It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by Balez

Thanks Balez

As I mentioned a bit earlier, if anyone has any 'long distance' requests for field work pertaining to this case (example, image a mountain range found on google maps) just post your questions here and I will do my best with my little camera to be your eyes and ears on the scene

Anyone else in the LA Area that would like to investigate 'on the ground' is more than welcome to contribute also


posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:05 PM
Hey witness if those things that I thought were ufo orbs are really artillery shells exploding then whoaoaoaoa, that's just the most amazing piece of evidence I've ever seen for a ufo mothership. It should have fallen out the sky? Anyway I'm a Brit and it's beddies time.

The way you delve into this event is worth acknowledging as superb. Keep up the good work.... it's fascinating.

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
...if those things...are really artillery shells exploding then whoaoaoaoa, that's just the most amazing piece of evidence I've ever seen for a ufo mothership. It should have fallen out the sky?

Exactly. Whoaoaoaoa is pretty much what I said too.

I came to ATS as my username here implies, a Witness to several UFOs, but from Afar. Many of the things I've personally seen have been explainable, some have not. Several I must interpret from their behavior as 'Spaceships', at least 2 of these (to my eye) looked like they were from 'somewhere else'.

So I personally came to ATS seeking evidence, proof. I came to see if anyone had managed to acquire evidence, so that I could find a way to talk about my experiences in real life without sounding 'crazy'.

The Battle of Los Angeles, in my view, is one of the best cases available, due to the amount of data available, and the fact that the Army was involved both in the public drama of the evening and in the investigatory process immediately following the event. It is my hope that others, both proponents and skeptics alike, will come together in this truly remarkable thread, and that we can all move the investigation forward and do our best to answer the seemingly unexplainable questions about this landmark event in Earth History.

Thank you for the kind words. I won't stop investigating this event until we get some real answers. I appreciate your support of the work!


posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:50 PM
Okay, I’ve done some more digging into the about referenced document from CUFON.

Here are several important pieces of data, finally verified for us in simple terms.

Clip 1:

Important Facts from this section:
1900 Hours - (7:00PM) Navy reports impending attack.
1900 Hours – (7:00PM) and onwards, Flares and lights near the defense plants and oilfields.
1900 Hours – (7:00PM) 4th Interceptor Command on Yellow Alert
2223 Hours – (10:23PM) Yellow Alert lifted

Note that the Alert is lifted when no attack is forthcoming. It is approximately 3 hours and 20 minutes later that the next entry is detailed…

Clip 2:

0144 Hours – (1:44Am) - 3 coastal radar units pick up an unidentified target in the air. This quote is cited in the footnotes as:
“Par 5, App B, Doc 29 (Conference Report, 25 Feb 42)”

Clip 3:

0200 Hours – (2:00AM) – 16 minutes after being picked up by the coastal radar arrays, the Radar returns were verified by the Operation Board at 120 miles West of LA.

Clip 4:

Between 0201 and 0215 Hours – (2:15AM) – Minutes later, all Anti Aircraft guns were put on Green Alert. There is also a report that Green Alert was called (either for the second time, or a mistaken log entry is not clear) at 0240 Hours (2:40AM)

Clip 5:

The target in question is the one from clips 2 and 3 of this post, and is the likely object photographed by the LA Times. The object is tracked on radar for 21 minutes, until it is within 3 miles of Los Angeles at 0227.
0221 Hours – (2:21AM) Regional Controller orders a Blackout. There is another report that puts the time at 0227 Hours.

Clip 6:
This is a link to the footnotes for the page that the above referenced quotes were pulled from. Provided in context, as is only fair to the authors of the report.

That’s all I’ve got time for tonight. I’ll be back on this when I have more time. The verification of data is starting to roll in. FOIA rocks.

I’ll try to image the mountain range again tomorrow from the East Side of Kenneth Hahn

Thoughts and suggestions are highly encouraged!


posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:36 AM
I was thinking about the text I cut and pasted here last night, and decided to do some calculations while it was fresh in my mind.

