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: 7
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


Wow, great work! This WW1 pic of the zepelin in the searchlights is great. I'm going to do some work with it when I get the chance this week, and see what happens when different enhancements are applied.

The flak placement in these photos (and in every other photo of flak I've ever seen) seems to be the normal pattern, where AA Batteries put up a field of debris/explosives in the path of the enemy at their approximate altitude.

It's interesting that in the LA Times photo, the vast majority of the flak appears located around the searchlight merge point. It's almost as if there was a stationary target in the sky, that everyone in the area was firing directly at.


Very cool comparison photos Extralien!




posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Okay, I finally had a chance to sit down and work on these pics a little.

Here is the image with the Zepelin caught in searchlights, from WW1, with the same filters applied as were done in the experiment on page 6.

Following the Zepelin pics, I've also applied these filters to the picture of 2 WW2spotlights crossing. This second image was found at the Skylighters.org page, on how WW2 searchlights were used:
www.skylighters.org...


WW1 Zepelin Photos:

0) Original Photo =


1) Brightness -83 =


2) Brightness Neg 100 - Contrast Pos 100 - Highlight Neg 100 =


3) Brightness Neg 100 - Contrast Pos 100 =


4) Contrast Pos 100 =


5) Highlight Neg 100 =


6) Inverted Colors =


7) Midtones Neg 97 =


8) Shadow Neg 100 =



WW2 Searchlight Beams Crossing Photos:

0) Original Photo =


1) Brightness -83 =


2) Brightness Neg 100 - Contrast Pos 100 - Highlight Neg 100 =


3) Brightness Neg 100 - Contrast Pos 100 =


4) Contrast Pos 100 =


5) Highlight Neg 100 =


6) Inverted Colors =


7) Midtones Neg 97 =


8) Shadow Neg 100 =



There is a wealth of information on the equipment used at the time, at the Skylighters page. I'm currently analyzing this data, and will report on it either late tonight or tomorrow


-WFA



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
hi witnessfromafar

can you tell me what the headline says and why?

img229.imageshack.us...



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Yeti101, thanks for finally joining the conversation. I'm not sure what you're asking, as the headline is clear as day on my monitor. It reads, "Searchlights And Anti-Aircraft Guns Comb Sky During Alarm"

What does it mean? Well, it means that Searchlights and Anti-Aircraft Guns were searching the sky during the alarm.

I'm assuming your going to somehow argue that the headline is a label for the picture with the searchlight beams and anti-aircraft guns converging at a point in the sky. Since I'm having to infer your argument, I would reply that the headline applies to the entire page, and each photo has an additional paragraph outlining its specifics. Not only does the headline apply to the entire page, but as a HEADLINE, it applies to the entire story, or events being reported on in the article. If we're to assume it's refering only to the picture, I'd also call it a lousy headline, as is often the case in print media. It doesn't describe the pictured scene very well at all. Clearly, we have a convergence of aim from all parties in the picture, not a combing of the sky, as is seen in other comparison photographs from both WW1 and WW2.

But like I said, I'm not really sure what it is you're asking, the headline reads pretty clearly to me.

Nice of you to finally stop by


-Witness From Afar

[edit on 16-2-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I needed to think today, and so I did some driving after work.

I drove up to the Griffith Observatory, and it's the first time I've been there, so I thought I would share my experience with those of you outside the immediate Los Angeles area.

First, addressing this thread, the hill with Griffith Observatory on it is clearly not the one in the Los Angeles Times photo.

HOWEVER, having driven around the area today, and having taken in the views, the photo could well have been taken from the hill where the Observatory is located, or for that matter from just about anywhere in Griffith Park.

I didn't have the photo with me today [first mistake], since the trip was rather impromptu.

I didn't have a camera with me today [second mistake], for the same reason.

I drove up Vermont to Griffith Park, and entered the long winding road up the hill to the Observatory. I didn't go in, but could see from the outside that there are at least two very powerful scopes inside, probably 3. I'm planning to make a return trip and go in when I have more time, my hunch is that at least 2 of the scopes are working together using interferometry!


While driving back down the hill, I noticed a hill that looked a lot like the one in question thought to possibly be Griffith. I noticed a radar and/or radio tower was on it. I stopped to ask a security guard if he knew what the name of the hill was, but he did not.

