The Smoking (Anti-Aircraft) Guns (of Los Angeles, 1942)

page: 27
88
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Well it's been a year since your last post Witness.....

Are you dead ???

Cosmic...




posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mcrom901
 

Only battery B of the 65th had an SCR 268 radar for gun laying.


the rest for searchlights?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

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.
edit on 9-7-2011 by MrInquisitive because: Wanted to add something



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hmm, balloons floating "up the coast" is certainly not down towards Long Beach. I have to acknowledge that to Firemoon. But given the disparate descriptions of what was seen, I could still imagine clouds or smoke from the AA drifting offshore and being thought to be the object. It also could have been the path of the final AA firing, which lead some to think that the "object" went offshore.

Also from the report that Arbitrageur cites, on page 24 of this thread, some of the military witnesses may have been forced to say they saw a flight of planes, which muddies things further, if we can't take all eye witness accounts at face value.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
absolutely top thread !!!
s&f so i can come back later



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The only monkey wrench i can throw the balloon theory is that it would be able to move at 6mphs then dip on off. Meaning that if it was a weather balloon then it would have been consistently buffetted by the AA shockwaves. It's movement if any would have been erratic at best.

Even if the aim of the AA gunners did suck, they did use tracer rounds, so they had an idea of what area to shoot in as well.

The object wasn't moving, sitting duck for AA with tracer rounds. You correct your aim on the fly.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






top topics



 
88
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join