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

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

Lens flare is a known photography effect. If it's speculation, as far as the photo inquestion, at least it's based on a known effect that has been duplicated under various conditions. This means that lens flare is a plausible area of inquiry.

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

Lens flare is a known photography effect. If it's speculation, as far as the photo inquestion, at least it's based on a known effect that has been duplicated under various conditions. This means that lens flare is a plausible area of inquiry.

Yes plausible but unproven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes plausible but unproven.

Unproven concerning the proposed effects on the photo? Or, an unproven photographic effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hawkins, a followup, if you will. I'm assuming that you meant lens flare concerning the photo. So, if that is true that one cannot prove that lens flaring caused the visual effect, then conversely, can we equally say that the photo does not prove that the visual effects are UFOs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Absolutely nothing.

Now, I contend that what happened at Roswell was the most epic piece of misdirection in the history of "LOOK OVER THERE! *runs in other direction*" flim-flummery and sleight of hand.

You have a c***-up, something that you've been ready for for ages now the plan kicks into gear.

Step 1 - you have the innocent rubes - the Martell family.

Step 2 - you have the "surprise leak" - "it were aliens" followed very closely by ...

Step 3 - the denial with just enough evidence to look and sound believable but also leave the door open for questions - "it wasn't aliens, it was a weather balloon".

Step 4 - Let human nature run it's course.

Step 5 - Deny Deny Deny.

Step 6 - Add fuel to the fire that's gloriously over-the-top (baby sized coffins, off-site photographers, leaked autopsy footage etc) so as to make the story even less believable but more attractive to the sort of people who might actually go out and film genuine UFOs - thus you control the language used to describe aliens and you control the context in which they're discussed.

Voila, you have the perfect exercise in discrediting and misdirection. You now don't need to worry about a genuine encounter ending up in the press and having the hurry to cover it up, as you've stage managed one from start to finish where you can now go "ohh yes, aliens. just like at Roswell" *nod* *nod* get the person roundly ignored.

Add to this "Area 51" which is the SECOND most stunning exercise in mass distraction. You make it just so impressive - it's BIG, it's secluded, the only way for staff to get there is fly. You control every aspect of the staff's lives. You put up big signs saying "tresspassers will be shot" and shoot at the signs. You Put out word via your friends in UFO circles that "things" have been seen there. You make up stories. You let stories be made up. You invent Bob Lazar. Every so often, you tell the world what you are genuinely doing there, but in such a way as to imply that there's other stuff going on. And the end result is everyone is looking at Area 51 and ignoring Areas 1 through 50.

We are witnessing the most professional and perfect piece of misdirection in the history of the world when it comes to Roswell and Area 51.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing.

Now, I contend that what happened at Roswell was the most epic piece of misdirection in the history of "LOOK OVER THERE! *runs in other direction*" flim-flummery and sleight of hand.

You have a c***-up, something that you've been ready for for ages now the plan kicks into gear.

Step 1 - you have the innocent rubes - the Martell family.

Step 2 - you have the "surprise leak" - "it were aliens" followed very closely by ...

Step 3 - the denial with just enough evidence to look and sound believable but also leave the door open for questions - "it wasn't aliens, it was a weather balloon".

Step 4 - Let human nature run it's course.

Step 5 - Deny Deny Deny.

Step 6 - Add fuel to the fire that's gloriously over-the-top (baby sized coffins, off-site photographers, leaked autopsy footage etc) so as to make the story even less believable but more attractive to the sort of people who might actually go out and film genuine UFOs - thus you control the language used to describe aliens and you control the context in which they're discussed.

Voila, you have the perfect exercise in discrediting and misdirection. You now don't need to worry about a genuine encounter ending up in the press and having the hurry to cover it up, as you've stage managed one from start to finish where you can now go "ohh yes, aliens. just like at Roswell" *nod* *nod* get the person roundly ignored.

Add to this "Area 51" which is the SECOND most stunning exercise in mass distraction. You make it just so impressive - it's BIG, it's secluded, the only way for staff to get there is fly. You control every aspect of the staff's lives. You put up big signs saying "tresspassers will be shot" and shoot at the signs. You Put out word via your friends in UFO circles that "things" have been seen there. You make up stories. You let stories be made up. You invent Bob Lazar. Every so often, you tell the world what you are genuinely doing there, but in such a way as to imply that there's other stuff going on. And the end result is everyone is looking at Area 51 and ignoring Areas 1 through 50.

