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: 19
89
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Wow! I just came across this report on the authenticity of the Majestic Documents by Robert Wood...

It's REALLY exhaustive, and thorough!
I've got to say, after reading this report, I'm leaning towards the theory that the MJ docs are authentic, at least most of them...

Anyone who is interested should definitely give this a read!
www.majesticdocuments.com...

-WFA




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Interesting information, citing the impossibility of US Planes flying from Hawaii to Midway...

This information further supports statements made earlier in this thread, regarding human made aircraft's inability to carry-out transatlantic flight during WWII.

This now declassified document is dated June 7th, 1942 (several months after the BOLA event).

docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu...

From the source:
"With regard to your inquiry of the possibility of flying pursuit airplanes from Hawaii to
Midway, there are in Hawaii approximately 22 P-39D airplanes, with 5 belly tanks each. The
all-out range of this airplane with belly tank, in still air, is 1000 miles. There are also
approximately 87 P-40 type airplanes, with- belly tanks each, whose all-out range, in still air, is
about 800 miles.

The distance from the closest point in the Hawaiian Islands, which would be on the Island of
Kauai, to Midway is 1225 statute miles.

None of these fighters have sufficient range to make the passage.


H.H. ARNOLD,
Lieutenant General, U.S.A.,
Commanding General, Army Air Forces."

This document surfaced as a result of research into the Army Air Forces Folder, from FDR's Safe Files.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Len Stringfield's book, Retrievals #3, can be read online here:
www.nicap.org...

I'll let you know if further information pertaining to this case, or to the linked report emerges...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


I was mistaken, that post links to another report by Stringfield, also with a # in the title...

I'm still looking for the book online...

Here is an interview with Len:
www.book-of-thoth.com...

Apparently the book costs $147.00, and isn't at any libraries within 350 miles of LA...

www.abebooks.com.../retrievals+:+amassing+evidence

-WFA

[edit on 15-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Since this is a HUGE thread, and there are many newcomers interested in exploring it, I took some time today to create this link index for the thread so far.

The index covers pages 1-15 of this thread. At the point that this investigation reaches 30 pages, I will update this index to include pages 16-30.

I hope this helps all of you sort through this data



___________________________________________________

The Smoking (Anti-Aircraft) Guns (of Los Angeles, 1942) Thread Index:
Pages 1-15

Thesis: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bibliography Section:
* Books:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
* Newspapers:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
• Internet Articles, Audio Newscasts & Related Fiction:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
* Sources submitted by Dulcimer: www.abovetopsecret.com...
* Images:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
• Video & Related Official Documents:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
• Event Background Information:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From the Thread (after the initial Bibliography was posted):
The Search for the Location of the LA Times Photographer:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Search for the Location of (and reports from) Eyewitnesses to the Event:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Search for the Locations of the AA Batteries:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Search for De-Classified Documents through FOIA:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Majestic Documents Info:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Search for the Actual LA Times Original Photo:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Re-Enactment Info:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Analysis of the LA Times Photo:
LazyGuy’s Analysis: www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Bruce Macabee’s Analysis:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Leto’s Analysis:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Jeff Ritzmann’s Analysis:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Pluston’s Analysis:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
WFA’s Analysis:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Equipment Used in the Event Data (AA Guns, Shells, Radar Units, Searchlights, Submarines, Aircraft, Weather data, etc.):
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the field experiments pertaining to Searchlight functionality:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Civilian Casualties:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Theories Submitted at ATS in this Thread:
Undermind: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Undermind’s Theory rebutted by WFA:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Kurioz: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Leira7: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Leira’s theory rebutted by Leto: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Leira’s theory rebutted by WFA:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Heretic5: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Heretic5’s theory rebutted by WFA:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
David Sereda: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yeti101: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yeti101’s theory rebutted by WFA:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To be continued momentarily...

-WFA

[edit on 18-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
While discussing this case offline with a non-ATS member, who was reading the thread, I was asked about the discrepancies between my math and undermind's math, regarding the speed of the object.

If my friend had this question, likely many readers of the thread will also. Allow me please now to clear up the confusion...

The conflicting calculations come from my post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rebutted by Undermind's post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The simple answer, unfortunately Undermind was using incorrect time denotations. It was an honest mistake, I'm certain, and could happen to anyone.

