Battle of L.A. ~another UFO hoax

[bendigger0]

Most people now realize this was a promotional stunt for a sci-movie.

[Likely Guy]

No, actually they don't. Do you have a link for that?

[Mantis914]

Most people now realize this was a promotional stunt for a sci-movie.

[media=]

[/media]

Huh? Wait a minute. This was a promo for a sci fi movie? After the War of the Worlds scare in 1938, the military is going to call a citywide blackout and fire all that ammo at a target for a movie and during a major war??

[bendigger0]

No, actually they don't. Do you have a link for that?

Just kidding... i know it was real... but saying it's a real event doesn't get much traction here. I just like to discuss these things... keep a dialog open. Lot of rabid nay-sayers here, and folks that just like to argue... So, if i say it's a hoax, maybe the contrarians will insist it's a factual case? thanks for checking it out. It's one of the great UFO cases. And there's SO MANY... but not one word from Government.

[bendigger0]

Huh? Wait a minute. This was a promo for a sci fi movie? After the War of the Worlds scare in 1938, the military is going to call a citywide blackout and fire all that ammo at a target for a movie and during a major war??

i agree with you... just trying to 'head-off' the naysayer skeptics at the pass.

[lost_shaman]

i agree with you... just trying to 'head-off' the naysayer skeptics at the pass.

All the horrible skeptics and naysayers discussed this event for about two months on the Best evidence threads. Maybe you should do a serch and read pages and pages of stuff we wrote about the events. Is there something you'd like to add?

[S2F]

i agree with you... just trying to 'head-off' the naysayer skeptics at the pass.

So you post a false opinion to try and get a leg up on those dirty filthy skeptics?

Why?

Wouldn't it be better to offer the merits of the actual evidence and procede from there? Or are you afraid that the case might draw too much scrutiny and ruin any ETH circle jerk you had planned?

Honestly, I've seen you shy away from any actual discussion in favor of some sort of ETH confirmation from fellow believers. 'Yay, we figured it all out without those damned skeptics and their twice-damned facts!'

If that's all you're interested in I doubt you are going to have much success here.

[bendigger0]

All the horrible skeptics and naysayers discussed this event for about two months on the Best evidence threads. Maybe you should do a serch and read pages and pages of stuff we wrote about the events. Is there something you'd like to add?

Maybe there's some new people that would like to make new comments? Though i'm sure the "pages and pages of stuff you wrote" are absolutely riveting.

[bendigger0]

So you post a false opinion to try and get a leg up on those dirty filthy skeptics?

Why?

Wouldn't it be better to offer the merits of the actual evidence and procede from there? Or are you afraid that the case might draw too much scrutiny and ruin any ETH circle jerk you had planned?

Honestly, I've seen you shy away from any actual discussion in favor of some sort of ETH confirmation from fellow believers. 'Yay, we figured it all out without those damned skeptics and their twice-damned facts!'

If that's all you're interested in I doubt you are going to have much success here.

Ignored.

[S2F]

Ignored.

If underhanded tactics and a condescending attitude are all you can bring to the table then you're doing me a favor.

[JesseCuster]

Ignored.

Pro tip: Responding to a post to say that you're ignoring it is the opposite of actually ignoring it. Ignoring posts involves ignoring them (i.e. not responding to them or acknowledging them). Edited January 24, 2014 by JesseCuster

[bendigger0]

Pro tip: Responding to a post to say that you're ignoring it is the opposite of actually ignoring it. Ignoring posts involves ignoring them (i.e. not responding to them or acknowledging them).

Glad you could clear that up for me Jesse

[Likely Guy]

Just kidding... i know it was real... but saying it's a real event doesn't get much traction here. I just like to discuss these things... keep a dialog open. Lot of rabid nay-sayers here, and folks that just like to argue... So, if i say it's a hoax, maybe the contrarians will insist it's a factual case? thanks for checking it out. It's one of the great UFO cases. And there's SO MANY... but not one word from Government.

I've gathered that you have a huge "mad on" for skeptics, but that tactic is simply duplicitous bevahiour and in an open discussion forum, cannot be condoned.

Edit: The so called 'Battle of LA' incident is also hardly "one of the great UFO cases". I think that you've done a great disservice to yourself here.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Likely Guy

[bendigger0]

I've gathered that you have a huge "mad on" for skeptics, but that tactic is simply duplicitous bevahiour and in an open discussion forum, cannot be condoned.

