It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I ended my analysis with the quote from Jeff because he said it could be either a solid object, or just smoke, and we'll probably never know, and I think he's right.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As for Dr. Macabee's study, I have to say I personally find the analysis done by Lazyguy to be much more persuasive, so if I have to pick one, I'd choose Lazyguys as being closer to being correct.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As for your analysis, yes it could be a solid object blocking the searchlights. But one "flaw" I saw in your logic in ruling out smoke is that you produced a picture of smoke that didn't block the searchlight and concluded that "therefore smoke doesn't block searchlights" and therefore it must be solid.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What you really proved is that in that one photo, the smoke wasn't dense enough to block the light. I think if they fired enough shells all in the same spot, it's conceivable the smoke could get dense enough to block the light. But as I already said, it could be either a solid object, or smoke, I happen to think the smoke and or clouds seems a little more likely but am not 100% convinced it was just smoke.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jkrog08
i think its pretty clear Arbitrageurs evidence shows this to be a case of war nerves.
when all the evidence is shown theres only 1 conclusion we can draw. There was no threat or ufo it was simply war nerves.
Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by yeti101
I disagree with that, I believe it is clear by the searchlight termination in the high quality photos that indeed there is something there, other than smoke. I do not know if you read Dr. Bruce Macabees extensive report here or seen WFAs excellent post here or here. Keep in mind that those military searchlights were very strong and not so easy to be obscured by smoke or anything, in my opinion there is obviously something at the convergance point of the beams, and it is not smoke or a cloud. I am sorry, I never did buy the smoke/war nerves theory and nothing I have seen posted by anyone makes me think otherwise.
[edit on 8/24/2009 by jkrog08]
[edit on 8/24/2009 by jkrog08]
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
we have witnesses from the military who say they shot at nothing and were told to keep quiet about it. Do you think they are lying or part of some coverup?
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
and i can find you even more that say they saw planes in the sky.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
i think you fail to see the bigger picture. This is how it works in your mind.
witnesses who saw planes - wrong
witnesses who saw a blimp - wrong
witnesses who saw nothing - wrong
witness who saw a burning plane crash to the street - wrong
witnesses who saw a giant alien mothership - right!
LoL
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There are 2 very puzzling facts I never figured out. Yes I agree it seemed to be an object they tracked from 2am to 2:21 am, but what happened to it at 2:21? It disappeared right? Where was it from 2:21 to 3:00? That's the biggest mystery of the entire case, and I have no answer for that.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The other mystery is why no planes were launched to intercept the object. They had plenty of time to scramble a squadron between 2:10 and 3am yet no planes were ever launched. This one I can answer, it's because whenever the object disappeared at 2:21, it never re-appeared, therefore there was nothing to launch the planes after at 3:05 when they started shooting.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
At least, the air force maintains there was nothing in the sky OVER LA after 3am. All the research I did on the case supports the assertion by the Air Force. There was a radar contact from 2am to 2:21 am but once that disappeared there was nothing for them to intercept.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
I think you started out with a conclusion and tried hard to prove it mostly by visiting pro-ufo websites. I dont think you were aware of the information posted by Arbitrageur mainly becuase those pro-ufo sites dont publish it.
I think its time for you to take on board all the information and admit this was a case of war nerves.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
Arbitrageur is just being polite and trying to make you see sense by the softly softly approach. His conclusions are the same as mine.
Your determined that photo has an object in it. Nothing Arbitrageur, me or anyone else can say will make you rethink your conclusion.
The evidence for this being war nerves vastly outweighs the evidence that an ET spaceship flew over LA. The case is weak, time to admit its over my friend
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...but this is really an excellent collection of information so I guess it deserves a bump once in a while.
Kudos to witnessfromafar for putting this incredible amount of fact and detail together regarding this highly unusual and unique case. It took me quite a while to read the whole thread but finding interesting topics like this is one of the reasons I like ATS. S+F.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I guess let's start with the radar contact. At 2am an object was 120 miles away from LA. Then at either 2:21 or 2:27 (depending on which source you believe) an object was 3 miles outside LA. If it was the same object then the speed would be traveling between 260-330mph depending on the 2:21 vs 2:27 time, too fast for a weather balloon. Even the jet stream in winter travels at typically 150mph, and 200mph would be pushing it. But, was it the same object? From one of the sources posted by witnessfromafar we find this:
www.militarymuseum.org...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
A careful study of the evidence suggests that meteorological balloons—known to have been released over Los Angeles —may well have caused the initial alarm. This theory is supported by the fact that anti-aircraft artillery units were officially criticized for having wasted ammunition on targets which moved too slowly to have been airplanes. After the firing started, careful observation was difficult because of drifting smoke from shell bursts.
