UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Apr > Apr 9

Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis

From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:26:28 -0400
Archived: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 12:49:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis


>From: Kathy Kasten<catraja.nul>
>To:<post.nul>
>Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:43:09 +0000
>Subject: Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis

>>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:20:30 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis

>>>From: Kentaro Mori<kentaro.mori.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:38:51 -0300
>>>Subject: Re: Battle Of Los Angeles New Analysis

><snip>

>>>Finally, it must be noted that Scott Harrison mentions that he
>>>is not sure if this new negative is an unretouched one. It
>>>clearly has less signs of retouching - if any at all - than the
>>>famous one, but then again, it is now clear how little actual
>>>analysis has been done on whatever we have of physical evidence
>>>of a UFO over LA at that night.

>>Since it wasn't included in Mr. Mori's reply, the torus seen in
>>the enhanced photo was likely not considered meaningful. I think
>>it's real because I've seen others in many other photos. Seeing
>>a torus beside a disc-shaped object in the enhanced LA photo is
>>evidence for me that there was a real UFO there and that the
>>gunners were not shooting at nothing.

><snip>

>>Images of searchlights aimed at a mirror ball, or unsupported
>>suggestions that there may be an even less retouched photo do
>>not help much. Scott Harrison's article in the Los Angeles Times
>>says "the non-retouched negative... definitely showed the
>>original scene before a print was retouched".

>After reading many of your e-mail posts where you declare your
>stance regarding _torus_ seen near an object, I am still
>wondering what you think we are looking at. I get that you think
>it is _real_ phenomena, but have never seen where you define
>_real_. Please, how about a definition.

Hi Kathy, in this case, I'll go with the dictionary definition.

"Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined
or supposed"

I think the torus near a UFO is a physical phenomenon amenable
to study with tools and concepts that physicists use.

I have already speculated on what it is at the end of my initial
post to this thread. Briefly, I think it is the visual
manifestation of a field generated by a saucer's propulsion
system.


William



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com