The Battle Of Los Angeles: Photo analysis by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Phd.

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
This is a discussion of the photographic print first published in the Los Angeles Times newspaper on Feb 26, 1942. An article on March 13, 2011, by Scott Harrison indicates that the published photo was actually a retouched version of the photo.

Harrison presented in his article the unretouched version that was discovered in the UCLA photographic archive by Simon Elliott. The following discussion is based on the unretouched photo. Several different versions are presented in an effort to understand the nature of the "object" (dense smoke? solid body?) at the convergence of the beams.


First we have the unretouched print as provided by Scott Harrison. The date of the photo is Feb 25, 1942.


Next we have some enhanced versions. The first is a brightened version to show the dim beams more clearly



In the next image there are white lines drawn along the centers of the beams and projected through the crossover region to show where the beams would go above the convergence region if they passed through. One beam, indicated by the dashed line, travels upward from the convergence region as one would expect for a beam that passed through the convergence region.

However, this beam, at the right side of the convergence region, is a little "strange" because it does not seem to be simply a straight line extension of one of the beams at the left of the convergence region. Instead, it seems to be a deviated extension of one of the beams at the left, that is, as if the beam coming up from the left were "bent" clock-wise a small about by something in the convergence region. This "bend" could result from reflection of the beam from some reflective surface in the convergence region.

One might also consider the possibility that the "dashed line beam" is a reflection of the brightest beam at the right, reflected from some surface within the convergence region. These suggestions are, of course, speculative, but the fact is that the "dashed line beam" does not seem to be directly related to any of the other beams. (Note: a beam would not be bent by smoke.)



Sometimes it is helpful to see a negative version. One presumes that this is what the actual negative looks like. The negative emphasizes the "optical density" of the convergence region.


Finally, there is a darkened version of the positive to emphasize the brightness of the convergence region as compared with the beams.

Source: www.ufodigest.com...

PLEASE go to the article to continue reading the analsys and additional photos. It's lengthy so... but. long story short (IMO) Something was up there that night. Something that could take one heck of a pounding.

Who knows, by the grace of God/Fate or whatever, maybe WWII actually save the human race in someway.

Showed them Aliens we were there little slaves anymore and we were a force to be reconned with? Maybe?

Of course, one could continue on that an say yes, that LA event did scare them off. But, they are on their way back and will be here by 2012 for a re-match!!!

I am very interested in what you all think of the bent right side light stream..... odd for sure. Enjoy.

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.




edit on 4/6/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I love this story


When I used to be in doubt, I would think of this and say, yup


I was the first to give you a S&F

Thanx again



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


This photo was reviewed recently on a SyFy tv show called Fact Or Faked. They were not able to show that the photo was a fake. They tried to recreate the artifact with strong lights but of course the light beams extended passed the convergence zone. Next they tried smoking up the area but the beams again extended passed the convergence. Their last attempt using the same type of arms used in the original assault had them shooting at a weather balloon. The guns created a lot of smoke but when they used the lights they still extended through the balloon and the guns took the balloon out in rapid order. The original fight was said to have lasted 45 minutes. If this had been a weather balloon the troops would have grounded it toot suite and there would never have been any question as to what this object was. In any event the results of the photos they took with each of these endeavors was less than a perfect match to the original. Veddy veddy interesting hmmmmm.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by VenomVile.6
 


I'm with you.

A few weeks ago I took the family to see the Battle of LA. Without checking it out first. We all enjoyed the movie-don't get me wrong but it wasn't about this topic. We were bumming.

I have to say that this event-is the most convincing for me-so far. Especailly since this artilce.

Explain the way the light rays bent!!!!! Gets me everytime I think about it.

I leave open the possibility that some anomily could be invovled but....



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
What I don't understand is how there can be so many active "debunkers" when images like this exist from 1942!

Not only is it a real picture, but it was also published in the front page of the LA times with an article to go with!

If something like this were to happen today, it would NEVER hit the front page of a newspaper.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I think it's interesting to see that in the original unretouched photo it's much easier to see that it was a time-lapse photo of unknown duration. This would certainly call into question any analysis which seems to indicate that the thing in the beams was saucer shaped.

Also interesting is I immediately noticed the beam of light coming from the thing (I assume), and going off to the right. I don't know what that's about. Reflection? Spotlight?


Anyway, it sure would be nice if there was at least ONE other photo of the thing that survived. It floats over Culver City, home of Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox movies studios, and all we have is this one fuzzy photo. Nuts.


edit on 6-4-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
What I don't understand is how there can be so many active "debunkers" when images like this exist from 1942!


