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

Originally posted by Tifozi
If it was ONE radar that made the detection, I would agree with you. But not three.

Three radars would mean that all three operators, and all three control centers were unable to detect a false reading. In my opinion, they knew it wasn't false.

In my opinion, that alone rulles out false signals.

Agreed Tifozi, and also, it would mean that all FOUR units were picking up the same 'false' reading, which is highly unlikely when dealing with HQ, a coastal SCR 268, and TWO SCR 270's...

Everyone would have had to have been wrong, and every machine would have had to have been wrong too. Doesn't add up, not in the slightest.

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar



still dont undrstand radar i see. You keep calling a false alarm a "false return" on the radar. Why?

p.s the recommendations of the british radar guy were not implemented until well after april 1942. Sorry but the americans were still amateurs at the time of BOLA

[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I can't find any radar tracking data between 2:27 am and the time the shooting started after 3am, which leaves a void of 33 minutes where we can't really connect the 2 events. We can speculate that they might be connected, but is there any evidence for this? none that I have found.

It seems from my searching that this is because the SCR 268's (The majority of the radar units along the coast were 268's, 270's were still fairly new...) were specifically designated for use in guiding the searchlights.

See the bottom of Page 5 and the top of page 6 here:
www.cufon.org...

Also see further down on Page 6 of that report, in the notes, where it says:


To my reading, the Red Alert would indicate that all Radar units were to be immediately shifted to support searchlight usage, and that the AA guns would use the Searchlights for gun-laying.

To find the initial reports that the FOIA Report was drawn from, would provide further data. The CUFON report is merely a summary, sourcing the many actual field reports cited in the footnotes.

I've been searching for these initial reports themselves. Any help in that search would be appreciated

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'd love to hear your comments on this observation from the LA Times Photo..

Thanks again for your detailed and well thought out post!

-WFA

Thanks WFA. I tried to lay out my analysis as well as I could based on finding the best photos I could. If you read what Frank Warren wrote:

Originally posted by Frank Warren
the very first place I released the image was at Jeff Rense's site (years ago); additionally, I sent a jpg to Bruce (Maccabee); henceforth, those two sites would have copies that aren't 100th generation clones . . . which by the way I have noticed some "degradation" in copies, even here in this thread.

He confirmed those sources I looked at should be the best sources (I used them at his recommendation and I haven't found any better yet). But when he says he noticed some degradation in some copies on this thread, I would have to observe that it appears the photo used to identify the maximum brightness appears to be such a degraded photo. Even so the maximum brightness point would seem to be similar for some beams on the degraded photo as well as the original. To conclude that the brightest beams wouldn't have started fading without the smoke isn't a conclusion I can agree with. I do agree however they wouldn't have abruptly stopped without some smoke, but I think it might take less smoke than Dr Maccabbee imagined, as I learned something from these other photos I didn't know, and he might even adjust his interpretation a little after seeing those.

I like your index, makes a nice summary of some key topics! Great work WFA, I see you put a lot of effort into that. Good job!!

As for the next direction of the investigation, I have a lot of questions about altitudes. At what altitude were the AA shells were being detonated that morning? Were they all set to the same altitude, or different altitudes, and what information were they using to adjust the altitude setting on the AA detonation? Did they have altitude measurements of some kind on the object? If so how many at what locations and how accurate or reliable were they? So you can see where I'm going with this, trying to find the altitude of the object, altitude of the AA fire and then comparing the relative altitudes of the AA fire detonation with the altitude of the object. Frank Warren may have some information on this as he stated the altitude of the object was lower than the maximum altitude range of the AA shells. The information may all be in the links here and I just need to hunt for it.

@Yeti101, I agree with a lot of your posts, but I'm not sure about the radar tracking. I don't doubt that more training was needed by some radar operators as you suggest. If it's possible for 3 radar tracking stations to report the same anomaly, I can see how that might happen with say a certain weather pattern. But the speed of over 300mph doesn't seem consistent with a weather pattern, so I'm not sure how 3 radar stations track the same false signal at that speed. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just saying I don't know how it could happen. (If you have any website links handy where I could read up on that, you could post them for me to read as I'm a little curious). If I thought it was relevant to the UFO part of the case, I'd want to dig into that some more, but as I said, I don't even think it's the same object as the shooting incident, so answering the question of whether it was a real object or not is a point of curiosity but not critical to unraveling the UFO mystery to me.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

still dont undrstand radar i see. You keep calling a false alarm a "false return" on the radar. Why?

p.s the recommendations of the british radar guy were not implemented until well after april 1942. Sorry but the americans were still amateurs at the time of BOLA

[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]

I'll tell you what Yeti, if you post something of substance, with some evidence to cite, I'll respond.