Here is the relevant selection of text from the FOIA request by CUFON, that provides the correct figures for calculation:


The object was tracked for 21 minutes, from 02:06 until 02:27. The Operations Board first noted the UFO at 02:00, however 6 minutes (likely in communication between coastal radar and HQ) elapsed until the object was 'officially tracked', and the records for that tracking (from the highlighted selection above) indicates tracking from 02:06 until 02:27, that can be verified by HQ.

This selection (which immediately precedes the above posted selection in the FOIA report) helps to place the situation in context:



From my reading the reported tracking by HQ is clear, at 21 minutes.
The 02:00 report excerpt speaks of The Information Center's Operation Board (defining HQ), while the 02:06 - 02:27 report speaks of the official time stamps indicating how long the object was tracked.

Granted that 120 Miles could well be an estimation, however assuming that it's an accurate report, the object seems to have altered it's speed upon it's approach to the city, before slowing again once over land... And it possibly even changed direction!

It's interesting to note that at 01:44, a good 16 minutes before HQ first picked up the signal returns, SCR 268 radar units, and 270's verifying, picked up the object.

The SCR 268 had a reported range of about 22 miles. This would put the object (at maximum) 22 miles out from the coast at 01:44. The object was verified by 2 additional units.

Then at 02:00, the object is located by HQ, 120 miles off the coast!

That looks like it came in once, and then went out again, before returning over LA to arrive the 2nd time to AA fire, searchlights, and the rest...

The object was tracked for 21 minutes by HQ, from 02:06 until 02:27, at which point it was 3 miles off the coast.

At 02:21, the regional commander ordered the blackout (and at this time the coastal radar units were ordered to support the searchlights).

The more I put all of the pieces together, the stranger this object's behavior seems to be! Certainly nothing I know of that was made by man in 1942 could have accomplished the feats described by the Radar Returns in this case, declassified and released to the public via the FOIA request filed by CUFON.


-WFA



Info on SCR 268 Radar Units:
www.antiaircraft.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
so the 2 major peices of evidence are the radar data and the photo.

Although I should say radar operators report because we dont have the actual radar data to hand which is ashame.

From a skeptics point of view we would ask how good was radar technology in 1942? well it was nothing like the radar we use today they were working at much longer wavelengths and so had a far lower resolution. We also have inexperienced operators trying to read an oscilloscope which was far diffirent from the radar scopes operators look at today.

We have several other false alarms after pearl harbour. Now those operators that initiated the alarm thought they had a targets too otherwise they wouldnt have raised the alarm. Were these ufos? or just misinterpreted radar readings?

Skeptical conclusion on the radar would be its just as likely another false alarm than an actual craft of any kind.

The photo well theres not much to say there. Its not clear there may be an object there but there may not. Its inconclusive you certainly cant call it clear. The photo requires a leap of faith.

Thats the main reasons you wont find many skeptics reaching the same conclusion as you.



[edit on 20-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Yeti, you really shouldn't speak for anyone but yourself, I've found several skeptics who share my conclusions.

Above you are arguing that absence of evidence (the radar data in your hands) proves evidence of absence (that the radar data does not exist).

This if flatly ridiculous.

Read the CUFON report. 3 coastal radar units picked up the target, before the target was 'well tracked on radar from 02:06 to 02:27.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

The declassified CUFON report CLEARLY and without question directly informs you that HQ tracked the object for 21 minutes on Radar. (and that's just HQ, an SCR269 and two 270's also tracked the object!).

Multiple radar returns and tracking from multiple units eliminate your theory of 'false radar returns' from the possible explanations list.

Further on this point, the data on the Radar Units has been well detailed in this thread (pictures, data, specs, etc.) Perhaps a cursory review of the section of the index regarding Equipment used in the event will assist your understanding of actual radar units used in the battle.

Regardless of your level of familiarity with the actual equipment, multiple instruments simply do not fail in the same way at the same time for no reason, all showing false returns from the same location, moving at the same speed, that can then be verified and tracked by HQ. Especially not when these Radar units were different instruments (a 268 and two 270's).

Your logic here fails on several counts to explain the radar evidence available here. You don't need every point of data from the radar unit to be able to acknowledge what is printed clearly in the FOIA Report.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
Skeptical conclusion on the radar would be its just as likely another false alarm than an actual craft of any kind.


