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: 21
89
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


your assuming the radar operatoers interpreted the radar readings correctly. How do you know they werent picking up 2 diffirent false reads at diffirent times and thinking they were the same "object". Seems like your putting an awfull lot of stock into something that was branded "gravely unsuitable" by experts of the time.


Tifozi- peral harbor December 1941, The BOLA Feb 1942. Phages post summarizes the state of US radar at this time.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by yeti101]




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


A thermal inversion is like oil on water. If you move it, it will dissipate (in MOST CASES lol).

[edit on 21/9/09 by Tifozi]


Exactly...

www.chaseireland.org...

or a more advanced explanation here:
www.mocpa.com...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


your assuming the radar operatoers interpreted the radar readings correctly. How do you know they werent picking up 2 diffirent false reads at diffirent times and thinking they were the same "object"


Tifozi- peral harbor December 1941, The BOLA Feb 1942.



Because 3 radar units picked up the same object, that was then verified by HQ (at the radioed in location) and then tracked for 21 minutes by the Regional Commander.

A simple reading of the FOIA report via CUFON would have told you this...

Also, three units is enough for direct triangulation.

I applied my knowledge of Science and Math.

-WFA

also, to your response to Tifozi, that's the point Yeti, Pearl Harbor was BEFORE this event. Radar operators were VERY well trained in the US after Pearl Harbor...

[edit on 21-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Thank you for the correction, dunno why but I thought of BOLA in December 9. (confuse with Kecksburg case.
)

But I still keep my opinion.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
well it looks like the skeptics are remaining skeptical on this one.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
well it looks like the skeptics are remaining skeptical on this one.



It would be nice to include you in that list...

Skeptics keep an open mind to the possibilities that fit with the observable evidence...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Actually, you made an error in your speed calculations. The elapsed time between the initial fix and the time the return was lost three miles offshore was 27 minutes not 21 minutes. Assuming the 120 mile figure is accurate (I'm always a bit suspicious of round numbers in cases like this), that would make the speed 260 mph. BTW, did you know the submarine which shelled Ellwood carried a reconnaissance aircraft?

But aside from all that, a temperature inversion is not a solid thing and it does not exist in one spot, it covers an area, often a large area. They commonly form over water. Think of it as the surface of a swimming pool (but upside down). You know how the light reflected by a swimming pools seems to move around because of the ripples on the surface? An inversion does not have a rigid, flat surface. It has bumps, even actual waves. Radio waves can do the same thing when they encounter an inversion that light waves do when they encounter the surface of the swimming pool. The term "tracking" can be misleading. Unless you are talking about today's highly advanced radar, an object is not continuously tracked. A return is seen in one sweep, then in the next. If it is a weak return (from a small object or an object near the range limits of the receiver, or a reflection from an inversion layer) it may not appear in every sweep. There can be many returns on the scope. It is a judgment call to decide whether a given return is an actual object and whether a series of returns is the same object in motion, or if it is noise. We know the radar was not very good, we know the operators were not well trained. We know everyone was extremely jumpy (remember Ellwood). The tendency would be to err on the side of caution and declare a questionable contact to be a real contact. This, combined with the indications that the contact was suddenly lost, makes a false alarm a viable possibility. There were many false radar alerts at this time.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Actually, you made an error in your speed calculations. The elapsed time between the initial fix and the time the return was lost three miles offshore was 27 minutes not 21 minutes.


I don't think I did make an error, I addressed the discrepancies above, however, lets say 260mph (I said 300, averaging the low end estimate of 260 (27 minutes) with the high end estimate of 334mph (21 Minutes), roughing the average at 300mph for a fair estimate...)

Lets say 260mph, the points raised above are still valid.

You cannot have 260mph wind and a temperature inversion in the same place.


Originally posted by Phage
Assuming the 120 mile figure is accurate (I'm always a bit suspicious of round numbers in cases like this), that would make the speed 260 mph.


I understand this hesitancy to accept a round number like that. I agree it was likely an estimate, and have so noted in above posts...


Originally posted by Phage
BTW, did you know the submarine which shelled Ellwood carried a reconnaissance aircraft?


Why yes, as I've explained before in this thread, it carried a glider. A glider that moved at the speed of the wind.

When evaluating that possibility against the available evidence in this case, I found the glider explanation extremely lacking. Not to mention a glider would be exceptionally easy to shoot down (providing evidence of it's existence, where in this case no such evidence was found...)

