"Fact or Faked" Concludes "Battle of LA" may have been UFO..., page 3

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:06 PM

link

reply to post by Machinery

The artifact was partly down to retouching of the original picture. Apparently it was common practice back then. It is explained in the Scott Harrison article I linked to a few posts back.

randomname

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:01 PM

link

the ufo is nowhere near 25,000 feet up. just the angles of the spot lights can dismiss that. they would be literally pointed straight up if a ufo was directly above them.

converging light beams would go thru each other. the spot lights aren't light sabres. they are clearly reflecting off something.

Arbitrageur

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:41 PM

link

Originally posted by dtrock78
Correct, they are. My point was, the 0.50 cals could take down the blimp, so I dont see why the larger shells wouldnt.

And I dont believe the beams of light are converging on an object close to 5 miles in the air based on the photo. It looks much lower given the angles at which the lights on the ridge are positioned.

As Phage pointed out the caption of the photo doesn't refer to any object:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
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 anything being hit.

They were most likely shooting at other bursts of smoke from the 3 inch shell explosions illuminated by the spotlights by that point. I can't really tell what the altitude is where the spotlights converge, and I don't know if anyone ever analyzed that. But the 3" shells had a significantly higher vertical range than the 50 caliber did, so it would not surprise me at all to learn that the spotlights converge on a point that is out of reach of 50 caliber AA but it's obviously within range of 3" AA since the photo shows explosions from the 3" shells.

Also, you may be missing the point that even if a balloon was in range, it might be a lot easier to take it down with the 50 caliber because the 50 caliber will shoot right at it. The 3 inch shells are proximity weapons meaning they might not hit it but hope to get close enough for the shrapnel from the explosion to hit the object, and that's in ideal conditions. The conditions at the time were less than ideal due to poor training, so gunners may not have been able to hit an object with 3 inch shells as readily as you might suspect.

edit on 16-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Pimander

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:41 PM

link

Originally posted by Droogie
The picture in the OP is evidently the retouched image of the "Battle of LA" picture. Here's the undoctored image:

This one (above) is not the original. Sorry mate.

The one below is.

SOURCE: framework.latimes.com...#/0

edit on 16/11/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

gimme_some_truth

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:43 PM

link

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

let the truth be known!

The video for this?

I have only ever been aware of this one picture..... In fact, I am pretty sure there is no video from this...

If I am wrong I am wrong... I just....What video?

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

Pimander

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:49 PM

link

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

There is a video. It is a Hollywood reconstruction based on the photograph. Definitely not evidence.

Pimander

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:53 PM

link

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Are you still pushing the swamp gas - ahem - I mean puffs of smoke and balloons story? We've never heard those explanations before now have we?

You aren't trolling the believers are you?

P.S. Please don't bite, I'm only teasing.

edit on 16/11/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

defcon5

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 08:19 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Droogie
The picture in the OP is evidently the retouched image of the "Battle of LA" picture. Here's the undoctored image:

According to an article on this picture by forgetomori, Larry Harnisch is quoted saying...

it’s nothing but a convergence of light beams with some randomly clustered dots of light

My problem with this explanation is that back then you had these AA teams spread out over the whole city without modern day communication or tracking equipment. When they would receive a report of a possible incursion into our airspace, they would turn on those spotlights and start sweeping the whole sky for any aircraft. Like this:

Without modern communications, they would only converge on a single spot if they had targeted something in that location. They certainly wouldn’t just randomly end up with all their beams converged like that unless there was something visibly in that location.

So, even if what we see in the photo is nothing more then a bright spot caused by the convergence of those beams, and the smoke from the AA rounds, there was still something there, at some point, that drew all those individual AA teams attention to that area of the sky. Whether it was a escaped balloon, rogue aircraft, or a UFO is very much up to debate, but there had to have been something visible to those crews.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Pimander

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 09:46 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

I agree, even though that first picure isn't the real one (I posted the original, with source, a few posts above yours). Not only do they converge but they in the main (the bigger light seems to continue so must be wider than the object) stop at the convergence point which would only happen if there was a solid object there which they had hit.

Now if the object was a balloon, blimp, Japanese bomber (which wouldn't be able to hover there anyway), or whatever it would have been downed pretty quickly so what is it?

Also would you risk only looking at one part of the sky if people were supposedly seeing objects all over the place in their hysterical madness (see Phage's post). If you though it was a Japanese bombing raid you would scour the whole sky surely for other bombers.

Case not closed.

edit on 16/11/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

Arbitrageur

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:03 AM

link

Originally posted by defcon5
So, even if what we see in the photo is nothing more then a bright spot caused by the convergence of those beams, and the smoke from the AA rounds, there was still something there, at some point..

What if the only thing that was there before that was smoke from previous AA rounds.

And before that.

And before that.

