Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Washington 1952 UFO Incidents - Evidence?


ChrLzs

Recommended Posts

This thread was born out of a discussion here. Skyeagle has nominated this series of events as 'the one', in which he claims the evidence clearly proves that at least some UFO's are definitely alien controlled. I don't think that is the case, and would like to spend some time looking at all the facts and figures of the case to see just what can be properly verified, and then look to see what conclusions can then be drawn from the agreed proven facts.

The obligatory picture now - unfortunately I am unable to cite this, as no-one seems to know where it came from, but it is frequently associated with the incidents in question:

gallery_95887_22_8282.jpg

(Later I *will* provide an interesting expose of what this image actually shows...)

While all are of course welcome to contribute, I would ask for potential posters to:

- hang back a little while we first of all set out a rough guide to the events in question

- let's keep this scientific and methodical, so please don't race ahead - each separate issue needs to be addressed fully without distractions from others

- do NOT post walls of text - one thing at a time and be brief

- DO post citations, namely proper references to credible and verifiable facts, otherwise expect to be ignored or told off!

- DO be aware that this investigation is intended to be scientific and methodical - that means facts only, no anecdotes or opinions unless supported and verifiable, and *everything* is questionable by both sides.. If it can't be backed up, I'm afraid it's OUT, no matter who is promoting it... same rules for both sides.

Maybe a kind moderator might like to offer to adjudicate if there are any disputes?

The way this should unfold is:

  • First (* but see below) we define the claim in detail and define the outline of events in 1952 upon which it is predicated.
  • Then we look carefully at each of the observations/sighting/recordings and see what was actually recorded and how well it can be verified/analysed, and also look at the timings to see what can be directly correlated, triangulated/etc.
  • Next, we should look at the environment as well as consider the technical equipment and expertise that was used and any limitations or provisos that need to be incorporated in any analysis, maybe even error ranges and the like... At the same time, it would be useful to examine other existing analyses to look for the proverbial 'good science'.
  • Then, the analyses - including a consideration of all the possible (but reasonable) options for all the possible (but reasonable) scenarios.
  • Finally, by looking at the entire picture, we should be able to make some conclusions (even if those conclusions might be as lame as "We Don't Know..").

Before we begin to briefly outline the events as are generally reported (but not necessarily agreed!), does anyone have any thoughts on how to improve the process, or stuff I've forgotten? I'm tired and worn out tonight, so might be missing something extremely obvious...

* Oh, just one thing... For reasons that will become clear later, you may have noticed that I'm not planning to go through Sky's claim in detail at this point - I'd rather go straight into looking at the events of 1952...

Please be patient, I have a busy few working days ahead (but should be pretty free after that), so initially my posts may be sporadic - plus it's late and I'm about to go to bed. Sky, maybe you would like to start by BRIEFLY outlining the events of 1952 in/around Washington DC that are to be considered...

PS - I'm sure that this topic has been done to death here and elsewhere, but I would like to start from scratch and see if we can see what can be supported by evidence, and what cannot.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread was born out of a discussion here. Skyeagle has nominated this series of events as 'the one', in which he claims the evidence clearly proves that at least some UFO's are definitely alien controlled. I don't think that is the case, and would like to spend some time looking at all the facts and figures of the case to see just what can be properly verified, and then look to see what conclusions can then be drawn from the agreed proven facts.

The obligatory picture now - unfortunately I am unable to cite this, as no-one seems to know where it came from, but it is frequently associated with the incidents in question:

gallery_95887_22_8282.jpg

(Later I *will* provide an interesting expose of what this image actually shows...)

Apparently, you do not understand what is going on. Let's do another review.

Code:

AF Int - Air Force Intelligence Report

July 13: 0400 EDT.

National Airlines plane en route to National Airport, about 60 mi. SW of the city observed a blue- white ball of light hovering to the west. Object then "came up to 11,000 ft. [and] then maintained a parallel course, on the same level, at the same speed, until the aircraft pilot turned on all lights. Object then departed from the vicinity at an estimated 1000 m.p.h. Weather was excellent for observation." The crew said the object "took off up and away." No other air traffic was reported in the area at the time. (
AF Int
.)

Now,where does that report have anything to do with that photo?

Please be patient, I have a busy few working days ahead (but should be pretty free after that), so initially my posts may be sporadic - plus it's late and I'm about to go to bed. Sky, maybe you would like to start by BRIEFLY outlining the events of 1952 in/around Washington DC that are to be considered...

Okay!

Codes:

AFOSI - Air Force Office of Special Investigations report, from Project Blue Book files, National Archives microfilm collection.

AF Int - Air Force Intelligence Report, most obtained by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy via the Freedom of Information Act, declassified Jan. 1985.

UFOE - The UFO Evidence, National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, Washington, D.C., May 1964. (NICAP)

CAA - Civil Aeronautics Administration (later FAA, Federal Aviation Admin.)

ARTC - Air Route Traffic Control radar center approach-control radar, CAA.

(Note: Though Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT) was in effect during these sightings, AFOSI reports used Eastern Standard time. They have been converted to EDT here.)

July 14: 2012 EDT.

