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.

 

The Smoking (Anti-Aircraft) Guns (of Los Angeles, 1942)

page: 14
89
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

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.


Just for the record, I agree that it would be impossible to completely reproduce the initial event, especially after so much time has passed, and much of the equipment used in the initial event has been long since out of service.

I am drafting a letter, however, to the city of Los Angeles, and to the city of Long Beach. With any luck, one of these Februarys, we'll get a stronger recreation of the initial event. Of course, there is no way to convince them to open fire over the city, however out over the port at Long Beach could be a conceivable location (where the AA Gunners would test fire).

There is still an infrastructure for gun platforms at many of the original AA Battery posts. One of these is documented in last year's reenactment, that I posted earlier in the thread.


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.


That interpretation might well be the case. Lazyguy certainly did put a lot of study into that analysis.
The reason I cite Dr. Macabee's study is twofold;

1) Bruce has a reputation amongst scientists and photo analysts. He's one of the best in the business, and unlike myself he's willing to do his debating in the public arena, with his name attached
Not that that makes him superman, but those do equal points in my book
When Stanton Friedman listens to someone, I have a tendency to listen as well


2) Bruce's study independently came to many of the same conclusions drawn in my own research. Specifically the part about the terminator point on the searchlights, (which is a point many studies on this photo fail to address entirely). I favor studying the searchlight beams for several reasons, however the primary reason is that good data exists on what those specific searchlights were capable of. Also, I had the opportunity to personally document these actual searchlights in action at the most recent reenactment. I was in a position to test them first hand, and acquire new data.
Additionally, optics, and the propagation of light are very well studied fields, allowing for cross-comparison against known science...



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.


I can see how you may have come to this conclusion. I must admit that I looked at the follow-up tests, 'pictures of smoke not blocking the searchlights' as merely extended tests (supporting evidence) that smoke (until/unless it reaches a certain density) does not generally block a beam of light.

The initial conclusion came to me when examining the original LA Times image in detail, I'll explain more on this in a minute...


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.


Absolutely, and that was Jeff's point as well, factoring in the cloud cover that may also have existed on that evening.

Having posted your explanation in full now, I'd like to direct your attention once again to the original LA Times photo (I'll use the one I've marked up, since I have it handy...)


There are two things of note in this image, as pertains to smoke and shell clouds (flak):

1) Smoke exists below the point in the photo where the searchlights merge. In fact, a LOT of smoke/fog exists below this point, and not a whole lot of smoke/fog exists ABOVE the merge point.

-From this fact, we can surmise that each searchlight is necessarily traveling through this smoke/fog, to arrive at the merge point.

-We note that the searchlight pictured on the far left of the image, and the one immediately next to it, travel directly through some of the thickest smoke pictured.

-The majority of the 'searchlight traveling through smoke' time happens before the light beams arrive at the merge point.

2) We can denote individual explosions of AA Shells in the image. These are the small circles/ovals of light we see in the image.

-From this we can deduce (knowing the blast radius of the flak shell was approximately 5 feet) some general sense of proportion and size.

-We can also find instances where several shell bursts appear (from the photographer's perspective) to overlap each other.

-We can note here that non of this activity seems to prevent any of the searchlights from reaching their natural terminator points.

What we DO see in this image, is that each searchlight does have a terminator point (outlined in Green in the image). We can also note each searchlight's point of maximum brightness (marked in red in the image).

Knowing the approximate locations of the AA Batteries (see earlier in the thread where NIKE sites and AA Batteries are plotted on a google map of the area) we can ascertain the expected range of these searchlights.

In my research to date, everything in the image seems to line up, with all searchlights naturally reaching their individual terminator points, with the stark exception of searchlights labeled #1 and #9.

I hope that better explains my conclusions and analysis. Thoughts? Comments? I'd love to hear your take on these points!

It took a lot of characters to type all that, Arby
I'll address the rest of your post in my next response


-WFA



[edit on 24-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

[edit on 24-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

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.


LOL Yeti. LOL

Arby's theory fits with some of the evidence, but not nearly all of it. We're actually working through this debate currently.

If you'd like to supply some evidence in favor of your theory, please do. I hardly think that Arby's extrapolations solve this case.

I'll let Arby answer for him/herself, however it's pretty clear from reading Arby's comments that he/she is not entirely certain themselves, and that this person is merely attempting to analyze the available data from a different perspective.

