Sir Wearer of Hats Posted December 11, 2014 #226 Share Posted December 11, 2014 So you agree that there is no UFO in those photographs? Good. Excellent selective reading too BTW - I was clearly describing what was in the photo NOT what was the CAUSE of the "Battle of LA" (to refresh your memory - the cause was "weather balloon with coins attached used as a radar target 120 miles away from the LA area, floating out of range of the initial test site, without the radar operators talking to each other coupled with wartime nerves leading to several hours of sturm un drung" - unlikely series of improbable events indeed. But an all too human series of improbable events all happening without any little Grey Men). The famous photos are not of a craft, they are of overlapping spotlights and expended AA rounds. I also note that there isn't a single "saucer quote" attributed to anyone from the military in that clipping. There is one quote which to mean reads like a reply to a specifically worded question rather then an "off the cuff reference" (that being, a reporter asked him about "flying saucers" and he replied using similar wording) from a civilian air traffic controller. The military talk in that article about "unidentified" craft and "mystery objects". Not Saucers. The Air Force DOES in that clipping say it's receiving hundreds of saucer reports. NOT that it's SEEING hundreds of saucers a month, but rather "receiving reports". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted December 11, 2014 #227 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) So you agree that there is no UFO in those photographs? Of course there is a UFO in the photographs. Where did you get the idea there wasn't when it is very clear the object in the photos is a solid object, but you knew that! Check out the enhanced photo. It is clearly apparent that the UFO is definitely not light reflection on clouds. Excellent selective reading too BTW - I was clearly describing what was in the photo NOT what was the CAUSE of the "Battle of LA" (to refresh your memory - the cause was "weather balloon with coins attached used as a radar target 120 miles away from the LA area, floating out of range of the initial test site, without the radar operators talking to each other coupled with wartime nerves leading to several hours of sturm un drung" - unlikely series of improbable events indeed. But an all too human series of improbable events all happening without any little Grey Men). The famous photos are not of a craft, they are of overlapping spotlights and expended AA rounds. Now, you are changing your story from reflections from light beams to a weather balloon. That is what I call, flip-flopping. If you had been following up on reports, you would have found that the object reversed its course against the wind and headed back out toward the sea. With that fact in hand, you can scratch off a weather ballon and light reflections off cloud layers as responsible. Not to mention that the object was much too large to have been a weather balloon anyway. Read the reports. Now, I've got you switching from a light reflection off cloud layers to a weather balloon. I also note that there isn't a single "saucer quote" attributed to anyone from the military in that clipping. Apparently, you didn't bother to read witnesses accounts. Battle of Los Angeles UFO Description The two of us stood side by side in front of the house, huddling together in the chill night air and staring up into the sky. The planes we'd heard were not in sight, but what captured our rapt attention was a silvery, lozenge-shaped "bug," as my mother later described it, whose bright glow was clearly visible in the searchlight beams that pinpointed it. Although it was a clear, moonlit night, no other details were visible, despite the fact that, when we first saw it, the object was hanging motionless almost directly overhead. Its altitude is hard to estimate, especially after all these years, but I'd guess that it was somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 feet. This may explain why we didn't see the orange glow reported by several eyewitnesses in Santa Monica and Culver City, where the object was apparently much lower. -------------------------------------------- Another witness about the UFO: "I will never forget what a magnificent sight it was. Just gorgeous. And what a beautiful colors!" -------------------------------------------- The UFO took direct hit after hit, but there wasn't any damage done. The 4th Interceptor Command was alerted but their airplanes remained on the ground. The anti-aircraft kept firing until 4:15 am. At 7:20 am the "all clear" was given and the blackout order was lifted. ---------------------------------------------- A woman Air Raid Warden eyewitness reported about the UFO:"The object was huge! It was really enormous! It was practically hovering right over my house. I had never seen anything like it in my life!" "It was just hovering there in the sky, it hardly moved at all. It looked like a lovely pale orange and about the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. I could see it very good because it was really close. It was enormous!" Doesn't sound like a light reflection on clouds nor even a weather balloon. The Air Force DOES in that clipping say it's receiving hundreds of saucer reports. NOT that it's SEEING hundreds of saucers a month, but rather "receiving reports". Apparently, you didn't bother to read the reports where the Air Force described the objects as flying saucers. I might add that many of the flying saucer reports came from Air Force pilots during their the course of their encounters and from military ground observers. Let's check these reports and tell us, what are the descriptions of the UFOs encountered by Air Force personnel. MUROC AFB INCIDENT, CALIFORNIA July 8, 1947 Series of sightings over MUROC AFB and Rogers Dry Lake, secret test base, California: Morning: Two spherical or disc-like UFOs joined by a third object. (XII) Crew of technicians saw white-aluminum UFO with distinct oval outline descending, moving against wind, (II). Afternoon: Thin "metallic" UFO climbed, dove, oscillated over field, also seen by test pilot in vicinity. (XII) F-51 pilot watched a flat object "of light-reflecting nature" pass above his plane. No known aircraft were in the area. (XII) http://www.nuforc.org/Muroc.