I've demonstrated to you that I understand Radar, I even outlined it's function. I issued you a challenge to illustrate your assertion that multiple units could detect a false signal that moved.

You have not met this challenge, nay, you stick to personally slamming me as a line of attack.

So be it.

If you feel like demonstrating your ideas productively like the rest of us, I'll respond. If not, I've done with you.

I've wasted enough time already (and space in this thread) repeating myself over and over again, but it's like talking to a brick wall.

I'm going to continue to investigate Yeti, you do as you please.

-WFA

reply to post by Arbitrageur


what you have to remember is all this business about the army saying things like "well tracked for so many minutes " etc. is people in every walk of life when mistakes are made try to cover their asses. We have testimony from a soldier who was ordered not to say they were shooting at nothing. This is why the army tries to stick to their story after creating havoc in LA. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when those reports were being drawn up!

[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

It does mean there was something there. Enough of a something there to order AA Batteries to open fire over a populated city for over half an hour, causing civilian deaths, and property damage.

There were no deaths attributed to anti aircraft fire.

Ordered by whom? Jumpy, lightly trained, unblooded soldiers? Were there giant, invulnerable, spacecraft all over the Los Angeles basin? Anti aircraft artillery has a limited horizontal range. What were those other guys shooting at?

Two months after Pearl Harbor. Numerous false air raid alerts up and down the west coast. Elwood had been shelled the night before. Yeah, I think they were shooting at nothing. It wouldn't be the first or last time a lot of firepower had been directed at nothing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

It does mean there was something there. Enough of a something there to order AA Batteries to open fire over a populated city for over half an hour, causing civilian deaths, and property damage.

There were no deaths attributed to anti aircraft fire.

Not directly, no, but there were deaths caused indirectly. A heart attack, some car accidents, and falling shrapnel damaged vehicles and homes. Two people narrowly escaped death from AA shells falling through their houses.

Originally posted by Phage
Ordered by whom?

Ordered by the Regional Controller
www.cufon.org...

Originally posted by Phage
Jumpy, lightly trained, unblooded soldiers? Were there giant, invulnerable, spacecraft all over the Los Angeles basin? Anti aircraft artillery has a limited horizontal range. What were those other guys shooting at?

Let's be civil here Phage, I've not asserted anything of the kind... The AA fire range was enough to lob shells over Culver City from San Pedro, that was evidenced by AA shells falling in Culver City, launched from San Pedro.

Originally posted by Phage
Two months after Pearl Harbor. Numerous false air raid alerts up and down the west coast. Elwood had been shelled the night before. Yeah, I think they were shooting at nothing. It wouldn't be the first or last time a lot of firepower had been directed at nothing.

Well, that nothing sure showed up on multiple radar units moving awful fast...

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's not what the evidence from the event suggests. Those radar returns indicate a solid object was present.

Thanks for joining the thread Phage! It's nice to see you here

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I can't find any radar tracking data between 2:27 am and the time the shooting started after 3am, which leaves a void of 33 minutes where we can't really connect the 2 events. We can speculate that they might be connected, but is there any evidence for this? none that I have found.

It seems from my searching that this is because the SCR 268's (The majority of the radar units along the coast were 268's, 270's were still fairly new...) were specifically designated for use in guiding the searchlights.

Maybe, but they don't have to turn the searchlights on to use the radar unit right? I would expect them to keep tracking the object on radar if it was at all possible.

Actually those radars are like the "stone age" of radar development, it's almost not fair to even compare them to modern radar, here a picture of the SCR268:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e288e5f35e4e.jpg[/atsimg]

www.skylighters.org...

It may have been advanced for it's time but it sure looks primitive as viewed through today's eyes.

That skylighters link is a pretty good site describing the radar, searchlight and AA fire linkage.

Thanks for actually checking out the data Arby!

That's exactly my point. All they did was basic radar function.
They transmitted and received radio waves. For one of these, two 270's and the HQ station to have all picked up a false solid moving object... not really that likely.

