I've been struggling to work through the paracast back catalog, and listened to the Scott Littleton interview from 2008 just the other day, in which he talked about being an eyewitness to the "Battle of LA". One thing he pointed out was how the object was moving very slowly, and yet the anti-aircraft guns were unable to do any apparent damage to it. There was a general feeling afterward that the gunners defending LA could not shoot straight.
Coincidentally, I watched the Speilberg move "1941" the next day. That movie is very obviously inspired by the Battle of LA, but rather than being about UFOs, it is about the incompetency of the military that was supposed to protect the city. The film even includes scenes of anti-aircraft shells attempting to hit an airplane (and missing), and even goes so far as to have TWO airplanes go down on the streets of LA, just like was reported the day after the battle of LA.
I thought it was interesting that Littleton also mentioned the Japanese sub that had shelled onshore targets and sank a boat off of Santa Monica. The movie also includes a Japanese sub off the coast of Santa Monica.
It seems like there were only two explanations for the Battle of LA-- either there was indeed a craft that was impervious to shell fire, OR the military was totally incompetent. Isn't it funny that Spielberg of all people choose the latter explanation for his film!
I don't know how he could have made a move like that in this day & age-- we aren't allowed to poke fun at the "Greatest Generation" anymore! It would be easier to say it was a real UFO than to say the soldiers who saved the world from Fascism were nincompoops!
ps. I found this great photo analysis of the LA Times picture, and they apparently found a "lozenge-shaped" craft in the midst of the smoke & shellfire: http://www.rense.com/general67/batofla.htm
Coincidentally, I watched the Speilberg move "1941" the next day. That movie is very obviously inspired by the Battle of LA, but rather than being about UFOs, it is about the incompetency of the military that was supposed to protect the city. The film even includes scenes of anti-aircraft shells attempting to hit an airplane (and missing), and even goes so far as to have TWO airplanes go down on the streets of LA, just like was reported the day after the battle of LA.
I thought it was interesting that Littleton also mentioned the Japanese sub that had shelled onshore targets and sank a boat off of Santa Monica. The movie also includes a Japanese sub off the coast of Santa Monica.
It seems like there were only two explanations for the Battle of LA-- either there was indeed a craft that was impervious to shell fire, OR the military was totally incompetent. Isn't it funny that Spielberg of all people choose the latter explanation for his film!
I don't know how he could have made a move like that in this day & age-- we aren't allowed to poke fun at the "Greatest Generation" anymore! It would be easier to say it was a real UFO than to say the soldiers who saved the world from Fascism were nincompoops!
ps. I found this great photo analysis of the LA Times picture, and they apparently found a "lozenge-shaped" craft in the midst of the smoke & shellfire: http://www.rense.com/general67/batofla.htm