We are witnessing the most professional and perfect piece of misdirection in the history of the world when it comes to Roswell and Area 51.

I like it, I don't buy it because it assumes an elevated level of competency and secrecy, but I like it none the less. :tu:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it, I don't buy it because it assumes an elevated level of competency and secrecy, but I like it none the less. :tu:

You only have to have ONE secret as long as it's the right one ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing.

Now, I contend that what happened at Roswell was the most epic piece of misdirection in the history of "LOOK OVER THERE! *runs in other direction*" flim-flummery and sleight of hand.

You have a c***-up, something that you've been ready for for ages now the plan kicks into gear.

Step 1 - you have the innocent rubes - the Martell family.

Step 2 - you have the "surprise leak" - "it were aliens" followed very closely by ...

Step 3 - the denial with just enough evidence to look and sound believable but also leave the door open for questions - "it wasn't aliens, it was a weather balloon".

Step 4 - Let human nature run it's course.

Step 5 - Deny Deny Deny.

Step 6 - Add fuel to the fire that's gloriously over-the-top (baby sized coffins, off-site photographers, leaked autopsy footage etc) so as to make the story even less believable but more attractive to the sort of people who might actually go out and film genuine UFOs - thus you control the language used to describe aliens and you control the context in which they're discussed.

Voila, you have the perfect exercise in discrediting and misdirection. You now don't need to worry about a genuine encounter ending up in the press and having the hurry to cover it up, as you've stage managed one from start to finish where you can now go "ohh yes, aliens. just like at Roswell" *nod* *nod* get the person roundly ignored.

The weather balloon story is not valid and never was, but the 47-year old weather balloon story was eventually replaced by the Air Force with a Project Mogul balloon train #4 flight that never was, and it is all there in the original balloon records, which for some reason, the Air Force had somehow overlooked, or did it?!

Amazingly, it was the AIR FORCE that supplied me with the information that there was no such thing as a Project Mogul balloon train flight #4 on June 4, 1947 because according to balloon records, that balloon flight was cancelled on June 4, 1947 due to clouds and yet, the Air Force managed to dupe a group of people into believing that a Project Mogul balloon train #4 flight occurred despite the records proving otherwise. Simply amazing!!

Add to this "Area 51" which is the SECOND most stunning exercise in mass distraction.

You make it just so impressive - it's BIG, it's secluded, the only way for staff to get there is fly. You control every aspect of the staff's lives. You put up big signs saying "tresspassers will be shot" and shoot at the signs. You Put out word via your friends in UFO circles that "things" have been seen there. You make up stories. You let stories be made up. You invent Bob Lazar. Every so often, you tell the world what you are genuinely doing there, but in such a way as to imply that there's other stuff going on. And the end result is everyone is looking at Area 51 and ignoring Areas 1 through 50.

I like Area 51 and know that it is used as a testing base. In fact, I have been called in from time to time by the Air Force OSI for interviews to vouch for my compatriots who were tagged to receive orders for assignment to secret bases. Believe me, I know much more than I have revealed, however, I am not advocating that alien beings are currently being held at Area 51.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Area 51 and know that it is used as a testing base. In fact, I have been called in from time to time by the Air Force OSI for interviews to vouch for my compatriots who were tagged to receive orders for assignment to secret bases. Believe me, I know much more than I have revealed, however, I am not advocating that alien beings are currently being held at Area 51.

Yes, Area 51 is a testing base, thanks for clearing that up! Of course aliens are not held at Area 51, the folklore states that they were ship off (on ice) to Wright-Patterson stored on some shelf in a non-descript building. However, the late Dr. Bushman had aliens on the government payroll working side by side with our personnel at Area 51, no doubt with government benefits to boot!

What a bummer...I was hoping to see a little action on the Wash. DC event of 1952.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weather balloon story is not valid and never was

That's my point.