I took the road that looked like it would head towards the hill, Western Ave, but it quickly became a canyon pass and dropped me back down into the city.

So...

I plan to return sometime in the next week or so, with a Camera, The LA Times Photo printed out on photo paper, and a detailed map of the immediate mountain range around Griffith to help me navigate.

I'll post again on this possible lead when I have more data.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Okay, as promised, I've been taking some time to acquire images of the mountain ranges surrounding Los Angeles, in an attempt to determine where the original LA Times image was taken from, and what area it depicts.

I apologize for the time lapse, this thread is an enormous project, and I want to do things right.


I took 3 sets of images over the past few weeks.

1) From downtown Los Angeles, specifically at 8th St. and Figueroa, way up high on the 17th flr. (This is about as high as buildings in LA get...)

2) From Griffith Observatory, and the surrounding area.

3) From Highway 101, headed West by slightly north (placing the imaged mountainscape on the south-west side of the highway)

I'll start in this post with the first set of images, from downtown LA. There are 7 images in the set. Eventually, possibly tonight, I will upload a composite image I'm working on, showing the entire mountainscape I was able to view from this vantage point.

1)


In this image, you can clearly see the Hollywood sign, and Griffith Observatory (the white box on the hill to the right of the Hollywood sign).

The following images from this set are linked so as to save ATS Bandwidth, please check them out! If you see a match, please let us know!


2) img243.imageshack.us...

3) img180.imageshack.us...

4) img247.imageshack.us...

5) img150.imageshack.us...

6) img150.imageshack.us...

7) img150.imageshack.us...


I will post the other two photo sets when I have the time, probably not tonight. These are large images and take a while to upload to imageshack.

One other note, before leaving this image set, there is another mountain range to the south (left in the image) of the tall building in Image #5.

I didn't see it until today, and didn't have my camera with me. It looked like a possible match, and also looked to be in the proper area (facing Culver City, south of highway 10, west of downtown).

I will image this mountainscape as soon as possible, hopefully tomorrow, and will add that image once I've got it.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Well, it was terribly smoggy today, so I couldn't image the new mountainscape from downtown.

I do however have my pics from Griffith Observatory uploaded for you all though


It was smoggy that day too, but some of the mountains are clear enough for comparison purposes.

1) img171.imageshack.us...

2) img156.imageshack.us...
(This is Griffith Observatory, from the parking lot)

3) img156.imageshack.us...

4) img156.imageshack.us...

5) img156.imageshack.us...

6) img156.imageshack.us...
(This last shot was taken as I was driving back down the Observatory 'driveway' that leads from the parking lot to the junction of Western and Vermont.) [Note, not my truck in the image, just happened to be sitting in front of these mountains I wanted to image.]

Last but not least, I have the 1 image I've taken (so far) while on the highways. Don't worry I'm very careful and am not concentrating on two things at once
In fact, in Los Angeles, you've got a lot of time on the highway to kill where your car isn't even in motion. It's ridiculous, but true. I digress...

Here's a pic from the 101 headed West by slightly North.


Enjoy, and if you live in the LA area, especially near Culver City, and see a mountainscape in your immediate area, please feel free to join in the hunt!

-WFA



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
First off I'd like to apologize for not being more active in this thread. It's on a subject that I'm very interested in, but time constraints have prevented me from being able to go through everything like I've wanted to and be caught up and well informed enough to make meaningful contibutions like I would like to.

I came across a story today written by an EYEWITNESS to many of the things that happened on the night of the Battle of LA. The article looks like it was published on May 24th, 2007. I'm unsure whether it's been mentioned before. I hope I'm the first to bring this information to the thread.

Source

The planes we'd heard were not in sight, but what captured our rapt attention was a silvery, lozenge-shaped "bug," as my mother later described it, whose bright glow was clearly visible in the searchlight beams that pinpointed it. Although it was a clear, moonlit night, no other details were visible, despite the fact that, when we first saw it, the object was hanging motionless almost directly overhead.