We disagree on your points on the radar, however I don't have the time to fully address the post today (I have to go play plumber for my GF
...)

I'll do my best to reply again in the morning


-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

As I pointed out, the inversion does not have to move for the returns to interpreted as motion.



Why yes, as I've explained before in this thread, it carried a glider. A glider that moved at the speed of the wind.
No. That makes no sense. What possible use would a glider be? How would it be launched? How far could it fly, so what use would it be for recon? Also, gliders do not "move at the speed of the wind". When evaluating the possibility you should display a bit more knowledge about the subject.

The I-17 which shelled Ellwood was a B-1 class sub. The aircraft carried by B-1's was the Yokosuka E14Y1. Not capable of 260mph but I'm still calling the radar reports highly suspect anyway. No, I'm not claiming the Glen was what was being shot at. But there is a possibility it was the source of the radar contact if it was a real contact.




also, to your response to Tifozi, that's the point Yeti, Pearl Harbor was BEFORE this event. Radar operators were VERY well trained in the US after Pearl Harbor...
No.
They were not well trained on February 24th. West coast radar was in a dismal state. The report by Robert Watson Watt (the premier expert on radar at the time) was made shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. On January 30th, Col. Gordon P. Saville concurred with the report and sent a memo to General Arnold in which he said the report was a

damning indictment of our whole warning service.
www.ibiblio.org...

Do you think it's possible to get the Signal Corps from inadequately trained to "VERY well trained" (ignoring the weaknesses of the equipment), in something as technically rigorous as radar operation, in three weeks?

[edit on 9/21/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


Why yes, as I've explained before in this thread, it carried a glider. A glider that moved at the speed of the wind.
No. That makes no sense. What possible use would a glider be? How would it be launched? How far could it fly, so what use would it be for recon? Also, gliders do not "move at the speed of the wind". When evaluating the possibility you should display a bit more knowledge about the subject.


Pardon me, there are several points here that require addressing differently.

First, a glider does move at the speed of the wind, unless you increase speed by diving (therefore also loosing altitude...)

That being said, I was under the impression that the planes actually were gliders, I had not seen a spec sheet on that specific plane. Thank you for providing it.

The manner of launching is clearly described as by using a catapult for all of these Sea-Planes, including the Glen:

[Japan

The Japanese applied the concept of the submarine aircraft carrier extensively. Altogether 47 submarines were built with the capability to carry seaplanes. Most IJN submarine aircraft carriers could carry only one aircraft, though a few types could carry two, and the giant I-400 class submarines could carry three.
[edit] B1 Type (20 units)
Main article: B1 type submarine
B1 type submarine.

The B1 Type (I-15 Series) submarines (I-15, I-17, I-19, I-21, I-23, I-25, I-26, I-27, I-28, I-29, I-30, I-31, I-32, I-33, I-34, I-35, I-36, I-37, I-38, I-39) were the most numerous type of submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. In total, 20 were made, starting with number I-15, which became the name of the series. These submarines were fast, had a very long range, and carried a single Yokosuka E14Y seaplane, located in a hangar in front of the conning tower, which was launched by a catapult.

...The submarines were also able to carry three Sei ran aircraft (the Aichi M6A), each carrying a 1,760 lb (800 kg) bomb 650 mi (1,050 km) at 360 mph (580 km/h). Its name was combination of sei ("clear sky") and ran ("storm"), literally "storm out of a clear sky," because the Americans would not know they were coming. It had a wing span of 40 ft (12 m) and a length of 38 ft (11.6 m). To fit the aircraft into the hangar, the wings of the aircraft were folded back, the horizontal stabilizers folded down, and the top of the vertical stabilizer folded over so the overall profile of the aircraft was within the diameter of its propeller. A crew of four could prepare and get all three airborne in 45 minutes, launching them with a 120 ft (37 m) catapult on the fore deck of the giant submarine.]

You are correct, these planes had a propeller and a bit of fuel. As you pointed out, there were not capable of achieving even have of 260mph...

I'm sure you can understand my confusion, seeing as how these planes are launched via catapult, and have to be small enough to fit inside a submarine...