Newport News, Va. Southbound Pan American Airways plane at 8,000 ft. nearing the Norfolk, Va, area observed six glowing red, circular objects approaching below the airliner; objects flipped up on edge in unison and then sped from behind and under the airliner and joined the in-line formation, which "climbed in a graceful arc above the altitude of the airliner." "Then the lights blinked out one by one, though not in sequence." Next day the crew was thoroughly interrogated by AFOSI, and advised that they already had seven other reports of red discs moving at high speed and making sharp turns. (UFOE, p. 38-39.)

July 16: 2200 EDT.

Hampton Roads, Va. A Government aeronautical research engineer observed two amber-colored lights approaching from the south at about 500 m.p.h. These slowed and made a U-turn, revolved around each other at a high rate of speed, then joined by two other objects from different directions, the four sped off to the south at about 500 m.p.h. "They moved jerkily when moving slowly. Their ability to make tight circling turns was amazing." (UFOE, p. 57; Ruppelt , p. 210-211, gives time as 2100 hrs.)

July 18: 0200 EDT

Washington, D. C. Radio station chief engineer observed 6-7 bright orange discs moving in single file. Each in turn veered sharply upward and disappeared. (UFOE, p. 160; Associated Press story, July 19.)

July 19: 2340 EDT.

ARTC at National Airport began picking up unidentified targets on radar. (UFOE, p. 160; AFOSI; Ruppelt, p. 211)

July 20: 0100 EDT.

Herndon, Va. Capital Airlines flight from National Airport called by control tower to check on unidentified radar targets saw three objects, and three more between there and Martinsburg, W. Va. "like falling stars without tails [which] moved rapidly up, down, and horizontally. Also hovered." Chief CAA air traffic controller Harry Barnes later said in a newspaper interview: "His [the pilot's] subsequent description of the movement of the objects coincided with the position of our pips [radar targets] at all times while in our range." (UFOE, p. 159; AFOSI; CAA evaluation report on radar-UFO sightings.)

July 20: 0105 EDT.

Andrews AFB, Md. (Nr. Washington, D.C.). Five witnesses visually observed three reddish-orange objects moving erratically. (AFOSI.)

July 20: 0300 EDT.

Capital Airlines flight incoming to National Airport reported that an unidentified light followed his airliner from the vicinity of Herndon, Va., to within about 4 miles west of the airport, confirmed on ARTC radar. (AFOSI; UFOE, p.159.)

July 20: 0430-0630 EDT.

Additional unidentified targets on ARTC radar at National Airport. (AFOSI.)

July 20: mid-evening.

Air Force radar operators at Andrews AFB weather tower tracked 10 UFOs for 15-20 minutes. Objects approached runway, scattered, made sharp turns and reversals of direction. (UFOE, p.160, based on detailed report to NICAP from AF weather observer.)

July 26: 2115 EDT (to 0020 EDT July 27).

Sharp UFO targets on ARTC radar at National Airport. Civilian pilots saw glowing white objects on four occasions, including a United Airlines pilot near Herndon, Va., and two CAA pilots over Maryland. National Airlines pilot near Andrews AFB at 1700 ft. saw a UFO "flying directly over the airliner." (AFOSI; AF Int; UFOE, p. 159-162; Ruppelt, p. 218-221.)

July 26: 2130 EDT.

ARTC radar at National airport tracked a UFO on radar ("big target"), confirmed by Andrews AFB radar. (AF Int.)

July 26: 2150 EDT.

ARTC radar at National Airport tracked "solid returns" of "four targets in rough line abreast," and eight others scattered over the radar scope. (AF Int.)

July 26: 2154 EDT.

Andrews AFB, Md., surveillance radar tracked 10-12 UFOs in Washington, D.C. area. (AFOSI.)

July 26: 2157 EDT.

Wash. Natl [ ] 10-12 objs on radar (AFOSI)

July 26: 2215 EDT.

[*] From this time into following morning, "good sharp targets" of 4-8 UFOs on ARTC radar at National Airport. (AFOSI.)

July 26: 2238 EDT.

Air Force Command Post notified of unidentified radar targets. Two F-94 jet interceptors scrambled from New Castle AFB, Delaware, to investigate. (AF Int, AFOSI.)

July 26: 2304 EDT. 2323 EDT.

July 27: 0015 EDT.

Maj. Fournet (Project Blue Book Officer in Pentagon) and Lt. Holcomb (Navy electronics expert) arrived at National Airport ARTC Center. Observed "7 good, solid targets." Holcomb checked on temperature inversions, but they were minor and could not explain what was going on. He so advised AF Command Post, requesting interception mission. By the time the F-94 jets arrived from Delaware, no strong unidentified targets remained and no visual contacts were made. (AF Int.)

July 27: 0020 EDT.

[*] F-94 jet interceptors scrambled from New Castle AFB, Del., to investigate Washington, D.C., radar- UFOs. One F-94 pilot made visual contact and appeared to be gaining on target; both F-94 and UFO were observed on radar and "appeared to be travelling at the same approximate speed." When the F-94 pilot tried to overtake the UFO, it disappeared visually and on radar. The pilot remarked about the "incredible speed of the object." (AFOSI.)

July 27: 1930 EDT.