Which brings us to what started the shooting, and the guys that released the balloons don't seem to have much doubt about that.

defcon5

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:15 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

They would not normally start shooting until they had something spotted with the lights. Those rounds that are fired up, have to come back down somewhere, so they don’t just start randomly shooting into the air for no reason, at no target. Also, back then aircraft were all props, which are much louder then today’s jets, was there any indication that there were any engines heard as well?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Arbitrageur

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:09 AM

link

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

, so they don’t just start randomly shooting into the air for no reason, at no target.

People admitted to shooting into the air at no target! So obviously it wasn't normal. It was a case of war nerves.

The only excuse they needed to start firing was for someone to see the balloon and start shooting at that. After that happened, some people admitted to shooting into the air even though they couldn't see any target. It was a little embarrassing for the Army but that's pretty much what appears to have happened.

Afterwards, some soldiers were ordered to lie and say they saw targets, even when they didn't see any targets other than the balloon. When they told commanders that people were firing at the balloon, the commanders gave them orders to shoot at the balloon also. A little silly, but somewhat understandable given the tensions at the time.

edit on 17-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

extra DIV

dtrock78

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:33 AM

link

I think the biggest piece of evidence you can take away from this picture is the lack of light making it past the object.

If this were a simple puff of smoke from an artillery shell, the wattage of these AA lights would have torn through it. And if this was the underbelly of a low cloud system, what about the light cones coming from its side? Some are parallel with the "cloud" until they get to that little "knob" section?

As I stated before, I have a rather annoying restaurant a couple miles down the road from me that uses one of those Hollywood, rotating flood lights for grand openings. Only problem is, they use it 7 nights a week.

In the summer time at night, when my wife and I sit outside by the fire pit and have some beers, you can clearly see the light hitting the cloud cover as it rotates. There are two effects from this -

1. Where the initial contact with the clouds is, it makes an ever-changing oblong circle as it rotates. The closest visual I can give you is if you stretched a rubber band at varying degrees based on what position the light is pointing.

2. The actual light beam continues through the cloud layer, as there is a dimmer, yet with still crisp edges, beam that daylights through the top of the cloud quite a ways up and follows the same rotation.

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

edit on 17-11-2011 by dtrock78 because: (no reason given)

notonsamepage

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:42 AM

link

bah # it, # the picture system...

edit on 17-11-2011 by notonsamepage because: (no reason given)

korathin

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:46 AM

link

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by dtrock78

You cant use the word "conclude" and then qualify it with "may". They don't jive.
I saw this episode from last season. They were unable to conclude that it was a UFO or that it was not.
It was a good episode for sure.
This "event" was followed just a few weeks later with the Washington DC event of Dec 1952. The one where during a press conference Pres.Truman admitted that UFO's were a known element but didnt know if they were a national threat.

Umm... Why are people so messed in the head when it comes to history? Didn't the battle of Los Angelos happen right when the US entered WW2? Everyone on the West Coast was in a super frenzy ,scared of Japanese invasion.

I am not just knocking you, but someone else said something along the lines that it was NAZI tech, when the event happened right when the USA entered the war.

Pimander

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:55 AM

link

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.

In the last thread he had an edited version of the "object" that he claimed showed that it was puffs of smoke. That one seems to have disappeared since I informed ATS that the original has been discovered and the one Arbs enhanced was doctored already.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Here is the photo after adjusting the gamma/brightness/contrast:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d667d02cf9a8.jpg[/atsimg]

it really doesn't look like an object after the enhancement, but instead, puffs of smoke, and you can't "bring down" puffs of smoke and it appears to me that's exactly what they were firing at (after the balloons which started the shooting were gone).

The funny bit is the original picture Scott Harrison discovered has also been used by another "skeptic" to prove that the object in the more well known but allegedly doctored one isn't a UFO or whatever. In other words we have two "skeptics" with one arguing that one picture supports their case and one "skeptic" arguing that the other does.

Confused? They aren't. Whatever evidence they accept will only be used to support their position.

Here is the unretouched original.

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

Interestingly it is described on that site as an object for what it's worth.

So we have a puff of smoke that blocked beams of converging searchlights, showed up on radar and was fired on for over an hour without it becoming apparent there was nothing to shoot at. I think they stopped firing for a while as well but still didn't realise and started again.

We also have the old balloon chestnut and puff of smoke could easily be substituted for swamp gas.

To be fair, it might be as Arbitrageur thinks. However, the military have lied about UFOs before during this period so we don't have to take their word for it if we don't want to. I'm still skeptical about all of the explanations, but that's because we just don't know.

edit on 17/11/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

Dashdragon

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:01 PM

link

reply to post by Pimander

To be fair, without solid evidence one way or another it really isn't accurate to label anyone a 'believer' or 'skeptic', nor should skeptic be treated as a dirty word or insulting thing to be. It can also be reversed to say that Arb is a believer of the balloon and you, on the other hand, are a 'skeptic'. It's a bit subjective to try and label people in that manner.

