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 Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 26
82
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Anti-aircraft shells are set with timers to detonate at a selected altitude.

Yea,they didn't have that "radio" technology(the timers) until two years into the war.............If you really want a source I will give you one but I am right so lets move past that one.


A proximity fuze (also called a VT fuze) is a fuze that is designed to detonate an explosive device automatically when the distance to target becomes smaller than a predetermined value or when the target passes through a given plane...........The United States Navy accepted that failure rate and USS Cleveland (CL-55) tested proximity fuzed ammunition against drone aircraft targets over Chesapeake Bay in August 1942. The tests were so successful that all target drones were destroyed before testing was complete. Proximity fuzes promptly went into large scale production.[1]
en.wikipedia.org...

You see these types of fuze's DID NOT GO INTO PRODUCTION UNTIL AFTER THE LA INCIDENT.



[edit on 4/13/2009 by jkrog08]




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 

Yes, proximity fuses were a big improvement over the mechanical time fuses.

This technology dramatically improved the accuracy of those shells since they would now explode when the sensor detected the presence of an airplane. Previously gunners would have to set a time fuse based on an estimate of the target plane's distance and altitude.

en.wikipedia.org...

But in any case all anti-aircraft shells had timers in order to make sure that they detonated in the air, rather than on the ground, if they didn't get close enough to their target for the proximity fuse to activate (or if there was no target there in the first place.)


[edit on 4/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


This does not change the fact that direct hits were observed and the explosions around the craft can be seen in the photoraph to corroborate the eye-witness testimony. If was also engaged by fighter planes. This ordeal went on for more than half an hour. It was hit by some 2500 rounds of shells in a constant volley of fire.

So the explanation of weather balloon is eliminated. Your other explanation, "it was nothinng" was not valid to begin with, that it was discarded by officials as well.

So you have no way out of this one. This is a genuine UFO.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 

How many fighters were launched? Where did they take off from? We have a statement from one of the pilots who would have been up there that no aircraft left the ground. Again, is he lying?

There are witnesses who saw hundreds of aircraft, a blimp, a giant butterfly, planes being shot down, bombs falling. There are eyewitness reports that say nothing about a giant object, nothing about aircraft.

Here's the caption that the Syracuse Herald Journal attached to the "famous" photo;

This was the scene over Los Angeles when anti-aircraft guns pumped shells into a patch of sky on which numerous searchlights converged after an air raid warning.
www.bookmice.net...
Nothing about an object. Nothing about fighters. Nothing about anything but a "patch of sky".

The Oakland Tribune;

About 3:05 a.m. anti-aircraft guns went into action on a 25 mile front along the coast, firing shrapnel and tracer bullets at a slowly moving, and still unidentified, target. Some observers said it appeared to be a blimp. Firing was steady for nearly 30 minutes, ceased suddenly. It was resumed briefly at long intervals for another 90 minutes.

www.bookmice.net...

The Reno Evening Gazette;

Still others who watched the spectacle, if it can be called that, sighted no planes in the glare of the army's searchlights.

www.bookmice.net...

The Galveston Daily News;

But one watcher near an aircraft factory said he had long-range field glasses trained to the sky areas raked by searchlights, and saw "not one single plane in all the time the firing-was going on."

www.bookmice.net...

I think I can guess the report you prefer.

The official report depends on which officials you're talking about. The Navy officials said it was a false alarm. The Army officials said there were airplanes of unknown origin. No officials said anything about a single giant UFO.

[edit on 4/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 

How many fighters were launched? Where did they take off from? We have a statement from one of the pilots who would have been up there that no aircraft left the ground. Again, is he lying?

There are witnesses who saw hundreds of aircraft, a blimp, a giant butterfly, planes being shot down, bombs falling. There are eyewitness reports that say nothing about a giant object, nothing about aircraft.

Nothing about an object. Nothing about fighters. Nothing about anything but a "patch of sky".


This is referring to shooting at a particular area.