Air Force Lieutenant at Andrews AFB saw a dark disc moving slowly northeast with "oscillating rolling motion." Clouds were moving southeast. UFO entered base of clouds. (UFOE, p. 161, from CAA report.)

July 27: 2100 EDT.

Air Force personnel and others at National Airport saw a large round object reflecting sunlight, apparently hovering over the Capital Building. After about a minute, the object "wavered then shot straight up disappearing from sight." (AF Int.)

July 28:

Daily papers headlined a United Press story from Washington, D.C., that the Air Defence Command had ordered its jet pilots to pursue, and if necessary "shoot down, " UFOs sighted anywhere in the country.

July 29: 0130-0500 EDT.

Many unidentified targets tracked by CAA radar, 8-12 on the radarscope at a time, moving southeast in a belt 15 miles wide near Washington, D.C. (CAA report.)

July 29: 0300 EDT.

Eastern Airlines pilot asked to check on ARTC radar targets, reported seeing nothing. CAA official said the targets disappeared from the radar screen when the plane was in their area, "then came back in behind him." (UFOE, p.162)

July 29: 1500 EDT.

Air Force pilot sighted three round white UFOs 10 miles southeast of Andrews AFB. Other UFOs tracked by ARTC radar during the afternoon. (CAA report.)

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeebers Cripes. I guess I should have expected it, but that is .. er .. an interesting first response.

Sky, do you deny that the image I posted is almost always associated with the 1952 incidents? For heaven's sake, Google it.

And why on earth do you think one selected report that you cherry picked about just one of the alleged happenings, has to align with that photo? As it is I agree that the image is a silly one (and I will be covering it later if you don't gish gallop this thread into oblivion) but you cannot possibly deny that it is often posted in this context...

For you to leap to the conclusion that I don't understand the events, on the basis that I dared to include a very popular image associated with them, is just a tad insulting. Poisoning the Well, it could be said...

Anyway, I'll be interested to hear comments from others on how you are going in the spirit of a decent, understandable analysis process - for now I'm goin' to bed to try to regain my will to live and continue this..

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and would you mind citing your sources where applicable - there are two quotes up there, both uncited, including a very long one...? Mine was just a daft picture and I explained why I couldn't cite it, yet it got you all upset...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeebers Cripes. I guess I should have expected it, but that is .. er .. an interesting first response.

Sky, do you deny that the image I posted is almost always associated with the 1952 incidents? For heaven's sake, Google it.

The photo you've posted is indicative of what people saw over a period of multiple nights. I don't know who took that photo and as a result, I don't vouch for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and would you mind citing your sources where applicable - there are two quotes up there, both uncited, including a very long one...? Mine was just a daft picture and I explained why I couldn't cite it, yet it got you all upset...

Well, we can do a little bit here.

bgd3q1.jpg

Thanks!

I went to the library and pulled all kinds of publications that covered the Washington D.C. incidents, including LIFE magazine, August 4, 1952.

I also want to point out something in the article and it is as follows:

A traffic control center spokesman said the nature of the signals on the radar screen ruled out any possibility they were from clouds or any other "weather" disturbance. "The returns we received from the unidentified objects were similar and analagous to targets representing aircraft in flight," he said.

http://ufologie.net/...st28jul1952.htm

In addition:

http://greyfalcon.us...hingtonpost.jpg

http://greyfalcon.us...es/1952FIG2.gif

http://greyfalcon.us/pictures/Wash.jpg

Source:

http://greyfalcon.us/July%2028.htm

Then, we have;

http://www.amazon.co...734#reader-link

http://ufologie.net/htm/usa1952.htm

http://www.project19...m/fig/1952d.htm

1952FIG2.gif

http://greyfalcon.us/July%2028.htm

http://www.ufoeviden...ents/doc892.htm

http://en.wikipedia....C._UFO_incident

http://www.trivia-li...hington-d-c.htm

http://www.ufocasebo...gtondc1952.html

http://ufos.about.co...ashingtondc.htm

TIME Magazine - August 4, 1952

SCIENCE: Blips on the Scopes

Air traffic was light at Washington Airport one midnight last week, and the radar scope of the Civil Aeronautics Authority was almost clear. At 12:40 a.m. a group of bright blips showed. The operator estimated that they were about 15 miles southwest of Washington. Then the blips disappeared abruptly and reappeared a few seconds later over northeast Washington. The operator called his boss, Senior Controller Harry Barnes, 39, a graduate of the Buffalo Technical Institute who has worked for the CAA as an electronics expert since 1941. The operator told Barnes: "Here are some flying saucers for you."

