Video: The Battle of LA, Supposed UFO Attacked by US Army

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by justanothergangster
listen to the radio broadcast on that video unforunately it appears the la times database doesnt go that far back or that day is ommitted one of the two but you saw the video if that was a weather balloon then why didnt it go down?? imean surely if our AA was enough for the japanes oscar and zero we could shoot down a weather balloon or atleast i would hope so....imean if it really was a balloon it would have gone down on the first hit of flak and even if i cant confirm the hits like i said its in the video flack doesnt require a direct hit and there was enough of it to bring down a flying battleship for that matter plus the training our military has with AA im sure we connected....multiple times

If you're that confident in pre-VT fuse anti-aircraft fire, you're about the only one. I don't mean that as a slap in the face of the gun crews, it's a simple observation based on historical record. Before the VT (Variable-Time, or 'Proximity') fuse went into mass production (September of 1942), AA fire was a matter of high volume and good luck. Just ask the German AA gunners aboard DKM Bismarck...shooting in broad, if somewhat overcast daylight, they didn't manage a single crippling hit on the flight of Fairy Swordfish torpedo bombers despite their low speed (around 90mph before torpedo release), and low altitude. The only thing I'd be certain we hit 85 times during the "Battle of LA" was LA itself....what goes up, must come down.

It's also not as easy to bring down a balloon of any size as you might think. The shrapnel that could tear up a 'real' airplane would just make the balloon vent its lifting gas...speed of venting would be proportional to the damage done, of course...but you aren't likely to simply one-shot the thing. Disclaimer: If the balloon is full of hydrogen (instead of the helium we used) and you hit it with a tracer or incindiary round, all bets are off!

I'm not sure exactly what we're looking at here, but the fact that we didn't blow it out of the sky doesn't rule out a weather balloon (or multiple balloons), given the state of the art in AAA at the time...particularly with crews that weren't as well-drilled as they might have been, firing at night.

Just about any amount of shrapnel would down a weather balloon, maybe you didn't read for how ong the assualt lasted or anything about the "confirmed hits" but saying it could be a WB is like siding with the least likely thing possible.

but if you take a look at the footage there was shells exploding all around it weather balloons are made out of latex.....so it getting hit once with the 12 pound shrapnel explosive would the equivelant to shooting a condomn with a shotgun

Poor condom, I hope no one would ever do that to one. But yes that is true, the WB is out of the question, most people keep track of their weather balloons and this most definatly would not have happened.

Originally posted by justanothergangster
well yes but before the vt fuse was mass produced it was widely used in american aa ((i suppose you watched that modern marvels episode on the history channell too)) but considering the hting was lit up the whole time i doubt it was multiple balloons and but with the air ((some 12,000 rounds were fired)) it wouldve been hard for it not to have gotten hit and when in flight lift fails under 160 mph thats why we used a v-12 rotary engine but before the proximity fuse we used a timer with the speed that thing was moving we undoubtedly hit it and flak does explode

Actually, I haven't seen Modern Marvels in ages, and I wouldn't use the History Channel as a source in any serious discussion. My info on flak, and other things military, comes from people like Norman Friedman, Norman Polmar, and other assorted authors and books published by the Naval Institute Press. The VT fuse wasn't 'widely used' *anywhere* before late 1942, sorry to say.

Citation:
Full text here:
VT Fuse Development

Text in question, in case you don't want to leaf through the site:

Throughout all this early development, one important item was that of providing an adequate safety feature to prevent functioning of the fuze until it had traveled a safe distance beyond the muzzle of the gun. The use of an auxdet [auxiliary detonator], of course, provided safety against bore bursts, but was no assurance against bursts just outside the muzzle. This safety feature was to be achieved by incorporating a mechanical clock as one component of the fuze arranged to prevent functioning of the fuze within a time interval of about 3/10 to 5/10 second after firing. All early tests were conducted using fuzes which contained only the RC delay. It was not until the middle of 1942 that a satisfactory safety clock had finally been developed. The design finally developed, known as the Mk 1 clock, was more or less a modification of the Mk 18 time fuze movement. When this development was finally achieved, all the essential components for a satisfactory proximity fuze were available. Accordingly, plans were them made to carry out actual drone firings from a Navy ship.This test firing of proximity fuzed 5"/38 projectiles against drones was carried out in August 1942 aboard the cruiser [USS] Cleveland [CL-55]. Results of this test were entirely satisfactory and accordingly, full-scale production of proximity fuzes was initiated at the Crosley Corporation in September 1942. Early production was plagued with numerous difficulties but satisfactory material was finally produced. This fuze, which was designated the Mk 32, was delivered to the Fleet during November and December 1942, and the first Japanese plane was shot down with proximity fuzed projectiles by the cruiser [USS] Helena [CL-50] in January 1943.