The Oakland Tribune;

About 3:05 a.m. anti-aircraft guns went into action on a 25 mile front along the coast, firing shrapnel and tracer bullets at a slowly moving, and still unidentified, target. Some observers said it appeared to be a blimp. Firing was steady for nearly 30 minutes, ceased suddenly. It was resumed briefly at long intervals for another 90 minutes.

www.bookmice.net...

It was an unidentified target. Some observers were trying to identify it and compared it to a blimp. If that was true, the blimp would have come down after the firing and thus this explanation is eliminated right away.


The Reno Evening Gazette;

Still others who watched the spectacle, if it can be called that, sighted no planes in the glare of the army's searchlights.

www.bookmice.net...

The Galveston Daily News;

But one watcher near an aircraft factory said he had long-range field glasses trained to the sky areas raked by searchlights, and saw "not one single plane in all the time the firing-was going on."

www.bookmice.net...


Witness testimony is going to vary. A UFO flying high up surrounded by search lights, being shot and fired at and seen from different angles, from different vantage points will produce different viewing. The fact of the matter is that we have a clear photograph of this UFO and significant amount of eye-witness testimony corroborating this photograph.



The official report depends on which officials you're talking about. The Navy officials said it was a false alarm. The Army officials said there were airplanes of unknown origin. No officials said anything about a single giant UFO.


Another appeal to authority fallacy. The officials explanation is no more valid just because it is from an official.

The evidence clearly indicates a large physical craft and thus the explanation it is nothing is eliminated as well. As this craft is capable of sustaining some 2500 rounds of shells/bullets it clearly is not a known craft. Therefore it is a genuine UFO.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Here is some footage of this UFO with reporting



It can clearly be seen there is only one large and slowly moving object, around which artillery shells are constantly exploding.

Available evidence summary:

* The video showing the moving craft and artillery firing at it
* The photograph showing the same, clearly showing the outline of a luminous physical craft encapsulated in the search lights
* Significant eye-witness testimony corroborating all above

Your explanations so far have been unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the available evidence. You either admit that that this is a genuine UFO or provide a satisfactory and consistent explanation.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


"* The video showing the moving craft and artillery firing at it
* The photograph showing the same, clearly showing the outline of a luminous physical craft encapsulated in the search lights
* Significant eye-witness testimony corroborating all above "

First, the video does not "clearly show" anything. IF there is something in the conjunction of the searchlights, it truly is a UFO, emphasis on the UNIDENTIFIED. Making the conceptual leap to an alien space craft is optional, but unsupported.

Second, eyewitnesses are very nice, just lovely, but are simply humans and humint is subject to the prejudices of the times. You see an alien space ship, they saw Japanese bombers. Are you both right? Was it a Japanese Imperial Space Forces bomber?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


1st, You have search lights converging creating an optical illusion creating naturally a sphere where the search light meet (called convergence) . No one who was there claimed it was a UFO in fact they were claiming it was aircraft flying at about 19000 ft balloons and even mention of gliders. Where you see the search lights converge there simply playing follow the leader.

2nd Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes. In any case, the next three hours produced some of the most imaginative reporting of the war: “swarms” of planes (or, sometimes, balloons) of all possible sizes, numbering from one to several hundred, traveling at altitudes which ranged from a few thousand feet to more than 20,000 and flying at speeds which were said to have varied from “very slow” to over 200 miles per hour, were observed to parade across the skies. These mysterious forces dropped no bombs and, despite the fact that 1,440 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition were directed against them, suffered no losses. There were reports, to be sure, that four enemy planes had been shot down, and one was supposed to have landed in flames at a Hollywood intersection. Residents in a forty-mile arc along the coast watched from hills or rooftops as the play of guns and searchlights provided the first real drama of the war for citizens of the mainland. The dawn, which ended the shooting and the fantasy, also proved that the only damage which resulted to the city was such as had been caused by the excitement (there was at least one death from heart failure), by traffic accidents in the blacked-out streets, or by shell fragments from the artillery barrage.

