Battle of Los Angeles, new revelations, old biases

[lancemoody]

---

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Good post Lance. Anyone that says you don't do your research is just frustrated by your conclusions.

 

[tyder001]

This is why although I "want to believe" I don't. Well, it's one of the reasons anyway. The u.f.o. experience ( I just can't spell phenomena) Is either a mass culture psycological phenomena (I googled it so I could spill it rite) or some kind of "inner dimensional" experience. I add the later not because I believe it is or isn't an inner dimensional experience but out of respect to some of the work of Vallee and other researchers who seem to think it might be. There are a lot of old and even ancient accounts of beings that might have been linked to what we call ufo phenomena. Although, even that is pretty much antedotal. I know it frustrates certain folks here who want to talk about metal in the ground (yeah ya don't see metal everyday on earth) or "indentions" in soil (wow) but the truth is there is no evidence that space folks are visiting us. Still, in the spirit of fairness I have seen some things I can't explain. But, they more than likely were some sort of natural phenomena that I just didn't reconize. Well, except for two incidents but I'm still not in the nuts and bolts space travelers camp. I'd like to be but I'm just not.

 

[trainedobserver]

The u.f.o. experience ( I just can't spell phenomena) Is either a mass culture psycological phenomena (I googled it so I could spill it rite) or some kind of "inner dimensional" experience.

Why is it an either/or situation? Isn't more likely that there are several different things going on? I think there is ample evidence that UFOs are a mixture of:
1. Misidentified/unidentified natural phenomena.
2. Misidentified man-made aircraft/devices.
3. Psychological phenomena.
4. Hoaxes.
5. Unknown.

The percentage of truly unidentifiable phenomena of unknown origin which may be of inter-dimensional, ET, orwhatever other source might be imagined, appears to be very small in relation to other likely explanations. Personally, I have no desire for any of these other sources to have any basis in reality. I just think any of it would be very bad for us it any of them were. It's much better for us if it's just nature and our misperception of it rather than others of some other nature or order than ours.

 

[tyder001]

Personally, I have no desire for any of these other sources to have any basis in reality. I just think any of it would be very bad for us it any of them were. It's much better for us if it's just nature and our misperception of it rather than others of some other nature or order than ours.

I don't know. I don't agree that it would be very bad for us. But, I certainly can understand the natural occurence and I don't have a problem with that. I think crop circles are a product of nature that some misidenify as paranormal but I do think that (as I said before) Vallee and historical accounts do carry some weight (at least with me) but I have no real dog in the hunt. I find the paranormal to be interesting and thought provoking but I'm afraid in the end I am more of the late Martin Gardner camp. Not the skeptical James Randi part (where they have much in common and interacted together) I'm talking more of the (I believe and don't need a paranormal knocking or ghost hunter to prove it to me) inner life type experience. So, I can see how you come to your conclusions. I don't neccisarly agree but I can see how you come to it.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

Psychological phenomena.

I absolutley think some of it is psychological. The difference is that I have had some expereince both in work and in acutally dealing with this part of the paranomal (for won't of a better word.) The psychological and the spritual (imo) both are different (barely) sides of the same coin. However, since I can't "download" my experience to explain it I'll just have to say that some things are indeed chemical. Certain types of depression and Bipolar Disorder and raging hormones. But, the mind is not reducible to these things and is in itself a great "creator" of reality. Still, this is just babble and all I can say is "Yes" when somebody says is it psycological or inner dimensional.

Although, I hasten to add that I don't "beleive" the u.f.o. expereince is in anyway paranormal. I think most if not all of it can be explained by natural occurences. Still, I keep an open mind both the possibitlity of inner dimensional and even E.T. while being pretty sure it's military or other more mundane occurences for the most part.

 

[trainedobserver]

I don't know. I don't agree that it would be very bad for us.

The odds are that the consequences of contact with a different intelligent species with radically different or advanced technology than ours would not favor humanity. Also, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where any of the popularized notions of demons, reptilians, grays, or hybrids belong outside of a nightmare. None of what passes for paranormal activity could be considered desirable or beneficial for humanity. If a person goes beyond their initial fascination with these types of subjects as entertainment or just thrilling thing to think about, I believe they come to see these things in a different light. We even have Hawking telling us that maybe contact isn't such a great idea.

I think crop circles are a product of nature that some misidenify as paranormal but I do think that (as I said before) Vallee and historical accounts do carry some weight (at least with me) but I have no real dog in the hunt.

