Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Did you look near the top of page 24 of this thread? I posted the locations of 2 of the relevant launches there along with numerous other relevant details.

I only came in on what was then the end of this thread, in order to provide a link to a recent photo analysis of an untouched negative, which was a bit more recent than the last posting to this thread (i. e. was fairly confident that it was new info), so I haven't read through everything else on it yet (FTR: typically if I am interested in a thread, I will start at the beginning and wade my way through the whole thing -- particularly if it is about a specific case or item). I will make amends with this thread, I promise...

I am going to be lazy, short term here, and ask if there is a page on this thread that talks about wind conditions that night.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Did you look near the top of page 24 of this thread? I posted the locations of 2 of the relevant launches there along with numerous other relevant details.

I am going to be lazy, short term here, and ask if there is a page on this thread that talks about wind conditions that night.

The post I referred you to I believe mentions something about the balloon blowing "up the coast" which is somewhat of a reference to wind though it's not an exact heading.

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 later.

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 drifting offshore.

absolutely top thread !!!
s&f so i can come back later