Images of what, exactly? Are you going to say "alien spaceships?" Because that is exactly when we debunkers step in. The minute we smell a load of bunk coming along.

edit on 6-4-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I still think it might have been a loose barrage balloon. Most of the gunfire was .50 caliber AA. That would defiinitely bring it down a barrage balloon wouldn't instantly collapse like an elastic weather balloon would. I tinkered with the original photo a little bit: I cropped it, lowered the brightness a good bit, increased the contrast some, and filled in the resulting convergence zone. I suppose it could still be a barrage balloon but my treatment of the photo reveals what could also be a disk:




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by raiders247
What I don't understand is how there can be so many active "debunkers" when images like this exist from 1942!


Images of what, exactly? Are you going to say "alien spaceships?" Because that is exactly when we debunkers step in. The minute we smell a load of bunk coming along.

edit on 6-4-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)


I don't know what the object was, but let's apply some common sense.

In the year 1942, almost 70 years ago, before CGI, there was a mysterious object that had our military so alarmed that they fired thousands of anti-aircraft rounds at it, which did nothing.

What country had aircraft that was capable of doing this in 1942? Please don't say the Germans. The way I see it, is the government was either behind this through reverse engineering technology they found, or this is an extraterrestrial ship that was unscathed by our heavy military anit-aircraft guns.

So you have eyewitnesses, pictures, newspaper articles, the military saying "we don't know".....hmmmm....sounds like thin ice for a debunker...



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I liked this part of the article..




Editor Peter Jenkins of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner reported: "I could clearly see the V formation of about 25 silvery planes overhead moving slowly across the sky toward Long Beach.



sounds like what people still see to this day...



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Yes i see what you mean about your thread being along the same lines as mine..

Three giant spaceships are heading for Earth - ATS

Someone in my thread asked why do i think that ET's would be hostile? I think thats very obvious, they have been here before and had antiaircraft shells fired at them !!
So next time come well armed !!

Typical, how our governments always have to 'shoot now, ask questions later'



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


S+F
I love this photo you can clearly see the light is hitting a object or the light would pass....it helps to know they are shooting it to no effect


This thing took many direct hits but as the story goes moves off like nothing happened.

Thanks anon very interesting



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


i love this story , thanx for the thread.

and by the way there is another interesting video at the bottom of the page you linked , maybe you can make another thread of that incident or some one else because im not that good in making threads


S&F



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Images of what, exactly? Are you going to say "alien spaceships?" Because that is exactly when we debunkers step in. The minute we smell a load of bunk coming along.



Time lapse is your best "Debunking" theory?
I'm not saying it's Alien but so far there isn't any other explanation that is completely flawless.

Yet we are to ignore thousands of eyewitnesses? Remember this isn't a video clip on Youtube or some schmuck posting a photo-shopped pic online. This was plastered all over the papers of the time with plenty of witnesses hell even the Military opened up on it.
edit on 6-4-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Here's a featurette about it related to the release of the movie Battle: Los Angeles, which according to Wikipedia is loosely inspired by this real event.

Battle of Los Angeles Featurette



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
The way I see it, is the government was either behind this through reverse engineering technology they found, or this is an extraterrestrial ship that was unscathed by our heavy military anit-aircraft guns.


But why extraterrestrial? You know there are at least several other explanations, including, "We don't know." Why immediately settle for the ET notion, which is really one of the most unimaginative of the bunch. The way I see it, looking at the basic known facts, there is absolutely nothing about this entire incident that indicates it had to do with extraterrestrial anything. Because if you think, "Well, all the other possibilities can be eliminated," then you haven't done enough homework.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yet we are to ignore thousands of eyewitnesses? Remember this isn't a video clip on Youtube or some schmuck posting a photo-shopped pic online. This was plastered all over the papers of the time with plenty of witnesses hell even the Military opened up on it.


AND YET... what do we have? A fuzzy photo. Some stories. A lot of trigger happy GIs with the jitters. Conflicting stories from official sources.

That's not a lot to hang a space helmet from.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


First off the problem with the Time lapse theory is that they also caught/captured AAA {Anti Aircraft Artillery} rounds in the pic. {The Bright Dots} Did those Rounds stay put {Floating in mid-air} while the Photographer got his time lapse photo?

Second, it wasn't just the Gunners who may have been trigger happy you know. The people using the Search lights all locked onto a target that stayed aloft long after supposedly being riddled full of holes and then it casually flew away. So much for the balloon theory too.
edit on 6-4-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
edit on 6-4-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

DP
edit on 6-4-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


What makes you think this photo was time lapse? I do not see light trails from the ammo which would be evident if it were.





top topics
 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join