Battle of Los Angeles uNcomfortable ep184

A deep dive into one of the most noteable stories in UFO lore. The Battle of Los Angeles continues to capture the imagination of enthusiasts and researchers alike. What exactly happened during the late night hours February 24th and early morning on the 25 1942? Let's put it all together!
battleoflosangeles #ufo #uap #coverup #disclosure #alien

Follow us on our new platform over at spreaker.com It's free to sign up there and if you listen to us on Spreaker it will actually help support the show. If not then keep listening to us where you have been but PLEASE make sure to leave us a 5 star rating and review Apple podcasts and anywhere else that will let you!
Check us out on YouTube here! Please Like and Subscribe so you never miss a video episode!
https://www.youtube.com/@uncomfortablepodcast/featured
www.patreon.com/uNcomfortablepodcast770
Discord server https://discord.gg/Eg3yUxfmBt

https://linktr.ee/uNcomfortable1

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Welcome back to the show, my friends. I'm your host,
Eric Sologi. If you've had an uncomfortable experience and you'd
like to have it shared here on the show, please
get a hold of me at contact dot uncomfortable at
gmail dot com. The world wants to hear your cryptid
and your UFO experiences. I want to hear your experiences,
So reach out to me and let's get yours on

(00:40):
the next episode of Uncomfortable. If you haven't yet, make
sure to like us on Facebook and Instagram both at
Uncomfortable podcast sixty five, and once you get a chance
to listen to an episode or two, please make sure
to leave us a five star rating interview wherever you can.
That alone is the most important thing you can do
as a listener to help get this show out in
front more people, and with more people listening, that means

(01:03):
more great experiences coming your way. If video is more
your thing, then make sure to subscribe to Uncomfortable Podcast
on YouTube, where you can get the video version of
most shows. If that's where you like to listen to us,
please make sure to click like and subscribe and hit
that notification bell so you're notified with each and every
new release. Take a minute and check out the Uncomfortable

(01:24):
link tree. It's the single best place you can find
anything and everything uncomfortable, all in one spot. The link
for that is down below in the show notes. Put
a lot of work into this show for you. Tonight,
I'm going to cover a topic that has been something
that is resonated with me for a very very long time,

(01:47):
in the topic of you followed me, So if you're ready,
let's get into it. So when I started digging into

(02:20):
this script that I wanted to write about this event,
a lot of interesting stuff. It's all over the place
as far as the event itself, the things that transpired,
what's known historically, what's been reported, what's been photographed, all

(02:46):
the things. But what I didn't realize is the connection
that I have to this event, specifically the date. The
date of this event was February twenty fourth on into

(03:07):
the twenty fifth of nineteen forty two, and interestingly enough,
it didn't dawn on me until earlier today as I
was finalizing my notes, that was actually my mom's birthday.

(03:28):
So kind of a neat little correlation there, not that
it has anything to do with the event, but the
date So what is this event I'm talking about? By
the date you may have guessed it. It's the event
known as the Battle of Los Angeles. The event known

(03:54):
as Battle of Los Angeles has become one of the
most endearing and debated episodes in UFO lore, occurring in
the early hours of February twenty fourth through the twenty fifth,
nineteen forty two, just months after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
This incident saw a massive anti aircraft barrage and an

(04:17):
almost frantic military response to an unidentified object in the
skies over Los Angeles in the midst of wartime hysteria.
The event was quickly dismissed by military officials as a
false alarm, attributing the incident to war nerves or misidentification
of weather balloons. However, decades later, a growing body of research,

(04:42):
testimonies for my witnesses, and inconsistencies in the official narrative
have led many UFO researchers to question whether an actual
unidentified aerial object was involved and whether a deliberate cover
up was enacted to possibly hide the truth from the public.

(05:05):
Let's give you some historical context. It was a wartime
atmosphere in nineteen forty two, the United States was still
reeling from the shock of Pearl Harbor and the country
was on high alert for further acts of aggression from
enemy forces. This was a time when fear and uncertainty

(05:27):
permeated the nation. Civil defense measures, blackout orders, and air
raid drills were common as military prepared for potential attacks
on American soil. Against this backdrop of anxiety, any unusual
phenomenon in the sky reliable to provoke in immediate and

(05:47):
intense military response. And that's just what happened. The attack
on Pearl Harbor had ignited national crisis, and every shadow
in the sky was a potential threat. Military installations, air fields,
and even urban centers like Los Angeles were expected to
be ready to counter any act of sabotage or enemy incursion.

