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: 17
89
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



its ashame your official source doesnt state he saw an object in the beams. Or how long the beams were converged

Also that entire article makes no mention of your object slowly drifting across the sky in the beams with shells bouncing off it. I dont really see anything in there that supports your case.




[edit on 2-9-2009 by yeti101]




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



its ashame your official source doesnt state he saw an object in the beams. Or how long the beams were converged

Also that entire article makes no mention of your object slowly drifting across the sky in the beams with shells bouncing off it. I dont really see anything in there that supports your case.




[edit on 2-9-2009 by yeti101]


Actually I saw it as supporting evidence for the lasting beam convergence, supporting the CUFON report, and the several news articles with excerpts posted immediately before that post.

Please read that in context and let me know what you think about the existing data on beam convergence. Please also note the apparent order of events (Radar Tracking, followed by Blackout Order, followed by Radar Units shifting to support the Searchlights, followed by lasting beam convergence, followed by AA fire directed at the convergence point in the beams, and witnessed across most of LA, and described in several reports excerpted for you in these referenced posts from newspaper articles immediately following the event...)

Thanks Yeti! I'd love to hear your thoughts on how all of these reports fit in context, regarding the beam convergence. From my end, it reads pretty clearly...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
(yes I'm that lazy)


Honestly, I don't believe that Battle of Los Angeles was an extra-terrestrial event. I believe it was one of more than a few attacks on america by foreign powers that was conveniently swept under the rug. Here's a great example:

gesswhoto.com...
www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org...
Heard about that one?

The Ellwood Shelling (www.militarymuseum.org...) set off a panic that the west coast would be invaded. Can't continue to report things like:
en.wikipedia.org...
and
en.wikipedia.org...
and the Fort Stevens attack:
www.bookmice.net...
and the various battles off the east coast with U-boatsquoted from wiki)
"Several ships were torpedoed within sight of East Coast cities such as New York and Boston; indeed, some civilians sat on beaches and watched battles between U.S. and German ships. The only documented World War II sinking of a U-boat close to New England shores occurred on May 5, 1945, when the U-853 torpedoed and sank the collier Black Point off Newport, Rhode Island. When the Black Point was hit, the U.S. Navy immediately chased down the sub and began dropping depth charges. The next day, when an oil slick and floating debris appeared, they confirmed that the U-853 and its entire crew had been destroyed. "

if the people are going to run for the hills every time, can we?

Sorry to get so off topic....

anyway, on topic, thanks for posting the links. Good info, and often things like these get passed by for fear of what someone might think



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
(yes I'm that lazy)


Honestly, I don't believe that Battle of Los Angeles was an extra-terrestrial event. I believe it was one of more than a few attacks on america by foreign powers that was conveniently swept under the rug. Here's a great example:


Indeed, however we do in fact have 60+ years of now declassified documents that unfortunately don't seem to support your conclusion.

For example:
"At the end of the war, the Japanese stated that they did not send planes over the area at the time of this alert, although submarine-launched aircraft were subsequently used over Seattle. "

www.sfmuseum.org...

Let me take a moment however, to thank you for phrasing your theory so well!

There is another issue I'm having with that theory in particular, and that is the fact that nothing made in 1942 could have withstood such an AA pounding.

Also, we didn't really have aircraft at the time that could:
A) Cross the atlantic and make a return trip carrying payload
B) Move at over 330mph
C) Hover over Culver City

Would you mind addressing these points, as they pertain to your theory?
I've examined many aircraft in this thread, both in active service and in testing... Perhaps you know of a Japanese or German craft of which I am unaware?

Additionally, no bombs were reported dropped, which would be odd for an enemy attack run...

Thanks for considering these points, and nice to meet you!

-WFA

[edit on 2-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
(yes I'm that lazy)


Honestly, I don't believe that Battle of Los Angeles was an extra-terrestrial event. I believe it was one of more than a few attacks on america by foreign powers that was conveniently swept under the rug. Here's a great example:


Indeed, however we do in fact have 60+ years of now declassified documents that unfortunately don't seem to support your conclusion.