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTORY SPACE SCIENCE - VOLUME II CHAPTER XXXIII UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS - USAF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY We too have fired on UFO's. About ten o'clock one morning, a radar site near a fighter base picked up a UFO doing 700 mph. The UFO then slowed to 100 mph, and two F-86's were scrambled to intercept. Eventually one F-86 closed on the UFO at about 3,000 feet altitude. The UFO began to accelerate away but the pilot still managed to get within 500 yards of the target for a short period of time. It was definitely saucer-shaped. As the pilot pushed the F-86 at top speed, the UFO began to pull away. When the range reached 1,000 yards, the pilot armed his guns and fired in an attempt to down the saucer. He failed, and the UFO pulled away rapidly, vanishing in the distance. http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afu.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aug. 3, 1952. Hamilton AFB, CA (BBU) 4:15-5:30 p.m. (PDT). 2 AF pilots Capt. L. R. Hadley and Lt. D. A. Swimley, and AF Capt. W. T. Perske, saw visually and with binoculars 2 circular or spherical silvery objects 60-100 ft diameter at 12,000 and 18,000 ft drifting E to W on a 15-mile track passing overhead, darting and dogfighting at estimated 400-450 mph, the upper object dropping from 18,000 to 12,000 ft, at the end replaced by 8 more similar objects appearing in pairs in the W about 15-20 miles distant. No sound. http://www.nicap.org...amilton_dir.htm F-86 intercepts and shoots at saucer-shaped UFO About ten o'clock in the morning, one day a few weeks before, a radar near the base had picked up an unidentified target. It was an odd target in that it came in very fast - about 700 miles per hour - and then slowed down to about 100 miles per hour. The radar showed that it was located northeast of the airfield, over a sparsely settled area. Unfortunately the radar station didn't have any height finding equipment. The operators knew the direction of the target and its distance from the station but they didn't know its altitude. They reported the target, and two F-86's were scrambled. The radar picked up the F-86's soon after they were airborne, and had begun to direct them into the target when the target started to fade on the radarscope. At the time several of the operators thought that this fade was caused by the target's losing altitude rapidly and getting below the radar's beam. Some of the other operators thought that it was a high flying target and that it was fading just because it was so high. In the debate which followed, the proponents of the high flying theory won out, and the F-86's were told to go up to 40,000 feet. But before the aircraft could get to that altitude, the target had been completely lost on the radarscope. The F-86's continued to search the area at 40,000 feet, but could see nothing. After a few minutes the aircraft ground controller called the F-86's and told one to come down to 20,000 feet, the other to 5,000 feet, and continue the search, The two jets made a quick letdown, with one pilot stopping at 20,000 feet and the other heading for the deck. The second pilot, who was going down to 5,000 feet, was just beginning to pull out when he noticed a flash below and ahead of him. He flattened out his dive a little and headed toward the spot where he had seen the light. As he closed on the spot he suddenly noticed what he first thought was a weather balloon. A few seconds later be realized that it couldn't be a balloon because it was staying ahead of him. Quite an achievement for a balloon, since he had built up a lot of speed in his dive and now was flying almost straight and level at 3,000 feet and was traveling "at the Mach." Again the pilot pushed the nose of the F-86 down and started after the object. He closed fairly fast, until he came to within an estimated 1,000 yards. Now he could get a good look at the object. Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely round and flat saucer shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole." As his rate of closure began to drop off, the pilot knew that the object was picking up speed. But he pulled in behind it and started to follow. Now he was right on the deck. About this time the pilot began to get a little worried. What should he do? He tried to call his buddy, who was flying above him somewhere in the area at 20,000 feet. He called two or three times but could get no answer. Next he tried to call the ground controller but he was too low for his radio to carry that far. Once more he tried his buddy at 20,000 feet, but again no luck. By now he had been following the object for about two minutes and during this time had closed the gap between them to approximately 500 yards. But this was only momentary. Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it, wondered what to do next. When the object traveled out about 1,000 yards, the pilot suddenly made up his mind - he did the only thing that he could do to stop the UFO. It was like a David about to do battle with a Goliath, but he had to take a chance. Quickly charging his guns, he started shooting. . . . A moment later the object pulled up into a climb and in a few seconds it was gone. The pilot climbed to 10,000 feet, called the other F-86, and now was able to contact his buddy. They joined up and went back to their base. http://ufoevidence.o...s/case1024.html Just a few of the many pilot reports of saucer-shaped UFOs. . Edited December 11, 2014 by skyeagle409 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted December 11, 2014 #228 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I have always said that they were SHOOTING at a weather balloon, but the PHOTO shows searchlights and explosions. Flip-flopping? b******s. You're actually seeing me as stubbornly truculent as I ever get. And, incidentally, a digitally enhanced version of that photo clearly shows that the craft is opaque. It has no solidity or mass. I'm sure that the image was shone on previous pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuckooold Posted December 11, 2014 #229 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) According to forgetomori Do you hear that sound? It’s one “classic” UFO case falling apart in the most basic form. In an article by Scott Harrison published by the same LA Times, we are informed that an original, unretouched negative of the famous image was recently found at the Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive at UCLA, and that:“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.” Unretouched; Retouched; For so e reason these images are showing as very small (unsure about embedding on an iPad). To see a larger version, just click on them. Edited December 11, 2014 by cuckooold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuckooold Posted December 11, 2014 #230 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Double Edited December 11, 2014 by cuckooold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted December 11, 2014 #231 Share Posted December 11, 2014 So you agree that there is no UFO in those photographs? Good. Excellent selective reading too BTW - I was clearly describing what was in the photo NOT what was the CAUSE of the "Battle of LA" (to refresh your memory - the cause was "weather balloon with coins attached used as a radar target 120 miles away from the LA area, floating out of range of the initial test site, without the radar operators talking to each other coupled with wartime nerves leading to several hours of sturm un drung" - unlikely series of improbable events indeed. But an all too human series of improbable events all happening without any little Grey Men). this isn't the case IMO, the time of first RADAR hit does not coincide with claimed release of balloon. Plus have a look at the speed the balloon would have had to have travelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted December 11, 2014 #232 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Now that's interesting .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted December 11, 2014 #233 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Now that's interesting .... have a look at this: http://www.cufon.org/pdf/BattleOfLosAngeles.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted December 11, 2014 #234 Share Posted December 11, 2014 We talked about this case and the retouching in depth a few months ago on an actual "battle of L.A." thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted December 11, 2014 #235 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) We talked about this case and the retouching in depth a few months ago on an actual "battle of L.A." thread. indeed. http://www.unexplain...c=223065&st=135 dont think an agreement was reached though..... ps. probably best to continue any BOLA discussion on said thread. Edited December 11, 2014 by quillius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted December 11, 2014 #236 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Hahaha! Priceless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted December 11, 2014 #237 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Of course there is a UFO in the photographs. Where did you get the idea there wasn't when it is very clear the object in the photos is a solid object, but you knew that! Check out the enhanced photo. It is clearly apparent that the UFO is definitely not light reflection on clouds. Now, you are changing your story from reflections from light beams to a weather balloon. That is what I call, flip-flopping. If you had been following up on reports, you would have found that the object reversed its course against the wind and headed back out toward the sea. With that fact in hand, you can scratch off a weather ballon and light reflections off cloud layers as responsible. Not to mention that the object was much too large to have been a weather balloon anyway. Read the reports. Now, I've got you switching from a light reflection off cloud layers to a weather balloon. Apparently, you didn't bother to read witnesses accounts. [/size] Doesn't sound like a light reflection on clouds nor even a weather balloon. Apparently, you didn't bother to read the reports where the Air Force described the objects as flying saucers. I might add that many of the flying saucer reports came from Air Force pilots during their the course of their encounters and from military ground observers. Let's check these reports and tell us, what are the descriptions of the UFOs encountered by Air Force personnel. Just a few of the many pilot reports of saucer-shaped UFOs. . That is a heavily retouched image and bears very little resemblance to the actual photograph. I have a copy the original on my home computer and no spacecraft (I'll post it when I can get to it). Shame on you sky for making so sloppy of a mistake. Hell, even Wikipedia has a quote from a writer of the LA Times explaining this common error. http://en.wikipedia...._of_Los_Angeles A photo published in the Los Angeles Times on February 26, 1942 has been cited by modern day conspiracy theorists and UFOlogists as evidence of an extraterrestrial visitation. They assert that the photo clearly shows searchlights focused on an alien spaceship; however, the photo was heavily modified by photo retouching prior to publication, a routine practice in graphic arts of the time intended to improve contrast in black and white photos.