And also, you are correct that the Searchlights don't need to be on for the Radar to operate. They are separate units.

-WFA

Originally posted by Phage
Two months after Pearl Harbor. Numerous false air raid alerts up and down the west coast. Elwood had been shelled the night before. Yeah, I think they were shooting at nothing. It wouldn't be the first or last time a lot of firepower had been directed at nothing.

You're right, you really have to put yourself in the mindset with the tensions at the time before accusing the people of just plain incompetence. I thought Fate magazine portrayed this in an interesting way:
www.rense.com...

WORLD WAR II UFO SCARE
By Paul T. Collins
Fate Magazine July, 1987

After the Ellwood incident had alerted all the West Coast defense posts to possible repeat attacks, these units were sensitive to anticipated invasion attempts. By Wednesday morning in the Los Angeles area they were ready to open fire on a boy's kite if it in any way resembled a plane or a balloon. Secretary of War Henry Stimson praised the 37th Cost Artillery for this attitude. It is better to be a little too alert than not alert enough, he said. At the same time he delicately suggested that it might have been a good idea to send some of our planes up to identify the invading aircraft before shooting at them.

"Secretary of War Henry Stimson praised the 37th Cost Artillery for this attitude" of being ready to shoot at a boy's kite!

Regarding your suggestion they were shooting at nothing, I suggest that at least initially, it was something (reposted excerpt):

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.historynet.com...

At 3 a.m. on the morning of the raid, the 203rd launched two balloons, one from its headquarters on the Sawtelle Veterans Hospital grounds in Westwood and the other from Battery D, located on the Douglas Aircraft plant site in Santa Monica. So that the balloons could be tracked at night, a candle placed inside a simple highball glass was suspended under each balloon, whose silver color would reflect the light enough to be tracked to heights usually well above 25,000 feet. Lieutenant Melvin Timm, officer in charge of Battery D’s meteorological operations, ordered his balloon launched and had notified the filter room–also known as the Flower Street Control Center, where all planes, identified or otherwise, were tracked on a giant, flat table map–of its departure, when ‘all hell broke loose.’

www.militarymuseum.org...

At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon “the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano.” From this point on reports were hopelessly at variance.

Is that just a coincidence that all hell broke loose shortly after those balloons were released? I don't think so.

One reason I mentioned the altitude data was to see if they were firing at a high enough altitude to pop the balloons, as the balloons can go well over 25000 feet and many of the altitudes I heard AA fire was aimed at were below that.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Arbitrageur indeed, i saw you post that earlier. It does look like from that evidence shooting the balloon triggered the rest of the AA guns into action.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You may find this post helpful:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the weather data available for that day:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This post is also informative:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This post cites that for target practice, planes were flown (way below balloon level):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This post has some gun data:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

as well as this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where the range is sourced at:
Max horizontal range 12,400/10,900 yards
Max Ceiling 15,700/23,500 feet

For the 3" guns...

Hope that helps. Let me know if you find exact altitude data, I'm having a busy day at work...

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
For one of these, two 270's and the HQ station to have all picked up a false solid moving object... not really that likely.
-WFA

In spite of the scoffing, temperature inversions do produce false returns. Sea surface clutter does produce false returns. There is no reason that a false return would not be received by multiple radar stations. I'm sure you are aware of this quote from The Army Air Forces in World War II

Equally serious was the problem of equipment. In a report filled with illuminating detail, the British expert found our seaward reconnaissance grossly inefficient because of the total lack of ASV equipment and because of the limited number of patrol aircraft of suitable range. The radar screen along the West Coast was based on too few stations, and the equipment itself had inherent defects which made it "gravely unsuitable." All radar experts were agreed that each set represented a compromise between a variety of demands, but the principal American radar was "unique in combining slow search with poor cover in elevation, with lack of all facilities for eight finding, and with a grave danger of plotting false tracks." Moreover, dependable employment of this radar had been made even more unlikely because of a mistake in the selection of sites for its installation. Personnel to operate the radars had not been carefully selected and were inadequate both in numbers and in training. The United States was found to have repeated an early error of Britain in failing to provide for the training of large numbers of skilled radar technicians.

www.ibiblio.org...

Poorly trained radar operators using poor equipment which was poorly installed. As a result there could be (and were) many false reports. Have you heard about the "second" Pearl Harbor attack on March 7, 1942?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I do believe that initial fire may have been directed at a balloon. I believe the subsequent fire was directed at nothing but smoke and searchlight beams.


