Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Battle for LA. One of my faves


bouncer

Recommended Posts

Hi quillius,

None the reports I'm aware of say the target was "well tracked for 120 miles." I think you're falling into one of the same traps that has caught many others and helps keep this story alive as a UFO incident. You're implicity assuming that all of the radar reports are using the exact same location for "Los Angeles" and are then working out distances and speeds based on that assumption. That's not necessarily a valid assumption.

Here are the exact quotes from the document "The History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945" that relate to radar contacts:

1) At 0144 an SCR 268 (3-T-4) picked up an unidentifiable aerial target (confirmed by two 270's); (3)

2) at 0200 there appeared on the Information Center's Operation Board an unidentified "target 120 miles west of Los Angeles ... well tracked by radar, by 1st Lt Kenneth R Martin";(4)

3) This target between 0206 and 0227 was tracked to within three miles of the Los Angeles area and at 0221 the Regional Controller ordered a Blackout.(6)

4) Major Milton E Durham, of LA Wing; his account is quoted in History of Los Angeles Fighter Wing, p 12-13. He says the Blue Alert was ordered at 0215, a Red Alert at 0223 "as the target approached from the Santa Maria area, still well tracked"

At 0200, the target was 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Is that Los Angeles the city, Los Angeles the county, or the Los Angeles air defense sector? Could you put a pin on map to precisely define that location? Not really.

Quote (3) is from a different source and mentions the "Los Angeles area." What are the boundaries of that area? Can you be certain that two different sources are using the same reference locations? Again, not really.

Now take a look at quote (4), this one from a third source. He says that a Red Alert was ordered at 0223 as the target approached from the Santa Maria area. The city of Santa Maria is about 130 miles northwest of the city of Los Angeles. At 0200 the target was 120 miles west of Los Angeles and at 0223 it's approaching from the Santa Maria area. Given the vagueness of these statements, I could make an argument that the target hardly moved at all in that time period. I could even claim that it was moving away from downtown Los Angeles. We simply don't have enough information to draw any conclusions about the target's precise path or speed.

My personal opinion is that they were tracking an aircraft, perhaps a Japanese scout plane who's mission didn't show up in surviving post-war records. Or probably more likely, an unauthorized civilian or military flight that snuck in and landed somewhere north of the Los Angeles area. We'll never know for certain.

I think it was most likely an airplane because the quotes above mention that the target was "well tracked" and don't make note of anything unusual. Since the radar operators would have been watching for airplanes, it seems likely to me that they would have mentioned something if the target they were tracking didn't behave like a typical aircraft. That would be important information. We'll never know, though, unless more of the original reports can be located.

What we do know is that this target, whatever it was, appears to have dropped off radar sometime around 2:30. There is no mention of any radar-tracked target after 0227 in this report and no indication at all that anything was tracked on radar during the actual "battle." I'll post more on this a bit later tonight. Neither the guns nor the searchlights required radar to operate.

Hi Pericynthion,

thank you for the detailed response. I fully accept your comments regarding my 'tracked for 120 miles' comment as both you and Aquatus are correct it does not state this in the report specifically and I apologise.

I am not convinced on the number of sources we have at play. For example we do not know quote (3) from above came from different source to quote (1) and or (2), do you have more info that confirms these are different sources? Granted the slight change in terminology could point towards different sources i.e. one states 'Los Angeles' versus 'Los Angeles area', however I hope you may have seen something else that strengthens this conclusion. Whilst on this point, do the army not have a commomn concensus on the points used to denote distance, for example whilst on a motorway we see a sign that says 88 miles to London, and another coming from anotehr direction saying 60 miles to London. Now London is a big area covering quite a few miles but we also know the calculations are both made to a point in London that is pre agreed...If fighter jets report they are 100 miles from New York would someone else be able to pinpoint where they are or would they be unsure as the start of New york versus the centre of New York has quite a few miles of seperation I would guess? Apologies for not articulating this well but I trust you see my point/question.

I agree I have seen no mention of RADAR after the 02.27 mark.

It would be good to see more reports and/or more importantly some of the RADAR infoormation from around the 01.44 mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the source.

Now, I read through it and was not able to find any reference to the object having been tracked for 120 miles. I did find where it was first detected 120 miles out, and then consequent reports of it being detected by other units, but as I said before, this does not mean that there was any one object being detected.

The only reason to believe that it would be a single object such as an aircraft of some sort would be if the RADARs handed off the contact to each other and if the object was travelling at a consistent rate. In other words, as a craft flies from one RADAR zone to another, it moves in a predictable and consistent fashion till it leaves the detection grid of one and shows up as expected in the detection grid of another. If, on the other hand, the contact is sporadic, the travel time is inconsistent, and the detected object just suddenly vanishes from the grid, there is no reason to believe that it was some mysterious craft with all the properties required to perform the above. It is far more likely that it was simply a case of something producing false readings which would have normally been ignored, but due to the tense situation, were instead mashed together into a panic induced possibility of imminent danger.

