Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
bouncer

Battle for LA. One of my faves

148 posts in this topic

Oh yeah I remember looking into it when I was deep into researching about the Roswell incident! I wanted to know more about this though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you search the UFO section here there is a really good in depth debate on the subject..... :tu:

(if you struggle to find it PM me and I will find a link for you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is very interesting... Sucks we'll never know what is was.

Referring to 4:45-5:05.

The man says that the Japanese having records that they had no plane in the area is 'definitive proof' that the didn't. Before that he says there were no records of US planes either, but people definitely saw them.

A bit of a contradiction?

Would the Japanese ever admit if they did have a plane in the area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a clip from Ancient Aliens.. very entertaining and interesting show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The "Battle of LA" was most likely caused by war nerves. And that photo of searchlights emerging, making the clouds/smoke from the antiaircraft guns looking like that classic old saucer proves nothing.

http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist9/aaf2.html

Edited by DBunker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99.9% sure it was green gun crews shooting at each other's shell bursts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad the movie was just a 90 minute advertisement for the Marines..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Battle of LA" was most likely caused by war nerves. And that photo of searchlights emerging, making the clouds/smoke from the antiaircraft guns looking like that classic old saucer proves nothing.

http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist9/aaf2.html

Good link, DB,... That is most likely what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that sure surprised me with the whole BOLA deal was the sophistication of the artillery. Directors are far more complex than I would have imagined for the time frame, those links Lost Shaman left were nothing short of fascinating.

LINK - Directors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder If we could hit the side of the barn today If E.T Flew into our Air space?

Most likely not ! Afterall they dont exsist right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Battle of LA" was most likely caused by war nerves. And that photo of searchlights emerging, making the clouds/smoke from the antiaircraft guns looking like that classic old saucer proves nothing.

http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist9/aaf2.html

On the latest "Best evidence" thread myself and others were able to show that "war nerves" and "smoke" were almost certainly not the cause of the events nor did the contemporary Press buy that explanation in the days and weeks following the event.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the latest "Best evidence" thread myself and others were able to show that "war nerves" and "smoke" were almost certainly not the cause of the events nor did the contemporary Press buy that explanation in the days and weeks following the event.

it amazes me at times....were we not all having that same conversation???? how can people then reach the conclusion of 'most likely just war nerves' especailly if they followed the thread you mention.

One thing that sure surprised me with the whole BOLA deal was the sophistication of the artillery. Directors are far more complex than I would have imagined for the time frame, those links Lost Shaman left were nothing short of fascinating.

LINK - Directors.

I agree, and wasnt this one of the key elements that worked against 'just jittery nerves' explanation??? (coupled with the RADAR tracking an object for 120 miles in a short period of time)

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So why dont we bring out the big guns when we track a UFO on radar today? :)

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why dont we bring out the big guns when we track a UFO on radar today?

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, but I guess it's because we aren't in the middle of a world war..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, but I guess it's because we aren't in the middle of a world war..

And that's exactly the point. It's pretty darn hard not to be a bit jittery (not to mention trigger happy) in the midst of a World War. Especially considering what had just gone down at Pearl Harbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, but I guess it's because we aren't in the middle of a world war..

Good point,... and that is where the "war nerves" speculation comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang that movie sucked balls uber hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks 'war nerves' or 'trigger happiness' played any role doesn't understand how the guns involed worked or the History itself. For example we knew the Japanese Fleet was nowhere near the American west coast on the day in question, we did know that a lone Japanese sub had been near the coast but it couldn't not have accounted for the 'unidentified' object that caused the AA guns to fire upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it amazes me at times....were we not all having that same conversation???? how can people then reach the conclusion of 'most likely just war nerves' especailly if they followed the thread you mention.

Who knows? Maybe intellectual laziness, or maybe just a strong will to believe what they've heard others tell them? It's hard to understand.

I agree, and wasnt this one of the key elements that worked against 'just jittery nerves' explanation??? (coupled with the RADAR tracking an object for 120 miles in a short period of time)

Quite right. The way the guns and searchlights worked it is almost impossible to fire into thin air, they required a legitimate target to fire at all and this is certainly true for those few guns that where RADAR directed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANd not even a feather feel to earth,much less a Alien Starship. Or Zero,and V-2 rocket,? Have I left anything out ?

Oh ! Oh ! Lots of pride fell to earth that night !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks 'war nerves' or 'trigger happiness' played any role doesn't understand how the guns involed worked or the History itself. For example we knew the Japanese Fleet was nowhere near the American west coast on the day in question, we did know that a lone Japanese sub had been near the coast but it couldn't not have accounted for the 'unidentified' object that caused the AA guns to fire upon it.

