The Battle Of Los Angeles: Photo analysis by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Phd.

reply to post by anon72


Nice post

I've always had an interet in this story, sometimes they are to easily forgotten.


I just wanted to share some related media and plug my old thread on the same event.. lol shamless cross promotion i know


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0578e4a9a176.jpg[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87e5dd327a89.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a8bd5a4c188e.jpg[/atsimg]


Some related links on the subject -

www.ufocasebook.com...

deletionpedia.dbatley.com...

www.majesticdocuments.com...



Here was my old thread of you want to have a look through, it has lots of info and some interesting links and snippets etc.

UFO History From Aurora, TX 1897 to Rosewell, NM 1947 and Beyond - Government Lies Cover Up


Thanks again for the post, every now and then these topics should be raised again to keep the memory alive

reply to post by Havick007


And boom there it is.

The strangely shaped weather balloon I mean.

Your advertisement worked though, I'm off to read your thread. (which was posted just 8 days before I joined)

reply to post by RSF77


Yeah have a look through if your interested in this subject, i never got around to finishing it though, i didnt add Roswell or a couple other small supposed events, i think the thread has passed it's use by date now so to speak...

The strangely shaped weather balloon I mean.

I understand the weather balloon theory but it would have had to be very strong to withstand the anti-aircraft shelling.... unless the army were a terrible shot

1942. A pre-Roswell incident. Probably the most remarkable pre-Roswell incident. "Flying saucers" were not part of the popular culture, and I'd say not even a concept.

This is a legit incident that moved troops and seriously fired off the alarms, in the fear of a possible war attack over Pacific coast towns, precisely LA.

Could it be a Japan-German Aircraft? It could, but if it was, how could we explain those nations showed little to none advanced flying technologies in war? Wouldnt they have used them to attack the US?

I frankly think this is one of the most interesting UFO incidents ever witnessed in History.

reply to post by AboveTheTrees


Have you heard of Aurora. TX in 1897?

I wont go into to much detail but have a look here -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will find alot of info if you Google it as well


There is also the Cape Girardeau Missouri crash in 1941, i dont know as much about that one but am working on updating my previous thread as a pre-qual to LA 1942

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yet we are to ignore thousands of eyewitnesses? Remember this isn't a video clip on Youtube or some schmuck posting a photo-shopped pic online. This was plastered all over the papers of the time with plenty of witnesses hell even the Military opened up on it.

AND YET... what do we have? A fuzzy photo. Some stories. A lot of trigger happy GIs with the jitters. Conflicting stories from official sources.

That's not a lot to hang a space helmet from.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

I am inclined to agree with you. While I would be delighted to see solid proof of visitation, I am much more inclined to debunk stuff like this... I remember that the firing upon the object and following panic was credited to "war nerves." That seems likely, but there was also alot of strange eyewitness testimony that said otherwise. I think it is still an interesting mystery.

reply to post by Havick007


Interesting transcript on your other thread Havick, haven't read that until now. The old lady makes a good point about crash test dummies in the 50s that I intend to research.

I was being sarcastic about the weather balloon, I don't think that's what the object over LA was.

reply to post by RSF77


ahhh sorry about the weather balloon lol i didnt pick up the sarcasm


Yeah that interview with June Crane is really interesting!! It's long though, it took me a couple of days reading it on and off to get through it all.

I am going to update and re-post the thread, with Roswell and also another incident from 1941. I am going to add some extra info, clips and sources to the Auroa and LA chapters. Just want to reformat it and make it easier to read.

I have about 4 pages open and 10 tabs in each, so it's gonna be a looong night lol.


Thanks again to Anon, your thread has inspired me to update and finish my previous thread

reply to post by Havick007


I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Going to check on the other stuff you posted.

I'm glad you liked the thread and have contributed.

If this was a balloon and the Army etc messed un and kept firing-thus causing damage/death etc. It is buried REAL DEEP and we'll never know the whole truth.

reply to post by anon72


I have always had an interest in this entire subject matter...

