posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:28 AM
Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Analysis of original Battle of LA photo negative
Seems the classic photo everyone is familiar with is not the original. Below is a link to an article about recent analysis of the original negative.
The conclusions is that there is no aircraft of any sort, but rather a cloud or smoke at the nexus of the searchlight beams.
They noticed a moving cloud and started to shoot at it? And there were spotlights on the UFO. How is that logical to say that they were shooting at a
cloud? They even said that the object moved off to the shores and disappeared out of nowhere.
"They" -- in this case an experience Navy observer with good binoculars -- also said that he saw nine silver planes. Why aren't you going with his
observation, which clearly nullifies the ET UFO hypothesis? As far as witnesses back then go, I don't know if any of them used the term "UFO", and
if they did, they meant it in the most formal sense, i.e. an Unidentified Flying Object. The notion that this was an ET UFO only came about years
A clouds do move. I've lived in the LA area and witnessed moving clouds. The fog can roll in too, just like in the movies.
The point about the cloud, which I was making, has to do with the picture. The searchlights are all aimed at a purported glowing nexus, which some
contend is a ET UFO. This could be the underside of a cloud or the smoke from all the AA bursts. In the recent reanalysis of an original untouched
negative (see my prior thread), there wasn't even much if any at all of this glowing patch in the sky at the nexus of the searchlight beams, which
dispenses with the need of even a cloud to explain what was in the picture.
There is also the hypothesis that what was seen was one of these weather balloons sent up to determine the wind direction for the gunners.
As to what was seen moving out to sea again, who knows? Balloon, cloud, Japanese sub plane or -- if you prefer -- an ET craft. From all the
different accounts of the "object", however, it is hard to take any observer at his/her word. Heck, it could have been a cloud of thick AA smoke