Washington 1952 UFO Incidents - Evidence?

[toast]

There are some vids on YT where its claimed to be original footages like this one:

[media=]

[/media]

As the arrangement of the (eleven) dots in these vids is identical with the arrangement in the foto showing the

lens flares, these faked vids are not of any investigative value and can be taken to the rubbish bin as well.

Edited November 27, 2014 by toast

[lost_shaman]

As the arrangement of the (eleven) dots in these vids is identical with the arrangement in the foto showing the

lens flares, these faked vids are not of any investigative value and can be taken to the rubbish bin as well.

Only if your a YouTube video expert. Otherwise its a YouTube vid! What more evidence do you need?

[toast]

Only if your a YouTube video expert. Otherwise its a YouTube vid! What more evidence do you need?

Well yes but as this (good) thread is about an investigation on the DCA events a lot of clean ups are required to

get a kind of concentrate to look into the events without getting polluted by tons of faked (YT) clips. Ok, might be

wishfull thinking, but anyway.

[Use your brain]

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.

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.

You are too funny. Yes obviously I'm Sky's target audience by not agreeing with him, you caught me. Maybe you should make a 5 page post debating the conspiracy we have to throw you off your game.

There were crafts, they weren't aliens, do we really need to go further with this given the evidence?

Edited November 27, 2014 by Use your brain

[lost_shaman]

Well yes but as this (good) thread is about an investigation on the DCA events a lot of clean ups are required to

get a kind of concentrate to look into the events without getting polluted by tons of faked (YT) clips. Ok, might be

wishfull thinking, but anyway.

Its not the first time you will have to ignore non evidence to focus on the truth.

[Nnicolette]

Lol this discussion would be more interesting if the same rules applied to the topic starter as opposed to just anybody else who tries to comment

[lost_shaman]

Lol this discussion would be more interesting if the same rules applied to the topic starter as opposed to just anybody else who tries to comment

But that wouldn't be a discussion.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

There were crafts, they weren't aliens, do we really need to go further with this given the evidence?

If they were craft and not from an non-terrestrial intelligence where were they from?

[+Hammerclaw]

Ray Harryhausen.

[ChrLzs]

Lol this discussion would be more interesting if the same rules applied to the topic starter as opposed to just anybody else who tries to comment

I'll be delighted to improve - but can you be specific? Which 'rules' am I breaking, specifically? Are they forum rules (if so, report me), or are they the suggestions I have made to try to keep the thread focused and not overwhelmed by Gish Galloping walls-of-text?

I'd really appreciate your feedback and will try to address it. As it is, I'm not sure what the problem is, so help me understand..

Anyway, on to the timeline discussions.... refer next post..

[Use your brain]

If they were craft and not from an non-terrestrial intelligence where were they from?

Why are you so sure they were non-terrestrial?

This is around the time we were testing things such as the SR-71 Blackbird, and who knows what else that ended up getting scrapped. All thanks to our newly found army of German scientists working with ours.

Now what would someone from 1952 think if they saw something like that after having never seen anything remotely close to that. Heck we may have thought they were non-terrestrial too.

Seeing all of the technology we have these days, can we please start giving humans more credit?

[ChrLzs]

OK, I'd like to start with a very brief summary of the major 'events' that are claimed in most discussions about the Washington DC 1952 case.

Here they are:

July 19, 1952

At ~11:40pm Edward Nugent, Air Traffic Controller (ATC) at Washington National Airport (WNA) reports 7 objects on radar where no aircraft were known to be. Andrews Air Force Base (AAFB) initially reported no similar objects on their radar, but a couple of airmen report 'a strange object' that was meteor-like, and later AAFB reported various radar returns.

July 20, 1952

There were other anomalous radar returns reported up until about 5:30am, and another report near sunrise of "five huge disks circling in a loose formation."