What paranormal aspect do you see in them? What are the historical accounts you mention?

 

[tyder001]

What paranormal aspect do you see in them? What are the historical accounts you mention?

Maybe I was kind of vauge. I am a little scattered today and am typing this during a break at work. I didn't mean to mislead. "I" don't see paranormal aspects to them. I don't honestly know if there is anything but pure bunk to them or not. I was referring to the research of Vallee and the paintings on cave walls and old accounts in religous texts. You can certainly consider all of it bunk and it won't hurt my feelings one way or the other. I don't personally beleive in u.f.o's as anything more than air craft (ours not space folks) or other natural occurences. But, I have seen some things that I can't explain and I keep an open mind. Just not so open that my brain falls out.

 

[trainedobserver]

tyder,

I realize now that I misread your comment! You were referring to a possible natural explanation that is misinterpreted as paranormal. My bad. Yes of course, and the only natural explanation that makes any sense is human beings. We never look at a work of fine art or civic engineering and wonder if it is made by paranormal or even natural means (other than humans) do we? I just find it bizarre that something as simple as patterns trampled in grass are seen as "otherworldly" by so many folks.

 

[Frank Warren]

Greetings Forumerions,

When time permits, I will offer a very thorough rebuttal to Lance's OP-ED; suffice to say, not counting today, I sent Lance a dozen, (often times lengthy) expeditious replies to his queries re BOLA (beginning from last May I believe); methinks if the reader is given a more accurate account of our dialogue (in proper context) rather then "snippet quotes" to shore up an ideology, any conclusions drawn, at least then will be from a more informed position.

In the mean time a few tidbits (of mine):

In regards to "sharing" (or not) research, I explained this to Lance a few times; however, my (repeated) answer didn't set well with him; most recently I replied (to him):

"Let me further clarify: I work with a small group of researchers, and they vary depending on the case [*or category, e.g., Roswell, Aztec, BOLA etc]. All of us have agreed to work under the same protocol, specifically, when research is ongoing (regardless of how long that might be), part of that is "keeping our mouths shut."
​

In the same vein, I also (recently) wrote to Lance:

"As stated previously in our earlier correspondence, there was/is no mystery–I just chose not to share that information with you, and as stated then, I mean/meant no offense (to you) by my actions."
​

As well as:

"Lance, we had this conversation before, . . .. I can however, choose to share elements of research to those that I work with–which is the case, as stated from the get go. I get that you don't care for that, and I'm sorry you've taken offense to this methodology (it's nothing personal towards you); however, there is nothing Machiavellian about it, and rehashing it over and over again isn't going to change anything."
​

In short, until all available evidence in any case is fully examined, and all avenues explored, in order to come to a "summary hypothesis" or "indisputable conclusion," we (for the most part) don't publicize our work.

As to the recent revelations re Harrison's article and research, as well as my previous statements to Lance, I wrote:

"let me state emphatically–I WAS WRONG and in COMPLETE ERROR on all counts!

Rather then offer an explanation [*or excuse] for my erroneous statements–let me put forward the old cliché–the buck stops here–mea culpa!

Let me further state that my research as to location (where the object was–when the picture was taken), size of the object etc., was hinged on the (erroneous) fact that my print (which I purchased from UCLA almost 10 years ago) was "un-retouched" and pristine from the "original negative;" and in light of Scott Harrison's (excellent) article and research–this throws all of those conclusions out the window!!!"
​

I also stated:

"First, I will always admit when I'm wrong, and I will always give credit where credit is due! I was wrong in a big way, and as I stated to you prior to Harrison's piece–I was adamant that the print I obtained years back was "unaltered" and from the original negative (not a copy negative or altered copy negative).

Likewise–you did nail it! For the most part your questioning was proper, and your logic was cogent.. . ."
​

I further wrote:

"Although I never (previously) doubted the authenticity of my print (re being from the original un-retouched negative) given its sanctioned quarters and the attached sureties–the plain fact of the matter is "the possibility" existed and "can" exist of defects in provenance without further "personal/physical" diligence (or actions equal or superior too) and stating otherwise–as I did–was (again) imprudent on my part (as these latest revelations demonstrate)."
​

And Finally:

"although the "fact" that the image I introduced to the internet now seems to have been retouched (and I am satisfied with that conclusion and concur), although it quashes my theories as to size and (possibly) location where the the object was when photographed–the new image as revealed in Harrison's article does not alter the facts in general, i.e., that a UFO was sited, tracked by radar and fired upon in the wee hours on February 25th, 1942."
​

Regardless of Lance's bias and or slant on our colloquy, he properly questioned the provenance of the print I introduced to the internet so many years ago; he made a most cogent point in raising the possibility that there could be a "defect" in provenance, since I didn't see the negative with my own eyes etc.