Source

As we watched it, open mouthed, the object, apparently none the worse for the plethora of three-inch, 12.8 pound anti-aircraft rounds fired at it, began to move slowly to the southeast over Redondo Beach, where we lost sight of it. Either our gunners were woefully inept, despite all the practice they'd had in recent weeks or it was invulnerable to attack.



Source

Several residents who lived just north of Baldwin Hills saw it clearly. From their reports, it was round with a slight hump in the middle. A woman named Katie, who observed it from the window of her home, stated that it was huge, elliptical in shape, and suffused with a brilliant, orange glow.


Source

A Los Angeles Times reporter living in the San Gabriel Valley, a dozen miles or so to the east, had been alerted to what was happening by colleagues at the paper. He jumped in his car and began driving west as rapidly as he could toward the sound of the guns, arriving at the northern edge of the Baldwin Hills, in the vicinity of Jefferson and La Cienega, in time to photograph the object as it rose over the ridge line .


Source

After crossing the Baldwin Hills, it appears to have veered westward toward El Segundo (and the aircraft plants). When it reached the coast, it rose to a higher altitude and slowly followed the edge of the ocean, due south to the point where we first saw it. Then it veered southeastward over Redondo Beach, blithely ignoring everything we were throwing at it, and soon disappeared from sight behind the town's hills.


That should be enough to get anyone's attention who is interested in the Battle of LA. The guy's not only a witness he's investigated the incident as well. His Father was even one of the air raid wardens. From the article it sounds like he knows quite a bit about what happened that night.




[edit on 21-3-2008 by LazyGuy]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


LazyGuy, I completely understand. I haven't had enough time in the past few months for this case either. Thanks for this contribution though!

This interview is actually mentioned in the report, but I could only find an image of the guy and some quotes. Thanks for collecting this content, and for helping to fill out some of the [NEED DATA] Tags in the report. And the additional sourcing is great.


Incidentally, this past week I've had a bit of free time, and I've got some news.

After photographing from Downtown Los Angeles, I reported on another mountain range that was behind the tall building on the left side of the Downtown Images, above.

Well, I had some time this morning to go downtown, and track that mountain range down. I've got lots of pictures, and an investigative report to share with everyone.

Unfortunately, I left my cable for my camera back at my apartment, so I can not upload my images until I get back there late this evening. I will try to post either late tonight or tomorrow, and bring everyone up to speed on what I think I now know.

I'm not absolutely certain yet, as I have not done analysis of the images from today against the original photo, and I need to return to the scene and do a slight bit of scaling a hill that I didn't have time for today, to get to exactly where I want to be but....

I think I've found the mountain range in the photo.


I'll post again as soon as I have my report together and can upload my images off of the camera.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Okay, I'm pleased to finally bring you the beginning of my report from this weekend's project. I decided after taking a good long look at this new mountain range (south of the larger mountain range with the Hollywood sign) that it was a potential contender for the location in the original LA Times photo.

- It’s in the right place.
Many of us it seems (including myself) had sort of abandoned the theory that the orginal LA times photo was actually taken over Culver City. On google maps, and in driving through the area, it seems remarkably flat. And even in the 1940s this area (the flatlands anyway) already had lots of houses and buildings. But then I stumbled onto this new range from the view Downtown, and in attempting to locate the range on google maps, I found that it’s the Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area, and it’s a mountainous park immediately to the East of Culver City. This means that a photographer looking West from the East side of the Recreation Area would be looking at the skies over Culver City, with Mountains in the foreground, and (importantly) no houses on the mountain range.

So with this theory established, I went on to test it.

Saturday morning, I traveled downtown. I could not see the mountain range from the roof of my parking garage, because of the building that’s in the way (reference the earlier set of Downtown Pictures, from 8th and Figueroa, all the way to the left, the big red building).

So after assuring myself through google that the Hotel Figueroa (across the street, and down the block) had been around since 1925, I went over there and took the elevator to the top floor (12th floor). There was a stairway to the roof, but it was marked as employees only, so I didn’t take it. I walked the halls to the wing facing west, and found a window. It was already open, and there was a sturdy fire escape outside, so I went out.