Hi Aquatus, I think the report does indeed suggest it was a single object that was well tracked. Pericynthions point about the object not being mysterious and acted like a 'plane' goes against your comment about it not being a mysterious craft (although safe to exclude the word mysterious for this purpose). I guess my question is if there was possibly more than one target then why would they state 'well tracked' and also use terms such as 'the object' the word 'the' being key in my opinion, also the one comment that states

This target between 0206 and 0227 was tracked to within three miles of the Los Angeles area and at 0221 the Regional Controller ordered a Blackout.(6)

'this target' again 'this' being the operative word

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi quillius,

None the reports I'm aware of say the target was "well tracked for 120 miles." I think you're falling into one of the same traps that has caught many others and helps keep this story alive as a UFO incident. You're implicity assuming that all of the radar reports are using the exact same location for "Los Angeles" and are then working out distances and speeds based on that assumption. That's not necessarily a valid assumption.

Here are the exact quotes from the document "The History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945" that relate to radar contacts:

1) At 0144 an SCR 268 (3-T-4) picked up an unidentifiable aerial target (confirmed by two 270's); (3)

2) at 0200 there appeared on the Information Center's Operation Board an unidentified "target 120 miles west of Los Angeles ... well tracked by radar, by 1st Lt Kenneth R Martin";(4)

3) This target between 0206 and 0227 was tracked to within three miles of the Los Angeles area and at 0221 the Regional Controller ordered a Blackout.(6)

4) Major Milton E Durham, of LA Wing; his account is quoted in History of Los Angeles Fighter Wing, p 12-13. He says the Blue Alert was ordered at 0215, a Red Alert at 0223 "as the target approached from the Santa Maria area, still well tracked"

At 0200, the target was 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Is that Los Angeles the city, Los Angeles the county, or the Los Angeles air defense sector? Could you put a pin on map to precisely define that location? Not really.

Quote (3) is from a different source and mentions the "Los Angeles area." What are the boundaries of that area? Can you be certain that two different sources are using the same reference locations? Again, not really.

Now take a look at quote (4), this one from a third source. He says that a Red Alert was ordered at 0223 as the target approached from the Santa Maria area. The city of Santa Maria is about 130 miles northwest of the city of Los Angeles. At 0200 the target was 120 miles west of Los Angeles and at 0223 it's approaching from the Santa Maria area. Given the vagueness of these statements, I could make an argument that the target hardly moved at all in that time period. I could even claim that it was moving away from downtown Los Angeles. We simply don't have enough information to draw any conclusions about the target's precise path or speed.

My personal opinion is that they were tracking an aircraft, perhaps a Japanese scout plane who's mission didn't show up in surviving post-war records. Or probably more likely, an unauthorized civilian or military flight that snuck in and landed somewhere north of the Los Angeles area. We'll never know for certain.

I think it was most likely an airplane because the quotes above mention that the target was "well tracked" and don't make note of anything unusual. Since the radar operators would have been watching for airplanes, it seems likely to me that they would have mentioned something if the target they were tracking didn't behave like a typical aircraft. That would be important information. We'll never know, though, unless more of the original reports can be located.

What we do know is that this target, whatever it was, appears to have dropped off radar sometime around 2:30. There is no mention of any radar-tracked target after 0227 in this report and no indication at all that anything was tracked on radar during the actual "battle." I'll post more on this a bit later tonight. Neither the guns nor the searchlights required radar to operate.

I've always respected you Peri, but holy cow!!! You are really twisting your source information here to get to the opinion you have arrived at!

My understanding is that the SCR 268 that first picked up the target was somewhere south of Santa Maria, so it makes perfect sense that you can find a source saying the target was appproaching L.A. from that direction. That doesn't mean it didn't move!

Your 3) source says between 0206 and 0227 it was tracked to within 3 miles of L.A.! So how can you make a claim that you can say in good faith that it didn't move?

You can't. That is just twisting sources to create a vagueness in the information that actually doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always respected you Peri, but holy cow!!! You are really twisting your source information here to get to the opinion you have arrived at!

My understanding is that the SCR 268 that first picked up the target was somewhere south of Santa Maria, so it makes perfect sense that you can find a source saying the target was appproaching L.A. from that direction. That doesn't mean it didn't move!

Your 3) source says between 0206 and 0227 it was tracked to within 3 miles of L.A.! So how can you make a claim that you can say in good faith that it didn't move?

You can't. That is just twisting sources to create a vagueness in the information that actually doesn't exist.

AT 2:00 the object is reported 120 miles away. At 2:15 the object is said to be approaching from the Santa Maria area which is about 130 miles away. Within just that 15 minute time frame it could conceivably be concluded that the object moved farther away from LA (or remained relatively stationary depending on how the area for Santa Maria is defined). Of course there is some ambiguity in defining just what the Santa Maria 'area' actually is however that really isn't the issue Peri was highlighting but the ambiguity of the report(s) themselves and what conclusions can be drawn from them. At least that's what I took from Peri's post.

