"Fact or Faked" Concludes "Battle of LA" may have been UFO...

reply to post by korathin
....continued from post above

Originally posted by Dashdragon
My conclusion is that it's hard to say anything from this one image...if we had the negative we could probably get more information though. The testimony is a bit contradictory so it doesn't really help.

This is what I would call a skeptical position. It is months ago now since I looked into this case in any detail but from what I remember I pretty much agree with you.

The negative can be inspected if you wish. It will be easier if you are near LA though.

This six-photo gallery includes two versions of the searchlight photo. The first was recently found at the Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive at UCLA by Simon Elliott, researcher in the Department of Special Collections at UCLA. The second version — retouched — was published in 1942. The second version exists as a copy negative also at UCLA.

[Updated to credit Simon Elliott, Department of Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA, who located the Battle of LA negatives.]

This week I inspected the negatives from which the two versions were scanned at UCLA.

The non-retouched negative is very flat, the focus is soft and it looks underexposed. While I could not tell if the negative was the original or a copy negative made from a print, it definitely showed the original scene before a print was retouched.

SOURCE: framework.latimes.com...


Yes, you can be skeptical and called a believer. It happens all the time.

reply to post by Pimander


I probably should have clarified more as I did understand what you were doing with the term and wanted to elaborate. You are right that we are basically on the same page and the part about it being used as an insult was directed more to others who frequently treat it as such.

Originally posted by korathin
Actually, skepticism is a form of denialism. It wasn't discovered until recently how to bend light. And unless you can find evidence of light behaving in such a fashion(light being canceled out by light to create the illusion that an object is blocking the light), your position is without merit.

Actually Scientific Skepticism (Click Here) is hardly something to be labelled as denial and that is exactly what you will see most people in a forum like this displaying.

I did not say anything about the light being cancelled out by light, nor have I seen anyone fighting for that stance specifically. The question here is not a matter of believing a UFO is responsible or if the light is cancelling itself, but what we are even seeing to begin with. I had specifically mentioned that it could indeed be a cloud of smoke or something similar as you can clearly see at least the brightest beam coming out the other side, and the combination of all those spotlights on that spot could effectively drown out the majority of the other beams beyond that point.

Does that mean I believe it's a cloud of smoke? No...I really can't say much as far as anything conclusive regarding what may be there. Nobody really can as far as I can tell and it sounds like the testimony leads towards them not knowing what was there either...if live witnesses can't even tell, I doubt we'll get far on an old photo.

Originally posted by LeoStarchild
I get spooked every time i see he video for this.

let the truth be known!

I don't think there is a video for the battle of LA, right? I truly wish there was. I hate that this isn't talked about more, it stands as one of the GREAT potential ET encounters in history.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by dtrock78
They dont simply "stop" on a cloud of smoke is my rather long-winded point I'm trying to make.

I don't think Arbitrageur is in the mood to back down on this one.

I'm in the mood to present a different photograph of some searchlights that's unrelated to the battle of Los Angeles, except that the searchlights used are somewhat similar.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a152cec55f53.jpg[/atsimg]
All the beams appear to fade out in the photo, but I don't see anything at the point where the beams fade out showing up visibly in the photo. I don't think there is anything where the beams appear to stop. They appear to fade out because of the photographic conditions, haze in the air gives the beams limited range, etc. Do you see any objects in the paths of the beams where they stop?

Now here is my hypothesis which I think is pretty easy to imagine.

Take all those beams and aim them somewhat higher. At some point i believe they will more or less all fade out at the same spot which which you could actually determine by just changing the angles of the beams you see.

Also, I do see some AA smoke in the center of where the spotlights converge in the 1942 photo, so it may actually be a combination of factors that cause the beams to appear dimmer after the convergence.

An additional question is, are we sure that the photo we are analyzing hasn't been manipulated? Has anyone found the original negative and scanned it? We now know the photo published in the newspaper and popularly analyzed was manipulated.

I think it's erroneous to conclude that only an object in the path of the beams will cause the beams to dim. I think that photo demonstrates the error in that logic.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
An additional question is, are we sure that the photo we are analyzing hasn't been manipulated? Has anyone found the original negative and scanned it? We now know the photo published in the newspaper and popularly analyzed was manipulated.

Yes mate, Scott Harrison has inspected the negatives.

This week I inspected the negatives from which the two versions were scanned at UCLA.

The non-retouched negative is very flat, the focus is soft and it looks underexposed. While I could not tell if the negative was the original or a copy negative made from a print, it definitely showed the original scene before a print was retouched.

The second negative is a copy negative from a retouched print. Certain details, such as the white spots around the searchlights’ convergence, are exactly the same in both negatives. In the retouched version, many light beams were lightened and widened with white paint, while other beams were eliminated.

In earlier years, it was common for newspapers to use artists to retouch images due to poor reproduction — basically 10 shades of gray if you were lucky.

Thus my conclusion: the retouching was needed to reproduce the image. But man, I wish the retouching had been more faithful to the original. With our current standards, this image would not be published.

framework.latimes.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think it's erroneous to conclude that only an object in the path of the beams will cause the beams to dim. I think that photo demonstrates the error in that logic.

Agreed. However, a lot of the beams do appear to end at the "object". Unfortunately, I just don't think we can tell whether the effect is caused by smoke or by a solid object from this picture.

You could be right about this case, Arbs. But I still say case not closed. Lets hope some new information will come to light but that is obviously getting less likely as the years pass.

Is it just your thread but I had some stupid score card (whatever the hell that is) pop up show up when I opened this thread? Anyone else? I was interested in the topic but now I'm distracted.

Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by Droogie

 

No, erm, this is the original newspaper article.

Yes, but the one in my post is a copy of the negative, not the newspaper article. It's important to make that distinction.

Regarding the converging beams not getting past the supposed object, here's a picture showing the beams going past and above it.



The picture, according to forgetomori, is a scan with a "higher dynamic range", the article says...

there’s no solid object there and that the “faint evidence of beams above the convergence” is actually clear evidence of beams right past and above it.

However, that fact is depending on all of the beams actually being directed on the object.

reply to post by Droogie

The image I posted is a scan (by UCLA) of the unretouched negative. What is the source of the image you posted as it looks very different to the one Scott Harrison published so I'd like to look into it. It looks like an image with the brightness turned very high to me.

It is unfortunate and annoying, but I can't see us moving past the fact that the image just doesn't prove whether there is a solid object there.



Here is the UCLA scan from unretouched original negative. Without the brightness turned up ridiculously high! The beams are visible beyond the "object" but most of the light from the beams is clearly blocked by the "object".

Feb. 25, 1942: Searchlights converge on unknown object over Los Angeles in the early morning hours. Over 1,400 rounds of anti-aircraft rounds are fired. This is the unretouched version. PHOTOGRAPH BY: Los Angeles Times Archive/UCLA

reply to post by Pimander


I agree, it can be frustrating when we have to deal with differing versions of pictures claimed to be scans of an original negative. However, I think I can offer some clarity to the matter.

The UCLA archives contains two negatives, one of them is retouched, the other one is the original negative, which is featured in the forgetomori article I posted earlier. The retouched negative is the one contributing to the myths regarding that day.

Furthermore, the picture "Fact or Faked" has used, are based on a copy negative taken of a retouched print. Which is bad research by any standard, and by using this negative they perpetuate the myth that it is a genuine undoctored image.

But, still, there are other factors contributing to the confusion. By that, I mean different quality scans of the original negative. I have to say that I'm not very familiar with the incident, but I think I'm beginning to understand what's going on with the picture connected to this particular incident.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think your example picture shows a clear distinction between what converging flood lights look like, and what the picture(s) we're discussing show.

Do we have a photoshop wiz that can darken the contrast on the example picture so we can compare apples to apples?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Military testing a new craft?

Are you serious mate?

They fired at the bloody thing that remained motionless throughout the thousands of anti-aircraft shells that were fired at it!

Do you really think the war would have gone on for another three years if the allies not only had a huge circular antigravitic craft, that was made of materials that were impervious to all conventional ballistic weapons of the time?

Don't you think all aircraft would have armour made from such a material?

All tanks, infantry helmets and body armour, all ships, subs and big guns too?

Come on mate, think about it.

reply to post by Turkenstein

They were testing the newly found engineering procured from GERMANY.....

Three years too early mate.

The US didn't get their hands on the NAZI science until the end of the war in Europe.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Military testing a new craft?

Are you serious mate?

They fired at the bloody thing that remained motionless throughout the thousands of anti-aircraft shells that were fired at it!

Do you really think the war would have gone on for another three years if the allies not only had a huge circular antigravitic craft, that was made of materials that were impervious to all conventional ballistic weapons of the time?

Don't you think all aircraft would have armour made from such a material?

All tanks, infantry helmets and body armour, all ships, subs and big guns too?

Come on mate, think about it.

Not to mention that if Germany had been in possesion of such technology in 1942, the war would've been over already....

Originally posted by Turkenstein

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by dtrock78

 

In my opinion it roughly resembles the Turkey UFO that has been filmed a few times. But the perspective makes this one look bigger. I'm not sure how to perceive the size of this object.

ETA: Now that I think about it, the Turkey UFO was filmed from much further away. So the size may be comparable. My guess it was the military testing some type of craft. It definitely is an interesting story.

edit on 16-11-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

They were testing the newly found engineering procured from GERMANY.....

What do you mean procured? Can't you see the Mercedes badge?

Originally posted by dtrock78
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I think your example picture shows a clear distinction between what converging flood lights look like, and what the picture(s) we're discussing show.

Do we have a photoshop wiz that can darken the contrast on the example picture so we can compare apples to apples?

If you think that then you completely missed my point.

What of you re-aimed those lights at a point in the sky say about twice as high? I'm not sure of the exact elevation you'd need, perhaps 2.2 times as high, but it looks to me like if you aimed the beams at some higher point in the sky, then it would be a match, wouldn't it?

Well,....yeah, other than the fact that everything above the converging "point" is missing in the LA photo, except for that one beam.

reply to post by Droogie


The beams of light would continue on past the smoke and they do not. There are lights behind this object but the ones pointing at it do not continue on past it. There is something solid there. All avenues of this not being a solid object have been reviewed and debunked.
The question still remains however, who's is it.
It did not return fire on the troops on the ground. Which just screams that it is ours and was a secret project of the time.
Or considering the event a few weeks later in Washington DC it becomes a question once again as Pres Truman said that UFO's happen. (His words) So.... It is such a narrow fence No ?

reply to post by dtrock78


The fact that they could not determine one way or the other means there were no conclusions.
If you ask a question and no one around you knows the answer or you get different answers do you think you have gotten an answer to your question? You may have, but we can draw no conclusions.

reply to post by dtrock78


That's what he means about missing the point of his image. He wasn't using it to support the idea of a solid object, but rather the exact opposite. He wanted you to see how the beams trail off in that image and then use a little imagination to picture if those lights were aimed higher, they might make a similar picture. Especially if you have some partial obstruction...like a cloud of smoke.