(06:13):
Radar technology at the time was still in its early
stages of development, and communication among different military branches was
often fragmented. This sometimes led to misinterpretations and false alarms
as new systems struggled to differentiate between the friendly and
hostile objects. Even before the Battle of Los Angeles, there

(06:35):
was sporadic reports of unidentified aerial phenomenon. These early sightings
often went uninvestigated or were explained away by conventional means. However,
the intense military focus during wartime meant that any ambiguous
object in the sky could quickly escalate to a full
scale defense response. In many ways, the incident set a

(07:00):
precedent for the future of UFO encounters, in which rapid
military mobilization and subsequent secrecy would become reoccurring themes. On
the night of February twenty fourth, nineteen forty two, air
raid sirens sounded across Los Angeles, signaling that the city

(07:20):
was on high alert. According to various accounts, civilians and
military personnel alike were unsettled by mysterious lights observed in
the sky. As darkness fell, blackout orders were strictly enforced,
street lights were dimmed, and residents were urged to remain indoors,

(07:40):
creating an eerie sense of atmosphere across the Both amateur
skywatchers and professional military personnel reported seeing an unidentified object,
or possibly a formation of objects, that did not conform
to any known aircraft profiles at the time. As as
the night progressed, the sense of alarm intensified. Military installations

(08:04):
scrambled to identify the object with searchlights scanning the skies
for any sign of an enemy craft. Reports began to
circulate among military personnel that something unusual was hovering over
the city. Early radar readings were ambiguous, adding to the uncertainty.

(08:24):
The nascent state of radar technology meant that the signals
could not be immediately correlated with any known enemy or
friendly craft. The witnesses described the object as large and
oddly maneuverable, sometimes appearing to defy the laws of conventional flight.
These descriptions would later become a focal point for UFO
researchers who believed that the conventional explanations were insufficient. In

(08:50):
the early hours of February twenty fifth, a barrage of
anti aircraft fire was unleashed. Military forces fired over fourteen
hundred shells into the night sky in an attempt to
neutralize what was believed to be a hostile aerial vehicle.
The sheer volume of shells created an intense display of

(09:11):
military might, which, despite the barrage, resulted in no confirmed
enemy casualties or downed aircraft. Numerous searchlights converged on a
particular area in the sky. Some photographic evidence pictured right
here in my studio by dawn, the barrage had ceased.

(09:35):
In the immediate aftermath, the city was left in a
state of confusion and disbelief, and the only casualties reported
were indirectly related to the blackout, including a couple of
traffic accidents and stressed induced heart attacks. Despite an exhaustive search,
no physical evidence of any enemy craft was ever recovered.

(09:56):
The absence of debris or clear visual confirmation further muddied
the official narrative. Initially, military officials attributed the incident to
a case of war nerves or a misinterpretation of weather, balloon,
or even natural phenomenon of a cloud. The narrative was

(10:18):
the intense atmosphere of wartime over zealous defense measures had
led to a false alarm. A number of eyewitness accounts
have emerged over the decades, some of which were recorded
shortly after the incident. These testimonies offer striking details that
are difficult to reconcile with the official narrative of mere

(10:38):
false alarm. Many residents of Los Angeles recall a large,
unidentifiable object in the sky. Some described the object as
disc shaped, while others claimed it had a hovering, almost
ethereal quality that was unlike any known aircraft. Several service

(11:00):
involved in the incident later reported that the object displayed
maneuvers that defied capabilities of contemporary military technology. There are
accounts of pilots and ground based radar operators alike expressing
disbelief at what they had witnessed. In addition to personal testimonies,
several contemporary reports lend a degree of credibility to the

(11:23):
UFO hypothesis. Newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times provided
detail accounts of the barrage and the ensuing confusion. Some
articles included photographs that captured these searchlights converging on an
unexplained object. Though the images were later subject to skepticism,

(11:43):
they remain a powerful piece of the puzzle for UFO enthusiasts.
Declassified military documents and internal memos from this period show
a level of ambiguity in the official narrative. Some documents
hint that higher ranking officials were not entirely satisfied with
the explos nations given to the public, although these records

(12:03):
were heavily redacted. The thirty seventh Coast Artillery Regiment, which
was tasked with defending Los Angeles at the time, has
been the subject of much scrutiny. Members of this unit
have reported that they were ordered to open fire on
an object that did not match any known enemy aircraft.