Originally posted by Phage
The I-17 which shelled Ellwood was a B-1 class sub. The aircraft carried by B-1's was the Yokosuka E14Y1. Not capable of 260mph but I'm still calling the radar reports highly suspect anyway. No, I'm not claiming the Glen was what was being shot at. But there is a possibility it was the source of the radar contact if it was a real contact.


Thanks for the specs, I always like to have good data on the equipment involved. You make some good points.

I'll be the first to admit (as I have numerous time in this thread already) that I was not even born yet in 1942, and that there is no way everyone can know everything.

In review however, we still don't have a man-made aircraft explanation for the radar returns. I'm sorry that you find them suspect, and I really am attempting to understand why you doubt their authenticity...

After witnessing several major tragedies in my life (don't mean to be political, just using an example from my experience) like 9/11, or the '93 WTC Bombing, I wouldn't expect it to take 3 weeks to train folks on a job like radar operation, especially when those individuals have higher ups who then check their reports for accuracy against regional controller radar data...

Those working in Airline security certainly proved just how quickly and efficiently an entire network of trained individuals can shift their gameplay to cover a loose end.

I don't personally like to take my shoes off every time I go to the airport, but one must admit that it only took Richard Reed to instantly trigger a response from the proper authority in that case. (the same can be said with Security around the WTC after the '93 bombing, or about ATF Officer training after Waco.)

I really see no reason that Pearl Harbor would have been treated any differently. There was a failure to detect the incoming attack on radar and distribute that information to Pearl Harbor's fleet. Yes, I think it's highly likely that this specific error was addressed as soon as possible. In fact, 3 weeks seems like an extremely delayed response time.

The fact of the matter with the radar returns, is that you have multiple instruments picking up the same target, and tracking it moving a great speed. Each of these radar units had more than one individual operating them.

Why would it be more likely (from the skeptical perspective, applying Occam's Razor) that all four machines had a similar malfunction, that was interpreted incorrectly by each of the unit's operators (definitely more than one) who then were misjudged by the Regional Command center?

Isn't it more likely in your view, that these four machines, and their crew of operations personnel, were all in agreement and correctly verifying each others observations?

You know Phage, at the outset of this investigation, I had trouble convincing some folks that there even WAS radar return data. At the time, I was argued against, saying that well even if it there was a radar return, it was probably a faulty unit. (Let me be clear that Phage in no way said these things, just talking to Phage about the claims of others...)

Now that it emerges that there were multiple units getting the same readings...

Instead of seeing that as additional scientific instruments collecting data that corroborates the initial contact, I hear some of the same folks now arguing that multiple instruments doesn't influence the conclusions I am to draw from the existence of their data...

This argument simply doesn't make sense. Phage, you and I both know that if say an Asteroid were coming at the Earth, and I detected it with my telescope (not going to happen LOL, but just an example...) that I would then need to phone in my observation to have it verified by multiple telescopes within the field of view.

Additionally, when I take cell counts in the lab everyday, I don't just prepare one slide, and place it under one microscope, I prepare 20 slides, and take an average of the counts on each slide, and view them all under more than one scope...

In science, a proposed experiment should be necessarily doubled, if a variable is introduced, so that a control (preferably multiple controls) can be held against the test (preferably multiple tests)...

I'm just a bit in shock that when it comes to multiple radar units detecting what might well be a truly extraordinary object, well in THAT case ALL of the instruments MUST be faulty.

Surely you can understand why I'm having a problem going down that road.

As a scientist, when I see multiple scientific instruments (especially different models, like the SCR 268 and the two 270's, or the two different model microscopes in my lab that both read 750x optical zoom...) give corroborating data, I tend to think that the supplied data is accurate. If possible, if I still have doubts, I then repeat the test.

I don't think this case is any different, even if one of the possible explanations that fits this event is 'Extra-Terrestrial Spacecraft'.

-WFA

p.s. thanks for being patient. I had to install a shower pipe that had burst. It was no fun




Oooooops! Forgot to cite my source:
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 21-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Edited again to add:

Sorry phage, I forgot to address your point about how far can a glider go...

VERY far, if the thermals are right to get you up high enough. I've heard reports of people gliding all the way across the country, although you'd need to take your own oxygen along!


