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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp