From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 18:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Archived: Tue, 03 May 2011 09:42:47 -0400 Subject: Re: More On Battle Of L.A. Photo >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:33:44 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: More On Battle Of L.A. Photo >>From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 19:27:40 -0300 >>Subject: More On Battle Of L.A. Photo >>Besides Scott Harrison's article with the new un-doctored Battle >>Of LA photo - which has been discussed here on the List - Larry >>Harnisch, in The Daily Mirror also wrote several articles >>documenting all the context of the Battle Of LA, including >>(mostly in the last part) closer images with higher clarity, of >>the famous photograph: >>The Daily Mirror: >>http://tinyurl.com/62cbsbk >>I think it's clearer there's no solid object nor a reflection, and I >>made my own comments at my site: >>http://tinyurl.com/3ebb9bv >I was amused to see in a letter to the newspaper a person who >was a witness said that it seemed to him that there were >reflections from metal surfaces (he assumed from wings of >planes). >I also noted one observer who pointed out that the convergence >point of the beams moved slowly and steadily as if the >individual beams were tracking a moving object. The suggestion >that the beams were tracking "a cloud" seems unsatisfying. >Supposedly it was a clear night. >If a cloud of smoke only, why didn't it just dissipate instead >of traveling as if it were an object? I have pointed out that >the beams did not seem to penetrate the convergence region >(except for one beam that seems to travel upward from the >convergence region). That was a feature of the originally >analyzed version and is also a feature of the "new" version. >Photos of other antiaircraft-searchlight operations show beams >largely penetrating the convergence region despite smoke from >the exploding shells. >It is to be noted that the TV show (SyFy channel) Fact or Faked >did experiments with modern spotlights that showed beam >convergence of a number of searchlights. They actually flew a >large balloon and then shot it down with a 50 callibre machine >gun (50 cal antiaircraft rounds were fired during the "BOLA"). >They did not duplicate the actual situation (altitude too low; >searchligh beams were not broad enough, being maybe a foot in >diameter whereas the WWII searchlights were about 5 ft in >diameter - thus the volume of the illuminated region was much >larger during the BOLA) but they did demonstrate how a balloon >reacts to being fired at - and hit! It falls... fast. >Since we can't even begin to reconstruct the actual >circumstances that night, and given that numerous witnesses were >certain that _some_ moving object was at the convergence region >but what it might have been is certainly unclear from the photo, >this case is likely to remain unresolved and people can >"believe" what they like. The core problem remains, as Bruce M. has pointed out on his website, the multiple beams converge and then seem to stop, with little or no pentration beyond the point of convergence. Something is blocking the multiple light beams. This key point has _not_ changed between the original retouched LA Times photo and the current image from the negative. The "Fact or Faked" show did a number of experiments trying to reasonably recreate the scene, including testing the hypotheses of whether beam convergence alone could create the illusion of a solid object with no beam penetration beyond (emphatic NO! - nowhere close), whether smoke from shell/AK-AK fire might block the beams (better, some blockage, but still nowhere near close, and the smoke cloud is very obviously diffusely illuminated, not discrete/solid looking, and dissipates rapidly), or whether an actual somewhat solid object like a weather balloon would work (much better, but not perfect, and, of course, incredibly easy to shoot down). Throw in something being tracked by radar approaching LA for an hour before, eyewitnesses to something solid or multiple objects actually being up there, no less than Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall backing up the Army's contention of something actually being up there, the total implausibility of something like a weather balloon triggering the whole affair and never being shot down, and it still remains a total mystery as to exactly what happened that night. Incidentally, here is a 1952 article from eyewitness Bill Henry, a well-known columnist for the LA Times, writing a little about about the Battle of LA and the recent arming of airports with anti-aircraft batteries. In 1952, Henry attributes the Battle of LA to a "weather balloon," but back in 1942 he instead wrote that he would be willing to bet a few shekels that he saw a number of AA shells appear to score direct hits on whatever was up there. http://www.roswellproof.com/Shootdown_LATimes_52-08-01.gif David Rudiak 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