(12:24):
Some after action reports indicate that the object's movements were
erratic and uncharacteristic of conventional aircraft. These reports have been
cited by researchers who believe that the incident might have
involved an object of unknown origin. Over the years, former
personnel have come forward with statements that contradict the sanitized

(12:47):
version of events issued by the military officials. These discrepancies
have fueled suspicions that certain details were deliberately suppressed. In
the immediate wake of the Innsiet, government officials were quick
to downplay any suggestion that the event might have been
linked to any extraterrestrial presence. Officials initially described the incident

(13:11):
as an overreaction a result of war nerves in a
highly tense period. The narrative was that no enemy aircraft
had been present and that the barrage was simply a
misinterpretation of natural phenomenon weather balloon's clouds. The government was
keen to reassure the public that there was no immediate

(13:32):
threat and that the incident was an isolated case of
mistake and identity. This message was critical to maintaining the
morale during the period when the nation was already on edge.
In the decades following the incident, a series of declassified
documents have offered a glimpse behind the curtain of official explanations.

(13:53):
While these documents do not explicitly confirm the presence of
an extraterrestrial craft, they do reveal inconsistent instancies and uncertainties.
Some internal memos reveal that not all radar operators or
officers were convinced by the weather balloon explanation. These documents
often noted that unusual radar echoes and unexplained movements in

(14:16):
the sky could not be easily reconciled with conventional aircraft.
Portions of key documents were heavily redacted, prompted speculation that
the sensitive details, possibly about an unknown technology, were being
intentionally concealed. Critics argue that such redactions could indicate an
effort to hide evidence of an encounter with a non

(14:38):
human craft. In some cases, these officials alluded to the
possibility that the incident was not entirely explained by conventional
although they stopped short of making any definitive claims. The
incident also came under scrutiny of journalists and eventually members

(14:58):
of Congress. In subsequent years, a number of hearings and
investigative reports examined the events, with some questions remaining unanswered.
The Los Angeles Times and other publications revisited the story
multiple times over the decades. Some investigative reports highlighted discrepancies
between eyewitness accounts and the official explanations, while others noted

(15:22):
that the rapid military mobilization that seemed disproportionate to that threat.
During periods of renewed interest in UFO phenomenon, especially in
the wake of later events such as the Roswell incident,
congressional hearings have occasionally referenced the Battle of Los Angeles.
While these hearings never resulted in definitive answers, they did

(15:45):
add legitimacy to the idea that the government's explanation was
not entirely correct. Following the end of World War II,
UFO sightings began to increase in both frequency and prominence.
The Battle of Los Angeles became a seminal event for
UFO researchers, who saw it as evidence that military encounters

(16:05):
with unidentified objects were not confined to the realm of
science fiction. The incident has since been a touchstone in
UFO lore. Researchers like Stanton Friedman and others have cited
it as an example of how military encounters with UFOs
might have been deliberately mispresented. In the years since the event,

(16:27):
historians and researchers have re examined the available evidence, sometimes
finding that the original explanations did not adequately address all
of the anomalies. This reevaluation has helped solidify the incident's
status as one of the most mysterious and debated UFO
events in American history. In recent decades, technological advancements have

(16:52):
allowed researchers to reanalyze historical data with modern tools. These
new techniques have offered fresh insights in the battle of loss.
Modern image processing techniques have been applied to the archived
photographs from the event. While some skeptics dismiss these as
artifacts of the technology of the day, proponents argue that

(17:14):
certain features in these images, such as the shape and
motion of the illuminated object, are inconsistent with known military
hardware at the time. Although the original radar data is
limited by the technology of the early nineteen forties, Modern
analysts have attempted to reconstruct the events using simulation software.

