo can be adjusted to match my adjustments. Even if you don't have access to Photoshop you can use another image editor to get enough of a result to see that my image's content isn't changed other than the contrast.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by LazyGuy

 

Amazing work LazyGuy, you're not so lazy after all

Actually the LazyGuy alias comes through an accident. I had an account here under a different name, but I can't seem to access it. I guess I forgot the password. I came up with LazyGuy because I was tired of trying to get into the old account, and I couldn't create a new account using the same name.

I'm going to definitely keep an eye on this thread. I'll help if I can, but I'm going to be working for the next 4 days, and time won't be too free.

According to the Youtube video (in the comments), there is a radio broadcast from the event floating around. If someone can find that, it'd be a big piece.

Edit: NVM I see it's been posted.



[edit on 1-25-2008 by Cutwolf]

Some of you asked how large the ufo was, here's some size analysis I found by Bruce Maccabee (brumac.8k.com...) :

How large is the "object"? If we knew the distance of the camera from the
beam convergence and the focal length of the camera we could calculate the approximate size. This requires knowing what portion of the city the object was over, where the cameraman was, and the altitude of the "object."
An alternative method is to estimate the diameter of a spotlight beam at
some distance from the spotlight and use that width as a reference size.
I found a research article by Dr. Louis Eltermann that reports research
in the latter 1940's in which he used an army searchlight to probe the
upper atmosphere in order to determine the vertical distribution of dust
in the atmosphere. (Note: Eltermann was the author of the infamous Project
Twinkle Report in November, 1951, which ignored or "covered up" or, at the
very least, misrepresented, the White Sands movie film that proved
unidentified objects were flying around. See THE UFO-FBI CONNECTION by Bruce
Maccabee [Llewellyn, St. Paul, MN, 2000.
Also, brumac.8k.com...)
Eltermann described the
searchlight as being 5 ft in diameter and with a divergence of about 1.25
degrees or about 20 milliradians. This means that the diameter
at a distance d from the mirror would be about D = 5'+0.02d. Thus at 1000
ft the diameter would be about 25 ft. Of course, the beam is not uniformly
bright across its diameter, so the effective diameter might be closer to 20
feet.

Consider the beam at the right side of the photo.
It protrudes upward at some angle, probably not the angle
in the photo. Suppose the elevation angle were 30 degrees. The "object" width
is oriented horizontally (parallel to the ground) whereas the beam is
assumed to be tilted at about 30 degrees. Hence the horizontal width
of the beam, W,(not perpendicular to the beam axis) would be
W = D/sin(angle of elevation) = D/sin(30) = 2D for the assumed 30 degree
elevation angle. Hence if the object were
1000 ft from the projection lens it was about 2 x 25 = 50 ft wide. If at 2000 ft
the calculation yields D = 45 ft and W = 90 ft.

One estimate of the height of the object was 8,000 ft. For a 30 degree slant
angle of the beam from ground level up to 8,000 ft the distance along the
beam would be about 8,000/sin 30 = 16,000 ft. If this were so, then the beam diameter
at that height would have been about 165 ft and the horizontal width of the object
would have been about 330 ft.

If the slant angle of the beam was less than 30 degrees then the calculated sizes
would have been larger. Conversely, if the slant angle was greater the
calculated sizes would have been smaller.

Based on the above calculations, and realizing that a much better estimate
could be made if we had more accurate information on the spotlights,
camera, etc., I would hazard a guess that the width of the illuminated
"object" is on the order of 100 ft or more in size.
Without more solid information to go on this has to be no more than
a WAG (wild...rear-end... guess) (but I bet its close to right!)