When testing the case against a theory, ALL evidence must support the theory or the theory must be adapted...

Let's not forget the testimony from the Secretary of the Navy, and the testimony from the Army in fact directly contradicted each other, and that the US Government's official explanation for this event (to date) is 'unexplained'...

Believe truly that the US examined all of the testimony we have here, and did not come to the conclusion that War Nerves explains the event.

War nerves do not account for a verified radar contact, nor do they account for the direct sightings by military personnel. To fire over the ocean without certainty is one thing, to fire over the populated city of Los Angeles is another thing altogether, and the Army certainly felt justified in doing so. It's very hard for me to believe that they would fire over LA at nothing. People died that evening. Property (homes, vehicles) were severely damaged.

There are many perspectives of this event, and all should be examined. However when evidence exists in a case, generally that evidence becomes the standard against which to test witness testimony. That does not change simply because we're talking about a UFO...

LOL Yeti, nice to see that you're still following the case too.


-WFA

[edit on 24-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
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?

to jkrog08

the commander of the artillary thought he saw a group of planes but then realised it was just smoke. How did he not see your giant mothership in the searchlights?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

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]


Agreed, especially when taken into account that for each piece of testimony claiming there was nothing in the skies that night, I can find you ten pieces of testimony arguing the exact opposite


Well put Jkrog.

-WFA



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


and i can find you even more that say they saw planes in the sky.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

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?


Not at all. I think they probably didn't personally see anything, but were under orders to shoot at the convergence point in the searchlight beams.

Them not seeing anything really doesn't mean much Yeti, when taken into account with other military personnel reporting actual sightings, and reporting direct hits on the craft.

If a bomber is coming in, tracked on radar from the ocean, moving faster than anything you've ever seen, and the army is saying "shoot at the horizon where we tell you!" what would you do? If it were me, I'd listen to my commanding officer, assuming that an officer (not me) working for my country's defense, actually DID see the object, and that the radar wasn't bouncing off of a temperature inversion traveling over 300 mph.

LOL.

Are you just not looking at anything but page 13 of this thread?
Perhaps you were just waiting for Arby to come in and do your research for you...

Perhaps reading the full witness testimony (cited in an easy to read bibliography and linked for you on Page 1 of this thread) would help inform your opinion...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


and i can find you even more that say they saw planes in the sky.



Please do. I've been waiting months for you to actually examine the evidence here Yeti. What have you found? I've found a total of 2 witnesses claiming to have seen planes.

And please explain how in fact sighting aircraft in the skies (a claim refuted directly by the US Army) refutes the ET Craft theory exactly?


-WFA



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Eyewitnesses are not the best evidence, for either side. That really is secondary here because we have photographic evidence, and that evidence appears to show something solid. You can even see the artillery shell bursts around the object, as well smoke. The object itself appears to be totally different. In my opinion it is a solid object but I could certaintly be wrong
. And yes it is possible certain military officers were told to say "they were firing at nothing", that surely makes a lot more sense to say than "we don't know what was in our airspace over one of our most populated cities.....And by the way, we couldn't stop it." do you not agree?

[edit on 8/24/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

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





Please read over these 14 pages Yeti and quote to me where I've said anything remotely similar to that.

What I've consistently said (as Jkrog just re-stated for you) is that witness testimony must support the evidence in the case, otherwise it becomes suspect.

I've actually NEVER dismissed a piece of witness testimony (check out my username, seriously).

I DO however take all accounts in together, and I examine the data of the case. Where congruency exists, a theory emerges...

Yeti, on a side note, it's not usually a good idea to speak for someone else. Your generalizations do you a dis-service here, where my examination of the evidence speaks for itself.

-WFA

[edit on 24-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


It is my belief that it is possible the craft was cloaked. We only see the outline of a solid object in the picture because the convergence of searchlight beams on the object.

EDIT to clarify this: I know the craft was spotted on radar over the ocean, heading towards land. When I say it was cloaked I am saying as soon as it entered a populated area. As far as if it has "visual stealth" why not EM (radar) stealth"? Well keep in mind it is reported that our radar beams heavily interfered with ET craft, especially the older style beams of the 40s and 50s. Roswell is theorized to have been a result of a radar beam interference. Of course he might not have been able to see the object in that spot because it was not at that spot either. I just feel it was using some type of optical cloak due to other factors, other than that.