I took several images from this vantage point, where I was able to map the entire Hollywood Mountain range, and the New Mountain Range (Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area) in relationship to each other. I assembled those images into a composite image, here:



This image had to be scaled down to under 1.53mb for Imageshack to host it for me. I have the original composite, at 17.5 MB, for anyone who would like to see the high res version. Post here or U2U me and I will email it, or if anyone has the server space to host it I will make it available to be placed online.

It is here that I must conclude this report for now. Only because I have not yet assembled and uploaded the rest of the data I acquired on Saturday, but as a teaser, I’ll tell you in short.

I tracked the mountain range down, and got some up close images. I’ve got some ideas (2 good theories) on where the photographer might have been standing, and I’ll be going to those locations as soon as possible to acquire data.

We’re getting close, I can smell it.

Once we’ve established the location of the photographer, and verified the locations we have for the AA installations (where the searchlights are coming from) we will have many of the distance values for our equations, and some of the questions we have about this photo and the object within it will begin to be solvable.

Below I’m including a new map, for this particular ‘photo location hunt’. It marks my activity on Saturday (even though I’ve yet to submit the next data sets), and will give you an idea of my travels.



Marked as 1 in Blue is the location of the composite image posted earlier in this post.

Marked as 2 in Blue is the location of the data set I’ll post next.

Everything should be labeled in context, and I’ll update this map as this investigation moves forward.

I’m hoping that by providing these images, those of you who don’t live close enough to see this in person can help from home. If you’ve got a hunch or theory on a place you’d like data on, let me know, and I’ll do the field work.

Together we can solve this mystery. More to come, late this evening most likely…

-WFA



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
In response to those wondering about which Mountain Range I'm all excited about, I've uploaded another version of the composite image above, with the Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area circled in Red.

The next data set (which should be ready by this evening, my work day is very busy...) will show the mountain range from Point 2 on the above map, the church with the white steeple. This church is also visible in the composite image, if you can zoom in. It's clear in the original composite image (the 17.5MB version), and it was very obvious to my eye when standing on top of the hotel figueroa. I chose it as my next location from the Hotel Figueroa, and was able to see the church above the surrounding houses for the entire drive from the Hotel to the Church. The church is located at 25th and Vermont, in fact, it's directly south of Griffith Park, so the images from Griffith Park facing South will show the area from the northern perspective.

Anyway, I'll post the next data set tonight, for now, here is the composite image again with the mountain range circled so everyone is clear on which one I'm referencing...



-WFA



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Okay, so on to point 2 on the above map, the Church with the white steeple…

I located this church at the Vermont exit of the 10 West. It was south of the highway, at approximately 25th St. I took the following image of the church itself…

Church with the white steeple up close:


I then went inside. I met a very nice lady who didn’t speak any English, and I don’t really speak great Spanish either, but I know a lot of keywords. We had a ‘sort of’ conversation, and I gathered that I wasn’t supposed to be in the building unless it was Sunday. So I thanked her and left. I walked south to the end of the block, and then crossed the street. There I saw a residential building, and what looked to be the building manager coming out the front door. I gained access to the roof through this gentleman, and took the following image of the White Church from the roof of this building, to illustrate that the view from the church and the view from this building would be approximately the same…

Steeple from roof of building down the block:


I also took two good images of the hills. I’ve combined them below into a composite image. The image on the left shows the new mountain range, determined to be the Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area, from a distance. As anyone can see from the picture, I was still too far away to be where the LA Times Photographer must have been standing...

Composite Image of the new mountain range and the Hollywood hills for comparison:


So I continued on to point 3 on the map, quite on accident. I did not mean to pass the majority of the mountain range, I just sort of drove right past it while looking for a good place to take images from. I eventually came to La Brea, and defining La Brea as the Western edge of the Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area, I turned left (South) to seek entrance from this side of the park. Upon heading south for just maybe 20 seconds, I looked to my right, and saw the mountain range that has me so excited today.

I quickly turned right at the first chance I got, and as I was turning I saw this sign:


Yep, that’s right, Culver City. It’s certainly not the Culver City I’m familiar with, but it’s within the city limits. For those who are not familiar with Los Angeles, LA is comprised of MANY smaller cities like Culver City, Santa Monica, Van Nuys, West Hollywood, etc.