(17:35):
Some simulations suggest that the radar echoes observed could correspond
to an object with unconventional flight characteristics, fueling further speculation
that the craft was not of human origin. Over the years,
several researchers have conducted interviews with surviving eyewitnesses and military
personnel who were present during the incident. These interviews have

(17:58):
provided a wealth of first day and information that often
contradicts the official narrative. Many of these individuals insist that
they witness behaviors that could not be attributed to conventional aircraft,
such as abrupt changes in direction and hovering that defied gravity.
Several independent studies have also lent credence to the idea

(18:19):
that something extraordinary occurred over Los Angeles that night. While
mainstream academia has been largely skeptical of UFO claims, a
handful of pure reviewed studies have re examined the incident
within the context of radar anomalies and human factors during
the high stress level event. These studies often conclude that

(18:41):
while no conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial technology was found, that
data does not fully rule out the possibility. Some declassified
studies conducted under government contracts have acknowledged that the incident
remains one of the more perplexing events in military history.
Although these studies stopped short of confirming a UFO, they

(19:05):
admitted that there were anomalous aspects that conventional explanations did
not satisfactorily addressed. One of the most compelling arguments for
a UFO presence during the Battle of Los Angeles is
the reported flight behavior. Eyewitness accounts and military records described
maneuvers that were unusual even for the advanced technology of

(19:28):
the day. Several witnesses reported that the object made sudden,
sharp turns and appeared to hover motionless before darting away
at high speeds. Such maneuvers are inconsistent with the capabilities
of conventional aircraft or weather balloons, or even a cloud.
There are accounts suggesting that the object accelerated and decelerated

(19:51):
in ways that defied known aerodynamic Military personnel, including radar operators,
were reportedly baffled by the inconsistent readings and the erratic
movement patterns. Some descriptions indicate that the object was seen
both at high altitudes and then suddenly close to the ground.
This rapid vertical movement without any visible means of propulsion

(20:15):
has been cited as evidence of advanced or non conventional technologies.
While early radar systems were rudimentary compared to modern standards,
the data recorded on that night still contains several puzzling anomalies.
Radar operators noted that there were multiple returns on their screens,

(20:35):
suggesting that there could have been more than one object
in the vicinity. This has led some researchers to propose
that there may have been a formation of objects, or
perhaps a single object capable of splitting its radar signature.
The strength and consistency of the radar returns did not
match those typically associated with weather phenomenon or standard aircraft.

(21:00):
Researchers argue that the irregular signals might have been produced
by an object that was either cloaked or possessed an
unconventional structure. There were reports of radar signals that appeared
for only brief moments, only to vanish and then reappear unpredictably.
This intermittency has been interpreted as indicative of technology that

(21:21):
is beyond capabilities of known human engineering at the time.
While the photographic evidence from the night of the incident
is limited by the technology available in the nineteen forties,
several images have been re examined over the years by
UFO researchers. Some photos taken by local newspapers, particularly the

(21:41):
Los Angeles Times, show search lights converging on what appears
to be a large, unidentified object in the sky. Although
critics argue these images are inconclusive and could be interpreted
as flares or reflections, the clarity and the unusual positioning
of the object continue to be points of contention. In

(22:03):
some frames, there appear to be silhouettes or shapes that
cannot be readily identified as parts of a conventional aircraft.
These ambiguous images have been used by proponents of the
UFO hypothesis as indirect evidence of an unknown technology. One
of the enduring arguments in favor of a UFO of
explanation is the discrepancy between the reported capabilities of the

(22:26):
unidentified object and the known technology of the Even at
the time, some members of the military expressed skepticism about
the official explanation. They noted that the object's flight characteristics
did not match those of any known enemy aircraft, which
were already under close watch during World War II. Decades later,

(22:48):
some former service members recounted their recollections, suggesting that the
object exhibited behaviors that could not be replicated by conventional
These statements, while anecdotal, add weight to the argument that
something truly unusual occurred. That One of the most persistent
points of controversy surrounding the Battle of Los Angeles is

(23:08):
the presence of conflicting reports, both from eyewitnesses and within
the official documents. These contradictions have led many to suspect
that the true nature of this incident was deliberately obscured.
The initial public explanation was that the incident was a
result of war induced hysteria. However, many eyewitnesses insist that

(23:30):
what they saw did not resemble any conventional aircraft or
weather balloon, suggesting that the official narrative was overly simplistic.
While some witnesses reported seeing a single unidentified object, others
described multiple objects in formation. The inconsistency in these accounts
have fueled suspicions that key details were altered or omitted

(23:53):
in the official reports. Critics argue that the massive scale
of the anti aircraft barad with over fourteen hundred shells fired,
is disproportionate to any perceived threat from a weather balloon.
This raises the question of whether the military was prepared
for a threat they could not fully explain. The subsequent