For example:
"At the end of the war, the Japanese stated that they did not send planes over the area at the time of this alert, although submarine-launched aircraft were subsequently used over Seattle. "

www.sfmuseum.org...

Let me take a moment however, to thank you for phrasing your theory so well!

There is another issue I'm having with that theory in particular, and that is the fact that nothing made in 1942 could have withstood such an AA pounding.

Also, we didn't really have aircraft at the time that could:
A) Cross the atlantic and make a return trip carrying payload
B) Move at over 330mph
C) Hover over Culver City

Would you mind addressing these points, as they pertain to your theory?
I've examined many aircraft in this thread, both in active service and in testing... Perhaps you know of a Japanese or German craft of which I am unaware?

Additionally, no bombs were reported dropped, which would be odd for an enemy attack run...

Thanks for considering these points, and nice to meet you!

-WFA

[edit on 2-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]


First I am going to cut and paste something from another thread on the same subject that I wrote:

look at the timeline.
The Ellwood Shelling was on February 23rd, 1942.
The Battle of Los Angeles was on February 24th-25th 1942.
The Dutch Harbor Air Raid was on June 3rd-4th 1942.
The Battle of Aleutian Islands was on June 3rd, 1942
The Estevan Point Lighthouse Attack was on June 20th, 1942.
The Fort Stevens attack was on June 21st and 22nd, 1942


Notice a pattern here? The attacks were all two fold (if you count the BofLA). All were more or less ignored by national media. That any enemy could get that close to a major city like LA was a MAJOR deal. It would have severely hurt the countrie's morale.

I believe this was a psyop by japn. I do not beleive they had the tech to get aircraft over here, in that number, with a payload. They did, however, admit to using subs along the west coast(they started forest fires in oregon by launching planes from subs).
I believe what people were seeing was nothing more than a light show, launched from off the coast.

West Coast Americans were in a panic after the Ellwood shelling. There truly was a movement inland. I beleive our enemy was using the best weapon they had-fear.

I feel I need to point out here, that in nearly every attack perpetrated against the west coast, fire was not returned, because they did not want to give away their exact locations and make targets easier to spot for the enemy. Now, I'm not sure if this supports or detracts from my theory, but it does make me wonder why we would fire on UFo's that showed no holstile action, but not on foreign enemy planes that are firing on us.

Again, i believe this was nothing more than a psyop, and a recon mission.

For the record, I KNOW that UFO's and Aliens do exist. I have had experiences with them myself. So dont take this as someone trying to debunk ufo's in general.

edit to add: Nice to meet you too!

[edit on 9/2/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

I believe what people were seeing was nothing more than a light show, launched from off the coast.


While your line of reasoning certainly makes sense, we do have radar returns indicating a solid craft was present.

This evidence was verified by multiple Radar units, and the object was tracked by HQ.



Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
I feel I need to point out here, that in nearly every attack perpetrated against the west coast, fire was not returned, because they did not want to give away their exact locations and make targets easier to spot for the enemy. Now, I'm not sure if this supports or detracts from my theory, but it does make me wonder why we would fire on UFo's that showed no hostile action, but not on foreign enemy planes that are firing on us.


From the reports of those individual cases, fire was not returned due to lack of preparation on the part of the US. Specifically in the Oil Refinery Shelling, our gunners were not in place to return fire, and a civilian facility was under attack.

In the case of BOLA, we were ready for attack, and returned fire.

Let me state for the record that the US's preparation for war at the time did indeed (IMHO) influence our military's decision to fire on the craft.

The results of the AA storm however seem to indicate that conventional human aircraft were not responsible for the alarm (as noted above).


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Again, i believe this was nothing more than a psyop, and a recon mission.



Now Recon Mission sounded accurate to me in my first theory on this case, until I realized that the fuel capacity of a Japanese or German craft would not support this conclusion...

Thoughts on these points?

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, I like to entertain all possibilities!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Again, if launched from subs, as the japanaese did multiple times, not all that much fuel was needed on the aircraft.

The one thing that does always catch me is the solid radar hits. Cant explain that one.