[edit on 8/24/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Arby, I apologize for the delay in posting the second half of my response to your very well thought out post...


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.


It appears from my research, that once the object made approximate landfall, a blackout was immediately declared, and observation shifted primarily from Radar to ground personnel. Noteworthy here, Gunners at the AA-Batteries (and their shell loading crews, lookouts, searchlight operators and audio observers) had confirmed visual sightings of the craft at this point.

At the following linked post, you will find a basic timeline to assist understanding as to the order of events:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of Note from that link:
At 1:44 AM, 3 (not just one, as I'd mentioned earlier, but 3 separate units) coastal radar units picked up the object on Radar. (This means that direct triangulation was possible on the first ping.)

At 2:00 AM, these Radar returns were verified at an Operations Post.
Excerpted here:


We see that in fact this wasn't just an initial ping, followed by a confirmation ping, not at all. According to the FOIA Request's revealed information, the object was in fact TRACKED on Radar (by the coastal units) to within 3 miles of the California Coastline. (That's about 15 minutes of steady returns, approximately, on a single object, from 3 separate posts...)

I hope that helps to understand the timeline herein... Please let me know if you have further questions, and I'll attempt to find the answers in the data




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.


I've reflected on this question quite a bit Arby, and I must admit that I don't really have a very good answer for you. I don't believe that the object disappeared (lot's of witnesses, including military personnel report visual observations, and gunners reported direct hits on the object...), however from a Radar perspective I understand that the term 'disappeared' fits perfectly (is that what you meant?). One reason for this would be the shift (once in range) from Radar tracking to the visual observations coming from the AA Batteries. Each station was equipped with several personnel specifically designated to watch the skies. Also, each AA Battery had it's own Radar (and audio) tracking systems, run by a group of personnel. As I understand it, direct orders to gunners came from their specific Battery's tracking teams, who were also in radio contact with HQ, directing the overall defense of the coastline.

One reason I can think of (not that it's the real reason, it's hard to guess the mind of those in command that evening) is that it's not an especially good idea to send a squadron of one's own planes up into heavy flak fire.

There comes a point (I'm not a fighter pilot, statement qualified...) where flak/AA fire breaks off in order for defensive fighters to engage incoming bombers... It is possible that this protocol was in place, and that the flak never ceased until the craft left the vicinity.

The craft was reported to drift out to the ocean again over Long Beach, after taking lasting fire from our AA Guns. I don't have an exact time point on when the craft exited the theatre, however.


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.


As far as Radar is concerned, my research supports this conclusion, however being that the object was tracked on an approach vector to Los Angeles by multiple units for a good long duration, these facts lend credence to the visual observations by AA Battery personnel reporting the object entering Los Angeles airspace. The fact that a green alert was issued, along with a blackout, tends to further support the reality of the object. Further, the photo taken by the LA Times photographer over Culver City further corroborates the object's trajectory, continuing in from the coast and over the city. It was here that police (and military personnel) report seeing the object hover for an extended duration, before moving off over Long Beach and back out over the ocean.

Also of note (I'm sure this was just a slip, no worries...) The US Air Force did not exist in February of 1942. The US Army Air Corps was a division of the US Army (it's easy to get these confused...). The general disagreement amongst the military was between the Army and the Secretary of the Navy.

I hope this information helps, Arby, please let me know if you have further questions regarding this event, and I'll work through them to the best of my ability


-WFA



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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.


I'm glad at least that you are THINKING
You started each sentence with I think, not sure if you noticed that...

Well Yeti your comments are especially hilarious considering the fact that Arby used my research to draw his/her conclusions! LOL

He/She even quoted my sourcing and thanked me for acquiring the data in each post! LOL

Are you even reading this thread?

It starts out with a 2 page bibliography including over 40 newspaper articles from the time!

LOL Yeti. Thanks man, I needed a good laugh this afternoon!

-WFA

[edit on 24-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

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



Perhaps citing a single piece of this evidence might help your case?

Perhaps examining the analysis on the photo might show you that my conclusions come from data?

Stay tuned, I'm about to do some sourcing for you...

-WFA

[edit on 24-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
From Arby's initial post:


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.


Hmmm..... Not what Yeti claims...


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...