In 21 minutes, the Object is tracked on Radar and travels from 120 miles west of LAto 3 miles west of LA.

That means it's moving at about 5.57 miles per minute, or about 334.29 miles per hour.

This in and of itself eliminates the possibility of the object being a weather balloon, even before size comparison data is acquired and entered into the equation.

I'll state for the record that we don't have a wind speed value (yet) for the night in question, from our weather records. That being said, if the wind speed was over 300 mph on that evening, I'm fairly sure it would have been noted in each of the newspapers that documented the event. 300mph winds are pretty much unheard of (in my experience) in the LA area.

Anyway, just wanted to provide that quick calculation for anyone who might be interested. The data suggests that this object was no weather balloon.


Edited for spelling

Edited again to add colors for emphasis

[edit on 3-4-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 01:10 PM
In response to several theories put forward on what the object in the LA Times photo might have been (terrestrial explanations), I've decided to test these theories against the evidence available. Below you will find two theories that when held up to the evidence, do not seem capable of being accurate...

Regarding the theory that the object could have been an American Plane…
First American Jet Aircraft - Bell XP-59A Airacomet – Max Speed: 404Mph
In service: 1941 – Training missions only
Pic of Aircraft:

Fastest Aircraft before Bell XP-59A was the P-38 Lightning
According to this source:
The P-38 had a top speed of 360mph. Later versions of the plane achieved at top speed of about 415mph.

So it is possible that the object is an aircraft from Earth, circa 1942, as we did have airplanes that could achieve these speeds at this time (barely).

However, putting this theory into context, we would expect communication between an American Aircraft and the ground. According to this:
“Though by 1918 radio communication was beginning to make an appearance in front-line air operations…”

Radio communications were well established by 1942, between pilots and ground crews. Standard operating procedure would have dictated that a target be hailed on Radio if not immediately identified as a United States Aircraft. The fact that no confirmation of Radio contact exists in the records of the event, furthers the conclusion that the object was not a U.S. Airplane.

Further refuting the theory that the object was an American Plane, we have the Army Air Force (the Air Force did not exist at this point in time, and was a division of the Army) reporting no American planes in the sky at the time in question. The 4th Interceptor Command had already been returned to ‘White’ status, and was not actively patrolling the skies.
It is my conclusion based upon the above evidence, that the object in question was not an American Plane.
Regarding the theory that the object could have been a Japanese Plane…
The fastest Japanese plane in existence at the time was the Tamiya 1/48 Hyakushiki #ei.
This page has some specs on the vehicle:

Pic of a scale model of the aircraft:

It is listed with a top speed of 390mph. This plane was first flown in 1939, allowing the opportunity that it could have been the object in question, however it was not placed into ‘active service’ until 1943, narrowing the possibility significantly. Unless a document surfaces placing this aircraft in ‘secret service’ before it’s publicly known ‘active service’ date in 1943, it’s highly unlikely this craft is the object in question.

The other likely candidate for a Japanese Plane that could move this fast, would be the Zero, or its full name: Mitsubishi A6M2 type 11 Zero. The Zero came into production in 1940, so it was definitely around during the time of the event. It had a top speed of 533 km/h (287 knots, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft), just under the speed of the object in question.
Also, we must keep in mind, that Tokyo, Japan is approximately 5500 miles away from Los Angeles. For this to have been a Japanese fighter plane at all, it would have needed to refuel, or to launch from an Aircraft Carrier.
Distance info is here:

The attack on Pearl Harbor used ‘Zeros’ however they were launched from an Aircraft carrier at sea.

The Akagi, the Aircraft carrier involved in the Pearl Harbor attack (and the only one of its class) was occupied near Australia during the Event in Los Angeles:

“On 19 February 1942 she launched air strikes against Darwin, Australia, sinking nine ships, including USS Peary. In March, 1942 Akagi covered the invasion of Java.”

So we can determine that no aircraft were launched from the Akagi towards Los Angeles on the night in question.

Other carriers capable of launching aircraft were all assigned with the Akagi:

“On 19 February 1942, together with her sister ship Soryu she (the Hiryu) launched an air strike against Darwin, Australia.”