It amazes me that things like Battle LA, Roswell and other incidents were forgotten for many years and only revived in 80 and 90's....


I just re-posted and updated that thread -


www.abovetopsecret.com...



I am going to add Roswell to it either tonight or tomorrow, as you can imagine Roswell has the majority on information and sites, and sadly i wont have any new or exclusive information to add but it will complete the thread. Although in the new thread i added in the 1941 incident that covers a possible crash in Missouri (Chapter 3)



Thanks again for the 3rd time lol - you really inspired me to finish my original thread

Originally posted by iWokeUp
Yes i see what you mean about your thread being along the same lines as mine..

Three giant spaceships are heading for Earth - ATS

Someone in my thread asked why do i think that ET's would be hostile? I think thats very obvious, they have been here before and had antiaircraft shells fired at them !!
So next time come well armed !!

Typical, how our governments always have to 'shoot now, ask questions later'

What kind of logic do you have? You think the ETs will be hostile because they have been here and we fired anti aircraft shells at them! Maybe what you meant is that we are hostile.

I still don't think anyone has explained (or disproven the claim) about the "bent" light rays-as depicted in the article and supported by the pics.

Anyone?

I'd like to know what the general consensus is on this event by the "debunkers"
Balloon ? Seriously ?
All those rounds shot that night on the "object" ,yet could not take it down ?
That's one hell of a balloon !
Over 1,400 rounds, 90% of which were 50cal rounds while others were 28lbs 3" anti-aircraft artillery. Object was about 2,000ft up ...

15 seconds of your time here please ...
HERE

reply to post by SMR


Yeah, seriously. Here's the thing, weather balloons were made out of neoprene stretched by the pressure of inflating the balloon with helium. When punctured they collapse almost immediately as the stretched neoprene returns to it's base state. It obviously was not a weather balloon. Barrage balloons were bigger at 50-60 feet and made out of a non-elastic rubberized fabric. Most of what was shot at the object in the Battle of LA photo was .50 caliber machine gun fire. It would have punctured the balloon but the puncture would not have spread because the fabric was not elastic. It would have brought the balloon down eventually but not immediately. In all probability it was a barrage balloon that had escaped it's tether.

I'm very surprised by the lack of "debunkers" for this topic.

By my count, the general consenus is that a UFO was above LA that night.

It's origins-? but Something happened that can't be normally explained

However, it can't be positively confirmed by acutal physical evidence (that we have access to anyway).

So......

Mark another one up for those EVER so CLEVER and SNEAKY Aliens. They got away Again!!!!!

(or did they......... (the makings of a great movie or conspiracy story?)

What happened to the object after they shot the 1200 rounds? Did it just vanished or flew it away?

If it was really alien and instead of identifying it first we shot at it what would you think if you had been in that UFO? I would sure tell my homeworld those humans are hostile and not very friendly and a peaceful coexistence is out of the question for now. Maybe they came back later and got shot at again but this time there hull,shield,protective armor or whatever got hit..roswell anyone?

.

reply to post by Perfectenemy


It really never says... just that a cease fire was called and everything ended.

I found this 1983 USAF report on the matter:

1983, the Office of Air Force History concluded that an analysis of the evidence points to meteorological balloons as the cause of the initial alarm. "The Battle of Los Angeles" During the night of 24/25 February 1942, unidentified objects caused a succession of alerts in southern California. On the 24th, a warning issued by naval intelligence indicated that an attack could be expected within the next ten hours. That evening a large number of flares and blinking lights were reported from the vicinity of defense plants. An alert called at 1918 [7:18 p.m., Pacific time] was lifted at 2223, and the tension temporarily relaxed. But early in the morning of the 25th renewed activity began. Radars picked up an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Antiaircraft batteries were alerted at 0215 and were put on Green Alert—ready to fire—a few minutes later. The AAF kept its pursuit planes on the ground, preferring to await indications of the scale and direction of any attack before committing its limited fighter force. Radars tracked the approaching target to within a few miles of the coast, and at 0221 the regional controller ordered a blackout. Thereafter the information center was flooded with reports of "enemy planes, " even though the mysterious object tracked in from sea seems to have vanished. At 0243, planes were reported near Long Beach, and a few minutes later a coast artillery colonel spotted "about 25 planes at 12,000 feet" over Los Angeles. 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. Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes. In any case, the next three hours produced some of the most imaginative reporting of the war: "swarms" of planes (or, sometimes, balloons) of all possible sizes, numbering from one to several hundred, traveling at altitudes which ranged from a few thousand feet to more than 20,000 and flying at speeds which were said to have varied from "very slow" to over 200 miles per hour, were observed to parade across the skies. These mysterious forces dropped no bombs and, despite the fact that 1,440 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition were directed against them, suffered no losses. There were reports, to be sure, that four enemy planes had been shot down, and one was supposed to have landed in flames at a Hollywood intersection. Residents in a forty-mile arc along the coast watched from hills or rooftops as the play of guns and searchlights provided the first real drama of the war for citizens of the mainland. The dawn, which ended the shooting and the fantasy, also proved that the only damage which resulted to the city was such as had been caused by the excitement (there was at least one death from heart failure), by traffic accidents in the blacked-out streets, or by shell fragments from the artillery barrage. Attempts to arrive at an explanation of the incident quickly became as involved and mysterious as the "battle" itself. The Navy immediately insisted that there was no evidence of the presence of enemy planes, and [Secretary of the Navy], Frank Knox announced at a press conference on 25 February that the raid was just a false alarm. At the same conference he admitted that attacks were always possible and indicated that vital industries located along the coast ought to be moved inland. The Army had a hard time making up its mind on the cause of the alert. A report to Washington, made by the Western Defense Command shortly after the raid had ended, indicated that the credibility of reports of an attack had begun to be shaken before the blackout was lifted. This message predicted that developments would prove "that most previous reports had been greatly exaggerated." The Fourth Air Force had indicated its belief that there were no planes over Los Angeles. But the Army did not publish these initial conclusions. Instead, it waited a day, until after a thorough examination of witnesses had been finished. On the basis of these hearings, local commanders altered their verdict and indicated a belief that from one to five unidentified airplanes had been over Los Angeles. Secretary Stimson announced this conclusion as the War Department version of the incident, and he advanced two theories to account for the mysterious craft: either they were commercial planes operated by an enemy from secret fields in California or Mexico, or they were light planes launched from Japanese submarines. In either case, the enemy’s purpose must have been to locate anti-aircraft defenses in the area or to deliver a blow at civilian morale. The divergence of views between the War and Navy departments, and the unsatisfying conjectures advanced by the Army to explain the affair, touched off a vigorous public discussion. The Los Angeles Times, in a first-page editorial on 26 February, announced that "the considerable public excitement and confusion" caused by the alert, as well as its "spectacular official accompaniments," demanded a careful explanation. Fears were expressed lest a few phony raids undermine the confidence of civilian volunteers in the aircraft warning service. In Congress, Representative Leland Ford wanted to know whether the incident was "a practice raid, or a raid to throw a scare into 2,000,000 people, or a mistaken identity raid, or a raid to take away Southern California’s war industries." Wendell Willkie, speaking in Los Angeles on 26 February, assured Californians on the basis of his experiences in England that when a real air raid began "you won’t have to argue about it—you’ll just know." He conceded that military authorities had been correct in calling a precautionary alert but deplored the lack of agreement between the Army and Navy. A strong editorial in the Washington Post on 27 February called the handling of the Los Angeles episode a "recipe for jitters," and censured the military authorities for what it called "stubborn silence" in the face of widespread uncertainty. The editorial suggested that the Army’s theory that commercial planes might have caused the alert "explains everything except where the planes came from, whither they were going, and why no American planes were sent in pursuit of them." The New York Times on 28 February expressed a belief that the more the incident was studied, the more incredible it became: "If the batteries were firing on nothing at all, as Secretary Knox implies, it is a sign of expensive incompetence and jitters. If the batteries were firing on real planes, some of them as low as 9,000 feet, as Secretary Stimson declares, why were they completely ineffective? Why did no American planes go up to engage them, or even to identify them?... What would have happened if this had been a real air raid?" These questions were appropriate, but for the War Department to have answered them in full frankness would have involved an even more complete revelation of the weakness of our air defenses. At the end of the war, the Japanese stated that they did not send planes over the area at the time of this alert, although submarine-launched aircraft were subsequently used over Seattle. A careful study of the evidence suggests that meteorological balloons—known to have been released over Los Angeles —may well have caused the initial alarm. This theory is supported by the fact that anti-aircraft artillery units were officially criticized for having wasted ammunition on targets which moved too slowly to have been airplanes. After the firing started, careful observation was difficult because of drifting smoke from shell bursts. The acting commander of the anti-aircraft artillery brigade in the area testified that he had first been convinced that he had seen fifteen planes in the air, but had quickly decided that he was seeing smoke. Competent correspondents like Ernie Pyle and Bill Henry witnessed the shooting and wrote that they were never able to make out an airplane. It is hard to see, in any event, what enemy purpose would have been served by an attack in which no bombs were dropped, unless perhaps, as Mr. Stimson suggested, the purpose had been reconnaissance.