Sorry I don't have any sourcing on that handy for you, but you should be able to corroborate that with googling


-WFA

[edit on 21-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

First, I fly gliders (hang gliders) so I know quite a bit about the way they fly. You make it sound like gliders drift with the wind like balloons, they do not. Yes, gliders can travel very long distances, but there are no thermals at sea strong enough at sea to soar upon. At most, a catapult would send a glider several hundred feet into the air. Without rising air, it would quickly return to the waves. But that's all moot now anyway.

The examples you give of verification of results are good but they do not apply in this situation. A false return is not a malfunction. It is a radar reflection, but not from a solid object. The problem is in the interpretation of the reflection. A radar scope is not a magic window. This was especially true in 1942. The SCR-270 for example:

The unit's heart was the oscilloscope that gave a picture similar to a heart monitor in hospitals today. The operator would move the antenna through a given arc until the line across the bottom showed a small spike or pip. By adjusting the antenna and the controls, the pip was enhanced until the operator could tell the approximate distance to the target. Next, the operator looked out the window to a plate mounted on the antenna base, with an arrow on it that would give the direction of the contact. Unlike today's radar scopes, the antenna did not oscillate and there was no constant repainting of the picture on the scope. This system did not tell an incoming target's altitude, its size or number, nor did it differentiate friend from foe.
www.skylighters.org...

Understanding the spikes on the oscilloscope required interpretation. I think it's entirely possible that the radar operators were fooled and did not have a true track on an actual object (or it could even have been the seaplane from the sub, remember; approximate distance, and therefore speed).


It doesn't really seem that the Army Air Force was very impressed by the reports either, they didn't launch any interceptors. If there was a solid contact with a solid track, why not? Especially after what happened at Pearl Harbor. Did you learn anything about what happened on Oahu on March 7, 1942? The only thing done in Los Angeles was that a blackout was declared. As I've pointed out before, there were numerous blackouts declared based on false contacts. Radar was unreliable, the operators were unreliable, false alarms were rampant.

No, I don't believe that the radar operators became highly trained in the space of three weeks. Using TSA as an example is not a good choice. Radar operation is a highly technical field, a lot more technical than watching an x-ray screen and waving a wand over people. You do not become a highly skilled operator in a matter of weeks (not to mention, the "skill" level of a lot of the TSA officers I've run across).


[edit on 9/21/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Phage,

Thank you for your well thought out reply


I don't have much time now (cooking dinner for myself and GF), but I thought of some points that might interest you...

The SCR 268 initially picked up the contact, the 270's corroborated the first finding, at least that's how the CUFON report read to me, let me know if you think I've misread that...

On the 268:
"The SCR-268 could be fitted with an IFF system (Identification Friend or Foe) designed to receive radio signals from friendly aircraft properly equipped,
thereby giving radar operators positive identification of non-hostile radar echoes. IFF continued to be improved throughout the war and proved useful, but always seemed to be plagued by deficiencies that prevented the technology from operating at optimum reliability."




" Panel layout of the BC-412-A oscilloscope used with the SCR-268. Three oscilloscopes and three operators were needed - one each for elevation, azimuth and range tracking"

" Aircraft appeared as two spikes along a baseline on the elevation and azimuth scopes. When the spikes were of equal height, the radar was trained on the target. A single spike appeared on the range scope, and this echo was kept centered on the vertical hairline to compute slant range."

" The SCR-268 was not originally envisioned as a gun-laying device; its purpose was searchlight control. However, the M4 and M7 fire control directors were capable of accepting data from remote spotting scopes through means of cables and selsyn motors. This remote data system permitted the director to be placed safely in a bomb or splinter-proof shelter while it received tracking data from the distant optical elements. A method was developed to use these existing connectors to supply the director with information from the radar in a manner similar to how the director received data from optical height finders. When such a link was established between properly oriented equipment, the director could train its spotting scopes toward targets while they were still out of visual range, permitting faster pickup on aircraft when they became visible. This was an important advantage in a business where seconds mattered and accuracy of the first shot was critical. When the target appeared within sight, the SCR-268 was used to supply height information only, or was switched out altogether in favor of an optical height finder. Visual tracking was still preferred early in the war."

www.antiaircraft.org...