These vessels were designed to work in tandem. They were not separated, and all of them were destroyed in the Battle of Midway. None were in the proper place to launch an aircraft at Los Angeles in late February of 1942.

One final note, to keep Japanese attacks on the US in context (both in the theatre of war in Europe, and in the attack on Pearl Harbor)…
The Japanese were known for the ‘Kamikaze’ style attack, and it stands to reason that if the object in question were in fact a Jap Zero, it would have dropped bombs from its armament, or Kamikaze attacked an oil refinery.

If on a scouting mission, where a return trip were planned, the fuel requirements for such a mission would necessarily double, in order for the plane to have a chance of reaching it’s point of theoretical (and already proved non-existent) origin at sea. This factor further argues that the object would have attacked, if it was in fact a Japanese Fighter Plane.

It is my conclusion based upon the above evidence, that the object in question was not a Japanese plane.


Comments and alternate theories are welcome!


Edited for linking...

[edit on 3-4-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:09 PM

This is the smoking gun that proves aliens/UFOs have visited Earth. This happened so long ago, so what can we do to get this mainstream and to get the official truth?

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:26 PM
Well, the bulk of the available information is here in this thread, and there was a FOIA request a while back. CUFON has a pdf document posted above that details some of that FOIA request's findings.

As for getting it out there, I'm not really sure. I'm doing my best to get people to take a look at the case and am open to any ideas on how to advance that cause. Thanks for the bump, every little bit helps!

The best thing to do, IMHO, is to keep researching, and to keep solving for the variables that are missing. That way every time we solve for some factor, there is new information to apply. Many of the major cases you see reported on the History Channel, etc., are being re-examined because new evidence has been brought to light. That's the tactic I've been taking with the Battle of LA. Expose more evidence, and the powers that be should find interest and diseminate that information.

Once we've determined the location of the mountain range and done some math to get size and distance values for the LA Times photo, I plan to write to the History Channel, asking them to detail the current investigation on television.

I'm open to any thoughts on other directions this investigation can go also...


posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Most of the posts in this thread are based on the unstated assumption that this universe is a natural reality instead of an artificial reality, that is, a virtual reality. On the off-chance that this idea has not yet come to your attention, the details of it can be found at:
Wikipedia, overview
Nick Bostrom, 2002
Brian Whitworth, 2007

In addition to those arguments, one way to explain the apparent fact that space and time and mass and energy are quantized would be to say that their quantization is a result of the fact that the 3-D monitor, in which our virtual reality is displayed, has a finite spatial screen resolution, and a finite repetition rate.

One possible consequence of this situation ( this universe being a virtual reality) is that one person might experience one version of this virtual reality while another might experience another version of this virtual reality. Gathering reports by various people is therefore not always reliable.

One alternative would be to ask the originator of the virtual reality in which all other virtual realities are nested. Although Gnosticism claims to provide a way to make such contact with the originator who is the natural reality, the method is subjective and therefore suspect. Although an objective record of such contact has been discovered, there is no mention of that incident in the record. So it would seem that a provisional answer is the best that we can reasonably hope to find at this time, yes?

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Double Eights
This is the smoking gun that proves aliens/UFOs have visited Earth.

Now, hold your horses just a bit. Let's be reasonable here. How do you make the logical, evidential connection between something still basically "unknown" in the most basic sense of the word, and "aliens?"

Unknown thing in the sky => ? => aliens?

Are you telling me that every single one of the other possible options for what it might have been have been explored and exhausted, so it couldn't be anything else but aliens? Because it doesn't work that way. The trick is, just because you may not know of any other possible terrestrial explanations, doesn't mean there aren't any. So unless there is some specific bit of evidence that positively links the thing to hypothetical aliens, then the very best anybody can say is that it's unknown.

"Unknown" is much higher on the list of possiblities than what I consider to be the Big Three paranormal explanations, which are 1) time travelers, 2) aliens, and 3) thought form projections.