That's not the skeptical conclusion at all Yeti, a skeptic would include the ENTIRE data set, and form a Hypothesis! A conclusion inconsistent with the data set cannot be considered a valid Hypothesis.


Originally posted by yeti101
The photo well theres not much to say there. Its not clear there may be an object there but there may not. Its inconclusive you certainly cant call it clear. The photo requires a leap of faith.


The photo has been examined and analyzed. Perhaps it may help you to take one of these analyses and argue against the points raised by them.

Summarily dismissing something does not refute it Yeti. You must refute the points made supporting the likelyhood of an object in the image.

How about starting with Bruce macabee's analysis:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or my own:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just stating: "It's not really clear" really does nothing to advance this case either way, and is soley a statement of your own opinion, qualified in no way (thus far) with evidence.


Originally posted by yeti101
Thats the main reasons you wont find many skeptics reaching the same conclusion as you.


Plenty skeptics reach the same conclusions as me when researching this case. Several skeptics have actually read the entire thread and taken the full data set into consideration. This 19 page report includes MANY well respected ATS skeptics, and ALL of them have at the very least come to the conclusion that nothing man-made in 1942 (that we know of) fits with the observable evidence in this case.

There have been several pseudoskeptics who refuse to acknowledge certain points within the data set (a trend you seem determined to follow here Yeti...), however as has been said, ignoring data does not make it go away.

You seem, Yeti, to think that I in some way care if you personally believe that the BOLA case was a UFO.

Let me be clear, I don't care in the slightest what you think. I don't even care if your theories are consistent with the data set. Think/believe whatever pleases your Shostakian mind!

What this thread does is examine the full data set. If you are unwilling/unable to do that, start your own thread about how you think the BOLA event didn't include radar returns. In that thread you can ignore the CUFON report, and I'll promise not to post in it at all so that you can keep any evidence you'd like to remain 'forgotten' in the dark. You can hide in that little self generated thread-world just as long as it pleases you. I care not at all.

What does bother me is how you continually step into this thread, and make statements that have already been shown to be false before your arrival.

That's pretty damned annoying to be perfectly frank. But I've got the dedication and determination to continually counter blanket statements of inaccuracy with evidence. So while it's annoying to no end, feel free to continue, if you're dead set on continuing that tactic.

Readers of this thread and others can come to their own conclusions, and likely will, the third or fourth time you do it repeatedly, are called out on it, and don't change your ways...

What really gets me, is that you fully support Shostak's radio SETI, and out of the other side of your mouth you're trying to DIMINISH radar return data!


LOL. Yeti, I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for you...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



Plenty skeptics reach the same conclusions as me when researching this case......this 19 page report includes MANY well respected ATS skeptics, and ALL of them have at the very least come to the conclusion that nothing man-made in 1942 (that we know of) fits with the observable evidence in this case.


really? who's that then?

Arbitrageur comes to the same conclusion as me. I havn't seen the others state what they think.


Multiple radar returns and tracking from multiple units eliminate your theory of 'false radar returns' from the possible explanations list.


this statement proves you dont know anything about radar, how it works, or what it can see. I would expect all 3 stations to pick up the same signals if there was soemthing there or not. The army says it was well tracked im sure if you asked the operators of the other false alarms they would say they had a well tracked object too. Why else would they sound the alarm? it doesnt mean there was anything there.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Update on photo analysis:

Frank Warren said he was going to post the original LAtimes photo on his site but I haven't found it there if he has, I just looked here www.theufochronicles.com... and here www.theufochronicles.com... . Even though I didn't find the high quality photos there, he's got an excellent story of the event on those pages. He also suggested looking at Rense www.rense.com... and I did find some photos there but they're not of very good quality, the negative photo is only 88289 bytes and the microfilm photo is only 15031 bytes! Frank also suggested themaccabee site brumac.8k.com... and his was better quality with 152589 bytes and is labeled as "the photo provided by Frank Warren"

So the photos on Maccabee's site and on Rense aren't the same (they are different quality versions of the same photo) but I took a closer look at those anyway since Frank said at least they aren't 100th generation copies. First the microfilm photo (Rense):



Next photo labeled as from LAtimes negative:


When I compared those 2 I noticed how much darker the microfilm photo was. So I tried some lower gamma settings on the photo from the negative just to see what it would look like:



And one more with gamma lower still:



The only real conclusion I can draw from these photos is that they don't seem to confirm the assertion by lazyguy that the real solid object seen is a small disk on the left side of the bright area, because if anything, there's actually less brightness in that exact spot where he stated he sees a solid object.