Further, at times, the SCR 268 directly controlled the Searchlight:



"A later model SCR-268-B with Battery A, 230th AAA Searchlight Battalion preparing for nighttime operations in the Pacific. The radar is being used to control the searchlight. Note how the SCR-268 and the searchlight are matched in azimuth and elevation. When the radar detects Japanese aircraft, the sixty-inch searchlight will automatically be trained in the proper direction to aid visual pickup of the target illuminated by the searchlight beam. "

And I highly recommend a thorough reading of this page, here's a taste...
"The SCR-268 antenna system consisted of a number of dipole
Dipole

In physics, there are two kinds of dipoles :*An electric dipole is a separation of positive and negative charge. The simplest example of this is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign, separated by some, usually small, distance....
elements arranged in three groups, each in front of a passive reflector, mounted on a large aimable cross. The cross consisted of a short upright pedestal sitting on top of a large base platform, mounting long cross-arms extending from the mid-point of the upright pedestal. The antenna system was about forty feet wide and ten feet high overall. Both the pedestal and the cross-arm could be rotated around their axis for aiming, in azimuth and altitude respectively.

The left side of the cross arm, as seen from the back, contained a set of dipoles that were set to be sensitive in angle, while almost insensitive to elevation. It was arranged six dipoles wide and four dipoles high, each with its own reflector. On the far right side was a similar, but smaller, arrangement rotated 90 degrees in order to be sensitive in elevation and not angle. This portion was two dipoles wide and six dipoles high with corresponding reflectors. Finally in the "middle" of the cross, between the upright pedestal and the elevation antenna, was the broadcasting array which created a circular beam about 10 degrees wide.

The three radar operators sat at consoles mounted on the pedestal just below the antenna cross-arm, each with their own oscilloscope
Oscilloscope

An oscilloscope is a type of electronic test instrument that allows signal voltages to be viewed, usually as a two-dimensional graph of one or more electrical potential differences plotted as a function of time or of some other voltage ....
display. One controlled the azimuth, another the elevation, and the third the range. Pointing the antenna was controlled by rotating large handwheels, the range being reported by a similar wheel.

The accuracy of the antennas themselves was not very high, about 9-12 degrees, so simply rotating the antenna and looking for a maximum would not point it very accurately. To help with this the antennas were deliberately designed to have two directions of high sensitivity, or "lobes". Signals from both lobes were displayed, slightly separated, on the layer's displays. By adjusting the antenna until the returns from both were equally strong, accuracies of about one degree were possible..."

www.absoluteastronomy.com...

I'll read it over again myself when I have the time, it's a great article


Here is some further data, that the above posted page was sourced from:

SCR-268, T1, A, B, C - Search Light Control
Frequency: 205 MHz, 1½ meter wavelength
Power Output: 50 kw
Pulse Width: 7 to 15 µseconds
Pulse Repetition Rate: 4098
Range: 40,000 yards
Vertical Coverage:
Horizontal Coverage:
Antenna:
Speed:
Beam Width:
Indicator Type and Quantity:
Manufacturer:
Notes: Had a provision for data transmission to a searchlight or gun director; 1940-1945, 2,974 procured.
The SCR-268 Radar;
Photos

SCR-268-T1 -
Frequency: 10 MHz
Notes: Precursor to all Army radar; Conceived in February 1936; Delivered for Coast Artillery service tests November 1938; classified as a development type March 1939; Double-lobe tracking; last unit to contain heat tracking; rotated only in azimuth (not vertically); Transmitter and receiver on different mounts; only one made.

SCR-268-T2 -
Frequency: 205 MHz
Notes: The T1 was disassembled and used for parts on the T2 winter of 1938-1939; 15 May 1939 first unit turned over for testing, but never officially service tested;

SCR-268-T3 -
Notes: first unit to have transmitter and receiver on same mount; construction started March 1940; service tested 15-25 April 1940 at Fort Hancock; at the conclusion of the service tests, the T3 was designated Radio Set SCR-268, Required Type, Adopted Type, Standard Article, classified as Secret on 17 June 1940; at the same time the SCR-268-T1 was declared obsolete. February 1941 two sets to the Coast Artillery School at Fort Monroe, four to harbor defense and antiaircraft units, and eight to the Air Defense Command for the use of the 1st Aircraft Warning Company. In March, two set went to Fort Monmouth, 11 to harbor defense and antiaircraft units, and 12 to Aircraft Warning Companies. Reached a delivery rate of about one set per day in April 1941.

SCR-268-T4 -
Notes: first unit scheduled to have specially designed mounts for separate transmitter and receiver units; it was decided to concentrate on the single mounted T3, so one of the specially designed mounts was used for the T3.