At any rate, here are the images of that mountain range, taken from a small street within this subdivision neighborhood:
img406.imageshack.us...
img404.imageshack.us...
img72.imageshack.us...
img72.imageshack.us...
img258.imageshack.us...
img249.imageshack.us...
img72.imageshack.us...

And if you turn around and look behind you from that vantage point, you see (across La Brea) the Western edge of the Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area.


This ridgeline within the park would have been easily accessible from a resident of this housing subdivision in 1942. One could have climbed straight up that hillside with your camera and tripod, and snapped the picture in the LA Times.

This leads me to Theory 1 about where the photographer might have been standing. I’ll be returning to the Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area when I have more time. I’ll hike in the long way to the ridgeline, and see what this new mountain range looks like from that vantage point.

I did manage to image the mountain range from the entrance to the park, but did not have time on Saturday to hike all the way to where I needed to be from the parking area of the park. Like I said, I’ll go back and get this done as soon as time allows. For now here are the images from the park entrance, assembled into 1 composite image, that clearly shows the mountain range I think we’re looking at in the original LA Times Photo (albeit from a slightly different angle):


EDIT: Please click on this image to see it in it's entirety, in a new window. That way you can also zoom in slightly...-END EDIT

The proper angle should be from higher up, and to the right of where the above composite image was taken. That’s on the ridgeline directly behind where the other picture set above was taken. I’ll return there shortly, and take a picture from the proper location.

Theory 2 is that the photographer could have been standing on the Eastern edge of the park, facing west. I’ll also image from that angle when I can, and will post comparison photos from each location here in this thread.

I believe we’re getting close, and if these hunches pan out, it’s only a small matter now of narrowing down which particular ridgeline we’re looking at in the original image.

Comments and thoughts would be much appreciated.

-WFA



[edit on 25-3-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Just for clarity, and for those who are new to this long running thread, we're discussing this image currently:



And trying to find out where the photographer was standing. The object in the image was reported to be above Culver City at the time of the photo.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I thought it might help to isolate the mountain range pictorially, so I did this image in MS Paint:


If anyone has access to Photoshop, and can remove the sky from this image, we can use it as a template to help track down the mountain range.

-WFA



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I did some online digging today, and found this from CUFON.org:

25-Feb-2004 - Battle of Los Angeles and more. Extract from History of 4th AA Command, Western Defense Cmd., Jan 1942 to July 1945, Chapter V, 4th Anti-Aircraft Command history: “Defense Operations on the West Coast.” .PDF file (1440 Kbytes)
(Posted 24-fEB-2004)

Here's the pdf file for those of you who would like to scour it:
www.cufon.org...

Already I've found some interesting things.

Some of you have asked about the Japanese Sub attack that happened just days prior to the event. I found this:


and this next clip, which strangely calls into question the positive identification of the Japanese Sub I'd assumed had been substantiated:


This next clipping states the proximity in time from the submarine attack to the Battle of Los Angeles:


In the next clip, we learn the armament level and specs on the evening in question:


Here is an explanation of the SCR 268 (A Radar Unit Used To Track Enemy Aircraft)
www.infoage.org...

I hope that's enough to whet everyone's appetite.
I'll be reviewing this document this evening and I'll post other relevant facts here if I find them.

-WFA



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Great thread. I like the way it's put together.

In one of those news report's at the beginning, the military described the object as a "weather balloon", right? So, I'd like to look more into debunking or confirming that the object that was shot at is or is not actually a weather balloon. If we can prove that the object is not a weather balloon, then it would be safe to investigate what it might be. If it is confirmed that the object is a weather balloon, then this investigation is over.

Now, this may all seem like common sense (and maybe I missed something), but while I skimmed (yes, skimmed) this topic, I found only one mention of weather balloons (and that was by a member that was making a sarcastic response to the idea of it being a weather balloon). Instead, I see a lot of people skipping right past the idea of it being a weather balloon and jumping right into what the object might be. I feel that the first thing that we have to do before figuring out what the object is, is to debunk what the object is said to be.

Like I said, maybe I missed something. If so, then I'm researching for myself, haha. Now, I'm not staying stop what you're doing. By all means, keep going! You're doing a great job. However, personally, I want to do a little research into weather balloons. I don't mind working on this while you guys work on what you're doing.