July 26, 1952

A pilot and stewardess on a National Airlines flight reported "strange lights" above the aircraft. The radar centres at WNA and AAFB also reported unknown objects at the time and an AAFB staffer reported a visual sighting. At WNA at ~9:30pm, reporters were denied access to the radar screens - they wished to photograph the screens but the requests were denied, despite the radars allegedly showing many anomalous returns. At 11:30pm, 2 jet fighters near WNA were asked to look for any visible objects - one pilot saw nothing, the other reported seeing 'four white glows' and chased them. He claims they surrounded his aircraft but then vanished.

July 27, 1952

Two military officers working for Project Blue Book spent time at WNA examining further radar returns. There was some debate about whether the returns were objects or known 'false returns' caused by weather conditions and/or other issues. Two more military aircraft were asked to search, and again, one pilot saw nothing, the other saw a white light which vanished when he tried to pursue it. An airline pilot reported 'odd lights' visible for about 12 minutes. All sightings and radar returns ended by sunrise.

Now, Sky's list was much longer than that, and it also spanned a period from much earlier in July, and then much later... I'll be happy to add some of his stuff in there if it can be shown to be verifiable. But at some point we need to draw a line in the sand about the timeframe, and we also need to discard any claims that have absolutely no provenance whatsoever. So my list above is very deliberately 'truncated' and I would now invite objections! If you feel there is a need to expand the time frame, feel free. If you feel I've left out some absolutely vital reports/sightings/claims, again, feel free. But please note - if you wish to add to the timeline, please give the appropriate cite or reference showing that the claim is supportable with real evidence - please remember we are searching for that which can be supported and verified. FACTS not anecdotes...

Edited November 27, 2014 by ChrLzs

[lost_shaman]

Why are you so sure they were non-terrestrial?

This is around the time we were testing things such as the SR-71 Blackbird, and who knows what else that ended up getting scrapped. All thanks to our newly found army of German scientists working with ours.

Now what would someone from 1952 think if they saw something like that after having never seen anything remotely close to that. Heck we may have thought they were non-terrestrial too.

Seeing all of the technology we have these days, can we please start giving humans more credit?

You mean to say all those ignorant people who lived in 1952 couldn't recognize an SR-71 Blackbird as an aircraft?

Forget the fact that the Blackbird didn't exist...

A YB-49 did fly right over Pennsylvania Ave. in 1952, but the ignorant people didn't think it was Aliens!

Now what was your point about giving people credit? I think you fell flat on your face there since you don't really have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Edited November 28, 2014 by lost_shaman

[Use your brain]

You mean to say all those ignorant people who lived in 1952 couldn't recognize an SR-71 Blackbird as an aircraft?

Forget the fact that the Blackbird didn't exist...

A YB-49 did fly right over Pennsylvania Ave. in 1952, but the ignorant people didn't think it was Aliens!

Now what was your point about giving people credit? I think you fell flat on your face there since you don't really have a clue as to what you are talking about.

How many ufo reports were filed when they were testing stealth bombers... also the Blackbird was officially put in use in the 60s. Do you honestly think they just started using something like that without years of trials and error? Like they just said " oh yes sir this incredible new kind of aircraft will fly just fine sir no need to test it, scouts honor. "

Also who knows what other things they tried to make that failed horribly in testing. But yea aliens make way more sense. God I hate this planet.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Use your brain

[toast]

Why are you so sure they were non-terrestrial?

Read the post he responded to first. He never stated the objects were non-terrestrial.

[Use your brain]

Read the post he responded to first. He never stated the objects were non-terrestrial.

Yea I thought he just worded that wrong. I was trying to make it pretty obvious that I was saying they were human made.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Use your brain

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Yea I thought he just worded that wrong. I was trying to make it pretty obvious that I was saying they were human made.

And I'm asking "made by whom?".

[skyeagle409]

A YB-49 did fly right over Pennsylvania Ave. in 1952, but the ignorant people didn't think it was Aliens!

You are correct and I wish to post this photo.

[lost_shaman]

You are correct and I wish to post this photo.

OMGz! Never seen that at the local airport before! Must be Alienz!!!