-- weather phenomena
-- balloons
-- terrestrial aircraft (including secret or experimental)
-- unknown
-- hallucinations (non-physical)
-- time travelers
-- aliens (from other planets or different spacetime contexts)
-- thought projections (completely or partially physical)

You gotta go step-by-step down the list, and you can't just jump over "unknown" without having some strong positive evidence to suggest anything else lower on the list.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:33 PM
-There was a craft in the air.
-It was fired upon, but no damage was taken by the craft.
-Thousands of witnesses
-Army admits it was real.

That pretty much confirms it was from out of this world, thus you have aliens.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by heretic5
So it would seem that a provisional answer is the best that we can reasonably hope to find at this time, yes?

Unless some other bit of evidence is discovered (the crashed remains of the damaged 1942 ship lying in a trench deep in the ocean, perhaps), we're stuck with defining the event as anomalous, or at least not explainable within our context of consensual reality.

As always, the problem with postulating alternate or virtual realities is that we only appear to exist in the one, and all of our testing for other realities can only be done from this one, so our data is always going to be skewed. We can't objectively "step back" out of our reality and compare it with another hypothetical one, because we are stuck in our subjective reality and can't even adequately define another reality outside the context of this one.

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:53 PM
Hello All! Glad to see this thread getting some much needed attention in my absence

I took another field trip today, to try to get the missing 2 photos I'd like to see to put the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Areas mountains into perspective.

I was frustrated severely in that effort, and by MYSELF! LOL

In this post here:

I made a mistake. I listed the street I was on as La Brea, when in fact, it was La Cienega. Due to my own mistake, I spent the last 3 hours driving around La Brea wondering what alternate reality I had slipped into, because I couldn't find the entrance to the park.

I stopped to talk to a nice woman who lived in the area, and she told me that there was supposed to be an entrance off of La Brea also, but that it's a 'walk in' type entrance, without any parking. I did not see this entrance while driving back and forth, and the woman told me that she had never seen it directly either, but had inferred a trail because she saw a lot of hikers going in there on the weekends.

So finally I realized my error, and went over to the next major street (La Cienega). There I found my earlier location, and verified where I needed to be.

Unfortunately, by the time I figured it out, my Field Work Time for today was about over. So I just wanted to assure everyone that I'm back on track now, and I'll do my best to get out there again this week to get some new images of the mountain range.

For those interested in checking this out for yourselves, please note my mistake in the above post, the entrance to the park is on La Cienega, not La Brea.

I'll post again on this issue when I can get more images.

Nohup, I'm glad you're involved in this thread again, I've got a reply coming up for you


posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 05:23 PM
Hello Nohup, this is an interesting list:

Originally posted by Nohup

-- weather phenomena
-- balloons
-- terrestrial aircraft (including secret or experimental)
-- unknown
-- hallucinations (non-physical)
-- time travelers
-- aliens (from other planets or different spacetime contexts)
-- thought projections (completely or partially physical)

You gotta go step-by-step down the list, and you can't just jump over "unknown" without having some strong positive evidence to suggest anything else lower on the list.

I would highly agree with you in principle, but my list goes in a different order:

-- weather phenomena
-- balloons
-- terrestrial aircraft (including secret or experimental)
-- hallucinations (non-physical)
-- aliens (from other planets or different spacetime contexts)
-- thought projections (completely or partially physical)
-- time travelers
-- unknown

I place them in this order for several reasons:
1) Unknown is only an option when you are out of explanations. I don't think we're out of logical rational explanations yet, and one of those logical rational explanations is visitation by an Alien Spaceship. You and I can argue all day about 'if' they've been here or not, but in reality, whether or not they have doesn't make the Alien Spaceship theory either impossible or irrational. It's a logical conclusion based on the evidence, although admittedly un-proven. The theory is still valid, and will remain so until we can prove that it couldn't have been an Alien Spaceship (or until we discover what it was). Just like any other theory.