Edited by Slave2Fate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT 2:00 the object is reported 120 miles away. At 2:15 the object is said to be approaching from the Santa Maria area which is about 130 miles away. Within just that 15 minute time frame it could conceivably be concluded that the object moved farther away from LA (or remained relatively stationary depending on how the area for Santa Maria is defined). Of course there is some ambiguity in defining just what the Santa Maria 'area' actually is however that really isn't the issue Peri was highlighting but the ambiguity of the report(s) themselves and what conclusions can be drawn from them. At least that's what I took from Peri's post.

Because someone is trying to use different sources to make what shouldn't be confusing, confusing.

The SCR 268 first picked up the target at 0144. That same source tells us this was also later confirmed by two SCR 270's.

Another source tells us this Target was displayed on the Board at the Operation Center at 0200.

Then we also know that between 0206 and 0227 it was tracked to within 3 miles of L.A.

But now if we quote another source that says the Blackout was ordered because this target was approaching from the Santa Maria area, doesnt mean it was still in Santa Maria! That was in fact where it came from and was then tracked to within "3 miles" of L.A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because someone is trying to use different sources to make what shouldn't be confusing, confusing.

The SCR 268 first picked up the target at 0144. That same source tells us this was also later confirmed by two SCR 270's.

Another source tells us this Target was displayed on the Board at the Operation Center at 0200.

Then we also know that between 0206 and 0227 it was tracked to within 3 miles of L.A.

But now if we quote another source that says the Blackout was ordered because this target was approaching from the Santa Maria area, doesnt mean it was still in Santa Maria! That was in fact where it came from and was then tracked to within "3 miles" of L.A.

hey LS, how do we know that it was another source that mentions the target displayed on the board, and also the 0206 -0227 comment about tracked ot within 3 miles, how do we know this source is different from the first two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey LS, how do we know that it was another source that mentions the target displayed on the board, and also the 0206 -0227 comment about tracked ot within 3 miles, how do we know this source is different from the first two?

Peri, said it was and it is vague enough to be. Unfortunately for me I'm limited in what I can do to research right now, so I'm relying somewhat on what I already know.

Of course I'm also sure we addressed all this in the BEIII thread a couple of years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peri, said it was and it is vague enough to be. Unfortunately for me I'm limited in what I can do to research right now, so I'm relying somewhat on what I already know.

Of course I'm also sure we addressed all this in the BEIII thread a couple of years ago.

must be tough on a phone!!!

This extract is from the wanderling site:

Battle of L.A. lore has it, and is comfirmed as much from the above source, that the first radar contact with the unknown object was done by a SCR-268. That is where critics usually aim their barbs because the operational range of a SCR-268 is only 22 miles. If such was the case, how was it able to detect an incoming object 120 miles out? The mistake is either misinterpreting what is said or reading into the sentence something that is not there. It has to do with the location of the operational radar site in question. By the end of December 1941 there were 10 sites along the Pacific coast in operation. By the end of May 1942 there were 25 and by late June 1943 there were 38 up and running out of a planned network of 72 proposed stations (65 of which were actually built) stretching all along the Pacific coast from the Canadian border into Baja Mexico.[4] Of the early sites, the heaviest concentration was for the protection of Los Angeles, of which one was one of the original 10 to 25 sites in operation that initially picked up the object 120 miles out. The mistake is in thinking that SCR-268 site was located in Los Angeles proper. It was not. Actually it was located along a cliff-side overlook on land that would soon become Camp Cooke (later Vandenburg AFB) between Point Sal and Point Purisima, 25 or so miles directly center-west of a north-south line drawn between the city of Santa Maria and Lompoc. The site had a clean unobstructed radar sweep over the open Pacific for its entire 22 mile range --- and, like the Cape Perpetua site --- it was classified and its exact specific location is still not known with any amount of reliability to this day (some say it was not along the coastal bluffs, but on the upper slopes or summit of Mt. Lospe, others say it was closer to Point Conception). The two 270s that confirmed the 268 were most likely "around the corner" east and south of Point Conception, with one probably on one of the Channel Islands and the other south along the coast toward Goleta, neither with very much or any overlapping of the 268.

All of the officers and men associated with the day-to-day operation of the site are either dead, in their 90s, or sitting on top of their 90s. Since none of them have come forward that I know of, the exact physical spot that the SCR-268 sat on the ground may never be known.[5] However, the fact that it existed and its general location north of and quite some distance west of Los Angeles along the coast not far from Santa Maria IS known (see below). Adding that distance to the 268's 22 mile range, put the object well beyond 120 miles from Los Angeles. However, the 0144 radar reading does not include any distance reference, it simply says at 0144 it picked up an unidentifiable aerial target. It was what appeared (i.e., posted) on the Information Center's Operation Board at 0200, sixteen minutes AFTER the 0144 report, that read an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles...well tracked by radar. The following reported by Major Milton E. Durham from the same source as the last quote above:

dilemma03.jpg

Durham says "as the target approached from the Santa Maria area, still well tracked." Santa Maria is north of Lompoc, the SCR-268 site was west of both cities centered about half way between them, right on the coast. The 268 picked up the aerial target a 0144. Durham says it approached from the Santa Maria area, meaning the 268 radar sweep painted the object somewhere slightly northwest of itself within it's range over the Pacific. The 120 miles west of Los Angeles came from the difference in time of when the object was reported, 0144, and the sixteen minute later posting on the Information Center's Operation Board. Even though the 268 site picked up the object further out than that from Los Angeles initially, the message appearing on the board took into consideration the difference in travel time of the object over that sixteen minute period as tracked by the two confirming SRC-270 sites.