Now, it may seem kind of obvious that it was not a weather balloon, but we're going to need some sort of proof that it's not... Otherwise, it's not a complete investigation.

So, here are some thing's that I'll be looking into.

A) What are weather balloon's made of?


The balloon itself produces the lift, and is usually made of a highly flexible latex material (though Chloroprene may also be used).


en.wikipedia.org...
www.srh.noaa.gov...

B) Can the material withstand bullet's, missel's or whatever weapon was being used to shoot the object down on that day? (I would like to do some sort of expiriment with this, but I'll have to think of how I'd do that)

C) Was the object hit by the weapon at all on that day? (it seem's to me that after an hour of firing at the object that something would have hit atleast once).

D) How long would it take a weather balloon (preferably, one built during this period of time) to reach the said destination?

E) Cases in which a weather balloon [I]was[/I] successfully shot down (and I'd also like to see cases in which a weather balloon was not successfully shot down, but that may be a little harder to find).

P.S. Does anybody else find it interesting that everytime something UFO related happen's, the government automatically say's that it had something to do with a weather balloon?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Hello Hyde70,

Thank you for such a well thought out reply!
Also, this thread is huge, so don't feel bad about skimming

I'm really interested in what folks have to say about this case, the more people know the better, but thank you for speaking from your current frame of reference.




Originally posted by Hyde70
In one of those news report's at the beginning, the military described the object as a "weather balloon", right? So, I'd like to look more into debunking or confirming that the object that was shot at is or is not actually a weather balloon. If we can prove that the object is not a weather balloon, then it would be safe to investigate what it might be. If it is confirmed that the object is a weather balloon, then this investigation is over.


I would fully agree with you. There are several reasons that I think it wasn't a weather balloon, but in reading your posts I found you have some questions I've not addressed in my own research. I'm not sure which news report you are referring to, but I'll do my best to examine the evidence of the likelyhood it was a weather balloon
There is a report here:
www.sfmuseum.org...
that mentions a balloon. However this report (as any reader can easily determine) is written with a pre-conceived idea as to what was 'sighted', and focuses mainly on the fact that there were conflicting reports that night, choosing the quantity of variance as a determining factor that ALL reports were false. I find this a strange logic, when this writer couldn't personally untangle the web of reports, they decided to say that every eyewitness was lying. That to me just doesn't hold up, as many of our eyewitnesses in this case were Military Personnel and Air Raid Wardens. Anyway, here is the text from that article that mentions the supposed balloon:

"At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon “the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano.” From this point on reports were hopelessly at variance."

The report never sources 'who' is claiming to have sighted a balloon, nor do they explain the 'red flare'. There is no follow up, the report simply claims that everyone was confused and got carried away. I found many reports that also 'gave up' at this point, dismissing all reports because untangling them seemed to difficult. I'm having trouble giving up myself though, and believe these reports can be put into context
I especially find it hard to agree with this article, since no mention is made of the radar return data.


Originally posted by Hyde70
Like I said, maybe I missed something. If so, then I'm researching for myself, haha. Now, I'm not staying stop what you're doing. By all means, keep going! You're doing a great job. However, personally, I want to do a little research into weather balloons. I don't mind working on this while you guys work on what you're doing.



I absolutely respect this sentiment. I too felt these same thoughts at the outset of my initial investigation.


Originally posted by Hyde70
So, here are some thing's that I'll be looking into.

A) What are weather balloon's made of?


The balloon itself produces the lift, and is usually made of a highly flexible latex material (though Chloroprene may also be used).


en.wikipedia.org...
www.srh.noaa.gov...


Indeed. Weather Balloons looked like this in 1942:

Source:
www.washingtonhistory.com...

They were not very large, and not very durable. The Weather Balloons supposedly involved in the Roswell crash are also a good comparison point.


Originally posted by Hyde70
B) Can the material withstand bullet's, missel's or whatever weapon was being used to shoot the object down on that day? (I would like to do some sort of expiriment with this, but I'll have to think of how I'd do that)


No they simply cannot. In fact, you can pop one with a bb-gun. Here is a Live-Leak video (that I cannot access at work) that is supposed to show a demonstration. If anyone can access that video and report on it, I would be grateful:
www.liveleak.com...