(24:15):
decades have seen gradual unveiling of previously classified documents, many
of which contain reactions that hint at a more complex
story than was publicly acknowledged. Researchers have pointed out that
some of the files related to the incident remained partially
redacted even decades later. The missing information has led to
speculation that details about the unidentified object and possible origins

(24:41):
were deliberately concealed. There are records suggesting that some military
officers privately questioned the official explanation. These dissenting opinions, although
never fully acknowledged in public, have been cited by UFO
researchers as evidence that a cover up may have been
in play. The theory of a cover up is bolstered

(25:03):
by the fact that the incident was quickly rebranded as
a false alarm without the comprehensive public inquiry. The rapid
dismissal of eyewitness reports, combined with the subsequent reaction of
key documents, points to the possibility that the government may
have had access to information it chose not to disclose.
In the years following the incident, investigative journalists and independent

(25:27):
researchers have continuously revisited the Battle of Los Angeles, often
uncovering details that contradict the official record. Articles published in
the decades after the event have highlighted anomalies that the
military explanation failed to address. Some reports have drawn parallels
between the Los Angeles event and later UFO incidents. Although

(25:49):
the academic community has largely remained cautious about endorsing UFO claims,
several studies have noted that the lack of concrete evidence
in the official narrative does not necessarily rule out the
possibility of an unidentified phenomenon. Instead, these studies argue that
the incident remains one of the more perplexing cases in
military history. Independent interviews with surviving eyewitnesses have sometimes produced

(26:14):
accounts that differ markedly from the sanitized version of events
provided by the government. For example, several ex military personnel
have described an object that appeared to possess a luminous
quality and maneuvered in ways that would have been impossible
for any conventional aircraft at the time. The Battle of
Los Angeles did not occur in isolation. Subsequent UFO encounters,

(26:38):
most notably the Roswell incident in nineteen forty seven, has
cast a long shadow over the earlier event, prompting researchers
to draw connections between them. Many UFO enthusiasts view the
Los Angeles incident as a precursor to later, more well
documented UFO encounters. The similarities in eyewitness descriptions, the rapid

(26:59):
military responses, and the eventual downplane of the events suggest
a pattern that could indicate a systematic effort to conceal
extraterrestrial encounters. Projects such as Project Bluebook and earlier classification
studies on unidentified aerial phenomenon have occasionally alluded to the
possibility that some sightings might be linked to non human technology,

(27:23):
Although these programs never confirmed in extraterrestrial origin. The language
used in some of the documents has been interpreted by
researchers as tacit acknowledgment of Although these programs never confirmed
in extraterrestrial origin, the language used in some of these

(27:43):
documents has been interpreted by researchers as tacit acknowledgment of
unexplained aerial activity. By drawing together the historical facts, eyewitness testimonies,
and official documents, several compelling points suggest that the Battle
of Los Angeles may have involved a UFO. The object

(28:05):
or objects reportedly displayed maneuvers such as hovering, rapid acceleration,
and abrupt directional changes that are not consistent with known
conventional technology. Despite the limitations of early radar systems, the
inconsistent and intermittent signals recorded during the incident remain unexplained

(28:28):
by standard phenomenon. Although subject to interpretation, The photographs capturing
searchlights converging on an unidentified object offer visual hints that
something unusual was indeed present. The official narrative, which quickly
attributed the incident to war nerves and weather balloons or clouds,

(28:49):
fails to account for many of the observed phenomena and
the scale of the military response. When viewed alongside later
incidents such as Roswell, the Battle of Los Angeles fits
into a broader pattern of UFO encounters that were similarly
minimized or dismissed by authorities in parallel with the evidence

(29:11):
that supports UFO involvement. Several factors suggest that the true
nature of the incident may have been deliberately obscured. The
presence of heavily redacted documents related to the incident raises
questions about what information the government was unwilling to share
with the public. The discrepancies between various accounts, particularly between
civilian witnesses and military personnel, suggests that some details may

(29:35):
have been altered or omitted in the official narrative. The
quick pivot from a significant military engagement to a narrative
of mere war nerves is seen by many as an
attempt to call public curiosity and prevent further investigation. Reports
of dissent among military officers and radar operators hint at

(29:57):
a scenario in which those with first and knowledge may
have been pressured to conform to the official story. The
parallels between the Battle of Los Angeles and other UFO
encounters where similar cover ups have been alleged reinforced the
idea that the incident may be part of a broader
pattern of governmental secrecy regarding unidentified aerial phenomenon. The legacy

