The Battle of L.A in 1942 was a Nazi Haunebu III UFO? New Enchanced Photos.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Von Braun was in Germany during the time you posit...he didn't come to the US until Operation Paperclip brought him here in the late 40's. As to the rest of it, I've no clue. Do you have some links that might help me?

Originally posted by OzWeatherman


Plus, if they had that kind of vehicle, dont you think the second world war would have come to an end right there, rather than 3 years later, for the other side

Yes, it would. Only if the Nazi's found a way to stabilise their saucers with weaponry in time.
They had a couple of prototypes with externally mounted cannons, but they disrupted the electric field in a way that it made them impossible to fly.

reply to post by seagull


I recall something under:

THE ROCKET RACKET - Wernher von Braun, Willy Ley, Dr. Robert Goddard, And The Kreisel Teller-p2, In New Mexico and Peenemunde The facts in this section bring forth some very interesting questions which were missed by Charles Higham, in his Trading with the Enemy. Beginning around March 26, 1926, when Dr. Robert Goddard (1882-1945), professor of physics at Clarke University in Massachusetts, launched the first liquid-fueled rocket, at Auburn. In Germany, Willy Ley had read Hermann Oberth’s book on space travel that year, then wrote his own first book, Trip into Space. He communicated with Oberth, then formed the Verein fur Raumschiffahrt (“Union for Space Travel”). In 1927, Ley introduced Wernher von Braun to the Union, and was von Braun’s first tutor in rocket research.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

and also before:

Also working in rocketry in 1930s New Mexico, was the late Peter Van Dresser, who was the originator of “Van Dresser’s Constant”, a mathematical constant which von Braun and others used to calculate the trajectory of rockets fired into England and Antwerp. Van Dresser was bitter and disgruntled about the fact that Dr. Robert Goddard not only got all the credit for pioneer rocket research, but also had “collaborated with the Nazis”, via his pre-war work with von Braun, while he, Van Dresser, had done more important research, had no truck with the Nazis, and had gotten very little, if any, of the credit.

Can't say that we can check passports when such an event is top secret.
The VB story goes as Willy Ley was the first foreign invite to the
America Rocket Society he left with Peter van Dresser as Goddard
and the Army took over control of the society.
VB was Hitlers replacement for Ley.
There were 7 ' Tesla coils, the ether pressure type, still at Los Alamos in
the 1990s and work other than the rocket society is suspect for VB.
In essence Tesla may have instructed VB.

As for pre 1912 Tesla may have collaborated with Illuminati Astor for
funds and perhaps worked out father west on his main saucer project
or dirigible torpedo.

Understood if VB went back to Hitler with rocket secrets still used
today to boost performance, that would be enough to hide the
evidence, except for a lot of social networking as the Lyne researcher
seems to have achieved to find the story. Above the secret of the
engine would be saucer propulsion.

Alienscientist reveals the new discovery of free energy antigravity -- the convergence of sound velocity with light velocity as the quantum transition energy:

www.youtube.com.../a/u/5/F4I5mgBKPZY

And connecting it to the Nazi Bell technology:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 15-2-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by drew hempel]

nice thread op


if only i can go to the moon!!..i will ask the nazis in person

Does anyone remember seeing a photo of the battle of LA where a large metallic cylinder is over the city and being fired at? I for the life of me cannot find it yet have seen it multiple times! It was lit up by search lights and appeared to be huge. More timeline fudging?

[edit on 15/2/10 by GhostR1der]

Originally posted by Phage
No one had any clear idea or view of anything that night. There were no planes in the air, no blimps, no giant butterflies, nothing but possibly a weather balloon and a lot of smoke.
[edit on 2/15/2010 by Phage]

I agree with the first part of that post, but judging by the image, it is certainly not a weather balloon. Being someone that launches them for a living, Ive seen almost every type of weather balloon ever, and the shape is completely wrong (well by the picture, it appears wrong). And the size too. Even the biggest high altitude balloons will not appear that big from such a distance, and the lack of altitude and movement (it was almost stationary at one point, and moving slowly) is completely bizarre as well. Also, if a balloon is that close it would have been obliterated by the artillery.

Like I said before, we can only speculate what it was and go by the eye witness accounts. Its just to bad that many are conflicting and the military used so many shells creating that smoke

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

First, there's no clear evidence of any UFO. All I see in that picture are clouds of smoke. Like I said the picture is a Rorschach test, you see what you want to see.

Second, I did provide evidence, that the balloons were launched, were tracked by the people that launched them, that they identified and reported that it was the balloon being shot at.

I am not sure where your going with this but (tongue in cheek) that was my attempt of humour, a UFO is an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object, the army aren't going to fire shell after shell at a cloud of smoke, that would be foolish. I believe this even was witnessed by many people and everyone thought that it was advanced NAZI technology including the army, am I wrong?

