The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

reply to post by Exuberant1


"However, It is not possible for the the light beam hypothesis to account for the radar contact that was tracked to within three miles of Los Angeles from 120 miles away."

I just digitized a lovely little work call "Radar Bulletin NO. 1A (Radone A) The Capabilities and Limitations of Shipborne Radar (COMINCH P-08), produced for the United States Fleet Commander in Chief, dated 25 July, 1945. You might find it interesting, especially chapters 4-7, on limitations of radar. The problem of "false positives" is covered there.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


"The real clouds and the smoke clouds created by a huge number of shell bursts would stop the light from penetrating further. "

Why? They are, after all, CLOUDS, not solid objects. With the searchlights of the time you could read a newspaper at five miles. The beam of light at the source is almost palpable. Get thirty of them converging on one spot and the glare would produce some interesting effects.

reply to post by Gawdzilla



Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in 1942's 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?

I hope you don't.

I just digitized a lovely little work call "Radar Bulletin NO. 1A (Radone A) The Capabilities and Limitations of Shipborne Radar

*Do you understand that this object was tracked by land-based radar?

Your digitization of the 'work' pertaining to the limitations of shipborne radar may be 'lovely' to you - but it would not possibly account for the radar contacts made by the Land-Based radar systems. That would be a different 'work' ;-)

Note: Just because a radar contact is made over the ocean, does not mean that the radar system registering that contact a is ship-based...

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


"Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in 1941's 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?"

Where did I say that, please?

As for the "land based radar" joke, I expected that. Do you know which is more accurate, land or ship based radar? Which has few false returns?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

"Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in 1941's 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?"

Where did I say that, please?

Then what is your contention vis-a-vis the post you replied to at the top of this page? - Please clarify the aspect(s) of my post you disagree with - cite quotes.

(this is the post I am referencing; www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Do you support Armap's hypothesis?

Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in the 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?

*Please answer these three questions. Thanks in advance

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

"Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in 1941's 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?"

Where did I say that, please?

Then what is your contention vis-a-vis the post you replied to at the top of this page? - Please clarify the aspect(s) of my post you disagree with - cite quotes.

(this is the post I am referencing; www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Do you support Armap's hypothesis?

Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in 1941's 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?

*Please answer these three questions. Thanks in advance.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

1. The limitations of radar at the time are covered in the work I noted. It will be online RSN, you can check for yourself. Remember, radar was less than 10 years old, and had been used by the military in the US for less than two years. They didn't know all the complications inherent in false positives.

2. Link to the exact post you're referencing, please.

3. Don't be silly, I never said anything like that.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

3. Don't be silly, I never said anything like that.

I asked you a question.

Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Please answer this question, this will be the third time I have asked it:

'Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in 1941's 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?'


Thanks in advance.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


"
'Do you believe that the concentration of photons from the searchlights used in 1941's 'Battle of Los Angeles' are capable of causing radar contacts?'"

No. Alles klar, ja?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I thanked you in advance for that - thanks again ;-)


Do you deny that a radar contact was made and an object tracked?

Is it your contention that radar was not utilized in the orienting and directing of the searchlights onto the target?

-If so, then how were the searchlights directed onto the target?

-How did they know the object was approaching?

(humans are not capable of seeing such things at 120 miles distance, searchlights don't possess that sort of range either)

-Without radar data, how did the gunners know what altitude to set their rounds to burst at?


*Thanks in advance.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

I thanked you in advance for that - thanks again ;-)
Do you deny that a radar contact was made and an object tracked?
Is it your contention that radar was not utilized in the orienting and directing of the searchlights onto the target?
-If so, then how were the searchlights directed onto the target?
*Thanks in advance.

I don't know if the radar tracked an object. I don't have access to the original tracks, the exact configuration of the terrain and the skill levels of the operators. Neither do you, so we can't make a positive statement about radar tracking one way or the other. So using the tracking to "prove" the object was there is just as invalid as using it to "prove" it wasn't.

Radar wasn't a "pin point" system them, we didn't have "3D" radar until the late 80s, IIRC. ("Aegis" system) Specifically, radar couldn't be used to determine altitude. And the margin of error of radar made it useful for saying "Okay, something is coming from the Southwest, can anybody spot it?" Given that, it's doubtful that radar would have been used to allow the searchlights to converge. The boots on the ground would do that.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


What is your opinion on the 'Battle of Los Angeles'?

What do you think occurred that evening?

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

What is your opinion on the 'Battle of Los Angeles'?

What do you think occurred that evening?

Thanks in advance.

Simplest explanation: War nerves. Without any proof otherwise that's what I'd go with. (And yes, I have seen the "evidence" presented so far, and it's merely speculation, not proof.)

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Simplest explanation: War nerves. Without any proof otherwise that's what I'd go with.

Don't abuse Occam's Razor.


What would you regard as satisfactory evidence?

What would convince you that the objects that registered as radar contacts and sighted by several officers actually existed?

