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

Originally posted by SLAYER69
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?

No, they just flashed for a second and were captured as dots. But you can see how the some of the searchlights are smeared as they were moved, turned on, whatever. I'm guessing it was maybe a 3-second exposure. So it captured all the movement of the lights during that time.

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.

Yeah, but they were using munitions that exploded at a certain altitude. Get a few exploding at 2000 feet while the thing(s) are at 5000 feet, and pretty soon you have a pretty dense smoke ball at 2000 feet where everybody is firing. Of course it's not coming down.

One thing that is nice about the photo is that it provides a lot more detail of what's on the ground. The original photo makes it look much less like the Hollywood hills, and more like what I assume to be the slight ridge of Rolling Hills with the oil rigs still on it. Most of the searchlights look like they were set up along the shore, as the lights originate down below the ridge.

Interesting that nobody has been able to find it until recently. I guess the movie is responsible for that. I wonder if there are other photos around that nobody has found yet. That would be nice.

I was interested in the LA Times picture a few years ago. I got a hold of the best copy I could and made some adjustments to the light levels using Adobe Photoshop. I toyed with it for around an hour or so and managed to pull up the mid tones by suppressing the parts of the picture that were too bright or too dark.

For me it was almost like having a real UFO sighting. I revealed something in the photo that had been hidden for many many years. I could clearly see a classic saucer shaped object right at the apex of those searchlights. I could also see where puffs of smoke were still hanging in the air from several near misses by the AA fire.

Here's what I came up with.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ce3f99b98b0.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f950b883e66a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e05e009126fc.jpg[/atsimg]

I added the highlight to the last image to designate exactly what I was looking at.

Originally posted by LazyGuy
I was interested in the LA Times picture a few years ago. I got a hold of the best copy I could and made some adjustments to the light levels using Adobe Photoshop.

Try it with the new, unretouched original. This one was manipulated way too much. All of that detail you found goes away, and you're left with just a big, bright blob of something that could just be a cloud of some kind.

UNRETOUCHED PHOTO

This is what fasniates me.

The modern tech used to look at stuff before computers.

Keep it up.

I have to tell you, I am now MORE concinved than I was when I first posted this thread.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Try it with the new, unretouched original. This one was manipulated way too much. All of that detail you found goes away, and you're left with just a big, bright blob of something that could just be a cloud of some kind.

UNRETOUCHED PHOTO

Not going to waste my time. This picture is WAY too washed out there isn't any detail at all to it.

Personally, I think these are two different shots taken with different settings and or film.
Do you really think a professional camera man would go out and only take one shot?
Not very likely.

I will look into this new picture a little more though. I haven't checked it out at all yet.

This one does stand out amongst the rest as being noteworthy.

Pitty, that they decided to come close enough during a time of extreme war.

First impressions count, and we tried to destroy them.


for mankind /s

for our reputation out there in the universe

This picture and the Washington DC one is probably the best evidence out there for ET. Just like blue said, there is no way to know for sure because a little alien isn't waving at us from somewhere in the photo, but taking into account the time period there really isn't any other explanation.

Very interesting how that spotlight beam bends, if that is in fact what it is.

glad this didnt have anything to do with that stupid movie thats comin out

Originally posted by Blue Shift

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.

How about the fact that it was REALLY bulletproof?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
This one does stand out amongst the rest as being noteworthy.

Pitty, that they decided to come close enough during a time of extreme war.

First impressions count, and we tried to destroy them.

I totally agree. Alien tourists just looking around getting shot at gave Earth a bad name.

Funny how they stayed around though. Obviously their craft wasn't in any real danger from the AA fire. They just kept cruzin. It was a statement without words. You can't hurt us and we're not interested in firing back.
WE COME IN PEACE.

When I did the work on the photograph earlier I wrote a little story to go with it an got it posted on the Rense.com site.

There's a larger pic and an animated .gif with all the pics on the Rense site
Rense.com

Originally posted by raiders247

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.

Just to point out something that keeps being ignored, the date means nothing.

for example



is an example of photographic manipulation from 1865.

circa 1865: In this photo by famed photographer Mathew Brady, General Sherman is seen posing with his Generals. General Francis P. Blair (far right) was added to the original photograph.

Photo Tampering Throughout HIstory

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...

Seems you have your mind made up either way, so there's not point bothering...

reply to post by anon72


Considering whatever it was took a pounding from thousands of shells and rounds and was still flying, I highly doubt we scared anything off. If anything, they looked upon our pathetic attempts as annoying. Or it just pissed them off and wondered why humans take a shoot first, ask questions later.

Ok, even if the picture was manipulated somehow, what about the EYE witnesses?

What about the 1000+ anti AIRCRAFT rounds that were fired at it?

Do you realize this happened over a very populated area of Los Angeles, YEARS BEFORE the Roswell incident?

Seems you have your mind made up either way, so there's not point bothering...