To prove the point it was paranoia the barrage continued until day break when suddenly planes seemed to vanish. and embarrassed a lot of military where they even started saying if was an observation plan launched from a Japanese sub which is laughable.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
That video shows 2 things that are of vital importance:

1. There are clouds in the shot. This would indicate that the object in question is not a cloud, as it looks nothing like one of the clouds seen elsewhere in the shot.

2. There is obviously something in the searchlights. The "optical illusion" is ridiculous. You don't create a sphere out of the conjunction of search light beams.

Re: the lack of people calling it a UFO, it would seem to me that the term UFO would not really in the lexicon of most Americans in 1942. This was at the dawn of the whole concept of UFO's in popular culture, and was not something that most people really considered as a true possibility.

Re: the varying eyewitness accounts. Given that this happened over a major city, it is not surprising that most people couldn't see much. Houses, trees, buildings, they would all block the view of the majority of the sky for the majority of people. Asking how come not everyone saw it would fall under the category of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Re: what the Army and Navy said. Pshaw....you would believe THEM??? Talk about credibility issues.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I have seen that video before and I have some doubts about its authenticity because the scene is not the same as in the famous photo.

- The weather looks different.
- The searchlights (and their positions) look different.

I think it is another case of mixing real audio from that event with a video that is not from the event.

Unless this was filmed in a completely different location.

I also think that the shape seen on the photo is just the result of the converging searchlights and the flak smoke.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


"2. There is obviously something in the searchlights. The "optical illusion" is ridiculous. You don't create a sphere out of the conjunction of search light beams."

Obviously? Why "obviously"? Because you want there to be something in the conjunction, obviously.

Also, look at the last bit of the vid. The people who did it take great liberties with the information available to produce, ta-da!, a flying saucer! Not a sphere, but a alien hubcap.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Here is some footage of this UFO with reporting

***snip***

It can clearly be seen there is only one large and slowly moving object, around which artillery shells are constantly exploding.

***snip***


There has never been anything but ONE picture of the Battle. No film footage is available or has been available.

The live(?) footage shown is not from the actual event but used in the video for dramatization. Unfortunately this is the footage shown, when UFO sites are trying to convince us that it was real.

The still picture has even been enhanced on some sites to make the point. Others call it manipulated.

Video sequence is a hoax (or dramatized if you like this word better).



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDaneVideo sequence is a hoax (or dramatized if you like this word better).

Hoax works very well, thank you.


The need for "constructed evidence" (i.e., hoaxed "proof") to support such claims is a clincher that they're bogus.

How many more clinchers do we need?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Remember, all assertions must be demonstrated.

The video is a hoax, a fake, a dramatization. It is possible, in that case show that it is rather than just stating it and expecting us to believe it.

The UFO is an optical illusion. If you think an optical illusion of a luminious moving object, with a clearly defined ouline, enscapulated within some search lights is possible and then can be photographed as such. Then demonstrate it.

I am only going to work from available evidence as a genuine skeptic should:

Search lights came on and converged on something, indicating that something is detected to be there and it is shot at

It is intercepted by fighter planes, indicating something has been detected that is a flying craft violating LA airspace.

It it shot at violently by thousands of rounds of artillery fire and bullets for a significant duration, indicating that a flying craft has violated LA airspace and they are trying to shoot it down.

Significant witness testimony corroborates the above.

The photograph confirms that an object is encapsulated in the search lights, there are explosions around it(bursts of lights)

This is the evidence and any explanation which can be considered valid must take into account the sum of the above.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


"2. There is obviously something in the searchlights. The "optical illusion" is ridiculous. You don't create a sphere out of the conjunction of search light beams."

Obviously? Why "obviously"? Because you want there to be something in the conjunction, obviously.

Also, look at the last bit of the vid. The people who did it take great liberties with the information available to produce, ta-da!, a flying saucer! Not a sphere, but a alien hubcap.


I say "obviously" because, to me, it is obvious.

I don't "want" there to be anything there. I could care less if there weren't, and would call it like it is (as i have done often around these parts).

i do not predetermine anything. I open each thread with an open mind, and several years of research experience. It is very, very rarely that i see new information presented, honestly. i would be that most ATSers are the same.

