6153 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Slave2Fate, on 05 April 2011 - 01:16 AM, said:

What psyche means is that if the evidence for the ETH were as solid as you proclaim then it would be commonly accepted. The evidence is not solid, it is not commonly accepted all because the evidence for the ETH is rather dubious and highly debatable.

And what I am saying is, it is solid, but that depends on the position of a person who is in-the-know.

That is so much that the government is withholding from the public and when a particular iUFO ncident was revealed ot me after my TDY at Andrews AFB, MD, in 1992, I was amazed that the public was not made aware of what had occurred over their heads, which involved  some of our top-rated jets chasing a UFO that was  screaming across the United States from east to west. The jets never caught up to the UFO, but that is typical of what has been taking place in our skies over the decades, not to mention space and what has been going on beneath the ocean waves.

If the government doesn't tell, then no one knows..

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 April 2011 - 02:33 AM, said:

Hi Cz

Thank you very much for there big effort Cz. It sits well actually, I can live with a 6 minute discrepancy and that the target never crossed the shoreline. I would just have to rewrite my original question from Where was the target at 2:21 to Where was the target at 2:27. to which point stands -  the target was indeed lost. Personally I think that would add to jitters as one would wondering if something was about to swoop out of the sky unannounced at any moment.
Top effort, my thanks.

Cheers.

The object crossed the coastline and crossed it again as it headed back over the ocean after reversing its flight path. You have to understand that this was one of the first of a government cover-up and the miltary was throwing all kinds of disinformation into the airwave.

That is why I have cautioned those about using government documents if they are unaware of the rest of the story..

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 April 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

You have already shown your expertise with RADAR here - none. Lost Shaman has run rings around you in this instance. Again.

Doesn't fly. I have the local ATC  controllers on my side as well.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 April 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:

Like those that only accept ET as an answer and refuse to accept earthly findings.

There are none, which was evident by the fact the object took all the Army could muster against it and it flew along as nothing was happening, an d that  dismisses earthly explanations, which is why the Army classified that object in the first place.

Just a matter of calling upon the 'process of elimination' to remove those earthly explanations.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 April 2011 - 06:03 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Czero 101, on 05 April 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

Here are some screencaps from the The History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945 (extract) available from CUFON, which I have been referring to as the "Unit History":

This one shows the times that targets were reported, as well as the ordering of the blackout at 0221 (pardon my poor effort to highlight the specific section):



this is where my previous quote of "This target between 0206 and 0227 was tracked to within three miles of the Los Angeles area and at 0221 the Regional Controller ordered a Blackout" originates from and in the footnote #4 we can see Q's "0223... still well tracked" quote.

The following two pages detail the reported times that various reports of aircraft came in:



In the above, we can see that the first reports of aircraft sightings came in at 0243 around Long Beach, followed by a report of a balloon with a red flare at 0306 in Santa Monica.



I've been trying to generate a map that shows a timeline of these sightings, but a problem comes up in that Douglas had 3 plants in the area at the time - Santa Monica, Long Beach and El Segundo - and with one exception, the reports above do not detail which plant is being referred to. However, one can plainly see that the bulk of the reports come from the Santa Monica and Long Beach areas.

While neither the unit history, or the Office of Air Force History report you have quoted (which is the same in both the Wiki link and the SFMuseum link) give the exact time the target disappeared, the unit history shows that at least until 0227, the initial target was still being tracked. It is fair to assume that it was after this reported time - 0227 - that the target disappeared.

The only thing that the time of 0221 refers to is the ordering of the blackout.
Cz

Typical of the way the military operaties during cover-ups. For an example:

Quote

At first, officials offered a very vague explanation. According to the Los Angeles Times (February 26, 1942), the secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, dismissed the event as a "false alarm" due to "jittery nerves," but when this failed to satisfy the press and the public, the Army responded with a definitive answer that the craft and the battle were real, and the next day, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson confirmed that. Santa Monica's US Representative, Leland Ford, was quoted in the Times on February 27 calling for a Congressional investigation into the incident, but this went nowhere. In the years since, various explanations have been offered – from Japanese planes to German craft launched from secret bases in Mexico to unidentified aircraft to weather balloons to sky lanterns to blimps.