Originally posted by seagull
Since there is no real evidence other than this very old, and not very good, picture;

Franspeakfree and Seagull, you both say there's no real evidence other than the picture, but I have to disagree on that. I think the statements and some even exact quotes from these folks need to be considered as evidence, and I'll repost some key pieces of that evidence here as a reminder why I think it's important and some other quotes I haven't posted before. Two witnesses are:
-Lieutenant Melvin Timm, the officer in charge of Battery D’s meteorological operations
-Lieutenant John E. Moore, officer in charge of the meteorological operations at Sawtelle

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.

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.’

By the time Timm released his balloon, the city had been under red-alert conditions for more than half an hour; searchlights were on and probing the sky; and anti-aircraft gunners, fingers on their triggers, were nervously following the searchlight beams in hopes of spotting the anticipated enemy planes. It was at this time that Sergeant George Holmes, who had launched Battery D's balloon, called Timm, saying he was no longer able to track it, that someone was shooting at it.

At regimental headquarters they were having the same problem. The officer in charge of the meteorological operations at Sawtelle, Lieutenant John E. Moore, recalled: 'As soon as [their] balloon attained altitude and was carried up the coast by the wind, searchlights came on, picked up the balloon and shortly thereafter, 3-inch anti-aircraft guns began firing. Corporal John O'Connell, in charge of tracking the balloon, ran to me and reported, `Lieutenant, they're firing at my balloon!' I went to the theodolite to verify his report and, sure enough, bursts of AA fire were exploding all around it causing it to bounce and dance all over the sky. I immediately reported to our regimental commanding officer, Colonel Ray Watson, that the guns were firing at our balloon and that there were no aircraft in sight.'

Now, I know what people will say, that there were many other witnesses besides those two and some saw hundreds of planes, some saw no planes, some saw a giant butterfly, or what have you, and some of the witnesses must be wrong because there can't be no planes and over 200 planes at the same time. You would be right to point that out, we really shouldn't trust any eyewitnesses without good reason. So why am I presenting these two eyewitness accounts as evidence when I'm the one usually prattling on about how unreliable witness accounts are? Good question, I'll share my reasoning with you.

These 2 officers, Timm, and Moore, launched balloons every day, it was a normal event. They know what the balloons look like, they track them, and they do it over and over again. So when these folks launch balloons on a daily basis and see them all the time and know what they look like, when they say they see a balloon, especially one that they launched and were tracking so they definitely know that's what it is, there is a higher credibility associated with that than many of the other eyewitness accounts.

Contrast that to what the other eyewitnesses saw. Guns were firing into the sky, and this was NOT a normal event. People were seeing things that they were NOT normally accustomed to seeing. They saw things in the sky that they did not launch themselves, and they did NOT track to their present location, like the balloon operators did. So I think there is ample cause to weigh the accounts of the meteorological officers as more highly credible, than the multitudes of other eyewitness accounts that were hopelessly at variance and had no idea what they were looking at because they didn't launch it, didn't track it, and couldn't see it very well. So that's my logic for weighing the meteorlogical officers' statements regarding their balloons as credible evidence, which not regarding most other witness testimony as not credible since the conflicting accounts were mutually exclusive and couldn't possibly all be true. You can agree or disagree with my interpretation as you like, but that's the way I see it.

And again I do think there was a conspiracy which is noteworthy to point out on this conspiracy site, in an exact quote from Lieutenant Timm:

"'When Captain Harris gave him my story,' said Timm, 'I was summoned. I was told to keep my mouth shut, and that there had been seven Japanese planes up there. I was also told that if I repeated my story about shooting at a balloon and not enemy planes, I would be put behind bars.'"

Again you have to judge the credibility of this for yourself. I find it credible. If people were being ordered to say they saw planes, then it's not surprising that some people would say that.

@Franspeakfree, you said "a UFO is an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object, the army aren't going to fire shell after shell at a cloud of smoke, that would be foolish", there WAS NO UFO!!! That's a fantasy that someone invented years after the fact. If you say it's foolish to fire guns at puffs of smoke, who can argue with that, but I would also argue that if you or me or anyone else posting in this forum had been manning those guns that night, we could have done the exact same thing given the nervousness in the air at that time. Need I remind you once again that at least one battery admitted that they didn't see anything and were firing anyway?

At least one unit, the 211th Coast Artillery Regiment, admitted that although its members did not see any planes, they shot anyway.

That's foolish too right? But it happened. It's not a stretch to think the other batteries might also be firing even though they didn't see anything. But they would be reluctant to admit it since they were wasting expensive ammo.