2) We must base this list upon the likely hood of the answer being accurate. Unknown is simply not an answer to the question, it is a state of uncertainty, brought about by a lack of evidence. Therefore it cannot be listed as a stopping point before other possible (even if not probable) answers are considered. It is perfectly understandable for us (being at a place of 'unknown' currently) to not be satisfied with that lack of an answer, and to postulate the next logical solution.

3) The other things I changed in the list I simply find more likely than the others. That's all up to personal opinion, if we're just basing our lists on what is most rational in our own view.

So, with that being said, I'd like to direct your attention to my above posts on this page.

--Weather Pheomenon
I'm not sure about this one. The weather data isn't exactly fully evident for the evening in question. But the only weather phenomenon I can think of that could be mistaken for a UFO is a temperature inversion. Surely you're not claiming that this was a temperature inversion? At any rate, the radar data that disproves the weather balloon theory also should stand against the temperature inversion theory, because the wind would still have to be blowing at over 300 miles per hour (not likely in my opinion looking at the available weather data and the photo from that evening). And in addition this temperature inversion would have to remain present as a visual anamoly all the way into the coast, and over the city. This is beyond the range of what's possible in Earth Weather systems in my opinion.

Please see this post here, where the Army's Radar Return data (tracking the object at over 300 miler per hour before it arrives at the Coastline) discredits the balloon theory:
The supporting evidence for that post is in posts above it, from the CUFON report based upon data obtained in the FOIA request.

--Terrestrial Aircraft
Unless you've got an idea as to what sort of aircraft it might have been (that I haven't already tested) I'm not sure how this theory could be correct. I was pretty generous in this post:
and tested an aircraft that wasn't even in active service yet. It's been over 60 years since this event. If there were a secret craft being test flown that could have survived such an assault, it would be in the public forum. If you can find an aircraft that existed and hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll certainly hold it up to the evidence and see what emerges.

Keeping with your list, and skipping 'unknown' for the time being (since it isn't a possible answer, merely a state of perception) we move on too:

-- hallucinations (non-physical)
Now, while there are conflicting reports about what was seen that evening, I think it's taking it a bit too far to say that everyone who saw something that night was hallucinating. In addition, the fact that there is not only a photograph but multiple radar returns, verified by separate radar units (the first was a coastline unit, then the signal was verified by command) rules hallucination right out. There was something in the sky that night, according to the Army's radar, and that something was verified and tracked at over 300mph.

-- time travelers
Now, this isn't next on my list of 'likely explanations' however since it's next on your list I'll include it next. Here's the discrepancy IMO, time travel has yet to be proven possible, beyond theory. Granted neither has the existence of Alien Species, BUT we KNOW that there are other planets out there. We know that some of them are going to have the potential to harbor life (possibly even intelligent life). We know that the space between them and us is traversable (even if not on a human-friendly time scale). We do not know that it's possible to bridge the gap between a future and present human existance. If I'm wrong I'll accept that, but in my view this just isn't as likely as visitation from a scientifically probable species from another world.

Now there are other factors in play in this case, such as the fact that we shot 1400+ AA shells at the thing, and that we've read reports of direct hits on the object. These facts (and many others) additionally call into question the theories above (weather phenomenon, balloon, terrestrial plane). But for the time being, using the evidence available, I feel it's appropriate to postulate that the most rational and logical explanation for this object is extra-terrestrial origin. I'm willing to admit that one of the other exotic explanations may be the correct one, but at this point it shoud be clear to anyone following this case that is applying the scientific method to their theories, that a conventional earthly explanation has failed to satisfy the criteria for explaining this event.

If there is another terrestrial explanation I am missing, I'll certainly be open to testing it against the available evidence.

The data seems to rule out weather phenomenon, balloons, and terrestrial aircraft.

And personally, I'm of the opinion that if it was a terrestrial aircraft, the country owning that Aircraft would have emerged the victor in WW2. A 'secret' aircraft only remains secret until it is needed. At that point (especially back in WW2 before stealth technology) that craft would be detected and identified by the enemy, because it would be in service actively fighting their own planes in the sky.


posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by heretic5

I suppose this is possible, but if true this would extend to all things we observe, not merely the Battle of Los Angeles. Sorry I missed your post yesterday, I was quite busy.