Moving along...I got lost after your comment that VT shells were in wide-spread use before they were mass-produced. If we were looking at the same footage, the object in the spotlights looked to be keeping pace with the cloud bank around it, which doesn't argue well for high speed.

I'm really lost when you bring up the use of V-12 rotary engines in this context. It's confusing me on several levels.
First, what in the name of Curtis LeMay is a 'V-12 rotary engine'? If it's a V-12, it's not a rotary, it's a V-pattern.
Also, the last 'rotary' engines (at least prior to the use of the Wankel) were of WWI vintage. Did you mean 'radial', perhaps? That brings up another problem though, in that as far as I know, there weren't any 12 cylinder radials in US use. Pratt & Whitney made 7, 19, 14, 18, and 28 cylinder (the "Wasp" line), and Wright made 9, 14, and 18 cylinder (the "Cyclone" line).
Finally, what (in the context of the 'battle of LA' was this "V-12 rotary engine" used on? The unidentified flying object in the clouds? Certainly not on the flak shells, nor on the guns that fired them.

Just about any amount of shrapnel would down a weather balloon, maybe you didn't read for how ong the assualt lasted or anything about the "confirmed hits" but saying it could be a WB is like siding with the least likely thing possible.

I did read and listen to the presented material. I heard about the 'confirmed hits', I simply don't find the number creditable, for reasons that I explained in my post.

I also didn't say it was a weather balloon. I was simply pointing out that the fact that we didn't shoot it down isn't proof of anything other than the fact that AA gunnery before proximity fusing wasn't nearly as effective as people seem to think In fact, in the last paragraph of my post, I even said that I wasn't sure what we were looking at. Perhaps I should've put that part in bold text?

i was talking about the minimum speed at which lift is generated...your reference to a plane moving at 90 mph....which would mean that it would fall out of the air also its a torpedo bomber so there is no thermal updraft.....this info comes lt. jack hodges who is a friend of mine that was a pilot at cannon afb here in new mex..... also even though rense isnt "reliable" thos negative shots are the same ones seen on other ufo discussion sites and it shows saucer shape......the air is completely lit up with flak all the way around above and below in its path of travel....flak is razor sharp and it will cut through a airplane it would have ahnihalated a weather baloon even if it was only hit by a small part of it it wouldve started losing gas like you saind....and it wouldve went down not hung around there

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Just about any amount of shrapnel would down a weather balloon, maybe you didn't read for how ong the assualt lasted or anything about the "confirmed hits" but saying it could be a WB is like siding with the least likely thing possible.

I did read and listen to the presented material. I heard about the 'confirmed hits', I simply don't find the number creditable, for reasons that I explained in my post.

I also didn't say it was a weather balloon. I was simply pointing out that the fact that we didn't shoot it down isn't proof of anything other than the fact that AA gunnery before proximity fusing wasn't nearly as effective as people seem to think In fact, in the last paragraph of my post, I even said that I wasn't sure what we were looking at. Perhaps I should've put that part in bold text?

And the fact that they didn't use proximty fusing doesn't meen they did not hit it.

Originally posted by justanothergangster
i was talking about the minimum speed at which lift is generated...your reference to a plane moving at 90 mph....which would mean that it would fall out of the air also its a torpedo bomber so there is no thermal updraft.....this info comes lt. jack hodges who is a friend of mine that was a pilot at cannon afb here in new mex..... also even though rense isnt "reliable" thos negative shots are the same ones seen on other ufo discussion sites and it shows saucer shape......the air is completely lit up with flak all the way around above and below in its path of travel....flak is razor sharp and it will cut through a airplane it would have ahnihalated a weather baloon even if it was only hit by a small part of it it wouldve started losing gas like you saind....and it wouldve went down not hung around there

I hate to keep quoting, but it helps me keep things straight..senility, I guess.