[edit on 25-1-2008 by Leto]

Originally posted by Leto
Based on the above calculations, and realizing that a much better estimate
could be made if we had more accurate information on the spotlights,
camera, etc., I would hazard a guess that the width of the illuminated
"object" is on the order of 100 ft or more in size.
Without more solid information to go on this has to be no more than
a WAG (wild...rear-end... guess) (but I bet its close to right!)
[edit on 25-1-2008 by Leto]

Very nice to meet you Leto! Thanks for bringing those equations out into the open here. I planned to do the same, once the missing data was found, but I'm certainly pleased to see others thinking along the same lines.

We're going to solve for these variables, and with solid numbers and your submitted formula, the answer in my view is just a matter of time and digging. Thank you very much for your contribution. This affirms that the locations of the searchlights is key.

May I ask, how did you come up with the 30% angle for the searchlight (#9 in my earlier enhancement, for reference)? Did you measure the angle in the picture against the horizon? Just curious, visually it looks like a good guess. I'm wondering about a direct method for pinning those angles down. I assume it could be done if we have the locations of the lights and the location of the photographer plotted on a map. Any other methods for determining these angles that you know of?

Thanks again for your contribution, this is a mystery that I believe ATS can solve.

reply to post by Cutwolf


I'm glad you found it Cutwolf, and thank you for highlighting that piece of data. There is a lot to dig through, and I'm not surprised you missed it on first glance. In researching I found myself constantly coming across repeats of the same data, and constantly needed to cross-check to see if I'd already listed it LOL.

The broadcast is interesting indeed, I'd love to hear ATS members reaction to it. It was CBS News, and Radio was perhaps THE format for news information at the time (Newspapers aside). The broadcast is posted in several formats, MP3, WMV, RealPlayer, so everyone should be able to listen somehow. If someone cannot access any of the formats, please U2U me or post in this thread, and I will try to convert it for you.

reply to post by LazyGuy


I too have a lot on my plate right now, so I may have periods where I'm away from the thread. I'll certainly be keeping on this mystery until we've got a lot more answers though I hope you continue to stop in as your time allows, and thanks again for your contributions thus far!

reply to post by Extralien


Excellent Post! Thanks! I tried to post that pic of the AA gun in an earlier post, but it didn't read. Thank you for adding it.

Great find on the searchlight pic too!
I'll be checking out your links this evening at some point

EDIT: Just did a cursory look at this page:
www.militarymuseum.org...

HOLY CRAP! YOU'VE HIT THE JACKPOT!!!
This seems to have the locations of every AA battery in So Cal during 1942. If I have time this evening (and if not SOON) I'll plot all of these locations onto a map.

WOW! Great find!

Also, on the 'peak' in question, it could well be Griffith, I'll try to get some more pics of the observatory's area, and see if we can't match it up to the pic. Wonderful job of researching Extralien, I'm very impressed!
END EDIT


Also, to Nohup, (so I don't do too many WFA posts in a row LOL)
I've got access to the Los Angeles Public Library. I'm not certain when I'll have time to make a trip, but I'll make sure to go within the next couple of weeks. Great idea, I can't believe I didn't think of it myself. If anyone else beats me to it, I'll be more than happy to read your research!


[edit on 25-1-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

Just from first glance, the enhanced photo of the unidentified object looked to me like the Nazi anti-gravitation aircraft prototypes.







thoughts, please.
thanx

[edit on 25-1-2008 by leira7]

Originally posted by leira7
Just from first glance, the enhanced photo of the unidentified object looked to me like the Nazi anti-gravitation aircraft prototypes.

thoughts, please.
thanx

Most of the area where the spotlights converged was only smoke.

Check out this picture.
Battle of LA UFO

..........

[edit on 25-1-2008 by omnicron]

Okay, I just scoured the internet for a good map to use as a blank, and couldn't really find one.

So I went onto google, got out MS Paint, and made my own.

Here is a link to the blank map of the area, with Culver City (the area the object was when photographed) highlighted with a green arrow.
img527.imageshack.us...

Once at the link, click in the bottom right corner of the map to enlarge to full size...

Anyone is free to use this as a base for their own mapping of the area.