I would agree that should reality be proven to be some sort of Matrix type construct, we should necessarily assume everything in that program to be 'not reality'. However, taking this example further, even if all of reality is some sort of 'virtual reality' the rules of physics defined in this virtual reality should still remain consistent with the observations of objects within that virtual reality.

What I'm saying in short is that you can still use the physical parameters set and established to determine facts about an observation with a reality, real or virtual.

Interesting take though, as it applies to life in general.
I'm convinced (perhaps falsely, I'll be fair) that the reality we observe is physical and independant of individual thought or participation. Making the Battle of Los Angeles quite a remarkable occurance. Even if life is simply virtual reality, it's still 'our' reality, and the mysteries within it are still solvable within the physical parameters of 'our' reality.

I hope that made sense. Thanks for a well thought out reply.


posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:09 PM
After doing some behind the scenes research, I've come into contact with another researcher who has a great deal of information on this case.

This researcher, whose work I've come to trust, has confirmed the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area as approximately the correct location pictured in the original image. I'm still working to locate the specific area.

This researcher actually has the original photo in their possession. I've been promised a high quality scanned version of the original, and have acquired permission to post that image in this page. Apparently some of the online images have degraded (copies of copies) so this will give us the clearest possible view.

In the meantime, I've located a sketch of the area in question, from the Park Service. It shows well the mountains and the areas of the park that are trails for hiking.

I'll be acquiring further detailed maps of this area througout the week. Hopefully we can find some images online that show the park from different angels at street level.

The appropriate area should be fairly easy to identify, that one peak in the original image should still stand out against the surrounding ridgeline today.

I'll update this thread again when I have more, for now here is the sketch of the park:


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:59 AM
Great stuff WFA...

Really nice to see the data slowly rolling in. I have been following all the posts as they come in and am impressed with the effort you're putting into this.

It surely must lead closer to what happened etc.

Keep up the great work.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:26 PM
Thanks for your kind words ExtraAlien!

As of now I have coordinated three independent investigations (including my own), all sourcing the location of the photographer to the general vicinity of Baldwin Hills, and the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area.

Below is perhaps the best clue, brought to our attention by LazyGuy:

Originally posted by LazyGuy

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 .

I visited the area of Jefferson and La Cienega last week, and there was not an apparent location to photograph the mountains from without the sightline being obscured by houses.

I've been studying maps of the area, and elevation in particular. I believe this above quote to be accurate, having seen the target mountain range first hand.

As of now I'm just trying to find the best place to take a picture of it from.
A big part of the problem is the houses that have arisen since 1942 in the area. In Los Angeles, (outside of downtown at least) there aren't really any tall buildings, but even one story buildings like houses are enough to obscure the sight lines, unless you can find a vantage point that is slightly raised above that level.

I'm looking now for a potential point of entry into a building in the area, where I can get to the top floor and/or the roof to get a clean image of the mountain range. Another mountain range would also serve this purpose, however I feel it’s unlikely (due to the angle the photo was taken from) that the LA Times Reporter was actually on a natural incline when the picture was taken. It looks to me like he/she was at street level, and therefore a building (while raising the height of the location) should be able to maintain approximately the same distance values from the mountains and the ‘UFO’. In short, I can keep moving buildings until I get it right, whereas there are only so many natural inclines to the North/East of the area, and my options are less.

At this point I believe that I'll need to take at least 2 images, probably 3, from different vantage points like this, in order to determine the proper angle the LA Times Reporter was at facing the mountains. At that point (I'll post these images before I return for the final shot) I'll return to the proper location and image the mountains from the proper angle at what appears to be the proper distance.

I think this is achievable. Once the final shot is taken and posted, we'll have the distance values we need to begin answering several questions this case has left unanswered for over 60 years!

Any and all help is of course, appreciated. We're hot on the trail, and very close to some real answers. So if anyone has anything to add this is a great time to do it!


posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Very nice WFA.
A star, flag, or applause just doesn't quite cut it!