It's JUST believable enough to make people looking for an easy, terrestrial "out" happy. But just not believable enough to satisfy people who dig a little deeper, fanning forever the flames of the mystery - THEIR mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point.

It's JUST believable enough to make people looking for an easy, terrestrial "out" happy. But just not believable enough to satisfy people who dig a little deeper, fanning forever the flames of the mystery - THEIR mystery.

I am sure that people were surprised when the Air Force threw in test dummies and accident victims in its 1997 Roswell Report after trashing its weather balloon story three years earlier and that makes me wonder what is next on the Air Force's Roswell list of explanations.

In regard to the 1952 Washington D.C. incidents, pilots and radar experts knew all along that the Air Force was mistaken (lied) when it said that temperature inversion was responsible.However, those who are not familiar with temperature inversion had taken the Air Force's explanation as factural when in fact, the Air Force's explanation was false because the objects were actually nteracting with aircraft. Here is an example.

At one point, as an F-94 moved on targets ten miles away, the UFOs turned the tables and darted en masse toward the interceptor, surrounding it in seconds. The badly shaken pilot, Lt. William Patterson, radioed Andrews AFB to ask if he should open fire. The answer, according to Albert M. Chop, a civilian working as a press spokesperson for the Air Force who was present, was "stunned silence. . . . After a tense moment, the UFOs pulled away and left the scene."

That is not indicative of 'ghost angels' on radar screens nor mirages. In other words, there was intelligence behind their maneuvers.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it, I don't buy it because it assumes an elevated level of competency and secrecy, but I like it none the less. :tu:

Or a monumental act of self-deception, as you justly suspect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that people were surprised when the Air Force threw in test dummies and accident victims in its 1997 Roswell Report after trashing its weather balloon story three years earlier and that makes me wonder what is next on the Air Force's Roswell list of explanations.

In regard to the 1952 Washington D.C. incidents, pilots and radar experts knew all along that the Air Force was mistaken (lied) when it said that temperature inversion was responsible.However, those who are not familiar with temperature inversion had taken the Air Force's explanation as factural when in fact, the Air Force's explanation was false because the objects were actually nteracting with aircraft. Here is an example.

At one point, as an F-94 moved on targets ten miles away, the UFOs turned the tables and darted en masse toward the interceptor, surrounding it in seconds. The badly shaken pilot, Lt. William Patterson, radioed Andrews AFB to ask if he should open fire. The answer, according to Albert M. Chop, a civilian working as a press spokesperson for the Air Force who was present, was "stunned silence. . . . After a tense moment, the UFOs pulled away and left the scene."

That is not indicative of 'ghost angels' on radar screens nor mirages. In other words, there was intelligence behind their maneuvers.

You can come up with all the situations you like, all the mysteries you can except at the end of the day we always come back to Roswell. Why Roswell?

Because it's perfect. It's wild, and wooly and full of holes. It's a beautiful mystery. But it's too full of holes. How often does the government come out and put ANOTHER hole in it? Not people like you. Not people like me. The government comes along and puts another hole in the official story. Or someone connected to the government like a military officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can come up with all the situations you like,...

I deal only in facts.

...all the mysteries you can except at the end of the day we always come back to Roswell. Why Roswell?

Okay, we can communicate about Roswell on the Roswell thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deal only in facts.

No.

You and I deal in speculation and hypothesis. FACT implies EVIDENCE, of which you have none. Statements no matter how cleverly interpreted are not evidence. Mysterious phenomena and events are not evidence. The former is the baseless no matter how well placed the speaker without evidence and the later the mystery we're labouring to unfold. You cannot say "aliens exist" because unexplained things happen. You can make a hypothesis that aliens are responsible for those unexplained phenomena but that is not evidence. It is not fact. My "shell game" hypothesis is not fact. There are staggeringly few facts n these cases. We cannot even agree that they happened let alone that your explantion for them is fact.

Were there lights above Washington?

You say "yes". Others say "no". Where are the facts in the case? That it happened? Was I there? Were you there? We have a photo. That is a nice piece of evidence, it's a perfect piece of evidence, we can analyse it. We can dissect it. We can track it back to the moment it was taken. Sadly it's not evidence for your case alone. It doesn't convince people to your argument alone, as it can equally be used to convince to the other side.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I deal in speculation and hypothesis.