edit to add: oh and yes we did cover quite a bit of this ground on the BE thread, in fact I am trying to locate a bit of information from that discussion pertaining to the various locations/placements of some of the RADARs along the coast approaching LA, do you recall this part of the discussion?

Edited by quillius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Aquatus, I think the report does indeed suggest it was a single object that was well tracked.

Yes, well, it's not a habit of officers to turn in reports stating that they had made a mistake which resulted in an hour's worth barrage at nothing and they were totally at fault.

Pericynthions point about the object not being mysterious and acted like a 'plane' goes against your comment about it not being a mysterious craft (although safe to exclude the word mysterious for this purpose).

And?

I guess my question is if there was possibly more than one target then why would they state 'well tracked' and also use terms such as 'the object' the word 'the' being key in my opinion, also the one comment that states

What do you believe "well tracked" means, and why do you believe it?

This target between 0206 and 0227 was tracked to within three miles of the Los Angeles area and at 0221 the Regional Controller ordered a Blackout.(6)

'this target' again 'this' being the operative word

What else are they going to call it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big tripping point here, I think, is that Quillius is fixed on the idea of the radar contact being a single object moving from place to place. As long as that idea remains in place, nothing else that has been mentioned is going to make sense.

If, however, one considers that this wasn't a single object, but rather that it was simply a standard comedy of errors made up of a bunch of individual coincidences snowballing into a Japnese invasion, a lot of things start to fall into place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, it's not a habit of officers to turn in reports stating that they had made a mistake which resulted in an hour's worth barrage at nothing and they were totally at fault.

what mistake?

And?

and nothing! It was used to point out that Perci's point can be used to counter yours and vice versa.

What do you believe "well tracked" means, and why do you believe it?

nothing to do with belief. I would think that 'well tracked' means exactly that.....I dont think it means some random blips appearing on various RADARs at non sequential intervals. What I think it means (or believe it means) is irrelevant with regards to what was actually meant by the person making said statement.

What else are they going to call it?

'a' target rather than 'this target', the word this denotes we know the target in question has been mentioned before, 'a' target would be more than likely referencing a new target. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big tripping point here, I think, is that Quillius is fixed on the idea of the radar contact being a single object moving from place to place. As long as that idea remains in place, nothing else that has been mentioned is going to make sense.

If, however, one considers that this wasn't a single object, but rather that it was simply a standard comedy of errors made up of a bunch of individual coincidences snowballing into a Japnese invasion, a lot of things start to fall into place.

maybe you are right. I wouldnt call myself fixed on the idea but have not been convinced of anything other than it being a 'single target'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of derailing the points you guys have been making in the last few posts.I never realised that there had been an attack by submarine the previous day at Santa Barbara.

The crews manning the antiaircraft artillery batteries in Los Angeles had been trained, but lacked experience in actual combat. Only one day before, the Japanese submarine I-17 had surfaced off of Santa Barbara and fired 25 shells at some aviation fuel storage tanks, so the alert level was the highest it had ever been. An attack on Los Angeles was imminent.

It does suggest to me with a crew with no combat experience and the alert they had been put on in reference to the days befores events I would say war nerves must've played a part in what occurred

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4171

Edited by dr no
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, it's not a habit of officers to turn in reports stating that they had made a mistake which resulted in an hour's worth barrage at nothing and they were totally at fault.

And?

What do you believe "well tracked" means, and why do you believe it?

What else are they going to call it?

Well Tracked is quite easy, it means they tracked it well on the RADAR.

In my current job, Not army any more :( we use the world Well on many occations like Well Received, meaning that we received the information.

And from time to time Vessel well tracked on AIS(We followed the vessel on AIS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of derailing the points you guys have been making in the last few posts.I never realised that there had been an attack by submarine the previous day at Santa Barbara.

The crews manning the antiaircraft artillery batteries in Los Angeles had been trained, but lacked experience in actual combat. Only one day before, the Japanese submarine I-17 had surfaced off of Santa Barbara and fired 25 shells at some aviation fuel storage tanks, so the alert level was the highest it had ever been. An attack on Los Angeles was imminent.

It does suggest to me with a crew with no combat experience and the alert they had been put on in reference to the days befores events I would say war nerves must've played a part in what occurred

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4171

"Who's nerves, Mr. Knox? The publics or the Army's?"