As for an aircraft needing to fly at 160mph to stay airborne, or even 90mph...stalling speed (the speed at which you lose lift and drop) varies from aircraft to aircraft. The Fairy Sowrdfish that attacked the Bismarck (the planes I cited in my 'flak ain't that hot' post) had an absolute maximum speed (at high altitude and flying 'clean'..i.e. without the externally-slung torpedo) of ~135-140mph. Biplanes, in particular, can fly *amazingly* slow...I've seen a Pitts Special (the aerobatic biplane you see at a lot of airshows) do an almost vertical takeoff with a 30mph headwind, and maintain controlled flight down to about 60 knots.

Anyhoo...back to the original topic...us old folks wander a bit. I keep hearing people tell me that the object in that film clip is big. If you're looking at that large, bright oval area...is that the object, or is that the overlapping pattern of several searchlight batteries? People also tell me that it's maneuvering, and moving fast, but it seems to be keeping pace with local cloud formations, which argues for a speed well under 100mph. I also saw at least one post here that talked about '12,000 rounds' fired, even though the narration at the end gives the number as 1,500.

As I've said on at least three occasions now, I'm not saying this is a weather balloon...I'm simply saying that it doesn't appear to be large, maneuvering, or fast-moving, and that the fact that flak didn't bring it down isn't, in and of itself, proof of very much.

no its not fast moving which is why im confused about what it is.....i got the comma in the wrong place.....and like i said go to this site and look at the negative pic of the image www.rense.com... i wouldnt really read this one somone told me the site isnt very reliable as far as that but ive seen this image other places however this does have some interesting info

Originally posted by justanothergangster
no its not fast moving which is why im confused about what it is.....i got the comma in the wrong place.....and like i said go to this site and look at the negative pic of the image www.rense.com... i wouldnt really read this one somone told me the site isnt very reliable as far as that but ive seen this image other places however this does have some interesting info

"Speculation fell like rain. "It's a whole squadron." "No, it's a blimp. It must be because it's moving so slowly." "I hear planes." "No you don't. That's a truck up the street." "Where are the planes then?" "Dunno. They must be up there though." "Wonder why they picked such a clear night for a raid?" "They're probably from a carrier." "Naw, I'll bet they are from a secret air base down south somewhere." Still the firing continued. Like lethal firecrackers, the anti-aircraft rounds blasted above, below, seemingly right on the target fixed in the tenacious beams. Other shots fell short, exploding halfway up the long climb. Tracers sparked upward like roman candles. Metal fell. It fell in chunks, large and small; not enemy metal, but the whistling fragments of bursting ack-ack shells. The menacing thud and clank on streets and roof tops drove many spectators to shelter. "


The point JAG (Justanothergangster) and I are trying to make is that with over a thousand shots fired, it would be hard to believe no hits were made and with "confirmed hits" being the only "official" information we have to work with we assume there were some hits, we believe this was an Alien piloted craft (it is an UFO as nobody can identify it). The thought of some one believing this is a weather balloon blows my mind.


[edit on 13-6-2007 by Cydonian Priest]

*nod*
Very interesting. The skeptic in me is concerned, though...I followed the link for the image analysis and found this 'encouraging' text:

Sometimes it is helpful to see a negative. One presumes that this is what the actual negative looks like.

If they don't have the negative, just say so...don't "presume" to know what it looks like. I also can't help noting that the object (assuming that the large, lenticular bright patch is an object) sometimes stops the searchlight beams (see the photo from the LA Times), and sometimes doesn't (the opening frames of the newsreeel footage).

If I seem to be 'picky' where this is concerned, I am, and I'll freely admit it. This is one of those rare cases where we have a legitimate "UFO"...there's an object, it's flying, and we don't know what it is. If we're ever going to find out, we need to be very careful to base our suppositions and assumptions on carefully checked fact.