In 21 minutes, the Object is tracked on Radar and travels from 120 miles west of LAto 3 miles west of LA.

That means it's moving at about 5.57 miles per minute, or about 334.29 miles per hour.

Well there you go. Pretty basic but a very important piece of evidence.

You also wrote on the subject of the light traveling through the medium of smoke. Yet "the object" seems to completely block out the light beams... certainly says something about its density.

The beams are quite bright before they reach the "object" and zero or nearly
zero afterward. Just how much optical density of smoke this requires I do not know.
However, certainly a solid metallic object would be sufficient to block the beams.

From the same source....

It could have been two, or three, or up to six miles away,
I can't recall exactly since it occurred so long ago. But I strongly remember the searchlights converging on the bottoms of the reddish objects flying in formation

From what I remember about the Hill book (unconventional flying objects) the reddish color would be associated with lower power, which is consistent with the slow movement of the (LA) ufo..

"At low altitudes, atmospheric gas molecules such as nitrogen and oxygen consist of two atoms each, like dumbbells, held together by a sharing of their outer electrons. The electrons of such molecules, unless disturbed by a collision with an energetic particle or photon, remain in their lowest energy state, called the ground state. Above the various electron ground-state energy levels are numerous energy-level vacancies. When a sufficiently energetic wave (photon) or particle generated by the UFO collides with a molecular electron in the surrounding atmosphere, the electron is impelled past all energy-level vacancies and outside the molecule. The electron becomes a free entity, rattling around between molecules. The molecule that lost the electron is said to be ionized; it is a positive ion. If the freed electron attaches to a neutral molecule, a negative ion is formed. If a free electron enters a positive ion, it usually enters one of the normally vacant energy levels and gives off a light quanta (photon) having an energy equal to that given up by the electron. Thus a relatively fast electron would give off a relatively energetic photon, say in the ultraviolet, or blue range.

Thus UFOs have been observed to a very bright white or blue while performing "high energy" manuevers. Conversely, lower power operations would correlate to a red or orange color.

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Thus UFOs have been observed to a very bright white or blue while performing "high energy" manuevers. Conversely, lower power operations would correlate to a red or orange color.

It's interesting you should mention this facet. It's something I've actually been able to observe first-hand over the course of many personal sightings.

It's also something I've never mentioned directly before, just to see if anyone else picked up on it.

I'm happy to see Scramjet, that not only did you pick up on it, but you provided us with some Science to back the assertion up!


Also of note, I'm certain now that I've found the proper mountain range, and I'm about 95% certain that I've got the angle and distance just about right...

To recreate the original LA Times Photograph, now I just need to find a building in the area where I can get to the roof to take the picture.

A lot of buildings have risen since 1942, and I need to get visually above those in order to capture what the LA Times photographer was seeing.

I'm working on this, and I've gained regular access to a building in the area (my night job is located there, and it isn't a co-incidence

But I've yet to get to the roof, and my co-workers there don't know how to get up to the roof either, there doesn't seem to be an internal stair.

I may try using a ladder to get up, perhaps this weekend. I'll update the thread if I'm able to get a good picture.

At any rate, as soon as I can get a recreation picture taken, and sucessful comparisons can be made to the original LA Times image, then I can take a Long/Lat reading of the photographer's approximate location.

Once I've got that, we can get distance values for what we're seeing in the original LA Times Image, real distance values

We already know the locations of most (if not all) of the AA Batteries, signifying where the searchlights are coming from.

I can also take a reading on the Long/Lat of the mountain range itself (or obtain it from Google Maps or a similar site), and the Long/Lat of Culver City's approximate center point.

With this data, combined with the distance values to each searchlight beam and the degrees of separation observed between each outpost, we should be able to determine fairly accurately the size of the craft in the original image.

This has taken a lot of time and effort, but I hope everyone knows that I'm still hard at work on this case. And I welcome the advice and/or assistance of anyone willing to get their hands a little dirty
(by that I mean field research)

Thanks for your post Scramjet! You're right on the mark


top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in