Barnes laughed at first, but the blips kept popping up all over the scope. They sometimes hovered, sometimes flew slowly and sometimes incredibly fast. Technicians checked the radar; it was in good working order. Over the White House. Barnes began to worry when he saw the blips apparently flying over the White House and other prohibited areas. He called the airport control tower. Sure enough, its radar showed the strange blips too. When the towermen measured the speed of a fast blip, they found that it had flown for eight miles at 7,200 m.p.h.

http://www.project19...m/fig/1952a.htm

INVASION WASHINGTON

UFOs Over The Capital

http://www.amazon.co..._pt#reader-link

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and would you mind citing your sources where applicable -

AIR FORCE REGULATION THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

No. 200-2 WASHINGTON, 12 AUGUST 1954

Guess whose manual you can find this image? Apparently, the Air Force is not depicting a meteor in that image in its manual. Do you know why?

nucman.jpg

Perhaps, there is more to the story than the Air Force is willing to admit, but then again, the Air Force has already made its admission in its EOTS report in 1947 and again in its intelligence report in 1952.

shoot_down_ins_83052.gif

Albuquerque_Journal_1952-07-30-16s_Keyhoe_on_shootdown.jpg

Maybe there was a reason why CBS cut off the audio on Major Donald Keyhole on the Armstrong Circle Theater in January 1958 before he could reveal something very sensitive on Live TV. When CBS was asked why they cut him off before he could speak out, CBS said they cut him off in the interest of national security. He also revealed Project Saucer File #75 on video.

There is much that people are unaware of about UFOs.

“behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFO’s.”“But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense,” the retired admiral said. He charged that “to hide the facts, the Air Force has silenced its personnel” through the issuance of a regulation.

Vice Admiral R. H. Hillenkoetter (Ret.), a committee board member and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Now, why would the Air Force want to silence its people and then turn around and put the subject of UFOs in its own science book at the U. S. Air Force Academy?

INTRODUCTORY SPACE SCIENCE - VOLUME II

CHAPTER XXXIII

UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS - USAF

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

We too have fired on UFO's. About ten o'clock one morning, a radar site near a fighter base picked up a UFO doing 700 mph. The UFO then slowed to 100 mph, and two F-86's were scrambled to intercept. Eventually one F-86 closed on the UFO at about 3,000 feet altitude. The UFO began to accelerate away but the pilot still managed to get within 500 yards of the target for a short period of time. It was definitely saucer-shaped. As the pilot pushed the F-86 at top speed, the UFO began to pull away. When the range reached 1,000 yards, the pilot armed his guns and fired in an attempt to down the saucer. He failed, and the UFO pulled away rapidly, vanishing in the distance.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afu.htm

It is apparent that the Air Force isn't taking about the F-86 shooting at a meteor. However, the pilot who shot at that flying saucer was also slammed by his squadron commander for doing so.

And, the Air Force added this at the academy.

What the Air Force Told Its Cadets

This leaves us with the unpleasant possibility of alien visitors to our planet, or at least of alien what questionable data there are suggest the existence of at least three and maybe four different groups of aliens (possibly at different stages of development).

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afu.htm

That is what the Air Force was secretly telling its cadets, but after that publication was leaked to the public, the Air Force pulled it off the shelf. What I am saying is, the Air Force tells the us one thing and the public another.and I know that from first hand experience.

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the topic of this thread concerns a single event in 1952 - and a discussion around that one topic. Any other information unrelated to that singular event appears to be somewhat irrelevant.

Now, I agree with ChrLzs, that the image in the OP is the one that is always cited. That there is no provenance for it is indicative of forgery, and malicious intent. So.. in the spirit of scientific inquiry, the picture itself should be excluded from consideration. IMO

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the topic of this thread concerns a single event in 1952 - and a discussion around that one topic. Any other information unrelated to that singular event appears to be somewhat irrelevant.

[...]

While yes, unrelated info is irrelevant, but different descriptions of Washington UFOs bring memories about other event that occurred back in 1963 in former USSR (thanks J.Oberg for quite interesting read).

Just my 2¢...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1952 Washington D.C. UFO

"Every man in here knows temperature inversion effects," said Barnes. "When an inversion is big enough, it picks up all sorts of 'ground clutter' - water tanks, buildings, bridges, shore lines and so on. But anybody can recognize it - you'll see huge purplish blobs, but nothing like those blips we tracked. And in the six years I've watched these scopes, absolutely nothing - high speed jets, storms. inversions, or anything else - has ever caused echoes that maneuvered like that, and we have had identical weather conditions many times."

Every controller and technician backed him up.

"Besides that," Chief Engineer J. L. McGivern told me, "there was no ground clutter either time, except the big blotch we always have at the center of the scope, where the bottom of the beam picks up the airport buildings."

Art the Weather Bureau, I found the same answer. Vaughn D. Rockne, senior radar specialist. who is familiar with inversion effects, had never seen or heard of such blips as were tracked on the two nights in question.

Dr. John Hagin. the leading radio astronomer at the Naval Research Laboratory went even further.

"Even with an extreme inversion," Dr. Hagin told me, "conditions would have to be very, very unusual to cause such effects. In my opinion, the pinpointing of blips by three radar stations, and simultaneous sighting of lights at the same points, would make it impossible."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Captain Pierman, flying a Capital airliner, had just taken off from Washington. In a few moments he radioed back that he saw a bright light where the scope showed one of the objects. At the very instant he called the Center, the object raced off at terrific speed.

"It was almost as if whatever controlled it had heard us, or had seen Pierman head toward it," said Barnes. "He said it vanished from sight in three to five seconds. But here's the important point: at that very moment, the blip disappeared from the scope.