For this I offer sincere praise and gratitude!

I in turn had become complacent, not giving the provenance a second thought, knowing its sanctioned quarters and the attached sureties–in short, to use some old clichés–Lance applied research 101 and I dropped the ball! Mea culpa!

As stated to Lance and recounted above: the "new" revelations uncovered by Harrison do not change the fact that a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) was sited, tracked by radar and fired upon in the wee hours on February 25th, 1942.

Since the title of Lance's piece is entitled, "The Protocols of Frank Warren," I'll leave you with one I do live by:

"In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."

–Carl Sagan
​

Cheers,
Frank
​

​

* Inserted today, in this post for clarity.

​

 

[icculus]

Interesting. I really don't think there is a single, credible case in this field anymore.

Frank,

What's the latest on that guy in Oregon who was seeing Nordics and Grey's walking out of wormholes in the woods—that could be seen though binoculars?

 

[Bob Watson]

here is a old clip of the object in question enhanced with modren tech looks real to me!

 

[Ezechiel]

We even have Hawking telling us that maybe contact isn't such a great idea.

Focusing on our tiny blue planet when a huge universe filled with other wild planets is available ? Hawking is right !!! Now I'm scared out of my wits lol

I wouldn't come here unless I was curious or needed something only available here... Or maybe harvest something I seeded here... Whatever the intent of the visit, the expense in time, energy and resources allocated to get here needs some kind of compensation.... You would think

 

[trainedobserver]

The image has made it onto the cover of a new Captain America comic.

http://moviecarpet.com/iwave/images...ce-digital-comic-debuts-super-bowl-sunday.jpg

 

[tyder001]

Off topic but I saw the trailer this past weekend when I went to see "Thor" in IMAX 3-D. Good thing I carried my earplugs. Good movie and I enjoyed it but WOW was the sound loud. So loud it was distorted. But, since I passed the big 5-0 a few years ago I understand that it's the modern age and mayby the next generation will have bionic ears and won't need good hearing. Ya betta hope so! But, it was fun. Now back to the true beleivers/disbelievers and our regularly scheduled "paranormal is bunk/truth/space bros rule/your an idiot it was venus" format.

 

[pixelsmith]

The object in the "battle" could not have been an ET powered UFO. They always zip about at odd angles when they travel.

 

[Frank Warren]

Good Day icculus,

Interesting. I really don't think there is a single, credible case in this field anymore.

Re BOLA–To be clear: the latest revelation, as written by Harrison i.e., that the print I introduced to the public years ago was "retouched" (enhanced) changes nothing pertaining to the preponderance of evidence in support of a UFO event. As Harrison writes:

"Certain details, such as the white spots around the searchlights’ convergence, are exactly the same in both negatives. In the retouched version, many light beams were lightened and widened with white paint, while other beams were eliminated.
"​

The "untouched version" carries the same weight as the "enhanced" version, and supports eyewitness declarations.

Quite frankly, for those skeptics and more importantly–debunkers that held the first image in contempt, if they are going to accept Harrison's piece as gospel (and as stated before I am satisfied that my print was retouched) then what we now have is an "un-retouched" version as evidence of an elliptical shaped object under fire, in support of eyewitness accounts . . . some might argue that this "new" revelation strengthens the case!

Finally, although I enthusiastically admit error as to believing I had the "un-retouched version" and it affects my research as "to size" (which was being re-scrutinized for other reasons anyway) and possibly location–that's all it does!

Frank,

What's the latest on that guy in Oregon who was seeing Nordics and Grey's walking out of wormholes in the woods—that could be seen though binoculars?

To be polite, after an 8 day investigation up in Oregon, we uncovered not one shred of evidence in support of any UFO events. Conversely, we were able to explain away many of the claimed sightings to "conventional objects" e.g., exterior lights, buildings etc.

The long overdue report is forthcoming.

Cheers,
Frank

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

Good Day vesvehighfolk,

As far as I am aware, there is no motion footage of the Battle of Los Angeles. The above clip seems to use stills and mostly unrelated material. It also seems to make use of the Frank Warren's image (now revealed to be a heavily retouched version of the original photograph).