I'm planning to create a map using this base to plot the locations of the AA bases. I don't know when I'll get that done, but it won't be tonight, sorry. I've run out of time for today, and creating that compilation map took forever!

Anyway, if anyone wants a head start, there it is. I'll try to post the AA Battery Map tomorrow. Thank you to ALL contributing to this thread. Your time and research is much appreciated!

-WFA

[edit on 25-1-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

Originally posted by Extralien
www.geocities.com...

Anti-Aircraft Defenses, fixed and flexible mounts

www.ftmac.org...

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields:

California - Central Los Angeles Area

contains some small maps of the areas in question
www.airfields-freeman.com...

Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles
www.militarymuseum.org...

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Extralien]

Very good work finding these. Having exact locations for the AA might give us enough info to figure out where that picture was taken and from there who knows what else we might be able to figure out.

NEW IDEA - I hope

While I was doing dishes I came across a thought. I wonder if there are any documents we can get about the Battle of LA through the FOIA? Since this was either a weather balloon or war nerves then nothing about the incident should be classified.

Originally posted by LazyGuy

Originally posted by Extralien
www.geocities.com...

Anti-Aircraft Defenses, fixed and flexible mounts

www.ftmac.org...

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields:

California - Central Los Angeles Area

contains some small maps of the areas in question
www.airfields-freeman.com...

Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles
www.militarymuseum.org...

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Extralien]

Very good work finding these. Having exact locations for the AA might give us enough info to figure out where that picture was taken and from there who knows what else we might be able to figure out.

NEW IDEA - I hope

While I was doing dishes I came across a thought. I wonder if there are any documents we can get about the Battle of LA through the FOIA? Since this was either a weather balloon or war nerves then nothing about the incident should be classified.

Turns out that there were papers classified, and the FOIA was used to uncover them. Very interestingly the classified reason for the long bouts of artillery fire was due to "unindentified aircraft" or in other words UFOs. According to the then Secrety of Defense General George Marshall there were as many as 15 UFOs flying at either slow speeds or up to 200mph, and at elevations from 9000 feet to 18,000 feet.

bp2.blogger.com...

I found the memo here:
strangecorridor.blogspot.com...

Propounded for your consideration: The Battle of Los Angeles was a “blind” anti-aircraft artillary training exercise. Blind means the anti-aircraft batteries were not warned that a training exercise was going to take place. Someone high up wanted to see how they would perform.

The noise of the plane-engines would have been drowned by a combination of their altitude, sirens and the artillary fire itself.

The targets were towed on long wires by a variety of aircraft, at different speeds, altitudes etc.

These quickly-found examples are from bases elsewhere from California, but given the similarity of training methods especially during world war two, I would say they are accurate for anti-aircaraft training in 39 to 43 at least.

The Second Battalion, 64th Coastal Artillery Regiment (anti-aircraft) was stationed at Camp Edwards from 1942-44, and comprised the core of the Anti-aircraft Artillery Training Center (AAATC). The AAATC serviced upwards of 42 battalions before it was deactivated and relocated to Florida in June 1944. Anti-aircraft training included firing of guns at aircraft-pulled targets, as well as searchlight training to locate aircraft at night.

www.mass.gov...


The National Guard units departed and new units came in for training. Facilities were expanded and improved. Anti-aircraft artillery training was upgraded and soon a detachment of Women’s Air Service Pilots (WASP’s) arrived at the air facility on post, Liberty Field, to fly planes to tow targets for the live-fire exercises. Eventually radio-controlled airplane targets came into use as a more effective and safer means of live-fire practice.

As the war progressed, Camp Stewart’s training programs continued expanding to keep pace with the needs placed upon it. Units were shipped out promptly upon completion of their training, and new units received in their place. The camp provided well-trained soldiers for duty in the European, the Mediterranean, the North African, and the Pacific Theaters.

en.wikipedia.org...


