| Thread Closed |
"The Battle of Los Angeles" - *Audio of original news broadcast linked* |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Oct27-06, 11:01 PM | #18 |
|
|
"The Battle of Los Angeles" - *Audio of original news broadcast linked*
A personal accounting of the event is given by a professor of anthropology who adds a few surprising comments.
http://frankwarren.blogspot.com/2006...s-angeles.html |
| Mar5-11, 08:44 PM | #19 |
|
|
Given that Hollywood is playing with history, it seemed reasonable to give this thread a bump.
The Real Player link above doesn't appear to be working, but the WMP file still does. WMP: http://mfile.akamai.com/5022/wma/coa...s_news_ufo.asx |
| Mar8-11, 01:44 PM | #20 |
|
|
Hmmmm... given the conusion at the time, the weak RADAR by our standards, and what you can clearly see and read as being a state of panic... who the heck knows?
I doubt we'll ever know, but it doesn't strike me as being overly significant except that we were waiting for another attack from that direction. |
| Mar10-11, 08:45 AM | #21 |
|
|
|
| Mar10-11, 09:05 AM | #22 |
|
|
The "why", or "who"... can only be speculation IMO. Was it ours, and a mistake was made, and a secret kept so that a potential technology or weapon wasn't exposed? Maybe, or maybe it was a gift from Nippon, but who knows? If this was a "right hand doesn't know what the left is doing" this is not a situation in which that would have come to light... better a UFO of whatever stripe than, "Whoops, air defense tracked our balloon that drifted off course..." I can only say that as UFO's go, it fits a balloon very well, or a 'basket' with a series of balloons hung from different lengths above it. edit: It could have been some form of helicopter perhaps?... although I'm still going with balloon , not a rigid frame |
| Mar10-11, 09:11 AM | #23 |
|
|
To me it seems unreasonable or even irrational to assume that a 1400 rounds of fire couldn't get close enough to a balloon moving at less than 1 mph, to damage it beyond flight capability; esp when considering the photo on the front page of the LA Times the next morning. They didn't need a direct hit. Anything in the neighborhood should have been sufficient to take it down. In fact, any of the shells seen exploding in the photo should have taken it down, but it remained aloft for at least another thirty minutes after the photo was taken. Also, no balloon was ever found.
Some eyewitnesses reported seeing a large craft. Btw, I don't know if I mentioned this earlier in this thread, but my dad was living there at the time and remembered collecting shell fragments the next morning. My aunt was home alone with a new baby and a husband overseas. There was an ack-ack gun in her neighbor's backyard. It was all so terrifying that to this day she refuses to talk about that night. |
| Mar10-11, 09:13 AM | #24 |
|
|
A direct hit though... that would be hard to explain away... |
| Mar10-11, 09:54 AM | #25 |
|
|
|
| Mar10-11, 10:22 AM | #26 |
|
|
A dirct hit with either should have destroyed ANY balloon, but flak at least has a chance of bursting well off target if the altitude is at all off. Still... it is very odd... it's the only reason I'm reaching for, 'multiple balloons, suspended high above the body caught in searchlights and flashes.' It could have been a really clever drill, but I admitted before and will again, I doubt we'll evere know. SOMETHING was there, tracked on radar, caught in searchlights, and a hell of a lot of live rounds were expended... it's a mystery to me. |
| Mar10-11, 02:42 PM | #27 |
|
|
I understand that in 1983 the Air Force pointed towards meteorological balloons as the culprit. I don't think that's too far-fetched to believe. A weather balloon would be too high to be affected by flak guns and, during that time, I believe they were known to cause radar "ghosts" on the clouds below.
I'm kind of hunting for a source right now, and all I have is the Army's official statement about the event on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles) @Nismar: I wouldn't be so sure something was caught in the spotlights. A light hitting a spot on a cloud could create the initial illusion. Once additional lights are drawn to the area (as in the famous photo), the contrast would likely be too high against the dark sky to be able to make out anything but a disc-shape. I kid you not when I say an ex-girlfriend called me in a panic from Taco Bell saying there was a UFO above the clouds. It was a searchlight. I can only imagine that multiple in one area would conflate the problem. |
| Mar10-11, 03:46 PM | #28 |
|
|
Flex, the military has offered a number of explanations. First was that people actually saw US planes. The next was the nothing was there at all. The latter explanation was rejected by at least one ranking official. If a balloon was so high that no gun could hit it, then it would seem that no one should have seen it. Also note the angle of the lights from the Hollywood hills. Those hills are only about 1000 feet high. The target couldn't have been too high. Maccabee guesses the altitude to be about 8000 feet based on his analysis, but there is no way to know for certain. I think the ack-ack guns were good to about 20,000 feet but haven't spotted a source for the guns in use at that time - I Don't know if that's real information or something I saw in a movie. But just by looking at the photo, altitude didn't seem to be a problem. The shells appear to be bursting at about the proper height. Were all lights trained on a cloud with guns firing? This goes back to the suggestion that nothing was there in the first place. But that is inconsistent with testimony from the time. Keep in mind that this event lasted for thirty minutes with the track of the object clearly identified; both time and distance. |
| Mar10-11, 04:08 PM | #29 |
|
|
Note that one witness, a now retired Professor of Anthroplogy [C. Scott Littleton], states that the object was a glowing blob.
|
| Mar10-11, 07:40 PM | #30 |
|
|
Hmmm... well the "glowing blob" idea could very well fit with a weather balloon, and tracking via RADAR without guiding shells and fusing would almost certainly fall well short... although it might look impressive. On the other hand, it seems like a rather huge mistake to make, at the cost of so many live rounds, but that's just speculation .
The clouds... this could be as Flex says it... or not. If this balloon were illuminated, it would certainly produce a diffuse "glow", and I'd imagine clouds would too. We'd need to know if the spotlights converged on a "guide" via RADAR, or if it was just flocking to one point. One thing, you an definitely have a weather balloon WAAAAY up there, beyond the reach of flak shells, and still be visible depending on the design, or it could be tracked on RADAR and the rest was about the exploding shells and searchlights. Given the well deserved fear at the time, and the need to cover even a simple error... I doubt we'll ever know. Truly a UFO, even if Flex's explanation is the one I... well... prefer. |
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: "The Battle of Los Angeles" - *Audio of original news broadcast linked*
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| The original UFO conspiracy "nuts" | General Discussion | 18 | ||
| News Story: "Twin Paradox Solved" | General Discussion | 9 | ||
| Complexity: distinctions of synonyms of "original" | General Discussion | 4 | ||
| Task on MTV "Battle of the Sexes": Obstacle course atop moving trucks | General Physics | 1 | ||
| News reports of signal from "ET" off-base, say scientists | General Physics | 0 | ||