SCR-268-T8 -
Pulse Repitition Rate: 205 pps
Range: (1) 0 to 40,000 yds. (2) 40,000 to 80,000 yds. (3) 80,000 to 120,000 yds.
Notes: Repackaging of the complete Radio Set SCR-268-C to a Radio Set SCR-268-T8; lightweight transmitter modulator; Eight tube transmitter; reduced the number of vehicles from five to two; 205 cycle keying adaptor made possible the selection of the the three ranges listed above.

SCR-268A -
Notes: a series of modification that were incorporated into the SCR-268 while the basic SCR-268 was in production. These field modification kits were to prevent the disruption of the manufacturing of the SCR-268. One prime mover pulling the antenna trailer; another prime mover pulling van trailer for power units.

Note
Actual changes to the B and C were minor. Clarified the supply of vehicles, maintenance equipment and spare parts.

SCR-268B -
Notes: One prime mover pulling antenna trailer; three prime movers for the rectifier, the antenna parts and test equipment, and the third as spare parts truck.

SCR-268C -
Notes: One trailer mount and one trailer van. Modified receiver with remote control tuning.
Built by

www.mobileradar.org...

Enjoy!
There is a lot of good data on that machine...

-WFA

Edited to fix bold (used image tags like a dork!)

[edit on 21-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


By the way, that's awesome that you fly hang-gliders, and I totally envy you. Folks fly them over Encinitas all the time, and I usually see them on my drives to and from San Diego. (I live in LA).

I see a lot of hot air balloons up there too. Pretty cool stuff


-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Thanks, I had done a bit of research already. Did you notice the range of the SCR268? 22 miles.

There is no indication in the 0144 report (the report from three stations) of the location of the reported target but considering the range of the SCR268 radar it would have been somewhere very close to Los Angeles (we don't know if it was over land or sea but it was certainly not 120 miles away). There is no indication that it was the same target reported at 0200. There is no indication that any more than a single unit participated in the tracking of the target toward shore.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
well the radar system sounds like it was a recipe for false alarms. Giving the nature of the setup , multiple poorly trained operators. No wonder there were so many false alarms.

So what happened to the target when it was lost? I presume you think it switched on some cloaking device then switched it off 25 mins later. I'm sure you'll make any excuse to keep your version of events intact.

Then we have the account brought by arbitarguer that the AA fire was triggered by the shooting down of the balloon. What evidence is there against this ? I wonder what excuse you will find to dismiss this WFA



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 

In order to go with the balloon theory, you have to be willing to believe something like this:


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I do believe that initial fire may have been directed at a balloon. I believe the subsequent fire was directed at nothing but smoke and searchlight beams.


Phage is willing to believe that's a possibility, and so am I, but some people are not. They feel it's impossible for the soldiers to have continued firing at nothing but AA fire smoke and searchlight beams once the balloons were shot down.

If we looked at another date outside the war and accused soldiers of firing at nothing, I might understand the reluctance to believe it.

Part of my belief definitely relates to the psychological state of mind of the troops at the time, 2 months after Pearl harbor and right after an attack just up the coastline. "Ready to fire at a boy's kite" as FATE magazine put it.

After the shooting started at the balloons, we have this report:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


The first thing you have to ask yourself about this account, is that if it's so bloody easy to shoot down these balloons, why would he report "they are firing at our balloon" instead of "they shot down our balloon" Then the 203rd gets the order to fire at the balloon too as if it's still there! Think about it!

I assume they shot the balloons down, which may or may not be a valid assumption given the above account, and since the balloons can ascend to over 25000 feet but the 3" guns can't fire any higher than 24000 feet and they probably had the shells set to detonate much lower than that. So I'm not even convinced the balloons didn't have at least some chance of surviving, but I'm assuming they were shot down quickly for the purpose of this discussion (even if that's not the case).

After shooting at the balloons, there would be smoke from the AA fire where the shells exploded in the sky. So the question is, would they shoot at nothing but a blob of smoke lit up by the searchlights, after the balloons were shot down? Given their mental state, I don't see any reason why not.