This section entails Arby actually examining evidence, and delivering proper sourcing. Arby then goes on to cite that witnessfromafar originally posted the information, enabling Arby to find it...


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.


Here Arby again examines evidence, and draws a preliminary conclusion. This conclusion was addressed by me on Page 14 of the thread, where I cited further evidence to supply Arby's data collection, thereby influencing the theory. The data in question I supplied was pertaining to the actual tracking of the object, what systems were used, and the duration of the tracking on Radar. This evidence indicates a single target was tracked by all units.


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.’



This point, raised by Arby and acknowledged as having been the case, was refuted (as for the possibility of the balloons being the radar contact) in several ways. First and foremost, the time stamps on the radar returns prohibit the balloons from being the object tracked on radar. Secondly, the windspeed in Los Angeles that evening was not in excess of 334 mph, thereby negating a balloon (traveling the speed of the wind) as being the object. Further, no balloon I know of can withstand a single AA Flak shell in close proximity, let alone 1000+...


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.



Now this section seems rather damning to the case, until of course you realize that the object itself was nowhere near the santa monica battery at the time of this occurrance, and that the report comes from a single unit, and not HQ. Certainly this mistake could have been made, and likely was, however this in no way refutes the 3 independent radar unit contacts, nor the suggested trajectory, placing the object over Culver City at the time, further supported by photographic evidence, and the convergence of at least 9 searchlight beams in an entirely separate region of the sky.

The Santa Monica Battery likely fired at it's own balloon, then HQ told them to continue firing until it was shot down (likely to remove extra targets from the sky and prevent future mistakes). None of this has any bearing on what was happening over 10 miles away, concurrently.


To Be Continued...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

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.


I've yet to determine what 'Started' the shooting, however the initial reports of fire as I recall came in from San Pedro (Long Beach area) which is one of the reasons that the re-enactment is held there, it was a huge deal for them...

I'll try to acquire the data on what 'started' the shooting, however the Santa Monica battery (high up on the north west coast of the LA area, should not have enduced fire down in the Long Beach area... With tracking being performed on site, Flower Street was clearly in a position to listen to it's regional commanders for on site data. Fire heard over Santa Monica would not induce fire from San Pedro, unless those batteries also had something to shoot at.

AA Batteries are spaced out for a reason...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But, you say, we have a photograph of the object right? This one:

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"

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:

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.


Quite true, but neither does this analysis negate the object existing at the convergence of the searchlight beams. Further study (often sourced in this thread) reveals facts from this photo that tend to support the solid object theory, in my view. Arby is welcome to his/her opinion, however Lazyguy's analysis also argues in favor of an object in the convergence point, just a smaller object...



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):


I would agree that visually it is unclear, however supporting data from the picture itself (distances between batteries & the photographer, searchlight beam power, and beam terminator points) argues for the existence of a solid object.

By the by, without the radar returns, and the suggested trajectory by those returns, I might be inclined to 'see nothing' in the image, however when taken in combination with this evidence, well there's only one way to say it:

Clouds/Smoke don't cause radar returns that move 334mph and can be tracked for over 15 minutes. Clouds/Smoke potentially moving at 334mph and reflecting a radar signature don't just suddenly stop over Culver City, nor do they then make an almost right angle turn to head back out over the ocean...

If you split the data up into individual pieces, sure each piece can be representative of something other than a solid craft.

But when you combine the data (AND YOU MUST! in order to rationally scientifically evaluate the mystery) Smoke,Clouds, and Balloons have been pretty well eliminated as probable causes for this event.

-WFA



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

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.


In point of fact, on several occasions, Arby has specifically qualified his statements so as not to exclude the possibility of the ET Hypothesis being correct. Therein lies the difference between your two arguments.

Oh yes, and also Arby has no problem reading evidence and citing sources. That's also a difference of note...


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.


That's not true at all. If you or Arby, or anyone else for that matter is willing to evaluate the LA Times photo, showing my analysis to be flawed, I'll gladly update my theory.

To date I've not seen such analysis, and your opinions on an event that happened likely before your birth which you refuse to study sadly cannot compare with rational scientific analysis.

Show me the science, and I'll show you an open-minded researcher...



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



Well I've got about 14 pages here of assembled data arguing against that contention...

Where is your evidence again Yeti? Perhaps I lost the link?
Oh that's right, you've never supplied any...

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join