The Army Air Forces in World War II, prepared under the editorship of Wesley Frank Craven, James Lea Cate. v.1, pp. 277-286, Washington, D.C. : Office of Air Force History : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1983

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by anon72


In most cases I would be one of those debunkers, with the LA air raid there is just too much proof that what was in the sky was not something conventional. I generally believe that it was a legitimate UFO in the sky that night, you can argue that it is not extraterrestrial though because it didn't land to have a press conference.

I might be a full blown skeptic if it wasn't for this and the 1952 Washington DC flap, shame no one knows about these events anymore in the 21st century. I think a good quantity of people might be looking this stuff up after watching History channel programs and watching movies like Battle:LA, the evidence would be the constantly rising number of people that believe UFOs are a very real phenomenon. Too many people just take it way over the top in their excitement and it makes UFOs look like hocus pocus, when it is probably anything but that.

Originally posted by itsatrap
And second, I myself am not 100% positive on what happened that night in 1942. I completely understand being skeptical, I am, but dude are you really going to actually sit there and proclaim that NOTHING about this says "aliens" to you?

Nope. And I don't think it's childish to think so. In fact, quite the opposite.

The event could have been caused by any number of other things besides aliens. Aliens is not my default answer for things I don't have enough evidence to explain. "Aliens" is really no different than saying the explanation is "angels." An Angel of the Lord flew over Los Angeles (Culver City) to check on the people there. There is equal evidence to suggest the event was caused by angels as there is that aliens were responsible. One just sounds a little more scientific.

Originally posted by SMR
I'd like to know what the general consensus is on this event by the "debunkers"

I don't know if there's a consensus, but the general thinking about the matter is that a formation of Navy planes patrolling the shore for Japanese submarines (there was an attack on a Santa Barbara oil rig a couple days before) went off course on their way back to their base in Orange County and somebody with an itchy trigger finger started firing. They were altitude adjusted rounds, and started going off at around 2,000 feet. The wayward planes immediately high-tailed it out to sea to avoid getting blasted, but by then more artillery had opened up at the smoke cloud the other rounds had made. Pretty soon everybody was pointing their spotlights and firing at this cloud, which got even denser as more rounds went off into it and by it. It slowly drifted south with the wind and out to sea south of Long Beach.

It was such a stupid and spectacularly typical military-type snafu that the commanders all decided to lie and deny to avoid looking like complete fools and unable to protect the coast. Not a good thing with everybody jumpy about more possible Japanese attacks. It was decided to suggest that maybe it was saboteurs or Fifth Columnists based out in the desert, and generally shut up about it until other war news took people's attention away and they stopped asking about it. Which is what happened.

Now, maybe that's not exactly what happened, but it could be something like that. Most folks who have served in the military know what it's about, how stupid little crap can get way out of control, and how people tend to shift the blame. That's what this whole episode sounds like.