I took a similar look at the macabee original photo:



and the low gamma version:



As you can see this image has less jpeg artifacts than the Rense photo but still doesn't confirm the disk shape in the left side of the bright area found by lazyguy

Now for some other interesting photos. First one that PROVES there had to be a solid object in the spotlights (or does it?)


www.geocities.com...

Notice the way those beams all travel well past the intersection point. Only a solid object could block all of them right?

Well look again. What do you see above the intersection point? All but about 4 of the beams end before the edge of the photo and those that continue do so very faintly.

Also look at where the beams end, there is no solid object stopping the beam, they just stop and fade away.

Now look at how incredibly close together the searchlights are!!! In the foreground you can see the outline of the searchlights themselves, and you can almost measure how many searchlight diameters until the next searchlight location, and it's not very many, right? So these lights are really, really close together.

What would happen if you rearranged these lights in a circle with twice the diameter, or a little more. That still wouldn't be a very big circle, but the searchlights would then be fading out much closer to the point of intersection. So even with no smoke, no planes, no UFOs, I expect we can widen this circle to the point that the beams all appear to stop at the point of intersection. Throw a few puffs of smoke at the point of intersection and then it looks like the smoke is stopping the light but it's really not, the smoke reflects the light, but the light would have appeared to stop with or without the smoke.

Here's another photo illustrating this phenomenon, quite dramatic I might add:


from: www.skylighters.org...

As we see, these searchlight beams can and do appear to come to an end with apparently no solid object, and not even any smoke blocking the beam. What causes this effect? I'm not really sure, I'm just observing that the photographic evidence shows it happens. I can only speculate it might be a function of atmospheric density, humidity (possibly even very light almost invisible "fog" in cases), suspended particulate matter, or in the case of LA possibly even a smog layer could contribute to such an effect.

And of course, the beam "appearing" to come to an end doesn't really mean the beam actually stopped, it's just that the visible trace of the beam passing through the atmosphere that appears to stop, and not necessarily the beam itself.

So what can we conclude from all this? Well, really the same thing Jeff Ritzmann concluded before, I agreed with him then and still do, that the photo is inconclusive.

There could be a solid object blocking the searchlights.

But to suppose that's the only possible explanation for this photo I think ignores a lot of other evidence I posted here, so the other option is equally viable, that the searchlights were beginning to fade out anyway and it only took some smoke, and not a solid object, to terminate the beams.

Interestingly, Dr. Maccabee's analysis says:


The fact that the beams basically do not get past the "object" (there is some faint evidence of beams above the object), whatever was at the beam convergence must have been optically quite dense.


I think what these other photos demonstrate is that beams fade out even when there's no apparent optical density of ANY smoke or ANY object, Therefore to see a beam fade out when there is smoke, could certainly be a combination of the distance from the source, and a lower density smoke than Dr Maccabee suggests. As other photos suggest the beams can give the appearance of ending with no smoke or solid object at all. I also find it interesting that he sees faint evidence of beams above the bright area, I have a hard time seeing that.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


There are protocols that help operator rulle out fake signals. To which extent they were in service in 1940 or not, I don't know.

What I can tell is that one radar can have false signals, and they can look very real to the operator. Like stated in other threads, and like you also stated, it all depends on the hability of the operator to understand the reading.

But I would like to rulle out the "experience" factor. The military doesn't have years to lose untill their operator know how to use a tool.

For example, when sonar/hydrophones started to being use on submarines, they weren't very effective because of the operators, but months later, the operator could already tell you if it was a destroyer, carrier, battleship or a simple fishing boat.

Same with radar. They spot traffic very often, enough to learn how aircraft readings look like, and learn about the size of the aircraft, distance and so on.

Mistakes can still happen, but this isn't the case, in my opinion.

If it was ONE radar that made the detection, I would agree with you. But not three.

Three radars would mean that all three operators, and all three control centers were unable to detect a false reading. In my opinion, they knew it wasn't false.

In my opinion, that alone rulles out false signals.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


thats an interesting opinion but your wrong.

The brits had a much better handle on how to interperate radar than the americans and were also further along in the development of radar technology. The top radar man from britain was sent to the states in 1942 at the request of the USA and his report on the american army was damning. The biggest single fault he identified was the operators were often untrained complete novices. He also advised them to change the wavelength of their equipment and how to interperate the data better.

There was a view within the american army that radar was a bit of a dark art it wasnt taken that seriously among the high ups in the chain of command. They didnt put as much time & effort into it as britain and operators didnt understand the technology

Lessons were learned but not before a couple of major failures.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
While discussing this case offline with a non-ATS member, who was reading the thread, I was asked about the discrepancies between my math and undermind's math, regarding the speed of the object.


reply to post by Tifozi
 



Originally posted by yeti101
I would expect all 3 stations to pick up the same signals if there was something there or not. The army says it was well tracked im sure if you asked the operators of the other false alarms they would say they had a well tracked object too. Why else would they sound the alarm? it doesnt mean there was anything there.


Whether the radar tracking was a false signal, a real signal from an ordinary object, or from a plane or UFO, really doesn't seem to be that relevant to my analysis of this case. It's interesting information to note that's what placed LA on blackout and caused the alarm. I'm curious to know what the radar tracked, however I have no reason to believe it was the same object involved in the shooting.

I can't find any radar tracking data between 2:27 am and the time the shooting started after 3am, which leaves a void of 33 minutes where we can't really connect the 2 events. We can speculate that they might be connected, but is there any evidence for this? none that I have found.

The events that took place after 3am are fascinating enough. I think this thread is putting way too much emphasis on the radar event from 2am-2:27am which may have no connection to the shooting that started at 3am. I read the entire account on Frank Warren's site, and that account clearly portrays a UFO event, but even that story doesn't really make a big deal out of the radar contact. You can read C. Scott Littleton's account here www.theufochronicles.com... (Frank Warren's site) he never mentions radar at all!!!! And it seems apparent the speed of the object in the shooting is vastly different from the speed of the radar contact, which is another reason to suspect it's not even the same object.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Tifozi
 


thats an interesting opinion but your wrong.


Actually it wasn't opinion, he reinforced the statement you've continued to ignore that multiple machines don't pick up (let alone track) a false signal.

Tifozi listed 3 radar units, when including HQ we actually have 4 units, all reading the same object...

The chance of false readings by 4 independent operators (with the HQ operator being directly overseen by Command) is extremely slim. A Code Green was ordered. Your point here has failed scrutiny against the available data set, acquired through FOIA.


Originally posted by yeti101
The brits had a much better handle on how to interperate radar than the americans and were also further along in the development of radar technology. The top radar man from britain was sent to the states in 1942 at the request of the USA and his report on the american army was damning. The biggest single fault he identified was the operators were often untrained complete novices. He also advised them to change the wavelength of their equipment and how to interperate the data better.

There was a view within the american army that radar was a bit of a dark art it wasnt taken that seriously among the high ups in the chain of command. They didnt put as much time & effort into it as britain and didnt understand the technology

Lessons were learned but not before pearl harbor.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]


You seem to have a real issue with the timeline here Yeti...

Pearl Harbor happened before the BOLA event...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arby, what an excellent post! Well thought out and presented arguments! Great comparison photos
Well said.

I would differ with your conclusion, regarding the BOLA photo, however, and the 'ending' of the searchlights.

When viewed from a distance (as all of the beams in the BOLA photo were) each beam has a point of maximum brightness, before beginning to fade.

These have been marked up on the image below for review:



I'd love to hear your comments on this observation from the LA Times Photo..

Thanks again for your detailed and well thought out post!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The events that took place after 3am are fascinating enough. I think this thread is putting way too much emphasis on the radar event from 2am-2:27am which may have no connection to the shooting that started at 3am. I read the entire account on Frank Warren's site, and that account clearly portrays a UFO event, but even that story doesn't really make a big deal out of the radar contact. You can read C. Scott Littleton's account here www.theufochronicles.com... (Frank Warren's site) he never mentions radar at all!!!! And it seems apparent the speed of the object in the shooting is vastly different from the speed of the radar contact, which is another reason to suspect it's not even the same object.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]


While I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment Arby (and thank you for clearing up your views, as Yeti was intent to miscategorize them...)