"That means it must have raced out of our beam between ten second sweeps. It could have done this in one of two ways: First, it could make a steep climb at terrific speed, so that in ten seconds it would be above the vertical area swept by our M.E.W. set. [The beam's average altitude, at its highest point, is from 35,000 to 40,000 feet, far out, but it is much less near the airport. At 30 miles, it is about 8,500 feet, sloping to 1,200 at three miles.] Second, it could race horizontally off our 34 mile scope within ten seconds."

Considering the objects' relative position, just before they vanished, this last would require a speed of from 5,000 to 7,000 m.p.h. At the time, this seemed unbelievable to Barnes and the other controllers. But Captain Pierman later confirmed the objects' tremendous speed.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to understand the point of the display.

Assuming it was aliens, why do it? I get the "Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Childhood's End" style explanations - to get people ready for a reveal of non-terrestrial life. But it never happened. Instead I'm reminded of the sort of sabre rattling that went on (and is still going on) between terrestrial powers*, it was a display of superiority.

However, we were launching satellites and going to the moon the next decade and no other display or reaction followed. Were our actions in the late 50s and 60s calling the aliens' bluff?

There was no further display, no "buzzing" of Cape Canaveral, no "discrete observations" of the lunar craft (please, don't mention that Dulce-esque nonsense about "they're around the crater, watching") almost as if we called their bluff and they folded.

*I'm not saying it was a display of human craft, before anyone assumes that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Temperature Inversions

The official explanation for the objects seen on radars was 'temperature inversions'. UFOlogists believe that temperature inversions could have been the cause of the blips seen on radar, although highly unlikely. They also point out that this does nothing to explain the hundreds of visual sightings, both from the air and from the ground. In fact, it is apparent that Project Bluebook also discounted this explanation as the Washington DC Lights case was officially classified as 'unknown'.

Pilots also disagreed with the temperature inversions explanation and noted that they were perfectly aware of temperature inversions in the area that night (they are in fact quite common in the Washington DC area). They indicated that they never believed the lights they saw were temperature inversions and wonder why the explanation was so easily accepted by the public since it was common knowledge that the known temperature inversions were at 1000 feet and the objects they spotted were much higher, often in the 8,000 to 10,000 feet range.

Radar operators at Washington National Airport (using a Type ASR-1 radar) and Washington ARTC Center (using a MEW radar) were also skeptical of the temperature inversion theory. Radar controller Barnes stated: "Inversion blips are always recognized by experts, we are familiar with what weather conditions, flying birds, and [other] such things can cause on radar." The operators noted that temperature inversions on radar are typically weak returns and move at a slow ground speed. These blips were distinctly clear (reported as "a very good return" and "solid") and often traveled at unbelievable speeds.

http://www.spartechs...OWashington.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which helps explain why Project Bluebook did not jump into the 'inversion' bandwagon.

Continue:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vice-Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter

"Unknown objects are operating under intelligent control. It is imperative that we learn where UFOs come from and what their purpose is."

Vice-Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, First "official" DCI of the CIA.

Rear Admiral Delmer S. Fahrney

"Reliable reports indicate there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds. They way they change position would indicate their motion is directed."

Rear Admiral Delmer S. Fahrney, Foremost Navy pioneer for the development of guided missiles.

UFOs coming into our atmosphere and flying out again is what DSP satellite engineer, Ron Regehr, has told me personally.

Al Chop

Al Chop describes being present at Washington National Airport on the night in July 1952 watching on radar and hearing the communications when an Air Force F-94 pilot reported being surrounded by UFOs. He quotes the pilot as saying, "They're closing in on me! What shall I do?" Chop: "There was dead silence in the radar room; no one knew what to say. I don't mind telling you this, it scared me! It was frightening! And I think everybody in the room was very apprehensive.

They had to be intelligently controlled." His experience that night convinced him that UFOs probably were from another planet.

Al Chop; Press Chief for the U.S. Air Force in 1952

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military and intelligence officials stating that the UFOs in question are not of this earth are only the tip of the iceberg.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the 1952 Washington UFOs were not.

* Weather-related phenomena: (known or unknown; radar contact was that of a "solid" target, not the "soft" contact of natural phenomena. Weather-related phenomena does not react to an aircraft's radar lock)

* Radar glitch: (Multiple and dissimilar ground--based and airborned radars tracking the same UFO)

* Mirage, radar 'ghost angel': (Radar contact of that of a "solid" target, not "soft" and mirages are easily noted by experienced radar controllers and besides, radars have filters to take care of the problem of mirages. In 1969, an Air Force study found that it would be impossible for mirages to cause the kind of UFO incidents such as those that have taken place over Belgian and other locations around the globe).

* Celestrial bodies: (UFO captured on ground-based and airborned radar, maneuvering within the Earth's atmosphere)

* Birds: (Birds cannot fly at supersonic speed)

* Laser beam or other optical projection: ( No clouds nor other background in the sky)

* Conventional aircraft, balloons, kite, etc: (velocity and maneuverability)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion UFOs Are Space Ships

Given SAC in 1952

A 1952 evaluation of "flying saucers" as interplanetary devices, sent to Strategic Air Command Headquarters from MacDill AFB, has been disclosed to NICAP by former information Specialist Don Widener, one of the AF men concurring in this opinion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIR FORCE TIMES

August 2, 1952

F-94s Called Out To Chase

Saucers Over Washington

WASHINGTON. -- The status of the flying saucer following radar sightings over Washington and a Pentagon "saucer" conference this week is just where it was previously -- all up in the air.