Not trying to nitpick, it's just a peeve of mine that I see on ATS a lot. If someone isn't willing to be skeptic, then they are just gullible.

Now, for the pictures - You and a few others have mentioned that if it were just a puff of smoke, the lights would continue through it. This is true, and if you look at your 'original' image, you can clearly see that they do to a degree. However, you have several very bright lights all lighting up this small spot in the sky which I think may have effectively washed out the majority of the 'bleed-through'. It's easiest to see, for me anyway, from the bright light coming from the bottom left to upper right in the original.

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. It is very easy to believe that we could be dealing with poorly trained young soldiers with a case of the nerves. As Phage mentioned, we know of a radar hit off the coast, but I've not seen anything posted to say they had one on this spot before/during/after they were shooting at it.

As was stated, you can clearly see that they are using the 3" rounds. If they fired any .50 cal, and if those could even reach the target at that height are subjects to be tested. This is for the balloon hypothesis, btw. The 3" rounds would be dependent upon the shrapnel hitting it, while the .50 cal would just rip right through it. You can determine how high the supposed object is if you can find out how far apart a few of the AA battery spotlights were since we can see the angles of the spotlights in the picture.

edit on 17-11-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)

Morg234

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:56 PM

link

reply to post by Droogie

No, erm, this is the original newspaper article.

korathin

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM

link

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by Pimander

To be fair, without solid evidence one way or another it really isn't accurate to label anyone a 'believer' or 'skeptic', nor should skeptic be treated as a dirty word or insulting thing to be. It can also be reversed to say that Arb is a believer of the balloon and you, on the other hand, are a 'skeptic'. It's a bit subjective to try and label people in that manner.

Not trying to nitpick, it's just a peeve of mine that I see on ATS a lot. If someone isn't willing to be skeptic, then they are just gullible.

edit on 17-11-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)

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.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Skepticism: a personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions.
Incredulity:The state or quality of being incredulous; disbelief.
Disbelief: refusal or reluctance to believe
Refusal:The act or an instance of refusing.
Refusing:To indicate unwillingness to do, accept, give, or allow
Contrarian: a contrary or obstinate person.
Obstinate: Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action; obdurate.
Obdurate:Not giving in to persuasion; intractable.
Intractable:difficult to influence or direct
Denialism: choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.
Gullible: easily deceived or duped.

VS

Reason: To determine or conclude by logical thinking.
Logical:Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
Thinking: A way of reasoning; judgment.
Judgment: the faculty of being able to make critical distinctions and achieve a balanced viewpoint; discernment.
Discernment: keen perception or judgment.

I would rather be a reasonable person then a gullible skeptic any day of the week. But as I stated before, provide evidence of light behaving in this matter if you think light can block out light...
edit on 17-11-2011 by korathin because: expanded clarification.

edit on 17-11-2011 by korathin because: spelling error

Pimander

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link

Originally posted by Dashdragon
To be fair, without solid evidence one way or another it really isn't accurate to label anyone a 'believer' or 'skeptic', nor should skeptic be treated as a dirty word or insulting thing to be. It can also be reversed to say that Arb is a believer of the balloon and you, on the other hand, are a 'skeptic'. It's a bit subjective to try and label people in that manner.

Not trying to nitpick, it's just a peeve of mine that I see on ATS a lot. If someone isn't willing to be skeptic, then they are just gullible.

There is a message in the way I put the word skeptic between quote marks. I am doing so because there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of positions of the two "skeptics" I mention. I think we agree here if you see my point. It's called irony. I genuinely do not mean to offend with my "quirky" sense of humour.

I will try to explain myself for once. Sorry mods, I won't keep posting this despite being tempted to.

According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.

In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

But rather than inquiring, or asking questions to try to understand something, they seek to debunk, discredit and ridicule anything that doesn't fit into their belief system. And rather than suspending judgment, they make accusations of fraud and delusion of all paranormal claimants. They are PROSECUTORS, not investigators. Hence, we call them pseudoskeptics (a term coined by the late Marcello Truzzi) for their actions and behaviors are the complete antithesis of what skepticism truly means.

According to WikiSynergy:

Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoskepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda.

Pseudoskepticism is a general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief: making positive claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive disbelief), and rejecting sufficient evidence.

A "true skeptic" objectively inquires and seeks evidence, challenging all sides including their own beliefs (see here). But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. As someone observed to me:

The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion.

Even Wikipedia indirectly admits that modern skepticism is really about rejecting new information:

The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information.

en.wikipedia.org...
SOURCE: SCEPCOP Treatise - Debunking Pseudoskeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers

By that definition I'd say that I am the skeptical one in this debate.

Continued below....