The LA UFO INVASION BATTLE?

[Quaalude]

The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid,
is the name given to a incident that occurred less than three months
after the United States entered World War II as a result of the Japanese
Imperial Navy¢s attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time Many un identified
flying objects entered the skies over Los Angeles California. These UFOS
were seen by millions. These UFOS became the target of the aerial
barrage as they were thought to be an attacking force from Japan.

What else were they to think ?

Amazing Photos and video of this event exist..This UFO incident might
offer us the best actual photographic proof?

http://youtu.be/Izzd3PPtRcw

[Tom[_15_]]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 15:08:58 -0400, Quaalude wrote:

> The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid,
> is the name given to a incident that occurred less than three months
> after the United States entered World War II as a result of the Japanese
> Imperial Navy¢s attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time Many un identified
> flying objects entered the skies over Los Angeles California. These UFOS
> were seen by millions. These UFOS became the target of the aerial
> barrage as they were thought to be an attacking force from Japan.
>
> What else were they to think ?
>
> Amazing Photos and video of this event exist..This UFO incident might
> offer us the best actual photographic proof?
>
> http://youtu.be/Izzd3PPtRcw

It is very rare that among the annals of Ufology there should appear a
UFO case which involved military, duh, getting your ass kicked wasn't
kosher uintil 'Nam, yet is accompanied with actual photographic proof.

Such is the case of an event which took place over the Los Angeles area
on February 25, 1942. A giant UFO would actually hover over the city,
and be witnessed by hundreds of observers some of which died from the
absurd shelling of this extraterrestrial event.

[David E. Powell]

Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria. Steven
Spielberg used the episode as a basis for his WW2 comedy "1941."

[Tom[_15_]]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.

Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
Don't think so but...

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

Tom wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
>
>> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
>
> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
> Don't think so but...

And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?

Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.

If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its faked.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Quaalude" > wrote in message
...
> The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid,
> is the name given to a incident that occurred less than three months
> after the United States entered World War II as a result of the Japanese
> Imperial Navy¢s attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time Many un identified
> flying objects entered the skies over Los Angeles California. These UFOS
> were seen by millions. These UFOS became the target of the aerial
> barrage as they were thought to be an attacking force from Japan.
>
> What else were they to think ?

The alert was eventually traced to unexpected radar returns from seagulls
over a garbage barge about 50 - 60 miles off shore. See "Ducting":
http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa17.en.html

jsw

[Tom[_15_]]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:26:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Tom wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
>>
>>> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
>>
>> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
>> Don't think so but...
>
> And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?

Good point. There were no motion picture films way back then. <rolls
eyes>

> Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
> and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
> relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
> Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
> alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.
>
> If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its faked.

Stunning is relative.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:26:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > Tom wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
> >>
> >> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
> >> Don't think so but...
> >
> > And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?
>
> Good point. There were no motion picture films way back then. <rolls
> eyes>
>
> > Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
> > and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
> > relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
> > Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
> > alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.
> >
> > If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its faked.
>
> Stunning is relative.

It is easy to "stun" somebody who has no brain. The vidclip consists of
nothing but artists' concepts of the event and what appears to be
vintage narration, such as found in newsreels of the era -- easy to
fake, although nobody in the narration an alien presence.

It is up to the gullible to fill in the blanks.

[Tom[_15_]]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:53:28 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> It is easy t

Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good idea,
and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.

Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.

Not to killfile.

*PLONK*

[Tom[_15_]]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:12:21 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> "Tom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
>>
>>> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
>>
>> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
>> Don't think so but...
>
> You don't think many of the people in Los Angeles (Hollywood) who owned
> cameras would know how to create fake pictures???

Do you? I never said that.

> Did you believe "King Kong"?

Did you believe in "Independence Day"?

> jsw, once special-effects assistant to a filmmaker.

Tom, reads with comprehension and doesn't shoot his mouth off indicating
he is a fool.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Tom" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
>
>> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
>
> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
> Don't think so but...

You don't think many of the people in Los Angeles (Hollywood) who owned
cameras would know how to create fake pictures???

Did you believe "King Kong"?

Hint: Double-expose Speed Graphic plates, or rewind and re-shoot roll film.
Shoot the UFO model or ghostly apparition first in the top of the frame
against an unlit black background so as not to expose the rest of the film.
The dupes can watch you expose the film (the second time) and take it to the
drugstore with 'no chance' to manipulate it.

jsw, once special-effects assistant to a filmmaker.

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

Tom wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:26:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> Tom wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
>>>
>>> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
>>> Don't think so but...
>>
>> And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?
>
> Good point. There were no motion picture films way back then. <rolls
> eyes>
>

Video and motion picture are not synonymous

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts and there
was no video tape.

>> Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
>> and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
>> relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
>> Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
>> alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.
>>
>> If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its
>> faked.
>
> Stunning is relative.

Look at genuine 16mm and the difference is obvious.