Comments of high-ranking Air Force intelligence and "saucer project" officers are on the intangible side, as befits talk about phenomena on which the Air Force says no scientifically useful observations have been made.

In an effort to settle one rumor which declares that the "limitless" power which would be required for saucer propulsion could be obtained from a nuclear power plant generating electricity, The TIMES stated the theory to Maj. Gen. John A. Samford, Air Force director of intelligence.

"That's a pretty strong idea, but wait until it gets a little further along," he replied. Quizzed as to his meaning, he said that the idea is "mentally implausible."

Washington has had a flurry of sightings of unidentified objects. Around midnight on July 19 the Air Route Traffic Control Center (CAA) at Washington National Airport sighted from seven to 10 unidentified aerial objects. The radar operators said that eight were picked up in the vicinity of Andrews AFB, Md., moving at from 100 to 120 mph.

The control center notified the Air Force and also asked planes in the air if they could see anything.

Capt. S.C. Pierman, piloting Capital Airlines Flight 807, southbound from National Airport, soon reported seeing seven objects between Washington and Martinsburg, W. Va. He said they changed pace, sometimes moving at tremendous speed, at other times hanging almost motionless. He described them as "like falling stars without tails", and added:

"In all my years of flying I've seen a lot of falling or shooting stars, but these were much faster. They couldn't have been aircraft. They were moving too fast for that. They were about the same size as the brighter stars, and were much higher than our 6000 ft altitude."

Another airliner, Capital National airlines flight 610, also reported seeing a light and following it from Herndon, Va., to within four miles of Washington.

The Air Force did not send up interceptor planes that night because its own radar had not picked up the images and because the round-the-clock observer operation had not sent out warnings, officers said.

The night of July 26 at 9:08 unidentified objects were picked up by radar at National Airport. At various times four to 12 in number, the objects were seen on the radar screen until 3 a.m. Radar at Andrews AFB showed the objects from around 8:30 until midnight, and located them at approximately seven miles south of the base.

At 11:25 p.m., two F-94s from the Air Defense Command at New Castle AFB, Del., took off to investigate. One of the F-94 pilots saw four lights near Andrews, but he could not overtake them and they disappeared in two or three minutes. He also saw a steady white light 10 miles east of Mount Vernon but it faded quickly.

At 1:40 a.m., two more F-94s took off and patrolled the area until 2:20 a.m., but they saw nothing suspicious.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to reporting lights in the sky during the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents, pilots were also reporting flying saucers in the area. Could there have been a connection?

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo you've posted is indicative of what people saw over a period of multiple nights. I don't know who took that photo and as a result, I don't vouch for it.

And you would be right to not vouch for this picture Sky.. :tu: ....It is apparently the handiwork of an unknown photographer and was created in 1965. ...13 years after the event.

http://www.nicap.org...hington_dir.htm

This is the original photo...

1952_19_de_julio_b_y_n2.jpg

...and these two were enhanced to prove that the cause of the anomalous lights were in fact lens flare....

1952_19_de_julio_color2.jpg

19520719wash_proof.jpg

As far as I know, although there is testimony that there were photographs ...and film taken of the 'real thing'...there are no authentic articles to be found on the web!

....Likewise this often bandied YouTube clip "of the event" is actually a mock-up scene that was made for the Nick Cook documentary 'Secret Evidence' in 2005, and of course made it's way on to YouTube purporting to be the genuine article .....

Cheers Buddy.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you would be right to not vouch for this picture Sky.. :tu: ....It is apparently the handiwork of an unknown photographer and was created in 1965. ...13 years after the event.

http://www.nicap.org...hington_dir.htm

This is the original photo...

1952_19_de_julio_b_y_n2.jpg

...and these two were enhanced to prove that the cause of the anomalous lights were in fact lens flare....

1952_19_de_julio_color2.jpg

19520719wash_proof.jpg

As far as I know, although there is testimony that there were photographs ...and film taken of the 'real thing'...there are no authentic articles to be found on the web!

....Likewise this often bandied YouTube clip "of the event" is actually a mock-up scene that was made for the Nick Cook documentary 'Secret Evidence' in 2005, and of course made it's way on to YouTube purporting to be the genuine article .....

Cheers Buddy.

Thanks for the photos. :tu:

;

I would have liked to see photos of the objects as they were maneuvering around aircraft during those nights. In other words, the way those UFOs were interacting with aircraft indicates intelligence behind those maneuvers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky, while I can sort of understand your enthusiasm and intensely overpowering desire to swamp this thread with wall-o-text after wall-o-text of what you think is evidence.. have you never had anything at all to do with a proper investigation? Do you seriously think the best way is to randomly post reams and reams of stuff, before you have sat down to outline the structure of what needs to be done? Do you now expect me to address every single thing you have posted up above? Do you seriously have this little life, and this little experience in how analysis works?