The training schedule was vigorous—six days a week—and the air over coastal North Carolina was loud with military activity. Planes towing target sleeves on long cables roared back and forth above the beaches of Fort Fisher and Camp Davis's other firing ranges, while anti-aircraft gunners below pumped streams of shells at the soaring targets.

Two towing squadrons and a base squadron were stationed at Camp Davis Army Airfield. These aircraft flew thousands of miles each week—both day and night—in missions along the coast. At night the planes gave the searchlight battalions—the "Moonlight Cavalry"—practice in picking up enemy raiders in the darkness. One such battalion attached to Camp Davis was the 225th AAA Searchlight Battalion (Semi-mobile), which trained for a short period at Burgaw (40 miles west of the main base) before departing for duty overseas.
You have searchlight aided night firing, so you could pick out the sleeves, and tracers arch out over the ocean. It was sort of a beautiful sight. In fact, I got married while I was home on furlough. My wife came down and lived at Carolina Beach for several months, just before we were alerted for shipment overseas . . . . Now they could sit down on Carolina Beach and watch the 40s and 50s being shot out over the ocean. It was a really beautiful sight.

www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us...

Certainly this raises other questions:

1.There's a risk that the towing planes could be spotted and shot down.

Possible answer: Part or most pre-issued ammunition is not actual ammunition, but fireworks designed to produce similar burst at set altitude.

Possible answer: Maybe they just risked it. Remember, anti-aircraft is designed not so much to shoot planes down as to keep them above a certain high altitude where bombing is inaccurate.

reply to post by undermind

They also mention radio-controlled targets were in use or being developed, which means no putting in harms way at all.

Although I can't prove it but it is possible that it was setup to look like what it was, for a message to be sent to whomever it may concern. The information provided (although I got thinking it false because I never read anything about casualties although I'd rather not) but from what I have read on this topic, it does make it appear true to me, nice work it's got a star from me.

WFA and LG,

Thank you very much for your kind words.

I can only post what others have not :-)

Anyway, carrying on with a bit more searching and i get;

These carbon arc searchlights have been known to draw attention from well over 35 miles away. sweep the night sky at a 10 to 75 degree angle. searchlight unit on its 20' transport trailer. SEE OUR 5 FT WIDE BEAM, 5.6 MILES LONG! light output of 800 million candle power. Our General Electric Model 1942-A Searchlight was used to guard the California coast against night air attacks during W.W. II. Our light was featured in a History Channel "UFO Files" episode "UFO's and the White House".

On April 13th of 2007, our light was featured on a History Channel program "Mail Call"
with R. Lee Ermey. Episode #93, The great L.A. Air Raid of 1942.
To see photos of this event, click.... here
Download and see the segment here

www.geocities.com...

More terrain based photo's here
george.smugmug.com...

AAA sites...
www.skylighters.org...

will this map help?
www.lib.utexas.edu...
taken from
www.lib.utexas.edu...

Originally posted by undermind


1.There's a risk that the towing planes could be spotted and shot down.

Possible answer: Part or most pre-issued ammunition is not actual ammunition, but fireworks designed to produce similar burst at set altitude.

Possible answer: Maybe they just risked it. Remember, anti-aircraft is designed not so much to shoot planes down as to keep them above a certain high altitude where bombing is

Considering I just posted a classified memo from the then Secretary of Defense to the then President stating that it was indeed very real and that the objects were ufo's, I'd say your theory doesn't work for this case.

Originally posted by goodsoul
Although I can't prove it but it is possible that it was setup to look like what it was, for a message to be sent to whomever it may concern. The information provided (although I got thinking it false because I never read anything about casualties although I'd rather not) but from what I have read on this topic, it does make it appear true to me, nice work it's got a star from me.

Three civilians died directly from the AA fire, and another three died from heart attacks attributed to stress caused by the long bombardment.
strangecorridor.blogspot.com...