[11][12] Los Angeles Times writer Larry Harnisch noted that the retouched photo along with faked newspaper headlines were presented as true historical material in trailers for the film Battle: Los Angeles. Harnisch commented, "if the publicity campaign wanted to establish UFO research as nothing but lies and fakery, it couldn't have done a better job."[13] Here is the original Edited December 11, 2014 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted December 12, 2014 #238 Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Merc, the photo was retouched deliberately to try to bring out the image's shape a little better. This is precisely why I first posted the pic right in the LA times from later that morning to show the original. But the other photos are better. There is also a very brief vid out there taken by some hollywood cameraman. but it is not good. there is literally too much light on the object. And BTW, the Big Gov later determined the object to be a tethering balloon, not a weather balloon Merc, this object was witnessed by one million people that thought for sure they were looking at some exotic japanese air attack ship. in those days, the words "flying saucer" and "UFO" were not part of the American lexicon yet. PS: and Merc, are you not going to answer my questions (about Mach 5 spurious signal)? If not, I understand. Edited December 12, 2014 by Earl.Of.Trumps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted December 12, 2014 #239 Share Posted December 12, 2014 SkyEagle, In the four visitations by UFO's in Washington, July 1952, about how much time was there that pilots pursued the objects, and about how many pilots were in the pursuit? I ask because some posters in here are convinced it was just a quick case of misidentification by the pilots when in reality, they were burning up tanks of fuel chasing the UFO's, and in that amount of time - on four occasions, I can't possibly imagine the pilots spending that much time chasing "nothings". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 12, 2014 #240 Share Posted December 12, 2014 ... and the train derailed again... What the hell 1942, 1947, etc have to do with July 20, 1952 (the date that Sky is "confident" about alienz involvement)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 12, 2014 #241 Share Posted December 12, 2014 SkyEagle, In the four visitations by UFO's in Washington, July 1952, about how much time was there that pilots pursued the objects, and about how many pilots were in the pursuit? I ask because some posters in here are convinced it was just a quick case of misidentification by the pilots when in reality, they were burning up tanks of fuel chasing the UFO's, and in that amount of time - on four occasions, I can't possibly imagine the pilots spending that much time chasing "nothings". Hmmm... Why did FedEx Flt 1478 managed to crash? I highly recommend to read that report, bit lengthy, nevertheless, you will find many things you weren't aware of. Additionally, you can read "Aviation Visual Perception" by R.Gibb et al. Quite an eye opener, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted December 12, 2014 #242 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Merc, the photo was retouched deliberately to try to bring out the image's shape a little better. This is precisely why I first posted the pic right in the LA times from later that morning to show the original. But the other photos are better. There is also a very brief vid out there taken by some hollywood cameraman. but it is not good. there is literally too much light on the object. And BTW, the Big Gov later determined the object to be a tethering balloon, not a weather balloon Merc, this object was witnessed by one million people that thought for sure they were looking at some exotic japanese air attack ship. in those days, the words "flying saucer" and "UFO" were not part of the American lexicon yet. PS: and Merc, are you not going to answer my questions (about Mach 5 spurious signal)? If not, I understand. Mach 5 spurious signal? Sorry, I have no idea about what you are referencing. short, to the point the point and references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted December 12, 2014 #243 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Ok just photo shop the string`s outta those photo`s and were all Good ,Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted December 12, 2014 #244 Share Posted December 12, 2014 SkyEagle, In the four visitations by UFO's in Washington, July 1952, about how much time was there that pilots pursued the objects, and about how many pilots were in the pursuit? I ask because some posters in here are convinced it was just a quick case of misidentification by the pilots when in reality, they were burning up tanks of fuel chasing the UFO's, and in that amount of time - on four occasions, I can't possibly imagine