It seems quite clear that you have utterly and completely ignored the requests I made at the beginning - namely to:

- hold back and wait while we outlined the basic facts and worked out a plan of attack

- deal with single issues properly, fully and one at a time

- keep it brief and avoid walls of text

So, as you are completely ignoring me (if you disagreed with those requests, why didn't you say so and listen to my reasons?) I think it may be best for me to put YOU on ignore so I can keep myself on track and avoid being distracted.. Of course other posters will engage with you on every new thing you throw at the fan - so you can indeed pretty much derail the thread forever, which is quite obviously your desired outcome.. I find it hard to believe that you honestly think that what you have done so far is how you set up an investigation, so it can only be a deliberate ploy.

Anyway, so be it. Burn yourself out, Sky and other UMers who think what you see above is how you get to the bottom of anything. I'm now staying out of this trainwreck for a while - have fun with throwing papers and reports around as if they were evidence, and by all means think you are achieving a result. I'm afraid the result of the sort of analysis that Sky wants to drive is the same old crud that has earnt ufologists and true believers their current status. I'm not abandoning the thread - I will be back later to continue with the CORRECT process.

But I am extremely disappointed at the complete randomness and lack of thought that has been applied to throw all of that stuff up there at the fan. I would, strangely, much prefer to go about this in a calm, reasoned, progressive and logical fashion, and to address each individual part properly - thoroughly and in sequence. Anyway, although it won't happen while this continues, we'll get there eventually - Sky just appears to want to make it much later than sooner by using distraction tactics.

Have at it Sky, go on, keep it up, post more, why not post everything you got and whatever you do, don't tell us why you picked those particular ones and how they fit into the logical, properly evidenced story... I'll be back to put it on track later, when the fan splattering stops..

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing that has been established, absolutely, is that despite the supposed furore this event elicited, no-one, anywhere, thought to take any photographs. You would think that an Observer Corps from the Military would have been all over this, with countless supporting photographic evidence.

So where does that leave us? A single discredited photograph showing a lens flare. This is not supporting evidence.

What evidence actually exists to this day? Unfortunately it is all anecdotal. As far as I am aware there were no snapshots of any of the radar displays, there were no reconnaissance aircraft deployed with cameras, and no newspaper photographers had thought to take any photographs in what would have been a real scoop.

It might be telling that in the USA 23 Science fiction films had been released between 1950 and early 1952 - could this have had a bearing on the anecdotal reports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyeagle,

You used to debate people point for point and those were interesting discussions. Remember Mental Avenger?

Lets debate again... point for point. Stop spamming tons of stuff we are not talking about participate in debate again.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chrlzs,

before you back off, what do you think of the lens flare explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we can do a little bit here.

16 links in just one post.

2 (same) links are dead links

2 links go to amazon.com showing the same book

1 link is showing a comic style graphic at the size of a stamp

2 (same) links are showing an image that is placed in the post already

1 link is showing an image that is placed in the post already

It seems you have no control about what you are posting here but it is polluting (not only) this thread.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyeagle,

You used to debate people point for point and those were interesting discussions. Remember Mental Avenger?

Yes indeed, and in fact, I was just thinking about him recently. No problem.

All too often I read from skeptics that natural phenomena explains what I have said, was no way. Don't they bother to read the reports? Case in point; pilots reported that they encountered a saucer-shaped UFO with rotating beacon lights that proceeds to maneuver around their aircraft for a period of 30 minutes, which is also captured on radar and their ELINT systems. The skeptics come back and claim the saucer-shaped UFO with the rotating beacon lights was a cloud.

The crew of an aircraft report that a group of UFOs approach and then, maneuver around their aircraft before flying off at a high rate of speed. Skeptics respond that the UFOs were the result of natural phenomena such as temperature inversion. I give priority not only to the descriptions of the objects, but the kind of maneuvers those UFOs were conducting. In other words, the UFOs in question were exhibiting intelligent maneuvers that exclude natural phenomena.

In regard to the Roswell incident, I had to disagree with your assessment and I asked you the question:

What was so technologically advanced in 1947 that compels the Air Force to continue the Roswell incident to this very day?

It is no secret that headlines carried the story that a flying sauce was captured in 1947 and that the saucer was later reported to be a weather balloon and that remains of a weather balloon rawin device was displayed in General Roger Ramey's office. In 1994, 47 years later, the Air Force said that it wasn't a weather balloon and instead, replaced its 47-year weather balloon claim with that of a Project Mogul balloon train #4, which was a balloon flight that never was.

In 1997, the Air Force claimed that the small-headed, 6-foot test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s, explains the large-headed 4-foot alien bodies people saw in 1947, which of course, was not true for obvious reasons. That brings us back to the original news story that a flying saucer was recovered, and the only story that has not been debunked with evidence. Two years later, C. B. Moore reported that he tracked a saucer over the area.

It is like this, I am well aware of the way the Air Force misleads the public because I have been there.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 links in just one post.

2 (same) links are dead links

2 links go to amazon.com showing the same book

1 link is showing a comic style graphic at the size of a stamp

2 (same) links are showing an image that is placed in the post already

1 link is showing an image that is placed in the post already

It seems you have no control about what you are posting here but it is polluting (not only) this thread.