I was showing the radar data to refute the theory that 'nothing was in the sky that night at all, and the event was caused by war nerves'.

Yeti can't seem to acknowledge this point, so you're right, no use continuing to argue what has already been clearly demonstrated...

Quick question for you, since you're clearly examining the evidence I've presented here...

How does the new index work for you? Is it easier to use when finding something here in the thread, than say, the bibliography section at the start of the thread? I'm curious to hear your feedback, so that I can make this thread as functional as possible
Thanks!

Arby, which aspect of this investigation would you like to focus on next? I'm game to follow where you lead for the moment, we make a good team when focusing on the same cases... I've gone over several aspects of the case here, and followed several avenues of research... What do you suggest should be our next line of investigation?

Thanks again for contributing to this investigation!
Your posts always make me really think!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



Plenty skeptics reach the same conclusions as me when researching this case......this 19 page report includes MANY well respected ATS skeptics, and ALL of them have at the very least come to the conclusion that nothing man-made in 1942 (that we know of) fits with the observable evidence in this case.


really? who's that then?


Well, Bruce Macabee for one, and Frank Warren for another... But that's not counting the ATS users who have also come to similar conclusions (these are legion, read this thread...)


Originally posted by yeti101
Arbitrageur comes to the same conclusion as me. I havn't seen the others state what they think.


Multiple radar returns and tracking from multiple units eliminate your theory of 'false radar returns' from the possible explanations list.



Arby has spoken for himself. Perhaps it's best you let Arby continue to speak for himself, as your assessments of Arby's beliefs don't quite measure up to Arby's actual posts themselves...


Originally posted by yeti101
this statement proves you dont know anything about radar, how it works, or what it can see.


You're right Yeti, I know absolutely nothing about bouncing a radio wave off of a solid object, and having that radio wave reflect back to the receiver next to the transmitter, and then calculating the elapsed time.

I also have no idea about the range and altitude accuracy of the SCR 268 and 270 (read the thread dude, I've posted detailed spec sheets on both units, and have sourced from that data when presenting my arguments herein...).

Yep, I totally know nothing about how 3 separate coastal units, all in different locations, can actually coordinate to triangulate a position using multiple radar transmitters and receivers to draw an accurate picture of a physical moving object. Yep, I know nothing about that at all.

I certainly couldn't know anything about HQ confirming the target, and then tracking it as well for 21 minutes, as it headed into the coast at a speed impossible for most planes at the time (certainly not a Sub-launched glider), that was theoretically launched from an Aircraft carrier that neither the Japanese nor the Germans had in the area at the time...

Yeah, your blanket statement of dismissal with no evidence to back it up certainly disproves the pages of actual cited evidence on the radar equipment actually involved in this case that I've so far sourced in this thread.

You're totally right there Yeti, how did I miss that? Thanks for clearing that up for me. LOL.




Originally posted by yeti101
I would expect all 3 stations to pick up the same signals if there was soemthing there or not.


Really, would you mind explaining this assertion using Math and Physics? I don't think it's possible. Perhaps for a temperature inversion, but those don't move at over 300mph...

I'd love to hear how you think 4 radar stations could pick up and track the same moving signal. Please do tell. Add some pictures please, and some supporting evidence of when this has EVER occurred to your knowledge.

(Keep in mind that Tifozi is a pilot, and will comment on your post...)




Originally posted by yeti101
The army says it was well tracked im sure if you asked the operators of the other false alarms they would say they had a well tracked object too. Why else would they sound the alarm? it doesnt mean there was anything there.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by yeti101]


It does mean there was something there. Enough of a something there to order AA Batteries to open fire over a populated city for over half an hour, causing civilian deaths, and property damage.

But hey, that's just what the United States Army decided. I suppose you can doubt their decision if you'd like, but the supplied data indicates your theory is highly unlikely...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



so your presuming the british radar guy went to america jan 1st 1942, investigated all aspects of their systems, compiled & presented them with his report. Which they studied then implimented all his recommendations including the thorough training of operators all in the time frame of what? 8 weeks?

what planet do you live on?

actaully i edited the pearl harbor bit becuase i knew the slow of thinking would think something like this. And it wasnt that one event there was another failure in the pacific which led to them requesting outside help.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join