The Battle for LA

Agentscott · Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex

Hi there all,
Here is something quite interesting....

The much antisipated blockbuster film'The Battle for LA' was realesed on March the 11th and I myself had been eagerly awaiting, it looks great.
Heres a link to Wikki about it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle:_Los_Angeles

Heres what they didn't tell us about the film...

It is actually based on a tue story...A UFO case during the war where a UFO was spotted to the sound of bomb sirens going off, the UFO was shelled for some time and not hit once before it had enough and defintly flew of non the worse.
This made the newspaper and also was seen by multiple witnesses.

And here is a link to the original newspaper picture with more details.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/1940s/photo164.htm

There are more in depth articles and the original newspaper report can still be found if you want to know more about it.

D B Sweeney · Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:29 am Post subject:

http://forgetomori.com/2011/ufos/ufo-photos/famous-battle-of-la-photo-was-retouched-version/

Due to the climate of fear of a Japanese air attack at the time the trigger fingers of the Anti Aircraft Gunners in LA were particularly twitchy.
What seems to have happened is that a weather balloon was incorrectly identified as Japanese bomber and shelled with AAF.
When analysing UFO reports it is especially important to take into account the cultural climate extant at the time since very little ever happens in isolation.

DB

Agentscott · Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex

Well I should have known they was going to mention a balloon somewhere.
I wonder why they shelled a ballon for so long? I guess they were making them pretty tough back then.
the other imiges looked totally different scenes to me so I presume the debunkers got a bit carried away there.

Thanks DB you reminded me of my rule, if it's in the mainstream then it's dissimformation in order to cloak the real event.

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

yes i have heard of this before, but i never looked into the film so didnt realise it was based on this

04:14: There is a cease-fire, 1430 6 kilogram anti-aircraft shells have been used. No bomb has been dropped by the unknown flying objects, and none of them could be shot down.

OVER 1400 ANTI AIRCRAFT SHELLS FIRED - yeah it was a weather balloon Rolling Eyes

Agentscott · Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex

Yes it's very suspisious to me too.
Still haven't seen the film yet, have you?
It must be better then the film I watched lastnight...Skyline.
It was a great idea with alot of potentual but they wasted it.
It starts of with aliens coming down like Independence day but goes bad.

D B Sweeney · Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:52 am Post subject:

I wonder why they shelled a ballon for so long? I guess they were making them pretty tough back then.

As I said - you have to put it in the climate of fear that existed at the time. It's all very well with hindsight to brush it off but this was a country on a war footing that had already suffered Pearl Harbour which was...surprise surprise Japanese aircraft bombing american ships and facilities.
You weren't there and unless you have a grasp of how countries and people operate on a war footing then it's easy to poo poo the fact that they fired on a weather balloon or something else obviously non alien in nature.

DB

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

he conveniently avoided the fact that he claimed it was a balloon, after we said it had over 1400 anti aircraft shells shot at it Laughing

Agentscott, no mate i havent seen either yet but i will - sounds like skyline is another 2012 type

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

D B Sweeney,

D B Sweeney · Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:40 am Post subject:

he conveniently avoided the fact that he claimed it was a balloon, after we said it had over 1400 anti aircraft shells shot at it

Are you aware how quickly 1400 AAS can be fired? No...thought not.

On average an anti aircraft gun could fire 122 rounds per minute. Bearing in mind in 'the battle for LA Laughing

' several units are used it wouldn't take long (perhaps 4 0r 5 minutes at most) before 1400 rounds were expended. That's not a long time to be firing before it would have dawned on the gunners that they were probably wasting their time - hence only approximately only 1400 rounds were fired.

Unfortunately Cactus you conveniently don't do your research before posting which is why it's so easy to shoot holes in your claims and beliefs.

DB

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

at a balloon and they couldnt shoot it down!? Laughing

D B Sweeney · Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:49 am Post subject:

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

yes i hunt regularly - i have licence and a double barrel and a pump action shotgun (average go through over 50 shots/month) - and im planning on getting a rifle, but no i have never fired an AA gun

D B Sweeney · Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:57 am Post subject:

Shotguns don't work on the same principles as rifles or certainly AA guns Cactus. You're calling into question the people who operated these things over 60 years ago with absolutely no knowledge of the physics involved.

DB

Agentscott · Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex

A sniper gun?
They were firing 25 pound explosive mortar shells and I suspect by a trained person.

Worst then 2012 Cactus, far worse.

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

i was only answering your question - 'ever fired a gun?'

im not calling into question those who operated the weapons - (over a city) im sure they were highly capable professionals - and i just find it very hard to believe they couldnt shoot down a balloon