Let' me put it this way, I have built up a large library of reports and links over the years and sometimes I will add them all together. Learning from history is what it is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky, while I can sort of understand your enthusiasm and intensely overpowering desire to swamp this thread with wall-o-text after wall-o-text of what you think is evidence

You learn from those who have been there and done that, not the other way around.

It has been posted that pilots and radar controllers reported that the UFOs over Washington D.C. in 1952 were not the result of termperature inversion and their statements are backed by scientific evidence. Let me repost an example of what I am talking about.

Temperature Inversions

The official explanation for the objects seen on radars was 'temperature inversions'. UFOlogists believe that temperature inversions could have been the cause of the blips seen on radar, although highly unlikely. They also point out that this does nothing to explain the hundreds of visual sightings, both from the air and from the ground. In fact, it is apparent that Project Bluebook also discounted this explanation as the Washington DC Lights case was officially classified as 'unknown'.

Pilots also disagreed with the temperature inversions explanation and noted that they were perfectly aware of temperature inversions in the area that night (they are in fact quite common in the Washington DC area). They indicated that they never believed the lights they saw were temperature inversions and wonder why the explanation was so easily accepted by the public since it was common knowledge that the known temperature inversions were at 1000 feet and the objects they spotted were much higher, often in the 8,000 to 10,000 feet range.

Radar operators at Washington National Airport (using a Type ASR-1 radar) and Washington ARTC Center (using a MEW radar) were also skeptical of the temperature inversion theory. Radar controller Barnes stated: "Inversion blips are always recognized by experts, we are familiar with what weather conditions, flying birds, and [other] such things can cause on radar."

The operators noted that temperature inversions on radar are typically weak returns and move at a slow ground speed. These blips were distinctly clear (reported as "a very good return" and "solid") and often traveled at unbelievable speeds.

http://www.spartechs...OWashington.htm

The fact the UFOs maneuvered around aircraft exclude temperature inversion and mirages. Question is, why do skeptics continue to push flawed logic that has been debunked by scientific evidence and by experts in their field? In some cases, unknown phenomena was thrown into the argument. That is just another way of saying they had no explanation for what was presented. Let's take a look here as an example.

July 13: 0400 EDT.

National Airlines plane en route to National Airport, about 60 mi. SW of the city observed a blue- white ball of light hovering to the west. Object then "came up to 11,000 ft. [and] then maintained a parallel course, on the same level, at the same speed, until the aircraft pilot turned on all lights. Object then departed from the vicinity at an estimated 1000 m.p.h. Weather was excellent for observation." The crew said the object "took off up and away." No other air traffic was reported in the area at the time.

Air Force Intelligence Report

Question: How does the UFO translate into a mirage, temperature inversion or a ghost angel on radar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed, and in fact, I was just thinking about him recently. No problem.

All too often I read from skeptics that natural phenomena explains what I have said, was no way. Don't they bother to read the reports? Case in point; pilots reported that they encountered a saucer-shaped UFO with rotating beacon lights that proceeds to maneuver around their aircraft for a period of 30 minutes, which is also captured on radar and their ELINT systems. The skeptics come back and claim the saucer-shaped UFO with the rotating beacon lights was a cloud.

The crew of an aircraft report that a group of UFOs approach and then, maneuver around their aircraft before flying off at a high rate of speed. Skeptics respond that the UFOs were the result of natural phenomena such as temperature inversion. I give priority not only to the descriptions of the objects, but the kind of maneuvers those UFOs were conducting. In other words, the UFOs in question were exhibiting intelligent maneuvers that exclude natural phenomena.

In regard to the Roswell incident, I had to disagree with your assessment and I asked you the question:

What was so technologically advanced in 1947 that compels the Air Force to continue the Roswell incident to this very day?

It is no secret that headlines carried the story that a flying sauce was captured in 1947 and that the saucer was later reported to be a weather balloon and that remains of a weather balloon rawin device was displayed in General Roger Ramey's office. In 1994, 47 years later, the Air Force said that it wasn't a weather balloon and instead, replaced its 47-year weather balloon claim with that of a Project Mogul balloon train #4, which was a balloon flight that never was.

In 1997, the Air Force claimed that the small-headed, 6-foot test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s, explains the large-headed 4-foot alien bodies people saw in 1947, which of course, was not true for obvious reasons. That brings us back to the original news story that a flying saucer was recovered, and the only story that has not been debunked with evidence. Two years later, C. B. Moore reported that he tracked a saucer over the area.

It is like this, I am well aware of the way the Air Force misleads the public because I have been there.

Question: What the heck does this have to do with reported 1952 visitation? Nothing... please keep on track and on - topic and reply to my earlier post. There is NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THIS EVER OCURRED

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: What the heck does this have to do with reported 1952 visitation? Nothing... please keep on track and on - topic and reply to my earlier post. There is NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THIS EVER OCURRED

It paints a picture of the way the Air Force has been doing business over the decades in regard to its UFO disinformation campaign. In 1947, it said a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident and in 1952, it said that temperature inversion was responsible for the Washington D.C. incident, which in both cases, are known lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chrlzs,

before you back off, what do you think of the lens flare explanation?

It's as much speculation as if someone said it was alien craft. Mystery Unsolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.