Originally posted by Hyde70
C) Was the object hit by the weapon at all on that day? (it seem's to me that after an hour of firing at the object that something would have hit atleast once).


There are reports of direct hits, and we do see flak completely surrounding the craft in the LA Times Image. Additionally, flak shells are meant to explode near the target, sending shrapnel into the enemy plane. Even a shred of shrapnel would have taken out a weather balloon.


Originally posted by Hyde70
D) How long would it take a weather balloon (preferably, one built during this period of time) to reach the said destination?


Weather Balloons travel with the speed of the wind. Here is the post where I found the weather data from that evening (incomplete as of now):
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Hyde70
E) Cases in which a weather balloon [I]was[/I] successfully shot down (and I'd also like to see cases in which a weather balloon was not successfully shot down, but that may be a little harder to find).


I'd love to see an 'average' developed on this too. Not sure how to get that experiment done. Good suggestion! I know that the History Channel tried to create a 'debris field' when investigating Roswell. In that experiment, several weather balloons were shot down easily with a bb-gun.


Originally posted by Hyde70
P.S. Does anybody else find it interesting that everytime something UFO related happen's, the government automatically say's that it had something to do with a weather balloon?


It's in fact a running joke between myself and another of my favorite members

But at least it's better than 'Swamp Gas'


Thank you very much for thinking about this in depth Hyde70. I look forward to any further data you may be able to add, and to hearing your thoughts on the many facets of this case!



-WFA


[edit on 2-4-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
WFA!
This is amazing!
You are putting in active research into this, i really like that.
Wish i could join you, because this is really an interesting event to say the least.

I hope that any mod that reads, this applause you for your effort, so they show they apreciate your work into this, and that you are actively researching it!

Ver very nicely done!
Naturally S&F!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Great stuff this Battle of LA. Really enjoyed reading the research so far. Wish I was in the US as I'd be on my way to LA right now.
The picture shows like a main bright ship that is lit up with a kind of dome on top. Like a lozenger as was described in one of the quotes at the time somewhere above. Surrounding this we see quite a few orbs of light. That's what I see anyway. If they are ufo orbs that are buzzing around the mothership, then they seem different in light intensity. This may be caused by the searchlights, but if the ufo orbs were of various colours then I would expect that say a white one will glow more than a green or blue one in the same level of light. Of note I do speak from experience and the lozenger I saw was accompanied by various ufo orbs of different light colours. Just like the ones in Close Encounters.
Added to this the ufo orbs were being seen by pilots of all sides in the second world war and were given the name the Foo Fighters. Infact they appeared about 1942. Coincidence or what?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoorbhunter
 


Hi there UfoOrbHunter, and welcome to the investigation!


In this particular case, those small balls of light we see in the LA Times Photo are in fact explosions of Anti-Aircraft Artillery Shells, being fired at the object from 4 AA batteries (locations).

I absolutely agree with you that Foo Fighters were a real and well documented phenomenon, however I don't think that's what we're seeing in this particular case.

As for the 'lozenge' shape of the craft itself, I would tend to agree with you, to my eye it looks highly eliptical. That's one of the initial reasons I argued against the theory that there was no object in the picture (the theory stated that the appearance of the object was caused by the multiple searchlights coming together, creating an illusion). You can see in the following links why I don't believe that theory, and how the 'lozenge' shape we see in the picture doesn't fit the shape we would expect to see from this convergence of searchlights (a more circular shape):

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The above post shows a convergence of promotional spotlights, simply for comparison. You can actually see how the 4 beams come together to form a larger circle, and how each beam contributes to the overlap to create the effect.

img143.imageshack.us...
This image shows two WW2 searchlight beams converging. A careful viewer will note that the entire beam area is double imposed at close range, and still no 'illusion' of solidity exists.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this post shows a thorough analysis of the searchlights in the LA Times photo, and the anamolies (in my view) that disprove the theory (that there wasn't anything 'there' in the spotlights). So in my view we're looking at a solid object, and the 'lozenge' shape you referenced is further proof, as we would expect to see a circular shape from the spotlight convergence (or at the very least the shape of the 'beams' themselves at that point in their path).

I hope this helps! Thank you sincerely for adding your input to the thread.


-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join