I deal only in facts. I am also aware of temperature inversion and its affects. In fact, most recently, military ATC personnel were invited to do a presentation before my chapter, which I head as president. My chapter consist of military pilots, commercial pilots, private pilots, instructor pilots, student pilots and sport pilots, FAA inspectors, military and civilian maintenance personnel, military and civilian retirees. I also head another chapter on the local airbase.

ATC personnel know what radar depicts on their scopes and radars also have filters. Radar experts can also identify birds on their scopes and know the difference between 'ghost angels' and artificial objects.

Let's do an example of what I mean. Close your eyes and have someone throw a brick at a wall. Now, have someone throw a rubble ball at the same wall and see if you notice the difference in sound as those two objects strike the wall.

Were there lights above Washington?

Not just lights, but flying saucers as well. Read the reports.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deal only in facts.

Oh forgive me for this, but I think it's very clear from the last few pages of $#@!-scattering, mostly unsupported, that the only response to that is: Bwahahahaaahahah....

Anyway, despite what has transpired above, I'd like to continue, but I will clearly have to take one obvious step before proceeding with a REAL analysis. Sky, you are now on MY ignore list. The thread looks so much healthier now, and no more ridiculous scattergunned walls of text. Well, except where people have quoted him - please folks, can you keep the amount you quote as short as possible (no matter who you are replying to)? Thanks.

Now, later on, as we move through a PROPER analysis, I will selectively check thru Sky's reams of postings. Looking for anything I might have missed. Anything that IS FACTUAL, CHECKABLE and VERIFIABLE.

Not anecdotal reports from Sky's secwut high level 'friends', imaginary, unnamed or otherwise.

Not media reports, unless the original evidence is available, be that radar raw data or other tangible and checkable facts.

Not testimonies, unless the original evidence is available or properly corroborated as above.

Not even military reports, again unless the facts are verifiable - indeed, PARTICULARLY not unsupported military reports - these are the people who were HIGHLY motivated to exaggerate threats of any kind to ensure extra funding, better aircraft, better weaponry and detection systems, as well as justify maneuvers and weaponry use normally not allowed in peacetime.

Observant readers will note that despite me raising this issue many times, Sky won't go near it with a ten foot pole. But that elephant is still there, and it shows just how gullible you have to be to simply blindly accept the crud being thrown about.

Before continuing, I would AGAIN remind readers that almost all of these reports and incidents happened back in the 40's thru 70's. What was different back then? Let me muse on a few things - bear in mind I won't be using these during the analysis, but keep 'em in mind anyway...

- we were a very naive and easily fooled civilisation - many, many more people believed in ufo's being aliens, including high ranking military officers. It was an easy solution to anything they didn't understand, or for the less moral issues I mentioned above

- ufos=aliens was a really hot topic for film makers and story writers

- it was much, much easier for complete loonies to climb the military ladder and achieve quite high rankings (do you need examples?? :D), and of course we didn't understand how stress affects people back then as we do now, so more people would go loopy while in their jobs, and be allowed to stay there.. In this case, the loopiness could work in the military's favour, of course...

- nowadays we have extraordinarily powerful detection and recording systems, with much longer ranges, higher magnifications, etc, etc. and yet do we get any better sightings? Nah. Gee, could that be because everything is much easier to identify and pilots now know they can't fake it or just make up convenient stories in the full knowledge that their compatriots on the ground may well be able to twist things and back them up... No, of course not. Unthinkable (to Sky at least).

Anyways, in case you were wondering, I haven't abandoned the topic.. but be patient, my time here is a bit limited.

One quick side issue - I was very happy to see Tim Hebert pop in up above - please stick around Tim!!! I'd love to hear your comments and suggestions on how best to go through it, and also input on any aspect is much appreciated.. Tim, out of interest, are any cases left that leave you scratching your head? This one was Sky's favorite, which I found surprising - do you have one that might need a new look? Not that I suspect there is more 'evidence' hidden away yet to be uncovered, but ... well, what else do we have to talk about, given the lack of recent sightings? :D

Getting back to the topic, my intention is to now look at the timeline of events, to get a better picture of where we are headed and what we need to look at.