Cool... i can deal with not being 'condoned'

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No, actually they don't. Do you have a link for that?

don't feed it.

[Likely Guy]

Cool... i can deal with not being 'condoned'

Maybe you'd rather deal with being 'banned'? That seems like the next step you're about to take if you carry on like this.

Nevermind, do what you want.

[bendigger0]

Maybe you'd rather deal with being 'banned'? That seems like the next step you're about to take if you carry on like this.

Nevermind, do what you want.

With your permission... thank you!

[bendigger0]

Battle of Los Angeles... now what was that all about? Seems like the Army shot over 1400 anti-aircraft rounds at whatever-it-was. It kinda looks like a classic "flying saucer". This was in 1942. I guess it could have been a blimp? Jeez... they couldn't shoot down a blimp in 3 hours? What the heck was that? OK... well if it was a "flying saucer", what does that mean? What are they? Should we talk about at all? Seems like it might be the biggest story of all time...? nah...

[JesseCuster]

Glad you could clear that up for me Jesse

My pleasure. It's quite amazing the amount of people on the Internet who think that "I'm ignoring you" means "I'm actively letting you know that I don't like you".

For the record, from my Oxford English Dictionary: 1: refuse to take notice of or accept. 2: intentionally disregard.

Just a reminder in case you wish to repeat your performance in this thread and inform someone in future that you're ignoring them (informing them that you're ignoring them is actively doing the opposite of ignoring them in case I haven't made my point clear).

Edited January 24, 2014 by JesseCuster

[bendigger0]

My pleasure. It's quite amazing the amount of people on the Internet who think that "I'm ignoring you" means "I'm actively letting you know that I don't like you".

For the record, from my Oxford English Dictionary: 1: refuse to take notice of or accept. 2: intentionally disregard.

Just a reminder in case you wish to repeat your performance in this thread and inform someone in future that you're ignoring them (informing them that you're ignoring them is actively doing the opposite of ignoring them in case I haven't made my point clear).

That's what i thought you said... a nice insight... thanks, again. Any thoughts on the Battle of Los Angeles?

[coolguy]

This really took place.

[bendigger0]

This really took place.

yeah... 1942

[S2F]

Soldiers on edge in light of Pearl Harbor just a few months prior mixed with spotlight 'oversaturation' (which was against procedure if memory serves) leading to a mistaken target? Seems plausible to me.

[JesseCuster]

Any thoughts on the Battle of Los Angeles?

I'm not aloud say anything on this particular subject. I know a guy who was found beheaded lying in the middle of a city street after casually commenting on a topic like this he wasn't officially cleared to speak about.

My lips are officially and unofficially sealed about the Battle of Los Angeles. Which is a pity because you wouldn't believe the stories myself and others have to tell about this event...

[psyche101]

Battle of Los Angeles... now what was that all about? Seems like the Army shot over 1400 anti-aircraft rounds at whatever-it-was. It kinda looks like a classic "flying saucer". This was in 1942. I guess it could have been a blimp? Jeez... they couldn't shoot down a blimp in 3 hours? What the heck was that? OK... well if it was a "flying saucer", what does that mean? What are they? Should we talk about at all? Seems like it might be the biggest story of all time...? nah...

"Whatever it was" seems to be a combination of lights, fear and smoke. Nothing is in the picture apart from pareidolia inspired shapes that UFOlogists stick in there from time to time.

What you have refused yourself here is the special opportunity to learn about the amazing skills, techniques and technologies they had at the time which was used in this very event. Lost Shaman taught us all I think about the Directors used to target and distance objects deemed hostile. I had no idea that man was so innovative, or as technologically advanced at that stage, it was a real eye opener, and an most enjoyable journey into a chapter of history that I did not previously realise.

The BOLA fails as a UFO event miserably, but as a chapter in history, it is fascinating.

And small minded people who just want aliens to be real ask why critical thinkers come here?? UM is a wealth of information with some very talented and knowledgeable individuals. It is a pleasure to be in the company of so many fine critical thinkers, and just think, you have hardly met Bade yet! An entire world awaits you.

You are costing yourself so much interesting information, and some very fascinating conversations for the egotistical sake of a defiant attitude. I pity you.