However, the attack on fort steven, in oregon, was the only attack on an actual military installation on mainland US during the war. They, again, were ordered not to return fire(now remember, this was an armed base, on watch and ready to fight), as to not give away exact locations. The bombs that were fired did only minor damage to a school baseball field, because the targets could not be clearly identified by the enemy.

Again, I have to wonder why a small oregon twon was too importnat to put at risk, but LA was not.

I also have found, in my research, that the submarines that pulled off the Ellwood Shelling were though to be headed south from santa barbara, which would have put them right around the LA coastline right on the 24th/25th.

The things I certainly do know: It was not fire balloons, it was not a weather balloon, it was not skylanterns.

The other sde to this that cannot be proven or disproven, is the NAZI/UFO connection. Many people do this that the NAZI's had UFO tech and were using it during the war, which would expain the "foo fighters". It is quite possible that this was a test flight of new aircraft.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Again, if launched from subs, as the japanaese did multiple times, not all that much fuel was needed on the aircraft.


First and foremost, I applaud you for following your line of reasoning to its conclusion. And for acknowledging evidence that doesn't fit your theory.

It's wonderful when both sides of a debate can objectively discuss the data set, and can further each other’s theories by providing additional data to incorporate!

Addressing your point above, (while perfectly on point, and in context!) the planes launched from Japanese Subs were in fact gliders. They were very small craft, specifically because of the need for them to fit on a submersible.

These craft (usually) only carried a single bomb, and often flew recon unarmed while in active service.

From the radar returns (and radar tracking by HQ), the object travelled over 100 miles, and did so at over 300mph.

To believe that a glider could achieve this, I’d need to see a spec sheet on the glider. Don’t get me wrong here, one might exist, I’ve simply yet to come across one that could do all of these things, and still fit into a submersible.

Additionally, these gliders would be very easy to knock out of the sky, and the Japanese were known for ‘kamikaze’ attacks, when faced with unsurmountable odds. Sending a single glider carrying a maximum of 1 bomb, does not really seem the best attack plan (or even psy-op) to launch on a city as well fortified as Los Angeles.

Further on this point, where did the glider land (assuming that’s what it was…) since no radar data exists (nor eyewitness testimony to support) a return trip over LA and back out into the location of the assumed submarine.

Also of note, (I’ll try to find the direct clip, but I’m sure I read it this week during research) the Sub that fired on the Oil Refinery was never actually identified. (I do think it was a Jap sub, from the reports of the event, however lack of identification is what exists in the record.)


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

The one thing that does always catch me is the solid radar hits. Cant explain that one.


Thank you for including this point, for in my search for the best theory on this case, I must include the entire data set.


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
However, the attack on fort steven, in oregon, was the only attack on an actual military installation on mainland US during the war. They, again, were ordered not to return fire(now remember, this was an armed base, on watch and ready to fight), as to not give away exact locations. The bombs that were fired did only minor damage to a school baseball field, because the targets could not be clearly identified by the enemy.

Again, I have to wonder why a small oregon twon was too importnat to put at risk, but LA was not.


That’s a very good point, for which I have no real answer.
I’ll include this question while researching, and see if the record indicates the answer in any way. If you find something on this point, please post it here!



Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
I also have found, in my research, that the submarines that pulled off the Ellwood Shelling were though to be headed south from santa barbara, which would have put them right around the LA coastline right on the 24th/25th.


Here I’ve got data to supply

The coastline of LA was lined at the time with underwater mines. (Please see the image of one, taken at the recent recreation of the event, in February of 2009, posted a few pages back.)

Santa Barbara was unprotected from Sub attack, however the coastline of LA was very well defended.


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
The things I certainly do know: It was not fire balloons, it was not a weather balloon, it was not skylanterns.


No argument here! The data set confirms these conclusions!


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
The other sde to this that cannot be proven or disproven, is the NAZI/UFO connection. Many people do this that the NAZI's had UFO tech and were using it during the war, which would expain the "foo fighters". It is quite possible that this was a test flight of new aircraft.


