The LA UFO INVASION BATTLE?

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:26:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Tom wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.

Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
Don't think so but...

And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?

Good point. There were no motion picture films way back then. rolls
eyes

Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.

If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its faked.

Stunning is relative.

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:26:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Tom wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.

Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
Don't think so but...

And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?

Good point. There were no motion picture films way back then. rolls
eyes

Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.

If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its faked.

Stunning is relative.

It is easy to "stun" somebody who has no brain. The vidclip consists of
nothing but artists' concepts of the event and what appears to be
vintage narration, such as found in newsreels of the era -- easy to
fake, although nobody in the narration an alien presence.

It is up to the gullible to fill in the blanks.

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:53:28 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

It is easy t

Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good idea,
and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.

Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.

Not to killfile.

*PLONK*

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:53:28 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

It is easy t

Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good idea,
and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.

Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.

Not to killfile.

*PLONK*

It sounds like a self description of "Tom." Did his psychiatrist tell
him all this?

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:32:19 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:53:28 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

It is easy t

Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good idea,
and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.

Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.

Not to killfile.

*PLONK*

It sounds like a self description of "Tom." Did his psychiatrist tell
him all this?

I am putting out a lot of effort here. Why didn't anyone kick the
troll's ass after I did? C'mon guys, I need your backup here. I'm
sucking a drained tit.

Tom wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:26:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Tom wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

Some felt it was a false alarm brought on by war hysteria.

Then they would have had to falsify the stunning videos and photos.
Don't think so but...

And how many 'video' cameras do you think were around in 1942 ?

Good point. There were no motion picture films way back then. rolls
eyes


Video and motion picture are not synonymous

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts and there
was no video tape.

Fact is the beast that would be available to even a wealthy amateur
and most newsreel cinematographers was 16mm film. Film stock was
relatively expensive , especially in colour and film speeds were low.
Getting useful shots at night was well nigh impossible. Most of the
alleged film of night attacks in WW2 was faked afterwards.

If you see 'stunning' video from that period the chances are its
faked.

Stunning is relative.

Look at genuine 16mm and the difference is obvious.

Keith

On Oct 6, 3:19*pm, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

On 10/7/2011 12:54 AM, J wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

"Got Milk?"


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

"J" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

They already had their costar and all the wannabe actresses in the costume
and makeup crews showing off their stuff.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:45:01 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"J" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

TV cameras at that time were VERY large beasts ....

When I first saw (not read) this I thought you had typed "breasts". If
they were, it would probably have been easier then to get men to look
into the camera (as they most likely already were) and say
"Cheese" (or something else). ;-)

Cheers . . . J

They already had their costar and all the wannabe actresses in the costume
and makeup crews showing off their stuff.

Ha ha, now THATS funny. HA HA .

Do you like me?