The Army never reversed its position that it was a real event. Thats why after the war they questioned the Japanese about the event. Those who suggested "war nerves" did so because they had a political stake in doing so as at the time there was a political interest in moving war industies away from the coast to inland communities!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the ground crew suffered war nerves,some reported 15 aircraft,some reported a blimp and despite the fact the searchlights were just revealing the smoke from the AA batteries they carried on firing for a hour,they were expecting an attack with the alert being the highest it had been and I think they over reacted.The Navy and Air force were happy to admit there was nothing there,I know Knox wanted the industries moved inland but I think the accusations of war nerves were justified in this case

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who's nerves, Mr. Knox? The publics or the Army's?"

The Army never reversed its position that it was a real event. Thats why after the war they questioned the Japanese about the event. Those who suggested "war nerves" did so because they had a political stake in doing so as at the time there was a political interest in moving war industies away from the coast to inland communities!

I appreciate the depth of the research you have done on this and the quest for historical accuracy but what is the thesis here? An object was supposedly tracked on RADAR moving towards LA. The object was not identified so a blackout was declared. At some point AA batteries began firing on something that probably was not even there. This went on for nearly an hour. Lots of damage was done to property and the population was terrified. Those are the basic facts. In more recent times, ufologists claim the story as an alien encounter. I am curious as to where all of this is headed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pericynthion,

thank you for the detailed response. I fully accept your comments regarding my 'tracked for 120 miles' comment as both you and Aquatus are correct it does not state this in the report specifically and I apologise.

Hi quillius,

Absolutely no apology necessary! It's all part of the discussion process. :tu:

I am not convinced on the number of sources we have at play. For example we do not know quote (3) from above came from different source to quote (1) and or (2), do you have more info that confirms these are different sources?

Actually, I did mess up a bit. There are only two distinct sources in those quotes, not three. I misread the document.

Quotes (2) and (4) are both from the same source: History of the Los Angeles Fighter Wing, pg. 12-13

Quote (3) is from a document titled Conference Report, 25 Feb 42

For these sources, I'm referring to the footnotes on pg. 6 of the extract from The History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945 (link)

Granted the slight change in terminology could point towards different sources i.e. one states 'Los Angeles' versus 'Los Angeles area', however I hope you may have seen something else that strengthens this conclusion. Whilst on this point, do the army not have a commomn concensus on the points used to denote distance, for example whilst on a motorway we see a sign that says 88 miles to London, and another coming from anotehr direction saying 60 miles to London. Now London is a big area covering quite a few miles but we also know the calculations are both made to a point in London that is pre agreed...If fighter jets report they are 100 miles from New York would someone else be able to pinpoint where they are or would they be unsure as the start of New york versus the centre of New York has quite a few miles of seperation I would guess? Apologies for not articulating this well but I trust you see my point/question.

The point I was trying to make here is that we just don't have enough information in these short quotes to draw any firm conclusions about the precise speed or location of the object tracked on radar that night. We don't have the full context. Ideally, yes, the army should have been able to reference all of the radar contacts to a map grid, etc., and they probably did. We're not seeing that data, though. We're just seeing a few comments from authors summarizing the events in various reports and unit histories.

All we can say for certain at this point is that something was detected and tracked on radar that night. It appears to have been solidly tracked for some time and confirmed by at least two other radars. That target approached close enough to the Los Angeles area to trigger a blackout and to put the antiaircraft defenses on alert. At some time around 2:30 am, the contact appears to have been lost. There is no evidence to directly connect this contact with the shooting that started about 30 minutes later.

I agree I have seen no mention of RADAR after the 02.27 mark.

I think this is a key piece of information that most of the UFO theories don't fully appreciate. The initial radar contact was easily tracked, yet once the shooting starts, there are no reports of any radar contacts. On the contrary, we have reports of multiple SCR-268s searching and NOT finding anything. I haven't seen any evidence that directly connects the initial radar contact to anything that was shot at over the LA area that night.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always respected you Peri, but holy cow!!! You are really twisting your source information here to get to the opinion you have arrived at!

Hi LS,

I'm afraid you missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not actually saying that I believe the radar contact didn't move or moved away from Los Angeles. I was just pointing out that someone could choose to interpret those few short quotes in multiple ways. I would agree with you that the contact was generally approaching the Los Angeles area and eventually got close enough to some boundary to trigger the blackout and the antiaircraft alerts.

My understanding is that the SCR 268 that first picked up the target was somewhere south of Santa Maria, so it makes perfect sense that you can find a source saying the target was appproaching L.A. from that direction. That doesn't mean it didn't move!

I'm assuming here you're referring to the the writeup by the Wanderling, right? (link) As far as I can tell from reading that page, he/she is working from the same sources the rest of us are regarding the events that night. It is interesting to know that there was an SCR-268 station near Santa Maria. I don't see a reference for that listed on the site, but I don't have any reason to doubt that it existed. I'd love to see the reference just for historical context.