the pilots spending that much time chasing "nothings". Two jets were scramble during the first week of the incident and 4 jets were scrambled the second week. Air Force personnel on the ground saw the objects as well. The CAA, now known as the FAA, had an aircraft airborne and its crew reported UFOs in the sky. It is ridicules to think that Air Force jets and radar controllers were tracking anything to do with temperature inversions on their radar screens especially since temperature inversions are fairlly common in the Washington D.C. area anyway. There were UFOs racing across town whereas they maneuvered near aircraft and I might add that pilots and radar operators noted the intelligence behind the maneuvers of those objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted December 13, 2014 #245 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Hmmm... Why did FedEx Flt 1478 managed to crash? I highly recommend to read that report, bit lengthy, nevertheless, you will find many things you weren't aware of. Additionally, you can read "Aviation Visual Perception" by R.Gibb et al. Quite an eye opener, so to speak. bmk, I usually prefer not to jump out of thread and although your readings may be of interest to us , perhaps you could post the parts you find most compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted December 13, 2014 #246 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Mach 5 spurious signal? Sorry, I have no idea about what you are referencing. short, to the point the point and references. Sorry, it must be someone else in here, then. Ok just photo shop the string`s outta those photo`s and were all Good ,Right? no photoshop in 1942, my son. it was put into the LA times morning edition for a reason, DEU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted December 13, 2014 #247 Share Posted December 13, 2014 <Snip> no photoshop in 1942, my son. it was put into the LA times morning edition for a reason, DEU No, they did not have photoshop, but they were very good good at creating false artifacts nonetheless by photo manipulation, which is exactly what was done here. The original photo shows absolutely nothing of interest. Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted December 13, 2014 #248 Share Posted December 13, 2014 No, they did not have photoshop, but they were very good good at creating false artifacts nonetheless by photo manipulation, which is exactly what was done here. The original photo shows absolutely nothing of interest. Cheers, Badeskov So you are saying the photo in the newspaper was all just a joke? it never really happened, there was nothing there? LOL! Right in stride, my man, right in stride. 1,000,000 witnesses are liars. the photo was phoney. the army shot 1,400 rounds of antiaircraft ammo at NOTHING the army sent a squadron of airplanes to fire at NOTHING the dark-out and air raid was just a drill - that killed people on the ground. and finally, it was a tethering balloon! One tough son'gun of a tethering balloon! And, POOF! Battle over LA, gone. Well done, my man, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted December 13, 2014 #249 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Two jets were scramble during the first week of the incident and 4 jets were scrambled the second week. Air Force personnel on the ground saw the objects as well. The CAA, now known as the FAA, had an aircraft airborne and its crew reported UFOs in the sky. It is ridicules to think that Air Force jets and radar controllers were tracking anything to do with temperature inversions on their radar screens especially since temperature inversions are fairlly common in the Washington D.C. area anyway. There were UFOs racing across town whereas they maneuvered near aircraft and I might add that pilots and radar operators noted the intelligence behind the maneuvers of those objects. Thanks, Sky. two sorties had two pilots, two sorties had 4 pilots, and I guess - according to the people here, who were NOT there, none of the pilots saw *anything*!! Just a bunch of mirages, maybe. Funny how the USAF just left all the people in the US hanging on what was all the excitement about! That is, the USAF never said there was "nothing" after all, and that it was all just a big drill or joke. Funny how that works, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted December 13, 2014 #250 Share Posted December 13, 2014 So you are saying the photo in the newspaper was all just a joke? I didn't say it was a joke. However, it was the usual emphasis that newspapers used back then, just as tabloids are doing today on celebrities. it never really happened, there was nothing there? It happened, but nothing was there. At least no evidence for anything being there at all. LOL! Yeah, very funny....or rather sad how you and others don't want to look at actual facts. Right in stride, my man, right in stride. What? 1,000,000 witnesses are liars. What 1,000,000 witnesses? Completely made up. the photo was phoney. No, it was retouched to make it more exciting. Please do try to keep up - this has been explained many times over and I have no idea why this is so hard to grasp. the army shot 1,400 rounds of antiaircraft ammo at NOTHING Neither a first nor a last. the army sent a squadron of airplanes to fire at NOTHING Oh, really, please do elaborate. the dark-out and air raid was just a drill - that killed people on the ground. Killed who? and finally, it was a tethering balloon! One tough son'gun of a tethering balloon! What tethering balloon? And, POOF! Battle over LA, gone. Well done, my man, well done. Indeed. It was gone because it was nothing., Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now