Then we have all the eyewitness accounts about objects in the sky. Some of them refer to a yellow or orange light in the sky. This is actually consistent with the candle hanging underneath the balloon, as those sightings were early in the event, around 3am. And there are lots of other witness accounts about lots of different aerial configurations, some with as many as 100 planes in the sky. To me the fact that the eyewitness accounts are all different makes it hard to believe any of them. If 25 people all said they saw 9 planes I'd be more willing to believe 9 planes, or if 25 people all saw a disk shaped object I'd be more willing to believe there was a disk shaped object, but that's not the case.

In fact the even the idea that there COULD have been a disk in the sky that night was never even thought of for 5 years after the incident, as far as I can tell! (It was Kenneth Arnold's sighting that coined the term "flying saucer" and I think that may have got people thinking about saucer shaped objects).

It takes some imagination to believe in a flying saucer in this 1942 event given that out of all the different witness sightings, I haven't seen any reports of a disk shaped object at the time (I don't put much weight in recollections distorted by years of degradation, when we have so many eyewitness accounts that were documented at the time). If we only apply HALF the imagination needed to believe there was a flying saucer, to the idea of a soldier with jittery nerves firing at a puff of smoke, the puff of smoke lit by a searchlight theory really doesn't take much imagination.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



lets face it anyone with 2 brain cells will conclude this is a case of war nerves. If people want to delude themselves into thinking the sky was filled by alien spaceships whats the harm? let them live in their fantasy world if it makes them happy. They just shouldnt expect anyone with any critical thinking skills to agree.

edit : although i suppose those who think there is a genuine ufo phenomenon will be angry bunk like BOLA clutters their field. But theres so much bunk in ufology these days people like that are fighting a losing battle

[edit on 22-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Phage is willing to believe that's a possibility, and so am I, but some people are not. They feel it's impossible for the soldiers to have continued firing at nothing but AA fire smoke and searchlight beams once the balloons were shot down.


To me, they either shot something all that time (dunno if it's possible, but it's possible to imagine a ballon above the range of the AA shells being pushed by the pressure of the explosions all that time) or they were shoting those damn air molecules. lol

The problem is that this case is so old, that somethings we'll never know... And some of them still bother some people. There are events that seem to connect.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
So what happened to the target when it was lost? I presume you think it switched on some cloaking device then switched it off 25 mins later. I'm sure you'll make any excuse to keep your version of events intact.

Then we have the account brought by arbitarguer that the AA fire was triggered by the shooting down of the balloon. What evidence is there against this ? I wonder what excuse you will find to dismiss this WFA


Alright Yeti, I've had it with your lies and false accusations.

Find one time in this thread where I've said that I believe definitively that the object in the BOLA case was an extra-terrestrial spacecraft.

Find me ONE SINGLE PLACE I'VE EVER SAID SUCH A THING.

I've listed it as a possibility. I've said that it's ONE possibility amongst MANY. Heck I'm even considering Nohup's TimeShip Theory! STOP ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT MY CLAIMS.

There are pages and pages of this thread where I do nothing but examine TERRESTRIAL explanations, like Balloons, Airplanes, etc. But you decide to ignore all of that, and claim I'm on some 'believer's quest' or whatnot, and I'm 'convinced' it was Alien. I'm convinced of nothing! I hold several theories!

Arby and I are debating evidence. Phage and I are debating evidence. Tifozi and I are debating evidence. You are making personal attacks, innuendos, and insinuations that are not based in fact.

From the outset of this investigation I outlined a theory that upon full examination of all of the data, that this case would provide evidence of one instance where a terrestrial explanation does not fit with the observed evidence.

I've done NOTHING but test that theory here against data that I've spent a TON of personal time uncovering, sourcing, linking, reading through, cross-referencing, and organizing so that people like you can read through it online!

What the hell is your problem man? Why come here day after day, denying points that have been proven wrong, and continually accusing me of representing a viewpoint that I DO NOT REPRESENT????

What is your purpose here Yeti, besides to infer that I'm some 'believer nut bag'???

Arby, Phage, and Tifozi all seem to not have a problem sourcing evidence and debating it point for point, respectfully. You'll notice that when Arby or Phage or Tifozi uses evidence to make a good point, I comment to note that point and include it in my theorizing. I'm certain that Arby and Phage and Tifozi have noticed this...

Why then do you continue to claim that I'll 'make up any excuse to fit my version of events'???

Why is it that after a point of yours has been FULLY addressed, you continue to raise the point again two pages later in the thread, attempting to force me into wasting time addressing the same points again and again and again?