Have you seen any historical records, though, that specifically say that that particular radar site was the one that made the contact at 0144? As I read the Wanderling's writeup, he/she appears to be assuming that since one statement says the object was approaching "from the Santa Maria area" and another statement says the target was "120 miles west of Los Angeles," the two comments must be related and the radar near Santa Maria must be the one that first picked up the contact. It's a good theory and it may very well be true, but unless there's document out there that states this explicitly, it's just another interpretation of the statements we've all been looking at.

My point was only to caution people not to read too much into those few statements about the radar contacts. There's just not enough information there to say anything specific about the object's speed or course.

Your 3) source says between 0206 and 0227 it was tracked to within 3 miles of L.A.! So how can you make a claim that you can say in good faith that it didn't move?

You can't. That is just twisting sources to create a vagueness in the information that actually doesn't exist.

I'm not twisting anything or creating any vagueness. I'm just pointing out the limitations of the existing data. Can you please put a pin on a map and show me exactly where "3 miles from L.A." is?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of sinewave's recent post wondering about a basic thesis for the Battle of LA, I thought I'd step back for a bit and write out my basic top-level understanding of what happened that night in 1942. I've discovered one new (at least to me) document that I think really helps explain why the shooting started that night. I'll apologize in advance -- this is going to be a REALLY long post.

The "Battle of Los Angeles" was really triggered by two completely independent events. The first was the radar contact picked up at 1:44 am. We'll never know just what it was, but something was tracked by at least three radars. My personal guess is that it was a civilian or military airplane making an unauthorized flight. Just a guess, though. Since it eventually disappeared, it doesn't really matter what it was. This event, as most everyone already knows, was documented in The History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945 (link to pdf):

At 0144 an SCR 268 (3-T-4) picked up an unidentifiable aerial target (confirmed by two 270's);
(3)
at 0200 there appeared on the Information Center's Operation Board an unidentified "target 120 miles west of Los Angeles ... well tracked by radar, by 1st Lt Kenneth R Martin";
(4)
all AA gunners alerted at 0214 and between 0201 and 0232 were put on Green Alert, Status #1.
(5)
This target between 0206 and 0227 was tracked to within three miles of the Los Angeles area and at 0221 the Regional Controller ordered a Blackout.
(6)

Footnote 4:

(4) Major Milton E Durham, of LA Wing; his account is quoted in History of Los Angeles Fighter Wing, p 12-13. He says the Blue Alert was ordered at 0215, a Red Alert at 0223 "as the target approached from the Santa Maria area, still well tracked"; that the AA was put on Green Alert, Condition 1 by the Controller and "the tactical defense turned over to the antiaircraft" as no fighters were sent up. Immediately "the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano ..."

That radar target was apparently lost at some time around 2:30 am, as there are no further radar contacts documented after about 2:27 am. A blackout was ordered at 2:23 am, and the antiaircraft gunners were put on Green Alert at 2:32 am. We now had a situation where the city was blacked out and anxious gun crews were scanning the skys looking for an expected attack, but not getting any definite information about the 'enemy' location (so far as we know from available documentation). That set the stage for the next event.

At 3:06 am, a second event, completely independent of the mystery radar track, gets the shooting started. The History of the 4th AA reports it this way:

At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was reported over Santa Monica and firing on it by batteries B, C and D of the 65th CA and B of the 205th CA began at 0307 on orders of the Controller to destroy it. A total of 482 rounds of 3" were expended at the planes and "dirigible" without visible result
(2)
except Gun 3E3 reported setting one plane on fire.
(3)

The report is very clear that the gunners were ordered to open fire on a balloon carrying a red flare and then mentions "dirigible" when talking about the targets being fired at. This all sounds a bit mysterious until you put it in context with the document I recently discovered:

"Activities of the Ninth Army AAA" by Col. John G. Murphy, Coast Artillery Corps. Published in
Antiaircraft Journal
, May-June 1949.

(
).

Col. Murphy was in Los Angeles that night for a staff visit to the 37th brigade. He witnessed the gunfire and was then part of the board that investigated the firing. Regarding that investigation, he writes:

Among the facts developed was that the firing had been ordered by the young Air Force controller on duty at the Fighter Command operations room. Someone reported a balloon in the sky. He of course visualized a German or Japanese zeppelin. Someone tried to explain it was not that kind of balloon, but he was adamant and ordered firing to start (which he had no authority to do). Once the firing started, imagination created all kinds of targets in the sky and everyone joined in.

Well after all these years, the true story can be told. One of the AA Regiments (we still had Regiments) sent up a meteorological balloon about 1:00 AM. That was the balloon that started all the shooting! When quiet had settled down on the "embattled" City of the Angels, a different regiment, alert and energetic as always, decided some "met" data was needed. Felt it had not done so well in the "battle" and thought a few weather corrections might help. So they sent up a balloon, and hell broke loose again. (Note: Both balloons, as I remember, floated away majestically and safely.) But the inhabitants of Los Angeles felt very happy. They had visual and auricular assurance that they were well protected. And the AA gunners were happy! They had fired more rounds than they would have been authorized to fire in 10 peacetime years' target practices.