So at least one possibility could be a balloon or some other object made radar contact 120 miles away at 2am. The next radar contact at 2:21am or 2:27 am could have been a different balloon? If it was a balloon on the 2nd radar contact and maybe a different object on the first radar contact 120 miles out, then any speed calculations would be meaningless.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I couldn't find any reports of balloons released at 2:15am or so, but I did find this report of balloons released at 3am shortly before "all hell broke loose":
www.historynet.com...
At 3 a.m. on the morning of the raid, the 203rd launched two balloons, one from its headquarters on the Sawtelle Veterans Hospital grounds in Westwood and the other from Battery D, located on the Douglas Aircraft plant site in Santa Monica. So that the balloons could be tracked at night, a candle placed inside a simple highball glass was suspended under each balloon, whose silver color would reflect the light enough to be tracked to heights usually well above 25,000 feet. Lieutenant Melvin Timm, officer in charge of Battery D’s meteorological operations, ordered his balloon launched and had notified the filter room–also known as the Flower Street Control Center, where all planes, identified or otherwise, were tracked on a giant, flat table map–of its departure, when ‘all hell broke loose.’
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.militarymuseum.org...
At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon “the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano.” From this point on reports were hopelessly at variance.
Is that just a coincidence that all hell broke loose shortly after those balloons were released? I don't think so.
www.historynet.com...
I immediately reported to our regimental commanding officer, Colonel Ray Watson, that the guns were firing at our balloon and that there were no aircraft in sight
Watson sent out the order that none of the 203rd’s 3-inch guns were to fire, then notified the Flower Street Control Room of what was happening. Astonishingly, the order came back from Flower Street to shoot down the balloon.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Are you starting to get the picture? was there a coverup? apparently so based on this:
said Timm, ‘I was summoned. I was told to keep my mouth shut, and that there had been seven Japanese planes up there. I was also told that if I repeated my story about shooting at a balloon and not enemy planes, I would be put behind bars.
As for the statement that if they had shot at a balloon, the balloon would have been shot down. Probably so, however what seems clear from that story is that the balloon STARTED the shooting. Once everyone was shooting like crazy, there didn't have to be a balloon to shoot at any more, they could be firing at previous bursts of AA fire.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But, you say, we have a photograph of the object right? This one:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47eadb77a768.jpg[/atsimg]
Well thanks to excellent analysis done by Lazyguy in this post www.abovetopsecret.com... at the top of page 3, we have an enhanced view of the "object"
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d667d02cf9a8.jpg[/atsimg]
What I can see from this enhancement that what I thought I saw as a saucer shaped object is a collection of puffs of smoke from the AA fire. Lazyguy confirms this in highlighting a smaller object circled in light red in this photo:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b3d7285d041.jpg[/atsimg]
In that analysis I have to admit I'm having a hard time seeing any solid object in the red highlighted circle, however this is still an excellent analysis to show that the larger disk shape which appeared to be a disk is not really a disk at all.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So again even the photographic evidence doesn't support any solid object when I look at this analysis. If lazyguy is right and there's a smaller object there, it's not clear.
What about all the witness testimony? well we know that was pretty divergent from this excerpt from the same source:
Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes.
This seems very likely since the photographic evidence supports exactly this statement, we see the spotlights focused on a barrage of air bursts, and if there's a real solid object in there, I certainly don't see it, and Lazyman sees a different object than most people do and he's studied it a lot more closely, so it's certainly not clear..
The source continues (See next post):
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
Arbitrageur is just being polite and trying to make you see sense by the softly softly approach. His conclusions are the same as mine.
Originally posted by yeti101
Your determined that photo has an object in it. Nothing Arbitrageur, me or anyone else can say will make you rethink your conclusion.
Originally posted by yeti101
The evidence for this being war nerves vastly outweighs the evidence that an ET spaceship flew over LA. The case is weak, time to admit its over my friend