What irks me about this event is the lack of media from that day.
An event over the 2nd largest city in the USA should have had world
wide press coverage and there should have been hundreds of cars
and roofs damaged from all the ordinance falling over the city. Could
this have happened in the mountains NEAR Los Angeles and not over
the city itself? There should be many photos, stories, and TV news
videos. This is not something from the 1800's we're talking about.

Another thought that came to mind is that this "UFO" could have been
some kind of image projected up to the clouds by a prankster on an
Army base. Due to the high alert level at the time, the Army just
choose to blast that image with everything it had. Also, does anyone
find it strange that there doesn't seem to be any military aircraft
intercepting and firing on this slow-moving UFO? They certainly had
the time to scramble a few jets. A military pilot who engaged this
object would be able to give a good close-up eyewitness account.
I'm sorry but there's too many missing pieces, considering that this
event occured right over L.A., supposedly.

Hey.. I just had a thought. Could the image have been projected
onto the clouds (or into the sky) on purpose by the military to give the
gunners practice, in case the Japanese choose to hit our mainland from
the air, like they did Pearl Harbor? Los Angeles would have been a very
ripe target for Japan since it's big and right there on the Pacific. If this
were an Army exercise for the gunners, that would explain why no
fighter planes were involved.

-cwm

It is perfectly okay, like I said WE believe it is an Alien craft, and are desperatly scrambling for evidence to back our claims

Originally posted by carewemust
What irks me about this event is the lack of media from that day.
An event over the 2nd largest city in the USA should have had world
wide press coverage and there should have been hundreds of cars
and roofs damaged from all the ordinance falling over the city. Could
this have happened in the mountains NEAR Los Angeles and not over
the city itself? There should be many photos, stories, and TV news
videos. This is not something from the 1800's we're talking about.

No there shouldn't. Back then the news industry was the govs. biotch and ussualy bent to it's will. It is a totally different story nowadays.

So what you're saying is that "Big Brother" was bigger then than now?
LOL..try telling that to the folks in the Conspiracy forums. They think
that the current government is squashing all liberties. Perhaps they
should study recent history.

Come on!!! Three people on the ground were killed..I find it hard to believe they couldn't hit a barely moving object..

it would have been impossible to get aircraft up there with all the ordinance going up at the time and i believe it happenned over the ocean near los angeles

Originally posted by justanothergangster
it would have been impossible to get aircraft up there with all the ordinance going up at the time and i believe it happenned over the ocean near los angeles

I often wondered if the Airforce really engaged in dogfights with enemy
aircraft while the battle cruisers were firing shells at the same aircraft,
like we see in the WWII movies. (i.e. Midway, Tora-Tora, etc.) It does
make sense that our aircraft wouldn't be up there while the ground-based
guns were firing.

Too bad this event didn't happen more recently. Cruise missles are
extremely accurate and powerful. They also have onboard cameras
which would have made for good video. Hopefully another big and
slow UFO will provoke the military again and we'll see some great
footage! -cwm



[edit on 14-6-2007 by carewemust]

that would be awesome.....but maybe they dont engage ufos anymore because they have some sort of agreement you know

Originally posted by carewemust

I often wondered if the Airforce really engaged in dogfights with enemy
aircraft while the battle cruisers were firing shells at the same aircraft,
like we see in the WWII movies. (i.e. Midway, Tora-Tora, etc.) It does
make sense that our aircraft wouldn't be up there while the ground-based
guns were firing.

It wasn't common for aircraft and flak from the same side to be in the same place at the same time, but it did happen, particularly when the enemy's target was something of extreme importance....B-17 aircrew over Ploesti (1 August 1943), Schweinfurt and Regensburg (17 August 1943) reported that Luftwaffe pilots continued to press attacks through their own flak barrage, for example. Just as an aside, the US Navy never had battlecruisers...the closest we came were the USS Saratoga and USS Lexington, both completed as aircraft carriers.

Too bad this event didn't happen more recently. Cruise missles are
extremely accurate and powerful. They also have onboard cameras
which would have made for good video. Hopefully another big and
slow UFO will provoke the military again and we'll see some great
footage! -cwm

[edit on 14-6-2007 by carewemust]

If it happens again, we should have some great footage long before missiles or aircraft engage whatever it is. If we do have to settle for gun-camera footage, I hope we get it from an F-15 or F-16, rather than from a Maverick's guidance camera.