Lance

I whole heartily agree with Lance. Moreover, I would add that the author (of the clip) took great creative license (to be polite).

Cheers,
Frank

 

[Frank Warren]

Mornin' Lance,

As I point out in my article, Tim Printy published an article that calls into question the idea that the convergence of the beams shows any object at all. Using archival photos (unrelated to BOLA), he shows a similar blob that is just an artifact of photography, not a physical object.

Beginning with your first e-mail to me last summer (and over 10 more since), your entire (appropriate) thesis or approach was that my print "may not have been from the original negative," or that it might be "defective" in some way e.g., "retouched, enhanced" etc.

The point being that if the photo has been doctored in some fashion, any arguments made therein, using it as the example are "dead on their face."

As I previously wrote to you, and stated here in this thread: in light of this new information via Harrison, I completely agree.

At the same time, citing Printy and him using–by your own admission, "archival photos unrelated to the BOLA" in the same light as the print you've condemned is point-blank-sanctimonious. You can't have it both ways.

However, since you've injected Printy's argument, which has been batted around for years (the notion that the crossed lights are creating the illusion of an object); now that we have the "un-retouched version" of the BOLA image, even Helen Keller can see that the searchlight beams are "not" passing through the solid object, i.e., UFO. (Not to mention the ancillary eyewitness accounts).

I notice that Frank seems to retain his certainty about the case. He always seems so certain until...

I go where the evidence takes me Lance, and as stated to you privately and here publicly, will always admit when I'm wrong, and will give credit where credit is due.

Currently, the preponderance of evidence supports the fact that a large, eliptical shaped UFO (Unidentified Flying Object), sustained over a thousand rounds of AA fire without apparent damage and left the way it came. This newly discovered "un-retouched" image supports those facts.

And really that was the point of my article. UFO proponents seem to start out with their minds made up. I knew enough about photography to realize that the claim (stated as fact) that the image showed an object was not supported by the evidence and I think that I wrote to Frank expressing the point that I didn't think the image showed an object at all. He ignored that and assured me that it did.

I think the bias in your article is clear to most who read it, and ironically it's a prime example of cognitive dissonance. You are correct in stating that I did "ignore" your notion that there wasn't an object in the image; however, I didn't do so intentionally; that is to say, that for most BOLA researchers–that argument was quashed long ago (and repeatedly); in short the statement, amongst your questions was inconsequential.

Printy's article later came out and confirmed using photos that show the same kind of convergence. No change in Frank's theory apparently resulted.

That is correct; the rehashing of an old argument which was quashed long ago and repeatedly and again by this latest (new) evidence with your help (thank you) is just another feather in the bonnet of evidence in support of a UFO event.

Frank and many other folks just let any facts counter to their theories run right off of 'em like water.

Oh the irony . . ..

Lance, you wrote:

"To his great credit, Frank immediately admitted his mistake . . ."

Again Lance, you can't have it both ways; which of your contradictory statements do you want to adhere to?

Your actions, statements and demeanor throughout our colloquy via e-mail is reminiscent of what Festinger wrote:

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

There was no shame in being wrong about the photo. It is the stubborn certainty DESPITE the evidence that I think is the main reason UFOlogy will always be a pseudoscience.

Lance

Ufology, by definition isn't a science at all; however, scientific principle can, and is (albeit not enough) applied.

It is in fact "science" that demands we pay attention to this thing we call Ufology, remembering that the first step in the scientific method is "the observation of a phenomena."

Unfortunately, as it was in Copernicus' time, folk prefer to adhere to collective ideologies (or the status quo) and the evidence be damned! However, in time, even the most dogmatic of men would learn (and admit) that the world wasn't flat, nor was it the center of the universe.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[Anaximander]

Lance,

If you cannot post without slagging him, you will appear to have lost the debate with Frank.

Look at the post at the top of this page - that is not the kind of post a 'winner' makes.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Again Lance, you can't have it both ways; which of your contradictory statements do you want to adhere to? Your actions, statements and demeanor throughout our colloquy via e-mail is reminiscent of what Festinger wrote:

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

I think Lance just got "owned"!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think Lance just got "owned"!

Overall, I think the whole "Battle of Los Angeles" picture "got owned."
Hopefully we can move on from the notion that a UFO is in that picture.