The 1:00 am time mentioned above is clearly either a typo or an error by Col. Murphy since we know the shooting started shortly after 3:00 am. Other than that, though, his account matches perfectly with the statements in the 4th AA history. Regarding the red flare reported on the balloon, we have this article from the same time period:

Popular Mechanics
, October 1940, pg. 555 (
)

The ordinary pilot balloon in universal use at most air-line terminals today is simply a thin rubber, hydrogen-filled sphere that starts with a diameter of about two and one-half feet. By day it is released alone;
by night it carries aloft a small candle lantern or electric light.

We can further corroborate Col. Murphy's story with the events documented in the 4th AA history. Here are a few of witness statements recorded during the investigation (see pg. 10 of the excerpt):

5. Colonel Watson of the 203d CA at 0300 saw a balloon but discovered the meteorological laboratory had sent up a balloon and hence ordered the units of his command to hold their fire. He saw no planes.

6. Capt Molder of the 203d CA saw lights pick up a meteorological balloon at 0300 and firing commenced upon it at a height of 8-9000 feet.

7. Captain Cohen of the 214th CA identified the balloon as a meteorological one when it was illuminated by the searchlights; two SCR 268's did not pick it up although they searched.

The second weather balloon mentioned by Col. Murphy is also recorded in the 4th AA history:

At 0355 batteries C and D of the 65th fired 100 rounds of 3" at another balloon over Santa Monica.

And what did the officials do to prevent this from happening again? From pg. 12 of the 4th AA history excerpt:

General Goodman in his report of the "Conference" summarized the lessons learned by the affair:
(2)

1. Rate of target travel should have been given more weight after opening fire in order to avoid excessive expenditure of ammunition.

2. Over-illumination of target violated searchlight SOP by putting altogether too many on-target; platoon commanders are responsible for seeing lights are put out in such cases so that the target will be properly illuminated.

3. A definite schedule for sending up meteorlogical balloons should be established and under no circumstances should they be put up when gun crews are on a Green Status.

4. Responsibility for opening fire should rest with the Antiaircraft Commander -- not the Controller.

5. Flares or supposed signals should be reported by group commanders to local ground force commanders only; Brigade Headquarters should be informed only in unusual cases.

And so there we have it. A lighted weather balloon was spotted and, due to an unfortunate misunderstanding, was thought by a young officer to be an enemy dirgible. That's what started the shooting. Inexperience and war nerves.

As for the rest of the gunfire, I'll again quote Col. Murphy: "Once the firing started, imagination created all kinds of targets in the sky and everyone joined in."

Take a look at the rest of the witness testimony in the 4th AA history:

2. Colonel Henry C. Davis, Executive Officer and Acting Commander of the 37th Brigade, thought for a few minutes that he saw from 10-15 planes over Inglewood but soon decided it was drifting smoke from AA bursts. He did not believe any planes at all were present.
(2)

3. Lt Buchanan saw from 20-30 planes over the city from the roof of his hotel at 8th and Flower; he estimated they were at 20,000 feet and flying 150 mph. Three guards with him saw them in the searchlights and they could hear their motors, but could not pick them up in their field glasses.

4. Several civilians testified the 7-8 planes they saw were very high and looked like birds in the searchlight beams (perhaps they were).

8. Captain Bailey of the 214th CA searched with his SCR 268's at the intersection of the searchlights but got nothing.

9. Lt Gaines from the CP on top of a five story building at Anaheim and Daisy Streets could find no target with his binoculars in the intersection of his two lights nor did his SCR 268 give anything.

10. Sgt Bowman of the 214th at 0310 saw five planes with his naked eye from 310 San Diego Street; they appeared to be bombers at 30,000 feet, flying in a wedge which changed to a "T". He was positive he saw them illuminated by 15-20 searchlights and they appeared as planes always did.

11. Lt Miles in SE Los Angeles with glasses saw a "V" of three planes at 9000 feet which flew two courses (most observers saw two courses flown.)

12. Lt Head of the 122d Gun Bn saw a "V" of three planes at 9000 feet but his SCR 268's picked up nothing.

13. Lt Anderson of the 78th CA at the Douglas Plant at Long Beach saw a plane through his elevation scope and also his binoculars (0325); his height finder read 6,725 yards. A few minutes later he saw a flight of three planes through his binoculars at the same height.

14. Lt Bendixon of the 122d and two of his men counted 14 planes flying high and slow.

15. Pvt Gaylor of B Battery 122d saw a flight of five planes in a "V" and the battery fired on them.

16. Captain Hyde of the 3d CA (Harbor Defenses) at 0415 saw two flights of 6 planes each. Colonel Barshong of the 265th CA (Harbor Defenses) saw a wedge of three.

And this bit from Col. Murphy's article in the Antiaircraft Journal:

We interrogated approximately 60 witnesses - civilians, Army, Navy and Air commissioned and enlisted personnel.

Roughly about half the witnesses were sure they saw planes in the sky. One flier vividly described 10 planes in V formation. The other half saw nothing. The elevation operator of an antiaircraft director looking through his scope saw many planes. His azimuth operator looking through a parallel scope on the same instrument did not see any planes.

There is a complete lack of consistency in these stories. Witnesses were seeing various formations of planes even though we now know there were NO planes over Los Angeles that night. Radars were searching, but not finding any targets. Because other than the two weather balloons, nothing was actually there. Again, inexperience and war nerves. That's the "battle" of Los Angeles.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what mistake?

Any mistake. It's very rare for any report to be turned in without the officer detailing in full why they made the decisions they did. It's kind of the purpose of a report.

and nothing! It was used to point out that Perci's point can be used to counter yours and vice versa.

Again, you are kind of thinking in zero-sum game sort of way. It isn't my point vs Perci's point, or even your point. The explanation could be one, both, neither, or something completely different. There simply isn't enough information to come to definitive conclusion. There is, however, enough evidence to come to several un-definitive ones.

nothing to do with belief. I would think that 'well tracked' means exactly that.....I dont think it means some random blips appearing on various RADARs at non sequential intervals. What I think it means (or believe it means) is irrelevant with regards to what was actually meant by the person making said statement.

Agreed, however, being that the person who made the statement isn't here right now, we have to work with what we have. And what we have is yourself under the impression that "well tracked" means that there was a definite contact with some sort of flying object (at least, this is the impression I have gotten from you).

It could, however, mean something entirely different was out. Let's say that an atmospheric inversion was taking place. Being that it was the early hours of the morning, a thermocline wouldn't be a major stretch. It starts forming and as the cooler mass of air begins its way down, it triggers a hit on the radar, as was known to happen from time to time. As the air mass descends, the first edge of it mixes with the ground and and disappears from the screen, however the sections of the remaining mass, as they slide down in their turn, continue being detected in their turn, effectively looking like (on radar) a single contact moving in a predicted pattern, even though all it was was a mass of cool air mixing it up with a mass of warm air for an instant.

Is this far fetched? Hardly. Consider that modern radars have specific programming to recognize and ignore particular atmospheric events specifically like thermoclines. Not only is it not far-fetched, it is something that required a solution so that future radar would work more effectively.

'a' target rather than 'this target', the word this denotes we know the target in question has been mentioned before, 'a' target would be more than likely referencing a new target. IMO

And in the officer's opinion as well. He also thought it was a single object, like you do. What else would he use other than "this"? But we already know that he thought it was a single object. The question is whether it actually was one, or even an object at all.

maybe you are right. I wouldnt call myself fixed on the idea but have not been convinced of anything other than it being a 'single target'

I say fixed because you are treating it as the answer to a question, one that you would need convincing to be dissuaded from. Consequently, you treat other responses the same way, as solutions to a given problem. What I am saying is that this isn't really a problem or question, because it doesn't really have very defined parameters to begin with. Taken as a series of events, in other words, looking at the facts, not the conclusions. Multiple radar contacts would be facts, claiming that it was a single object would be a conclusion. Things like "well tracked" I would tend to place in the same category as "acute" for doctors or "reasonable cause" for police; its something you put in a report to emphasize your confidence in your decision, not any particular property of the event.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are kind of thinking in zero-sum game sort of way. It isn't my point vs Perci's point, or even your point. The explanation could be one, both, neither, or something completely different. There simply isn't enough information to come to definitive conclusion. There is, however, enough evidence to come to several un-definitive ones.

Agreed, however, being that the person who made the statement isn't here right now, we have to work with what we have. And what we have is yourself under the impression that "well tracked" means that there was a definite contact with some sort of flying object (at least, this is the impression I have gotten from you).

It could, however, mean something entirely different was out. Let's say that an atmospheric inversion was taking place. Being that it was the early hours of the morning, a thermocline wouldn't be a major stretch. It starts forming and as the cooler mass of air begins its way down, it triggers a hit on the radar, as was known to happen from time to time. As the air mass descends, the first edge of it mixes with the ground and and disappears from the screen, however the sections of the remaining mass, as they slide down in their turn, continue being detected in their turn, effectively looking like (on radar) a single contact moving in a predicted pattern, even though all it was was a mass of cool air mixing it up with a mass of warm air for an instant.

Is this far fetched? Hardly. Consider that modern radars have specific programming to recognize and ignore particular atmospheric events specifically like thermoclines. Not only is it not far-fetched, it is something that required a solution so that future radar would work more effectively.

Hi aquatus. It's really good to be posting in a thread with you again! It's been a long time since I've had the pleasure. Hope you're well.

You've made some very good points here and I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I know that in my past few posts I've called the radar contact an "object" at least a few times. In retrospect, that's too strong a word. I should've just stuck to "radar contact." As you said, this contact could just as easily have been some sort of false return. We just don't know.

Thought it would be worth a quick post to clarify my position, but mostly I just wanted to say hello. :)

P.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello as well, I've been away for a bit due to a sudden onset of unemployment. Tha's fixed, now, fortunately, so I get to come back here and play with everyone for a bit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.