I do have my mind made on a few things, YES something happened, YES there were witnesses, YES it was in an era where cameras weren't common/advanced as they are today.

What it is and where it came from? Well that I don't have my mind made up on so please share any inside info that you may have that corroborates with the FACTS of the event.

Pictures are amazing. However, I have seen video of this event in a dvd about Aliens a few years back. I can't remember the name of the dvd for the life of me but the video was quite astounding. It was taken from the news and had 1940's commentary and everything. If I can think of the name of the film, I'll post it.

reply to post by badw0lf


There is a reason that is being ignored, it's completely illogical. Okay, I'm sorry that's a bit harsh, but it can be verified that this event did actually happen and something was in the LA sky that night. Regardless if any photo manipulation was done in the hurry before they sent this story to the presses, this entire even wasn't manipulated into existence.

As raider said, there were plenty of eye witnesses and I believe a few people were killed by falling AA projectiles. Take the photograph completely out of the story, assume it never existed, and it still an extraordinary sighting of something unexplainable.

reply to post by anon72

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?

Or maybe they thought,
"Why waste our ammo, bye the time our main fleet gets here in 2012 there will be no humans left."

One of the best old sightings..s&f..

OK, I did a little toying with the new picture against the old.
I superimposed the one I had used previously over the new picture. First thing I noticed was that nothing lined up. Then I noticed that there was something interfering with the beams like a tower in both pictures. I had to flip the picture horizontally to make them the same. Once I did that they lined up to a point. The picture is large so I made it where it would have scroll bars so you can pan around the image.

I used the two bright dots just above the main convergence (red circle) as my reference points. I used the lights on the right to line up the pictures as well. Now it's obvious that the height is different. The blue lines show where the differences were obvious. The angles seem to be the same. I'd like to say that the two pictures were taken at two different locations which were at a different distance but within the same line of sight towards the convergence. I think that if the picture had been squashed somehow that the angle of the lights would have changed. I used blue to signify the difference in the length of the lights.

I used green to indicate where there seems to be dots of smoke ghosted between the two images. The two dots I used to line up the two pictures lined up fine but when I did the other dots didn't line up.



OK, I guess the photo I had earlier was manipulated before I got it. That doesn't totally undermine what I see in the picture though. OK, It's a composite BUT no one of us was there when they first put it together and no one has talked to them either.

First thing I would do if I were trying to make the best of what I had would be to get the best image I could from the negative. If you have a negative you can get more out of it by adjusting the time of exposure on a print to lighten parts where it's over exposed. Then you can adjust the time of the exposure to brighten the dark parts. Once you combine the two you might see better detail in the overall picture. Several individual pictures may have been used to fill in for the final picture.

I'm no expert on photo manipulation and certainly not historical manipulation either. All I know is that I see what I see in the picture I used. I see a saucer shaped object that couldn't be seen before I made the adjustments I made. It wasn't put there as a manipulation since no one could see it when it was as bright as it was.

Any manipulations they did they did quickly. This was a VERY big news story. It happened late at night and they were probably up all night to make sure it was ready for the first page of the mourning edition.

I used the same photo with the colors inverted, we all know what the searchlights look like so coming at the project from a different angle to throw some light on the places the searchlights didn't reveal.

Intersecting lights create predictable shapes and don't really show what all the shooting was about. Truth to tell, i'm kind of embarassed by the incident. Therefore i take this opportunity to show there was in fact something in the air they were shooting at and that is was not just a PANIC attack because of the ongoing Japanese victories.

These people are what i find every time i do this picture in its various incarnations, including the original newspaper photograph from the original paper. If you desire to see the aliens they are visible in the sky. No aliens were harmed during the course of this battle. The rain of steel from spent ammunition must have been horrendous.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

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.

Ok first, "we don't know" is not an explanation. A genuine question to you, wtf could it be?

And second, I myself am not 100% positive on what happened that night in 1942. I completely understand being skeptical, I am, but dude are you really going to actually sit there and proclaim that NOTHING about this says "aliens" to you?

I just think you are acting unnecessarily condescending and childish, stomping your feet and closing your eyes and ears.
Be a skeptic, debunk away, just don't be a nasty nancy.....................................






and I'm sure you can convince yourself I didn't just call you a girl even though it's staring you in the face, you seem very good at that.

reply to post by itsatrap


It appears there's already an explanation anyways:

When documenting the incident in 1983, the U.S. Office of Air Force History attributed the event to a case of "war nerves" likely triggered by a lost weather balloon and exacerbated by stray flares and shell bursts from adjoining batteries.

Wiki

If only they had shot it with radar instead of 1,400 AA rounds so the crash test dummies would have fallen out, then this whole mess could have been avoided.

An editorial in the Long Beach Independent wrote, "There is a mysterious reticence about the whole affair and it appears that some form of censorship is trying to halt discussion on the matter."

I wonder why?