To date you have not provided a single new piece of data to this investigation. NOT ONE.

Your analysis has been shown as severely flawed in contrast to the actual data set on many occasions, and I can't really see that your being here to personally attack me is doing anyone any good.

ATS has a policy about attacking the post and not the poster. I've stuck to that policy strictly when addressing your blatant slander, and it is time that you begin to do the same.

I'm requesting that a moderator monitor this thread, and keep posters ON TOPIC. These personal attacks do not advance the debate, and frankly they detract from the actual debate being had by multiple posters who obviously care about this investigation enough to formulate well thought out posts that cite sources and provide evidence to back up their arguments.

Phage, Arby, and Tifozi, I will of course address your posts as I am able to today. I've got to be honest though. I'm going to step away for a bit this morning. I'm pretty pissed off and tired of being ridiculed by Yeti's demeaning insults. I've done nothing to deserve that crap. In fact, if ANYONE has put serious time and effort into researching this case and examining the evidence, it's me. No matter whether or not we come to the same conclusions... Thanks to the three of you for actually debating with courteous respect, and to adding information to the thread that was needed (note the NEED DATA tags on page 1 of this thread, and my request for just such assistance...). It is noted and appreciated...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Thanks, I had done a bit of research already. Did you notice the range of the SCR268? 22 miles.


I did notice, in this post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I noted the following:
"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..."

Interestingly enough, ExtraAlien noticed this early in the thread in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Phage
There is no indication in the 0144 report (the report from three stations) of the location of the reported target but considering the range of the SCR268 radar it would have been somewhere very close to Los Angeles


Agreed fully.


Originally posted by Phage
(we don't know if it was over land or sea but it was certainly not 120 miles away).


Agreed fully.


Originally posted by Phage
There is no indication that it was the same target reported at 0200.


Here I disagree. The object was listed as 'unidentifiable' in the CUFON report, that was spotted by the SCR 268, and confirmed by the two 270's at 01:44. While it doesn't spell it out in the report letter for letter, what this indicates to my reading is that the SCR 268 attempted to use an IFF to determine if this craft was friend or foe. Unable to verify an IFF friendly return, the SCR 268 contacted the two closest radar units (which happened to be 270s) to verify the existence of the object.

At this time, once verified, protocol would dictate reporting the object to HQ, in this case, the Regional Controller. Logic would dictate that when the Regional Controller checked the area, he found the object (at that point 120 miles off the coast).

Without reading the initial reports that the CUFON report was drawn from, neither you or I can say with any degree of accuracy whether or not further radar data exists, nor the degree to which this object was tracked. From what we have available (considering that the CUFON report includes all of this data in the same paragraph) it appears that the object sighted by the 268 and confirmed by the 270s was the same object then detected by the Regional Controller's Radar Op.

I would love to see further data on this point. But at this point, I think it's really impossible to say that further radar tracking does not exist. It likely does, and in more detail, from the initial reports. Until I can read those reports, its not something I can dismiss simply because lack of evidence does not provide evidence of absence.


Originally posted by Phage
There is no indication that any more than a single unit participated in the tracking of the target toward shore.


While I agree here that there is no further information in the CUFON report, we must remember that this report was drawn up as a summary of direct reports from the event. Within those direct reports (if anyone can ever source them...) we should find further radar tracking data... At present, further tracking data is unknown, with a reasonable chance of existing and having not been discovered in this particular investigation.

I would very much appreciate any help you may be able to provide, in locating those initial reports. I've listed several of them here in the thread, but the best way to find their titles (I've found) is to take the notes straight out of the CUFON report's bibliography (footnotes tags...).

I find it highly unlikely that all of the Coastal units simply shut down as the object came over the coast. I find it much more likely that the CUFON summary report choose not to further reflect coastal radar return data, after the Regional Controller's Radar data was available.

The initial reports exist somewhere, we simply need to locate them and find out what they contain...

Also of note, from the CUFON report, pertaining to the training of our AA officers. Far from 'poor', it was rated immediately after the event as 'fair':

"...the total AA strength at the time was 294 Officers and 8653 enlisted men, and that the 'Estimate of Combat Efficiency' was 'Fair'"

This summary report section was sourced from:
37th Brig Unit Report, 1 March 1942, an initial report that was summarized in the CUFON report.

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join