The gunners had itchy trigger fingers and were ready to shoot at anything, all they needed was a spark to set them off, and the balloons launched at 3am provided that spark. Once the guns started going off firing at the balloon that was all the excuse all the other batteries needed to pull the trigger and start firing. If you think this is not reasonable, rational or logical to do so, you would be right, but if you think it is not reasonable, rational, or logical to think this could very well be exactly what happened, you would be wrong to not at least consider it a distinct possibility. If you're not sure why this is so, then I encourage you to study human psychology under stressful wartime situations. We have little appreciation for what was going through their minds sitting here comfortably at our keyboards, which is why I can understand how some might find this hard to understand. But if you open your mind and try to put yourself in the shoes of the people that night at that time right after Pearl Harbor, and on red alert, you will have a better chance of understanding this possibility.

I admit nobody is 100% certain of all the details of everything that happened that night, including me. But I'm 99.999% certain that balloons were launched about 3am, and that if you allow a few minutes for the balloons to raise to an altitude where they could be seen, that's exactly when the shooting started, shortly after 3am. Now for me that makes it easy to put 2 and 2 together and say that even without the evidence of the meteorological lieutenants watching their balloons, there is a pretty good chance that the timing of the balloon launch and the opening fire wasn't a coincidence. But when you add the testimony of Timm and Moore, who DID launch, track and monitor their balloons and reported that they were in fact being shot at, it goes from a pretty good chance to a near certainty, again 99.999% in my mind, that the balloons STARTED the shooting.

After that, I don't have evidence that what they were shooting at was really puffs of smoke, other than the famous picture in the OP, which I admit is subject to interpretation. In that picture, I see puffs of smoke, and what looks like evidence that the guns were shooting at puffs of smoke. You may interpret the picture differently according to my Rorschach test theory, and if you do that's fine and we can agree to disagree on that point. But I honestly don't see any UFO in that picture, and nobody ever mentioned a UFO as far as I know at the time it happened, that idea was a later invention. As Phage pointed out, planes, yes. Nothing, yes. Balloon, yes. Giant butterfly, yes. UFO, no, I don't think so.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Does anyone remember seeing a photo of the battle of LA where a large metallic cylinder is over the city and being fired at? I for the life of me cannot find it yet have seen it multiple times! It was lit up by search lights and appeared to be huge. More timeline fudging?

You mean the one that's on the OP first post?

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Does anyone remember seeing a photo of the battle of LA where a large metallic cylinder is over the city and being fired at? I for the life of me cannot find it yet have seen it multiple times! It was lit up by search lights and appeared to be huge. More timeline fudging?

[edit on 15/2/10 by GhostR1der]

You know I think that is the Tesla Dirigible Torpedo artwork.
I noticed the similarity.
You and myself might has superimposed them thought wise.
There was an accusation in the news papers that the DT didn't work.
Like Tesla didn't show it off.
Well he came back a said it was fully tested and works fine.
Take that Illuminati Toyota.
Under contract to Astor or others Tesla had to keep things in their corner.
Evidently the US government funded little, or did they.
The FBI had to take all the Death Ray work but said little didn't they.
However what the US didn't want seems to have gone to Germany
in 1914 to the Navy. I get responses like a 50 mile coil powers better
than nukes in small subs by 1944 of 200 in number. The Glomar
Challenger went after a few it is assumed.
Then of course there is the FOO propulsion that VB might have helped
in working out engineering wise. Voltage is consider a pressure force
and worked out as a mechanical process like sound in air but sound
in ether or pressure force. Of course there is no voltage ether force,
or is there.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2/15/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
I agree with the first part of that post, but judging by the image, it is certainly not a weather balloon.

You seem have the idea that some people think they were firing at a balloon the whole time. Phage doesn't think that, neither do I, nor does anyone I know. So we all agree the image doesn't show a balloon, the balloons only started the firing and may have had little to do with continued firing once it started.

But I think reasonable people can disagree about what the image actually shows. To me it looks like puffs of smoke from AA rounds exploding in the air, but I can understand how some other people might interpret it differently. But I don't think anybody sees a balloon there.

reply to post by TravisT


Nope it was like a huge drainage pipe suspended in midair and appeared to be metallic. It didn't fit in a central part of where the searchbeams meet.. would have been approx 5x longer than the 'central blob' and lit up by search lights and artillery puffs all around it. I'll have a look on my laptop in case I have a copy. I even posted on youtube a comment about LA and the large metallic cylinder, as it struck me as one of the most amazing UFO photos I have ever seen.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But I don't think anybody sees a balloon there.

Ah ok

Im getting myself confused there...cheers for explaining it

Originally posted by TimothyMartin

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37e9c7db7ad0.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c4d76940b8c.jpg[/atsimg]

Its OK folks
mystery solved

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b26656bbb49.jpg[/atsimg]