Correct me if I'm wrong LS, but the guns do not fire of their own volition. My recollection of the cumulative research in that whole discussion led to the conclusion that there was only one director that was actually linked to radar, and that only controlled the aiming of the AA guns, not the actual firing.

So while this may account for the aiming and firing of one of the batteries, it certainly wouldn't account for all of them.

It has been a long time, so I may not be recalling this correctly.

To say that war nerves played no role at all, I think, is not entirely accurate; no more so than blaming war nerves for the whole ordeal. I agree that more than just war nerves was at play in the incident, but I also think that said nerves did indeed play a role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong LS, but the guns do not fire of their own volition. My recollection of the cumulative research in that whole discussion led to the conclusion that there was only one director that was actually linked to radar, and that only controlled the aiming of the AA guns, not the actual firing.

That's right there were multiple crews involved to operate the guns which a fire control Officer was in charge of each gun who had the responibility of ordering the gun to be fired. Here the RADAR which had it's own two man operating crew could replace four 2-3 man observation crews which did eliminate the need for Searchlights but at this point in the war searchlights were still in use and the RADAR was also capable of directing four searchlights which could be electronically aimed by the RADAR inputs itself or by having the two man searchlight crew manually cranking the searchlight controls that move the searchlight using a zero meter, so by cranking their respective controls so that their meters read zero they follow the same target the RADAR is tracking.

So while this may account for the aiming and firing of one of the batteries, it certainly wouldn't account for all of them.

Right. It accounts for four guns and four searchlights. Those batteries which were not connected to the RADAR relied on the observation crews to see the target, the same system was used here in that these observation crews scaned the sky for targets and the searhclight crews followed the direstion they would look in exactly the same way as when the RADAR was used by keepin their zero meters zeroed. Once the observation crew found a legitimate target they would then track it just as the RADAR crew would do. In both instances the tracking information is sent to the Fire director (a computer) that calculates a firing solution that send the information to the zero meters of the gun crew who keep their meters zeroed and the Officer with the fire director crew is the person who then orders the gun to start firing.

It has been a long time, so I may not be recalling this correctly.

To say that war nerves played no role at all, I think, is not entirely accurate; no more so than blaming war nerves for the whole ordeal. I agree that more than just war nerves was at play in the incident, but I also think that said nerves did indeed play a role.

I disagree. The Army who was in command of the incident never said or admitted "war nerves" played any role, it was an off the cuff comment from the Secretary of the Navy who had political reasons for saying that, this is where that idea originates and it has no basis in reality but rather politics of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarifications, I'm glad that I haven't completely forgotten all the details! :P

I disagree. The Army who was in command of the incident never said or admitted "war nerves" played any role, it was an off the cuff comment from the Secretary of the Navy who had political reasons for saying that, this is where that idea originates and it has no basis in reality but rather politics of the time.

You are certainly entitled to disagree, and I fully respect your opinion on the matter. To me though, a lack of admission on the part of the Army really isn't relevant.

There must come a point where common sense overrides an apparent lack of historical documentation. Would you reasonably expect the Army to come forward and admit anything about war nerves even if it was true? I wouldn't.

Coming on the heels of Pearl Harbor I doubt there were many in the service who weren't on edge; especially along our borders and coastlines.

It is more than reasonable to assume that at least some of the young servicemen there in LA, as it was a training ground after all, would likely be on edge and prone to 'war nerves.' Once the firing started, there is little doubt in my mind that at least some others would follow suit and start shooting in kind.

It is, of course, just my opinion.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for the clarifications, I'm glad that I haven't completely forgotten all the details! :P

You are certainly entitled to disagree, and I fully respect your opinion on the matter. To me though, a lack of admission on the part of the Army really isn't relevant.

The respect is mutual. That said, I don't find the Secretary of the Navy's off the cuff remark as relevant.

There must come a point where common sense overrides an apparent lack of historical documentation. Would you reasonably expect the Army to come forward and admit anything about war nerves even if it was true? I wouldn't.

If it wasn't true that "war nerves" were a cause the Army wouldn't admit that was the case either.

Coming on the heels of Pearl Harbor I doubt there were many in the service who weren't on edge; especially along our borders and coastlines.

Our coastlines have been defended by experienced personnel for hundreds of years. This is why a RADAR battery was present. Our coastal defences were cutting edge.

It is more than reasonable to assume that at least some of the young servicemen there in LA, as it was a training ground after all, would likely be on edge and prone to 'war nerves.' Once the firing started, there is little doubt in my mind that at least some others would follow suit and start shooting in kind.

It is, of course, just my opinion.

Cheers.

I'd ask you how that could happen when the different crews all have to be on the same target just fire one of four guns?

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.