Hi Neformore! Before I begin to address your post, I just have to say that I was reading the 'Are ETs That Stupid?' thread just yesterday. You
have a truly amazing mind, and I'm honored that you would turn it to this issue.
I hope others from that thread, like Ecoterrestrial and Tayga jump in here too. Intelligent analysis is the only way were going to get to the bottom
of this event, and the more folks interested in such analysis the better. Welcome! On to your questions...
Originally posted by neformore
Firstly though, I have to start on a difficult note. The photograph that appears so many times in your info - its not the actual image is it?
By that I mean, its not the original genuine photo. Even if it was you would need to do a full proper analysis on the negative and not on the photo
itself. Digitial enhancements of scanned black and white newspaper photo's can't really prove anything I'm afraid
Without wading through the
books on the subject - something I'm convinced you have done - I have no idea if an analysis of the negatives was done. Was that the case?
It's a difficult note indeed. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not certain what images were used for what enhancements by different analysts.
That's one of the main reasons I wanted to compile all of this data, is to perhaps glean the answers to that question.
There are two images that are claimed to be the 'Original', and two more that claim to be 'the original negative'. Each has subtle differences,
and without the LA Times commenting, I'm not sure how to determine what is the original and what isn't. I've written to the LA Times, but have not
yet received a response.
I can say that MY analysis (not image analysis mind you, but analysis of the image in an attempt to ascertain the photographer's location) deals with
the image itself, and not the negative. I used the first picture listed in the Images section of the report, since it's the largest and seems to
contain the highest resolution. I put the photo in MS Paint, and reduced it's size by 50%, so that it would fit well in a post here at ATS. I
simply added the red lines you see to help bring out certain features like the searchlights and mountains. I fully believe we can find the location
of the photographer using clues from the image itself. That's as far as my personal image analysis has gone thus far. I would LOVE it if Bruce
Maccabee and Frank Warren (Frank is a member here) would weigh in on their image analysis. Bruce's site contains information on what he did to the
pics too.
Originally posted by neformore
From a purely visual POV, what I personally see is beam convergence, with a bright flak flash at the top that just happens to make it look like the
dome on a UFO. But I'll qualify that with the fact that I can't say that for sure and its open to individual interpretations, and if the negative
was analysed and shows something different then fair enough.
I would agree that it's difficult to determine what is in the picture. The work on the image in Bruce Maccabee's analysis seems to show an object
in the beams, with defined edges.
What makes me think that there is something there, is the fact that the AA shells are exploding against something, and not simply travelling on to
complete their arc of momentum and falling to ground at a distance. If there wasn't anything in the sky to impact against, physics tells us those
shells would keep on travelling.
That's just my take, and I'm certainly willing to examine evidence to the contrary
Originally posted by neformore
Back to my opinions...
The Japanese had some interesting projects in WW2.
Crazy, but this is true - one was the idea that they could introduce bubonic plague and other nasties to the US by floating carrier rats across the
Pacific on balloons.
The other was the use of aircraft, launched from submarines - yes submarines - to start huge forest fires by dropping incendiaries on dry woodland.
Several raids were mounted although none proved particularly successful
Its possible that the battle was sparked by a baloon cluster, or by a sub launched plane, and fuelled by national pride, and reflection off low lying
cloud. Possible mind, not definite.
I agree it's a possibility. I've considered it too. Nohup has a similar theory, and to be perfectly honest I'm not certain yet and feel more
analysis should be done.
The problem I keep coming back to with the 'balloon cluster' and 'sub launched plane' theories, is that we couldn't shoot this object down.
That's after over an hour of shelling, and over 1400 shells. YES, absolutely the japanese balloons and sub-launched planes existed at the time, but
neither could hover (the planes were gliders and the balloons would be influenced by the wind) and neither could take that kind of punishment from our
AA gunners.
Also, for reference, I have a great respect for Japanese ingenuity. Their ideas were really quite inspired. Forest Fires are one of the top threats
to California today.
Originally posted by neformore
So, I am most certainly not debunking this subject Witness, far from it. I'm looking for more information than I've got time to read up on
right now. I've read about the battle itself but never took the time to get into the full detail and you have so please, could you let me know how
the points I've raised above have been addressed?
Hope I've been able to help. I'll be honest though Neformore, I'm still investigating too!

I'm certain though that if people like you and I
keep digging into this, we'll at the very least be able to make a solid comprehensive list of what it WASN'T! Thank you indeed for bringing these
points up. I look forward to reading and thinking about your arguments in the future, both on this thread and others.