While this is possible, once again we have 60+ years of declassified documents that do not support this assertion. YES, absolutely, the Nazi’s were testing saucer shaped craft. Unfortunately, these craft never achieved real flight, nor did they have the fuel capacity for a transatlantic voyage. The Nazi UFOs were in fact VTOL machines, yes, but they used turbofans for lift, not some anti-gravity tech. The spec sheets for those craft are available online. If you need me to find you a link, I’ll search one out


The possibility does exist that the Nazi’s developed a high tech anti-grav craft, but the lack of evidence for one leaves me without a supported theory. Further on this point, one would imagine that if the Nazi’s had indeed developed such a craft, capable of crossing the ocean, and impermeable to US attack, well… I think we’d all be speaking German at present.


Thoughts on these points?

Thanks for the thoughtful debate!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


If(and now this is all hypothetical), the germans were developing a A.G. Craft, it is possible that such a craft was only in development stages, and would not have had attack capability.

Throw in Project Paperclip, which is fact, and we know that many high ranking R&D NAZI scientists were relocated to the US and other allies toward the end of the war. Best example is Werner Von Braun. These scientists brought their tech with them. It is not out of the question that this tech is still classified to this day.

Now, back to the real, and not the hypothetical.

The part I find very tough with this case is all of the different reports. Some reports have the craft not exceeding 200 mph. Some say they far surpassed 300 mph. Some say there was one craft. Others say there were multiple waves.

The one thing I cannot get passed, however, was Japan's determination to destroy america's morale. They knew about psychological warfare. That was the idea behind bombing oregons forests, behind hitting alaska and santa barbera. They knew they werent going to hurt americas powe, but they thought they could hurt americas psyche.

i also cant get passed the timeline. If you take the BofLA out of the equation, the Ellwood Shelling was then the only single wave attack that the japanese pulled off. Every other attack was two-fold, within one or two days of each other, in close locations.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


If(and now this is all hypothetical), the germans were developing a A.G. Craft, it is possible that such a craft was only in development stages, and would not have had attack capability.


While this is possible, Germany was at the time heavily involved in their land war. To provoke an entirely new battle in an entirely new theatre (away from their own supply lines) would be a bold move indeed.


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Throw in Project Paperclip, which is fact, and we know that many high ranking R&D NAZI scientists were relocated to the US and other allies toward the end of the war. Best example is Werner Von Braun. These scientists brought their tech with them. It is not out of the question that this tech is still classified to this day.


That’s a very good point. There may well have been such a tech team. Werner Von Braun however dealt with ICBMs and Rocket Engines, which don’t really fit with the observed evidence in this particular case.

Futher on that point, would not the United States employ such technology within the first several decades of having acquired it? It seems to me that if this were indeed the case, then there would have been no need for the SR71 Blackbird, or for that matter, for any further development in the conventional aircraft technology sector. Having acquired several decades of now declassified data, detailing the (at the time) cutting edge secrets the US hoped to maintain from the USSR during the cold war, it seems highly unlikely to me that such craft (or such a tech team) existed during WW2, and were then incorporated into American and/or British funded research projects.



Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Now, back to the real, and not the hypothetical.

The part I find very tough with this case is all of the different reports. Some reports have the craft not exceeding 200 mph. Some say they far surpassed 300 mph. Some say there was one craft. Others say there were multiple waves.


Indeed, however I fail to see how this contradicts the ET Craft theory. The radar tracking data which indicated a speed over 300mph while over the ocean, does not directly contradict eyewitness accounts (both military and civilian) that report the object travelling slowly over land. One object could do both things, just not a human made craft of the era.

Additionally, the term ‘mothership’ has been used in this thread, which means (as I understand it) a large craft housing smaller craft. While I’ve not directly expressed this as my personal theory, it would tend to fit with the observed evidence in this case.

That’s why taking all reports into account is important, in my view. When we do so, we can find supporting evidence for certain claims, from another angle/perspective.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the supporting evidence I’ve outlined above (and on page 16 of this thread), which seem (to my reading) to develop a working timeline of events, with a great deal of consistency emerging.

