From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 20:59:40 -0300
Archived: Tue, 03 May 2011 10:13:34 -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
<snip>

>>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.

There were many conflicting reports as to what was or was not
seen that night. As you know, the Navy, the 4th Air Force and
the Western Defense Command, from all the conflicting reports,
more or less agreed it was a false alarm and no actual target
flew over LA. Only the Army disagreed.

In any event, relying solely and mainly on testimonial accounts,
especially when it is contradictory, is a very fragile
foundation.

>The suggestion
>that the beams were tracking "a cloud" seems unsatisfying.
>Supposedly it was a clear night.

I agree, simply replacing this hypothetical huge flying saucer
with a single cloud in movement is unsatisfying. However,
instead of a single cloud, a thin *layer of clouds*, combined
with several different searchlights, of which the convergence
point would move (akin to the ideomotor effect) and antiaircraft
shell bursts would be a more plausible hypothesis.

Quoting William Goss, "The Army Air Forces in WWII - Vol. I",
Office of Air Force History (apud SUNlite vol3n1):

"Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that
antiaircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were
themselves mistaken for enemy planes. ... The next three hours
produced some of the most imaginative reporting of the war:
'swarms' of planes (or, sometimes, balloons) of all possible
sizes, numbering from one to several hundred, traveling at
altitudes which ranged from a few thousand feet to more than
10,000 and flying at speed which were said to have varied from
'very slow' to over 200 miles per hour, were observed to parade
across the skies."

>If a cloud of smoke only, why didn't it just dissipate instead
>of traveling as if it were an object?

Again, I agree it would indeed be unlikely that all commotion
could be explained by a single cloud, as if this single cloud
replaced an hypothetical flying saucer. However, several
different effects at different times could have collaborated to
generate the perception of several different flying objects. And
the discrepancies between the reports lead to that conclusion --
even if there was an hypothetical flying saucer, it's certain
that people saw, or thought they saw, many other things at
different times and locations.

>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.

I would like to see supporting analysis for this, Bruce, if
possible. I can see at least more than one beam going past the
convergence region.

http://tinyurl.com/3um4t3v

>Photos of other antiaircraft-searchlight operations show beams
>largely penetrating the convergence region despite smoke from
>the exploding shells.

Depending on meteorological conditions.

http://tinyurl.com/3kxf8nl

>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.

Tim Printy's latest SUNlite exposes the many problems with
SyFy's experiment. "The actual documents written state that a
majority of the shells fired that night were of the 3" variety",
not .50. Printy also noted that no one, not skeptics, not the
Army, not debunkers, seem to suggest all the commotion was
caused by a single or even two weather balloons being mistaken
for all the many different things people thought they saw. The
weather balloons were singled out as what may have started the
firing, but if the balloon was subsequently shot down or not is
of little relevance, since, once again, no single object could
have accounted for all that people described in the sky that
night. And that includes a single interplanetary spaceship.

>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.

I agree. I would emphasize, however, that the better quality
scans of the unretouched photo makes it even more unclear that
any actual, unusual object flew that night. In other words, it
lends support to the psychosocial interpretation of the case.


Kentaro



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.