Keith

[Brian Colwell[_2_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
>>
>>> Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
>>
>> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
>> Don't think so but...
>
> You don't think many of the people in Los Angeles (Hollywood) who owned
> cameras would know how to create fake pictures???
>
> Did you believe "King Kong"?
>
> Hint: Double-expose Speed Graphic plates, or rewind and re-shoot roll
> film. Shoot the UFO model or ghostly apparition first in the top of the
> frame against an unlit black background so as not to expose the rest of
> the film. The dupes can watch you expose the film (the second time) and
> take it to the drugstore with 'no chance' to manipulate it.
>
> jsw, once special-effects assistant to a filmmaker.
The only thing legit, was the Glen Millar background music ! bmc

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:53:28 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > It is easy t
>
> Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good idea,
> and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
> you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
> manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
> in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.
>
> Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
> keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
> time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
> useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.
>
> Not to killfile.
>
> *PLONK*

It sounds like a self description of "Tom." Did his psychiatrist tell
him all this?

[J[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 3:19*pm, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

[Daryl]

On 10/7/2011 12:54 AM, J wrote:
> On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith > wrote:
>
>> TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....
>
> When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
> they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
> into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
> "Cheese" (or something else). ;-)
>
> Cheers . . . J

"Got Milk?"


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[LIBERATOR[_5_]]

On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Quaalude > wrote:
> The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid,
> is the name given to a incident that occurred less than three months
> after the United States entered World War II as a result of the Japanese
> Imperial Navy s attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time Many un identified
> flying objects entered the skies over Los Angeles California. These UFOS
> were seen by millions. These UFOS became *the target of the aerial
> barrage as they were thought to be an attacking force from Japan.
>
> What else were they to think ?
>
> Amazing Photos and video of this event exist..This UFO incident might
> offer us the best actual photographic proof?
>
> http://youtu.be/Izzd3PPtRcw

Neat story and great song, thanks for posting it.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> ...
> Look at genuine 16mm and the difference is obvious.
>
> Keith

There were plenty of short leftover ends of 35mm movie film available. The
studios/unions(?) wouldn't allow a camera to run with less than a certain
footage of film in it.

The 35mm Leica was designed specifically to use them up. It came with film
cassettes you could load yourself and a template to cut the half-width
leader its bottom-loading film feed system required.

My uncle was able to find 8mm color film in New Guinea.

jsw

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"J" > wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

They already had their costar and all the wannabe actresses in the costume
and makeup crews showing off their stuff.

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >, Tom > wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:
>
> > Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.
>
> Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
> Don't think so but...

Not much video being recorded in late 1941.

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >, "Jim Wilkins" >
wrote:

> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid,
> > is the name given to a incident that occurred less than three months
> > after the United States entered World War II as a result of the Japanese
> > Imperial Navy¢s attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time Many un identified
> > flying objects entered the skies over Los Angeles California. These UFOS
> > were seen by millions. These UFOS became the target of the aerial
> > barrage as they were thought to be an attacking force from Japan.
> >
> > What else were they to think ?
>
> The alert was eventually traced to unexpected radar returns from seagulls
> over a garbage barge about 50 - 60 miles off shore. See "Ducting":
> http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa17.en.html

Ducting is pretty neat sometimes, like catching 2m ham traffic originating in
Hawaii from the SF Bay area.

[John Szalay[_2_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in
:

>
> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air
>> Raid, is the name given to a incident that occurred less than three
>> months after the United States entered World War II as a result of
>> the Japanese Imperial Navy¢s attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time
>> Many un identified flying objects entered the skies over Los Angeles
>> California. These UFOS were seen by millions. These UFOS became the
>> target of the aerial barrage as they were thought to be an attacking
>> force from Japan.
>>
>> What else were they to think ?
>
> The alert was eventually traced to unexpected radar returns from
> seagulls over a garbage barge about 50 - 60 miles off shore. See
> "Ducting": http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa17.en.html
>
> jsw
>
>


Also didn,t help that the Japanese submarine I-17 shelled the oil field
just north of Santa Barbara 36 hours or so earlier with her deck gun.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellwood_Oil_Field

http://books.google.com/books?id=ck4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA19
&dq=los+angeles+air+raid&hl=en&ei=
8XePTvK3NMnv0gHj8bUt&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=
0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=los%20angeles%20air%20raid&f=false



All immortalized in the farce john belushi movie "1941"

[Orval Fairbairn]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:32:19 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >, Tom >
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:53:28 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> It is easy t
>>
>> Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good idea,
>> and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
>> you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
>> manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
>> in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.
>>
>> Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
>> keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
>> time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
>> useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.
>>
>> Not to killfile.
>>
>> *PLONK*
>
> It sounds like a self description of "Tom." Did his psychiatrist tell
> him all this?

I am putting out a lot of effort here. Why didn't anyone kick the
troll's ass after I did? C'mon guys, I need your backup here. I'm
sucking a drained tit.

[Orval Fairbairn]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:45:01 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> "J" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>> TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....
>
> When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
> they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
> into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
> "Cheese" (or something else). ;-)
>
> Cheers . . . J
>
> They already had their costar and all the wannabe actresses in the costume
> and makeup crews showing off their stuff.

Ha ha, now THATS funny. HA HA .

Do you like me?