Further on this point, if the Majestic Documents are real, we have confirmation of 2 downed ‘unidentified planes’ ‘of likely interplanetary origin’, recovered by the Army. One off the coast of CA and one in the San Bernardino mountains (which incidentally had an army base appear around it, and evidence of radioactive decay detected more than 50 years later…).

If the Majestic Documents are fake, the faker must certainly have been able to factor in these events, in order to account for the ‘A Priori’ prediction which proved out to remain accurate.


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
The one thing I cannot get passed, however, was Japan's determination to destroy america's morale. They knew about psychological warfare. That was the idea behind bombing oregons forests, behind hitting alaska and santa barbera. They knew they werent going to hurt americas powe, but they thought they could hurt americas psyche.


While that line of reasoning is perfectly sound, as quoted above, the Japanese claimed that they were not in the area at the time of the event. What purpose would such a claim serve, after the war had ended? It’s strange.


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
i also cant get passed the timeline. If you take the BofLA out of the equation, the Ellwood Shelling was then the only single wave attack that the japanese pulled off. Every other attack was two-fold, within one or two days of each other, in close locations.


I must admit that this is good logic (taking the evidence out of the equation for a moment). There are possible explanations:
1) The sub was sunk by American forces (I have no evidence supporting this)
2) The sub was sunk by American mines (I have no evidence supporting this)
3) The sub realized the ineffectiveness of the Oil Refinery attack, and moved out to communicate with it’s HQ.

This is a great line of reasoning. Thanks for exploring it here in the thread!

Due to the other points I raised above, I’m having a hard time accounting for the radar returns as a glider signature, however I do enjoy weighing the possibilities.


If I find any further data supporting or not supporting this line of reasoning, I’ll certainly post it for you here


-WFA


[edit on 2-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I have a theory the difference in reporting of the altitude of the "object" by aa gunners statements is due to the aa gunners setting their guns and fuses to maximum range which funnily enought results in the two altitudes mentioned in the reports..for the 2 different types of guns equipping the batteries, in gunners speak "it was that high because thats the range i set the guns sir.".
This happens more often than you think. It even coined the phrase "shooting the moon"

In the photograph note the difference in height and size of the explosions from (imo) the 2 types of gun...and maybe the diffrent distances along the hypotenuese..


i am also trying to work out the light angles from the picture ,they seem set around the "o" in more or less a circle ,however there are less lights in the main part of the film than this image ,could these have been added in the darkroom to add artistic balance in the frame?

The pdf..
ams.allenpress.com...


An interesting read





[edit on 2-9-2009 by gambon]

[edit on 2-9-2009 by gambon]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


After reading one of the Majestic Memos further
www.majesticdocuments.com...

I've decided to file a new FOIA request, with the Army.

The request is for communications during 1942, between Dr. Vannevar Bush, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and General William Donovan.

Should the Majestic documents prove valid, there should absolutely be further communications on the reported recovered 'celestial devices' contained within these communications.

I've drafted the request, and am now going to send it to Springer at ATS, before actually sending it in to the appropriate FOIA officer. I feel that's prudent, as he is one of the site owners, and can contribute to the request if he (or other site owners) would prefer.

I'll wait to hear back from Springer, before sending the request off, and of course, I'll keep everyone posted here.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


Hi there Gambon!

Thanks for the .pdf! I'm having a busy day, but I'll read over it as soon as I can


Regarding the searchlight angles/locations... It may help you to review the plotting of AA Batteries and NIKE Missile sites, that happened early in this thread.

I don't have a link handy, but there is a map I created using MS Paint and google maps, which plots the coordinates of these sites.

That certainly helped me, perhaps it will help in your investigations as well


-WFA



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Man Springer is prompt!


So I've got the okay to send my FOIA request (just thought it was a good idea to check first...)

Here is the text of the letter, below (with my personal information redacted at the end...)



