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

reply to post by Blue Shift


I don't think its childish, it is an intelligent way of thinking. You aren't going to be fooled if you reserve judgment, however you have the chance of being fooled just as well in outright disbelief, if in fact it turns out to be true. I constantly struggle with finding answers to this subject in striking a balance between the two.

I do believe there is a lot more evidence of it being extraterrestrial than a minion of god, based on common religious beliefs. I am an atheist though, so I'm sure someone can come up with a way of relating a saucer shaped craft into an angel that I wouldn't understand or believe. It's just such a blatant apparently advanced craft smacking LA in the face for a few hours lit up by spotlights and AA guns.

I don't understand why the government would want to cover up an angel with a weather balloon story, seeing as how most already apparently believe in them anyways.

reply to post by Blue Shift


I think there are full motion video captures of the object hovering, which aircraft of that time could not do. Also, they would have been shot down quite easily, this isn't that easy to debunk.

Originally posted by RSF77
I don't understand why the government would want to cover up an angel with a weather balloon story, seeing as how most already apparently believe in them anyways.

Unless the angel is specifically pro-government, it would be seen as a threat. The government may not be able to continue to claim authority over people if it was shown that a higher (more powerful) authority was actively interacting with us. As long as "God and His Angels" remain relatively passive or inactive, the government can still claim authority to govern over day-to-day things like building roads or collecting taxes.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Honestly I'm kind of surprised the government didn't use that as a cover story, maybe ironically it would have been too unbelievable.

Sorry, somehow I double posted.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Perfectenemy

 

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.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

I found this excerpt from anon72's referenced source to be interesting.

Radars picked it up 120 miles west of LA at or about 0215. At or about 0221 it was within a few miles of the coast.
So, the object would have had to travel lets say (to be fair) 100 miles in about (to be fair) 10 minutes.
That would put the object's velocity at roughly 600 mph.
So, if the two different sightings referenced in this excerpt are the same object (big IF), and, if this object is the same object that was being fired upon, THEN there is no way it could have been a balloon.
Alot of IFs.
Either it was a very "capable" aircraft, or they were firing on nothing, and the objects sighted in the excerpt are un-related to the event.

Just some thoughts. I do enjoy this historical event though. Gets the imagination going. Thanks to the OP for refreshing the topic.

I've always wondered why there is only one photo of this?
It seems many would be taking pictures of this, and we'd have a whole lot.
It does seem to me to have a solid shape in the lights.
I think it might be a Haunebu.

reply to post by defuntion


outstanding observation.

I think you are onto something. Funny how that didn't appear to be discussed in the USAF report.

Looking at it now... seems very obvious.

Hi all

There have been suggestions that an Australian UFO sighting, 26 February 1942, Timor Sea, Methorst, is linked to the battle of Los Angeles. However a recent piece of research indicates there may be problems with the report.

Please take a look at: ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com...

I'm still quite interested in this dead thread, but it's good to see that even the most mainstream debunkers at "Fact or Faked" couldn't even replicate the photo with any of the modern arguments commonly used to debunk said photo.


If this were what the military and government said it was, it would've been shot down VERY easily, and came down quickly.

I'm very interested in seeing more photos or video of this particular indecent.

It's not so much that I "know there are aliens" but I know that the government didn't know what was happening, or did know and aren't giving us the facts.