My link

And, typical government cover-up, among the first on UFOs

Quote

The press responded with scathing editorials, many on page one, calling attention to the loss of life and denouncing the use of the coast artillery to fire at phantoms. The Los Angeles Times demanded a full explanation from Washington. The Long Beach Telegram complained that government officials who all along had wanted to move the industries were manipulating the affair for propaganda purposes. And the Long Beach Independent charged: "There is a mysterious reticence about the whole affair and it appears some form of censorship is trying to halt discussion of the matter. Although it was red-hot news not one national radio commentator gave it more than passing mention. This is the kind of reticence that is making the American people gravely suspect the motives and the competence of those whom they have charged with the conduct of the war."

My Link

Is it any wonder then,  as to why I cautioned folks about referencing government documents it they are unaware of the rest of the story?

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 April 2011 - 06:26 AM.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 April 2011 - 05:51 AM, said:

The object crossed the coastline and crossed it again as it headed back over the ocean after reversing its flight path. You have to understand that this was one of the first of a government cover-up and the miltary was throwing all kinds of disinformation into the airwave.

That is why I have cautioned those about using government documents if they are unaware of the rest of the story..

You have nothing to back this claim. Unless you can prove the official report is incorrect, all you have is a story.

It might pay to consider how often your warnings are heeded, and how often the warnings amount to anything.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 April 2011 - 05:57 AM, said:

Doesn't fly. I have the local ATC  controllers on my side as well.

Look back at the last few pages. It flew alright. Where were you on all the RADAR talk? You seemed unseasonably quiet. Nothing to add?

I could be wrong, but I doubt someone in a trusted position would be whacky enough to believe this instance was ET.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 April 2011 - 06:24 AM, said:

You have nothing to back this claim. Unless you can prove the official report is incorrect, all you have is a story.

Of course I do, the video for one.when the object described, as disappearing over the ocean for the second time

What it is, you are not paying attention to what is being described within that video.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 April 2011 - 06:30 AM.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 April 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:

Look back at the last few pages. It flew alright. Where were you on all the RADAR talk? You seemed unseasonably quiet. Nothing to add?

I could be wrong, but I doubt someone in a trusted position would be whacky enough to believe this instance was ET.

I know what I am talking about because I added  such technology iwithin the design of my UAV which I submitted to the USAF years ago, which I might add, was triangular-shaped..

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 April 2011 - 06:34 AM.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 April 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:

Typical of the way the military operaties during cover-ups. For an example:



And, typical government cover-up, among the first on UFOs



Is it any wonder then,  as to why I cautioned folks about referencing government documents it they are unaware of the rest of the story?

Yes, the collateral damage bill whilst a war was on might have crippled the country to a point where it could not defend itself. Calls for some quick thinking.

[Czero 101]

skyeagle409, on 05 April 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:

Typical of the way the military operaties during cover-ups. For an example:



And, typical government cover-up, among the first on UFOs



Is it any wonder then,  as to why I cautioned folks about referencing government documents it they are unaware of the rest of the story?

You mayas well just ignore my posts, Skyeagle, because I don't intend on entering in to any further discussions with you. At most, this will be my reply from now on:

I'm sorry, Skyeagle, but as you've admitted several times to not debating honestly, and as you haven't produced anything but your own highly biased opinion, coupled with your very well known habits of only seeing what you want to see and not reading / comprehending the other member's posts that you reply to, your posts are no longer worth my time to reply to or even consider as having any merit whatsoever.

Have a good day.



Cz

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

skyeagle409, on 05 April 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

I find that comment very amusing to say the least,becuse you see,  it is like this, you are not in a postion to know one way or another. You have no idea what is going on currently over your head.

What is the point of saying that? You're never going to convince anyone who you haven't convinced yet, small as that number is, with the "I know so much more than you do" argument, so i just don't know why you keep using it. Is it because it's the only one of your usual roster of arguments that people can't actually refute, however unlikely they may consider it to be?

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 April 2011 - 06:33 AM, said:

I know what I am talking about because I added  such technology iwithin the design of my UAV which I submitted to the USAF years ago, which I might add, was triangular-shaped..