__________________________________________
Robert Dickerson
Chief, Freedom of Information Act Office
Attn: AAHS-RDF
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandria, VA 22315-3905
telephone number: (703) 428-6500
fax number: (703) 428-6522
e-mail address: DAFOIA@conus.army.mil Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Robert Dickerson:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
I request that a copy of the following documents [or documents
containing the following information] be provided to me:

1) All communications either sent from or to General William Donovan, between the period February 1942 – December 1942.
2) All communications either sent from or to Dr. Vannevar Bush, between the period of February 1942 – December 1942.
3) All communications either sent from or to Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, between the period of February 1942 – December 1942.


In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you should know
that I am an individual seeking information for personal use and not for commercial use.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request. Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest.

The requested information will be documented online in the public interest, to further understanding of the events of the now legendary ‘Battle of Los Angeles’.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Sincerely,


(Personal Information Removed)


__________________________________________________

I've promised to share the results of this request (it will likely take some time to get a response) with Springer and the ATS Leadership. I will also of course post any new data acquired (and the reply itself) here in the thread.

More to come as new information emerges...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
sry meant to say i have the maps you did and am using them to try to construct a 3d representation...however the sites could not provide that pattern in the sky from the locations provided as far as i can tell so far but they could possibly from the lights in the film...hinting at ,photo manipulation..

does that image look familiar to you? the angle of picture etc?

Nike missile sites are irrelavent so far as this data goes ..areas where completely flattened to build the nike sites in 50/s 60s? including land reclamation...

Page 136 of the document has an intresting graph showing balloon movement and speed ....but also throws up a few interesting names and places ....remember this report is from 1946....I got a cold shiver tbh...
[edit on 2-9-2009 by gambon]

[edit on 2-9-2009 by gambon]

[edit on 2-9-2009 by gambon]

[edit on 2-9-2009 by gambon]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


Hi there Gambon. Sorry for the delay in response. I'm loaded up with work today, and I honestly don't think that I'll have a chance to respond to your post until tomorrow.

Just wanted to let you know that I truly appreciate your continuing investigations into the BOLA event, and that I'll get right back here as soon as I have time, in order to further examine this data.

Thanks again for the .pdf, I started reading it last night, and you're right, it is interesting. So far I've only read through the first two pages, but I'll do my best to finish it up this evening


-WFA



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by gambon

i am also trying to work out the light angles from the picture ,they seem set around the "o" in more or less a circle ,however there are less lights in the main part of the film than this image ,could these have been added in the darkroom to add artistic balance in the frame?


Gambon, from my research into the case I don't think there was any manipulation with this photo. Early on in this thread, Gazrok directed me to another researcher (and fellow ATS Member) Frank Warren. While I have not met with Frank in person, I was able to verify through several sources (including Frank
) that he is in possession of the original LA Times Photo.

In Franks own words,
"It's sitting on my desk right now."

I'll U2U Frank, to see if he's willing to post in this thread regarding the picture. From what Frank told me during my initial investigation, was that the PEHI image was the highest resolution scan of the image available online.

As I understand it, Dr. Bruce Maccabee studied the original photo also, during his investigation.

Hope that helps on that point...


-WFA



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
sry meant to say i have the maps you did and am using them to try to construct a 3d representation...however the sites could not provide that pattern in the sky from the locations provided as far as i can tell so far but they could possibly from the lights in the film...hinting at ,photo manipulation..


Did you use the photographer's location, also plotted on a google map in this thread? It seemed to work out visually for me, while I was standing at the scene with my compass.

I'd love to see your analysis, please post it when your ready



Originally posted by gambon
Page 136 of the document has an intresting graph showing balloon movement and speed ....but also throws up a few interesting names and places ....remember this report is from 1946....I got a cold shiver tbh...


Gambon, I'm not sure what you're saying in this quote, would you mind elaborating... I'd like to understand, but I'm not quite clear...

Thanks!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
You need the original negative ,rather than any photo of it...photo comes after any jiggery pokery ,

mmm, any chance "we" could get a profile/photo of the rolling hills looking s/w?

[edit on 4-9-2009 by gambon]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Hey Gang,

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Sorry I'm late to the party . . . what questions can I answer??

Cheers,
Frank



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join