[edit on 9/21/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by yeti101


I disagree.

The americans looked to radar very seriously after Pearl Harbor, and I actually think that they made strong efforts to determine what is a flock of birds or a bomber formation.

Communication protocols (about incoming KNOWN traffic) and all that data was also added to protocol.

I may be incorrect and my memory is letting me down, but I think that the radar operators of Pearl Harbor thought the planes on radar were friendly traffic coming from some type of formation.

You're half correct on the view of the radar. They really thought it was "pointless", but after Pearl Harbor they knew how important the technology could be. The opinion I have is that they learned that giving a heads up for because a flock of birds showed up on rather was better than ignoring weird signals and being bombed.

A year had gone by since Pearl Harbor. I think that is enough time to learn the capabilities of radar, and have some experience.

Even with formation (that they have, better than any other professional branch, since lifes depend on them) the operators could learn a lot from radars.

In my opinion, it wasn't human error reading the signals.

It's possible it could be some type of error of communication, or some sort, but not operator error.

You see that type of errors in ATC, not in military radars. Actually, if you notice, when a UFO appears, ATC's will contact military radars so they can tell them what it is.

Again, they use more than one radar to confirm a signal. In this case, you had 3 functional radars keeping track of the UFO.

Talking about specifications;

Radars around that time weren't simple and easy. It had a oscilloscope (spelling ), which is good and bad news.

Bad, because it showed two lines across the screen, and you could judge range, elevation and azimuth (I believe), meaning, human error is possible due to bad intrepertation of signals.

Good, because you could actually rulle out many things from the reading, if you knew what you were doing (which, I believe they did).

This is different from the PPI display system (traditional display in 2-D). In technical potential, better in those times, in my opinion.

This radar moved to track down targets. That means that this 3 radars actually kept following the object. And not only that, but they have to control that data I refered to... Elevation, range and azimuth(btw,if they worked like some civilian radars, I think that there was one operator for each value. Meaning, 3 human errors multiplied for 3 radars. That's a lot of people wrong)...

I don't know if this model was capable of that, but I think that this toys were already linked to the search light and to the AA guns. How precise, I don't know, but enough for them to use it.

With this, I'm trying to show that radars at that time weren't that "stone-age" like many people think. Yes, Nazis and the british had BETTER, but that doesn't mean that this radars were almost blind. They had some capability.

If you said "one radar picked up the object", I would say "human error".

But...12 operators (+/-) + HQ wrong and giving false air alarms for wrong readings? In my opinion, no, it wasn't a error from readings.

To which extent this has implications in the UFO that was on the target of the AA guns, that's up to WFA who knows the case a lot better than me and is capable of connecting the dots.

(or Arby to disconnect them. LOL )

reply to post by Phage


I fully agree (as has Arby) that multiple units could pick up a temperature inversion.

I fully disagree that multiple units could pick up and track a temperature inversion that was moving at roughly 300mph...

Surely you understand this discrepancy Phage?

When a return comes back, that's one thing, when you can track a moving object, that's another thing. Surely we are not suggesting that the windspeed that evening was in excess of 300mph, and that in such winds a temperature inversion could not only remain stable, but actually travel with the windspeed?

-WFA

reply to post by Phage


That's why yeti101 said it so well when he said "radar reading is an art".

It is. But we don't have any way of figuring out what was on the mind of the operators, except "oh noz, the natsis are cominge!"...

To which extent they were capable to know what was what, I don't know. But the radar was......nice, all things considered.

I have seen operators coming up with information with little data, just because they knew how to use their tools.

In a positive scenario, IMO, it wasn't a false reading.

[edit on 21/9/09 by Tifozi]

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


A thermal inversion is like oil on water. If you move it, it will dissipate (in MOST CASES lol).

[edit on 21/9/09 by Tifozi]

reply to post by Tifozi


Tifozi, just so you know, the aircraft of the day (and the SCR 270's) had 'friendly' codes, that US Aircraft were obligated to send in to Radar Posts.

This was a way of determining friend from foe.

Your post above is absolutely on point.

Additionally, Radar Operators were obligated to check each aircraft for the friendly signal.

I don't have time to dig through the thread for the direct link at the moment, but that information has been posted here, and linked to the source of the intel...

-WFA