SaviorComplex, why do you still troll? I can't believe they haven't deleted your account yet. If you want to see what a true and effective skeptic looks like, you should take the example of ArMaP or Phage. Two members that i respect immensely, and who have on more than one occassion convinced me. You, on the other hand, are fast tracking to the "iggy" feature.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
In any event, the "Battle of Los Angeles" is in no way proof positive of aliens of any sort. As it stands, there are a number of different scenarios that could fit the available evidence. If it can't be narrowed down to aliens, then it fails to stand as positive proof of anything. And since time continues to pass with no new information being discovered about it, the most anybody can really say is that it's a curious incident.

I think one of the more interesting things about it is that several days after the incident, after everyone was up in arms about the "failure" of the defense system, the head of the War Department suggested the whole thing was essentially the result of "fifth columnists" or "enemy sympathizers" operating out of the desert.

All of this, of course, made it a whole lot easier to round up all the Japanese Americans a week later and put them into internment camps.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


"I think one of the more interesting things about it is that several days after the incident, after everyone was up in arms about the "failure" of the defense system, that the head of the War Department suggested that the whole thing was essentially the result of "fifth columnists" or "enemy organizations" operating out of the desert."

Don't forget "secret airfields in the alfalfa fields of Pomona."



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Don't forget "secret airfields in the alfalfa fields of Pomona."


It's funny that the explanation was given and people just accepted it without much further uproar, such as a call to scour the desert for spies. I guess rounding up the Japanese settled everybody down after that.

As anyone in southern California knows, those folks in Pomona were and still are sympathetic to the goals of the Axis powers.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NohupAs anyone in southern California knows, those folks in Pomona were and still are sympathetic to the goals of the Axis powers.


Proof indeed that you've been there. Pomona is where I'd go if I wanted to die a slow, painful, boring death. Success would be assured.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Remember, all assertions must be demonstrated.

The video is a hoax, a fake, a dramatization. It is possible, in that case show that it is rather than just stating it and expecting us to believe it.



Believe me I have tried finding the evidence, but as luck (?!) would have it, finding said evidence has proven a daunting task.

There are som many UFO sites out there and so many believers that link and cross link that the search engines are drowned out by the faulty "facts".

It has proven difficult - to say the least - to find a site that would satisfy a believer. I was however convinced many years ago when I saw believable evidence of the LA Battle being nothing more than some trigger happy military personel on the edge because of boredom, fright and rumours.

I have followed this thread with interest and specifically I find it amazing how easy it is for some people to throw absurd information into the debate without being corrected. AND get starred for it.

It is sad that the few truly amazing cases of unexplainable events are drowned out by people intent on running with lies and hoaxes.

Is is also sad that just because thousands of people use the same flawed sources it is considered the Truth and beyond reproach (a million people can't be wrong can they?).

It as also sad that even when presented with believable fact about a hoax or a misinterpretation some individuals STILL continue to post their pathetic claims.
And yes I do know that I haven't presented a link to the debunking of the LA Battle. I just related what was known amongst some of us 15 years ago.
I have personally been involved in the UFO phenomenon for at least 35 years.
I started like some of you - wanting so badly to believe that even von D. was GOD. Then I learned how to be critical of sources. Unlike some of you.

Sorry about the phrasing, but my first, second and third language is not english. What sounds correct in my head might sound a bit harsh when read by a native english speaker (or american
)

Some talk about disinfo agents - being the poor guys that try to get some true facts into the discussion.
In my book there are some disinfo agents who knowingly misinform and mispresent UFO related stuff even if they KNOW (or should know) that it is lies.

What a shame.

Final note...
I see clearly that the practice of flagging and starring are most prolific between believers. A bit like the serious content on the internet being swamped out by countless individuals trying the darndest to sell their specific brand of rumours.

So to the poster who tried to boast about how many stars and flags recieved...
They don't mean sh**. It only means that you have a considerable number of people who are also misled.




top topics



 
82
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join