Ahh yes, I heard a chuckle about that when I was submitting my design for the Mars Rover.

[lost_shaman]

The angle of the Beam Searchlight  #1 as roughly measured on the photo is ~32 degrees in elevation. As measured in the Photo the Beam spread angle is 2.5 degrees.  These are raw data that represent the camera's perspective as seen in a 2D photograph of a 3D environment. This raw data can't tell you very much unless one knows the actual Beam spread angle of a Searchlight. Thanks to booN and his links in his notes from a recent post of his, the Beam spread angle of an "in focus" or 'unmodified' Searchlight is 1.25 degrees. Now that simple piece of information can be used to make some sense of the raw data from the Photo.

In a previous post I discussed the 'blast' diameter of the 3 inch shells seen in the Photo and how the angular size as seen in the photo is directly related to the distance from the camera which can be calculated easily by employing the rule of 57.

Without knowing exact values both 'Blast' diameter and angular size as viewed from the camera must fall within some certain specific ranges and by making some 'best guess' on my part I calculated the camera was 9,771 ft from the 'Blasts' if their diameters were ~20 ft and the camera viewed them as ~7 mins arc in angular size. This also gives us a calculation of altitude of 3,019 ft.

Distance = 1 degree arc/angular size  * diameter * 57.

By measuring the approximate elevation angle of the 'object/searchlight convergence' above the expected horizon, being something around 18 degrees, we can calculate Altitude using the Distance calculation above.

Altitude is simply a matter of solving for length of the Opposite side of a right triangle. The above distance figure being the Hypotenuse and the approximate elevation angle of the 'object/searchlight convergence' above the expected horizon being around 18 degrees we can then solve for altitude.

Hypotenuse * elevation angle sin = Opposite

Keep in mind these are guesses, but the margin of error is not that great. You would basically have to start plugging outrageous numbers for the variables just to get an Altitude figure above 4.500 ft or below 2,250 ft.

Given this, I'll consider to be a baseline. Now back to the Searchlights. Thanks to booN's notes and links we can know that the 'unmodified' and "in-focus" Searchlights have a Beam spread of 1.25 degrees. This is almost certainly the actual Beam Spread of the Searchlight #1 as seen to the left on the unretouched version of the photo. This simple bit of information (1.25 degrees) is the key to making sense of the raw data as measured in the photograph.

If the 'Blasts' are assumed to be ~20 ft in diameter, you can roughly fit  around seven of these end on end through the

Searchlight beam at the point it intersects the 'object/conversion'. This means the diameter of the Searchlight is likely something around 150 ft in diameter at the intersection just to use a round number. Also note the ratio here helps fix the parameters within some certain range. i.e. if the Searchlight beam diameter is said to be larger, then the 3 inch shell 'Bursts' diameters must also be larger.

Now, if ~150 ft is the Beam diameter with a Beam spread of 1.25 degrees, then the Searchlight should be 6,875 ft away from the 'object/conversion'. If that is true then the Searchlight was closer to the 'object/conversion' than the camera was at  9,771 ft.

If the 'object/conversion' is one point in the sky then the closer Searchlight should be elevated above 18 degrees. Crunching the numbers this is indeed the case as we get something around 26 degrees.

This agrees with the camera angle if the camera is further away from  'object/conversion' than the Searchlight is.

Here below I've rigged up a little jig to illustrate how the camera misrepresents the 3D environment. This does not represent the Photo, but I'm just using these to illustrate the point.





Note the first Photo taken at a perpendicular angle basically represents the true elevation and Beam spread angles, but  when things are recorded in 2D by the camera at Obtuse angles as seen in the second Photo the Beam spread appears to double and the elevation angle seems apparently steeper.

The perpendicular Photo is relatively accurate, while the Obtuse angle Photo seems to show a Beam spread angle twice that which it really is and an elevation angle that appears steeper than it actually is.

[Czero 101]

Hi LS,

Interesting work, and I'm wondering what it is you are ultimately intending to illustrate? I may have missed it if you've mentioned it in a previous post.




Cz