*Radar contacts were dismissed on Dec 7th the year before - and the Pearl Harbour attack began without warning.
The reasons used to dismiss the Dec. 7 readingswere similar to the reason you use to dismiss the 1942 radar contacts....

...Occam's Razor was used on Dec. 7 1941; who would have have thunk it would be the Japanese attack force that was detected and not just a simple radar glitch - which would be the simplest explanation...;-)

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


"Satifactory evidence"? Show me some evidence and I'll evaluate it. No front loading.

"...Occam's Razor was used on Dec. 7 1941; who would have have thunk it would be the Japanese attack force that was detected and not just a simple radar glitch - which would be the simplest explanation...;-)"
The radar worked properly. Lockard and Elliot reported the contact. The FIC at Fort Shafter, however, had closed down just prior to the contact, and the only officer there was an observer named Kermit Tyler. Tyler knew that the Honolulu radio station stayed on all night when a flight of B-17s was due in and that was the situation on this particular night. So he assumed the contact was friendly. If you look at the radar screen of the day, all you see is an oscilloscope that indicates a spike when pointed in the direction of the return (in this case three degrees west of north.) It didn't have an ATC-type screen with a little note beside the blip, "This is an attacking Japanese force.")

See? The more you know, the less mysterious it gets.

reply to post by Exuberant1


My little experiment was made to compare it with the photo.

I have no way of comparing radar data (that I haven't seen anywhere) with anything, so I can not make any experiment, at least for now.

Some people said they saw aeroplanes flying in formation, some even identified the type of aeroplane; my little experiment was not made to compare with that data either, just with the photo.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I want evidence for why approx 30 search lights would be directed at a single patch of sky and then subsequently shot at for a long time, if there is nothing there.

Whilst I've an open mind regarding this incident, what is strange is that the UFO (If it was a UFO! ) continued doing the waltz for a full 30 minutes in the glare of powerful searchlights and getting repeatedly shot at. If I were the pilot, I would have hit the high road to safety before you could say Jack Robbins!!

And I wouldn't just sit there with a million candle power of light exposing me to Earthlings! Or were the ETs aboard having a binge on board and so pissed that they didn't notice all the crap flying around? Cocking a snook at us inferior beings, what? Now that ain't funny! Jeeez!

But hey! What do I know of alien psychology?

Cheers!

[edit on 14-4-2009 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

my little experiment was not made to compare with that data either, just with the photo.

And it was good job that you did. ;-)

You replicated the phenomena seen in the photo quite well. Kudos for that!

Motion film of the event would have been nice to have, as I would like to see if the effect you recreated would be sustained as the object(s) moved from Santa Monica to above Long Beach over the course of twenty minutes...

*If the objects tracked on radar did not really exist, then the behaviour of the searchlight operators, gunners and visual observers would be comparable to the ideomotor effect observed when a group of people are moving the pointer of an Ouija board, albeit on a much, much grander scale (and with artillery...)


Here are two images of the target - the second is a reverse of the first:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c257c005cf1.jpg[/atsimg]

*This second image demonstrates that the spotlight phenomena alone cannot be responsible for creating the object(s) visible in the first image. Something is physically present - that 'something' was also detected on radar:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/90105ef5bb50.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Thank you in looking at the picture close up it looks more like smoke or clouds being illuminated by searchlight. And if this was a UFO like people here claim lets use some logic. Estimates varied on altitude but lets say at least 10000 ft. Have you ever seen a jet at 10000 ft its not going to look huge is it. Now that beam with the city under neath it i figure that if we assumed it was a craft instead of searchlights glaring off clouds and smoke that UFO would have been about a quarter the size of Los Angeles sky line in the photo. You've gone to talking miles long. Now logic dictates if there was a mile long aircraft floating over Los Angeles there would not have been conflicting stories at all everyone wouldn't have missed it. Even the people manning the AA guns didn't see this object spoke of on this board and they were the ones shooting at it.

By the way the testimony from the woman i saw earlier in the thread there is a huge error telling me this testimony was made many years after the incident at least a decade. They didn't have anti aircraft missiles in 1942.So this was obviously either a false report made up or due to passage of time simply incorrect.

About 10 years ago I read everything on UFOs believed everything I read in books then I began to look at incident that sort made me reexamine my beliefs there is just so much that people want to claim is proof of UFOs. I realized its a lot like religion People will warp facts to fit there belief. I would love to find out Aliens exist but 90% can be explained quite simply as miss identification. As for the other 10% don't know. But I will say people trying to use incidents such as this doesn't help UFO research because it just makes the community as a whole look nuts.

PS Keep looking the truth is out there just dont look in the wrong places.



[edit on 4/14/09 by dragonridr]

reply to post by Exuberant1


"
*This second image demonstrates that the spotlight phenomena alone cannot be responsible for creating the object(s) visible in the first image. Something is physically present - that 'something' was also detected on radar:"

Ever see "flak" bursts? Do you think aliens really build spaceships that look like exploding artillery shells?

This stuff is amazing.

Have any of you seen this online series about alien abduction?

sky1.sky.com...

Do you think this guy is for real?