(30:21):
of the Battle of Los Angeles extends far beyond the
immediate events of February nineteen forty two. It has become
an iconic reference point in UFO culture and has influenced
both public perception and the conduct of later investigations into
unidentified aerial phenomenon. The dramatic imagery and the mystery surrounding

(30:41):
the incident have inspired countless books, documentaries, and even movies.
This cultural imprint ensures that the story remains in the
public eye, fueling both scientific curiosity. The incident has contributed
to ongoing debates about the extent to which governments might
high information about UFOs. For many, the redactions and the

(31:03):
contradictory reports from Los Angeles serve as evidence that something
extraordinary occurred and that subsequent cover ups have become the
norm in handling such sensitive topics. The enduring questions raised
by the event have spurred decades of research. UFO organizations,
independent investigators, and even some academics have revisited the case,

(31:25):
seeking to piece together a more complete picture from a
jumble of conflicting accounts and incomplete records. For historians, military analysts,
and UFO researchers alike, the Battle of Los Angeles offer
several important lessons. The incident underscores how stress and fear
during wartime can lead to misinterpretation of natural or man

(31:48):
made phenomenon. The state of radar and photographic technology in
nineteen forty two was far from perfect. This technological limitation
complicates modern efforts to reinterpret historical data, but also highlights
how future advancements might eventually shed new light on old mysteries.
The controversy over redacted documents from this period serve as

(32:10):
a cautionary tale. Greater transparency in the government record keeping
could help dispel myths and provide clearer understanding of events
that still impact public disclosure today. The Battle of Los
Angeles remains a topic of active research. As more documents
become declassified and as historians apply modern analytical techniques to

(32:32):
archival material, it is possible that new insights will emerge.
Future research may benefit from an innerdisciplinary approach that brings
together experts in military history, atmospheric science, and aerospace technology.
Such collaborations could help develop a more nuanced understanding of

(32:54):
the event. With continued improvements in image and signal processing,
researchers may be able to reanalyze the limited visual and
radar data from the incident. New techniques in digital reconstruction
might reveal details that were previously overlooked. Similar incidents have
been reported in other parts of the world. By comparing

(33:14):
the Los Angeles event with other documented UFO encounters internationally,
researchers may begin to identify common patterns that transcend national borders,
pointing to a phenomenon that is not easily explained by
military or atmosphere conditions alone. The Battle of Los Angeles
remains one of the most enigmatic and debated events in

(33:37):
UFO lore. Historical facts paint a picture of a city
on edge during wartime, where every unexplained light or shadow
in the sky could have been interpreted as a potential
enemy threat. The military's response was swift and massive, yet
it resulted in no confirmed enemy aircraft or wreckage, only confusion,

(33:57):
conflicting eyewitness reports, and an official narrative that many find unsatisfactory.
Eyewitness accounts from both civilians and military personnel frequently describe
an object that defied conventional expectation, exhibiting flight characteristics and
behaviors that continue to raise questions and the persistent reactions

(34:21):
in the historical record, the case for a deliberate cover
up gains traction. The quick dismissal of this event as
a mere product of war nerves appears increasingly as a
convenient explanation to call the public concern, especially when the
evidence suggests that something out of the ordinary might have

(34:41):
been encountered. While definitive proof of extraterrestrial involvement remains elusive,
the collection of anomalies, inconsistencies, and contradicting statements make a
strong case that the incident was not as straightforward as
the official line suggests. Undoubtedly, the Battle of Los Angeles
will continue to captivate the public imagination and fuel debate

(35:04):
among UFO researchers. The incident invites us to ask different questions.
What if the truth was deliberately hidden, what if our
understanding of technology both then and now is incomplete? And
most importantly, what implications does it have for our understanding
of the cosmos and our place within it. Ultimately, whether

(35:30):
you view the Battle of Los Angeles as a case
of wartime overreaction or as evidence of an encounter with
an advanced unidentified craft, the event remains a pivotal moment
in the history of UFO phenomenon. As new information continues
to emerge as researchers refine their methods, the full story

(35:53):
of that fateful night in nineteen forty two may yet
reveal secrets that it been hidden in plain sight for
over eighty years. I hope you've enjoyed this episode. Until
next time, my friends, stay uncomfortable