Unlike Sky's long-winded attempt way back on page 1... mine will be very short and to the point. We will flesh things out LATER and look at each event/sighting in proper detail by finding out what is verifiable and FACTUAL. That's the only way to go, right, Sky? :)

Oh, one other thing, for Quillius and others.. As I thought I made pretty clear in my very first post and has been pointed out by others, that image I posted is NOT a genuine image from this series of events. Apart from the fact that it seems to have been taken much later, it also most definitely shows a very simple lens flare effect as was demonstrated by 1963's excellent post here. There is another debunk of this image using a slightly different approach elsewhere on the web, and I'm even happy to go through a fully repeatable proof so that ANYONE can check for themselves that those lights are an internal reflection of the lights towards the lower part of the building. However, as that image has nothing to do with the events (other than being the one always shown when it comes up, which sorta reflects the pitiful state of ufology..) rather than clutter this thread even more (that's Sky's job, clearly) I'll set up another thread later and go through it in verifiable detail.

Yep, Verifiable Details. Real Facts. Real Evidence. Stuff that can be checked and verified... That's what this thread was supposed to be about...........

And remember that earlier, Sky told us that's all he ever deals in... Readers can judge for themselves on how well he's doing. Perhaps you too may prefer to use your ignore function...

Back soon with the timeline..

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

Oh, one other thing, for Quillius and others.. As I thought I made pretty clear in my very first post and has been pointed out by others, that image I posted is NOT a genuine image from this series of events.

Hi Chrlzs,

maybe I got the wrong end of the stick on this, you did make it clear and the photo/lens flare I was alluding to was from 1963's post.....?

will go back and re-read thread as I really did think we had different photos posted, with 1963's being the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're both wrong.

ChrLzs there were objects.

I'm amazed by your telepathy. Where did I say there weren't 'objects'? I haven't even started the analysis....

I guess you must be Sky's target audience.. Anyway, next time, please quote the bit you wish to dispute - that way you could avoid making assumptions.

Skyeagle409 it's not aliens buddy.

This I agree with, but more on that later.. At the moment I'm just handwaving.. :)

Quillius, I'm pretty sure you will find that both my image and the one 1963 posted, are simply different scans/copies off the same image. Mine, which is the cropped one most commonly posted, has been cropped deliberately (imo) to ensure that the reflection issue was not obvious... There are other similar images on the web that show the same affect, but taken by different photographer/s - you will see that the reflections in them are in a slightly different orientation. Forgive me for not posting examples, but I'd rather deal with this on another thread, as it really isn't germane to the events at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A decade or so ago when looking at this event, I never even came across that photograph.

Maybe its a bit overly zealous to assume stock photos from relatively recent videos are the corner stones of certain events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quillius, I'm pretty sure you will find that both my image and the one 1963 posted, are simply different scans/copies off the same image. Mine, which is the cropped one most commonly posted, has been cropped deliberately (imo) to ensure that the reflection issue was not obvious... There are other similar images on the web that show the same affect, but taken by different photographer/s - you will see that the reflections in them are in a slightly different orientation. Forgive me for not posting examples, but I'd rather deal with this on another thread, as it really isn't germane to the events at hand.

ok thanks, so to confirm as far as we are aware there is no authentic photograph of this event from 1952?

LS, hope you are well. When you looked into this 10 years ago did you come across any photo from the time?

edit to add: if there is no photo then how do we get lens flare as an answer????

Edited by quillius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

edit to add: if there is no photo then how do we get lens flare as an answer????

Hi mate - regardless of which photo you use you get the same reflections from the lamps that's visible in the wider (full) shot.

I assume this is the image you are referring too:

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

Hi mate - regardless of which photo you use you get the same reflections from the lamps that's visible in the wider (full) shot.

I assume this is the image you are referring too:

cheers mate, ok I think I now get it, there did exist an original photo and its from this photo the analysis concluded lens flare.

makes sense now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheers mate, ok I think I now get it, there did exist an original photo and its from this photo the analysis concluded lens flare.

makes sense now

Its a "stock" photo from who knows were... but if its associated with the 1952 events, it was not just a decade ago.

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.