[ChrLzs]

Before fleshing out the events with more detail, and then having a good long hard look at what we can verify and also at the assumptions and issues that might be important in any proper analysis of same, here's a few links I will be using as we go forth.. I'm not saying that these are full of accurate and verifiable information, just that they provide a starting point. As we deal with each one, I think it will become clear what can be relied upon and what cannot. These links are not my entire library (I even have some .. gasp.. books and published articles!!!), but one should always keep some stuff up one's sleeve, methinks... Besides, brevity is the soul of .. something or other..

Wikipedia - 1952 Washington, D.C.UFO incident

Washington Post - The Month That ET Came to DC

UFO Casebook - Washington 1952 Case

Alien-UFO-Research - UFOs Over Washington DC 1952 (teehee)

The Report on Unidentified Objects (Edward J. Ruppelt)

Project Bluebook Archive (searchable transcript, some of the OCR is a bit wobbly, but a very useful reference)

and for a little stuff that is maybe not directly relevant but very much worth a bit of thought...

CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 (PDF file, and an interesting take.. )

UFOCritique - UFOs, Social Intelligence, and the Condon Committee (PDF file, and a long but fascinating look at the psychology of ufology - note that it is 'just' a thesis, but even so - wow..!)

I'll be happy to be informed of other links that serve as useful references, but only if they contain verifiable references, eg official transcripts, scans of original documents, verifiable images, etc.

No more walls of text and newspaper reporter's testimonials... yes, I know that sort of stuff is always 100% reliable... but let's leave it out for the moment... )

PS - Nnicolette - I see you have returned to the forum several times, but have decided to not back up your words and explain why you think I'm not following my own 'rules'? You thought it was important enough to post, but not enough to discuss and explain? I guess I can only respond by saying ... LOL. Which is what all serious posters start off with...

[skyeagle409]

I'll be happy to be informed of other links that serve as useful references, but only if they contain verifiable references, eg official transcripts, scans of original documents, verifiable images, etc.

No more walls of text and newspaper reporter's testimonials... yes, I know that sort of stuff is always 100% reliable... but let's leave it out for the moment... )

Well, you can go to your local library and start pulling out microfilms for publication editions from August 1952 to October 1952 and see what you can find. I will give you a start with Life magazine, August 4, 1952, Pages 39-40.

[Nnicolette]

PS - Nnicolette - I see you have returned to the forum several times, but have decided to not back up your words and explain why you think I'm not following my own 'rules'? You thought it was important enough to post, but not enough to discuss and explain? I guess I can only respond by saying ... LOL. Which is what all serious posters start off with...

Actually this is the first time I've checked back here its kinda creepy that you think you know what I looked at... And also I was referring to the fact that I opened this thread with interest but lost it after reading all your strictly enforced rules to debators that you didn't even attempt to follow yourself that is hardly a fair or worthwhile argument.

[S2F]

Actually this is the first time I've checked back here its kinda creepy that you think you know what I looked at... And also I was referring to the fact that I opened this thread with interest but lost it after reading all your strictly enforced rules to debators that you didn't even attempt to follow yourself that is hardly a fair or worthwhile argument.

Personally I see nothing wrong with the rules proposed by ChrLzs. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have a critical look at any verifiable evidence for a case to the exclusion of anecdotes in order to get as factual a 'picture' as possible. Anecdotes only serve to muddy the waters, they are the morass that we need to wade through to find actual evidence. It makes sense to limit or eliminate them whenever possible.

BTW I noticed you still haven't pointed out where ChrLzs has skirted his own rules.

[ChrLzs]

Actually this is the first time I've checked back here its kinda creepy that you think you know what I looked at..

Yeah, totally creepy that you can just hover your mouse over ANYONE's avatar and see their latest activity. I saw that you had been at the forum at least twice, but had not bothered to follow up on your claim. Terrifying stuff.... I think it's pretty crappy when people make claims - especially when criticisms are personally directed - but then when asked to back up such criticism avoid the topic completely, try to change the subject, and hope that people will forget what they said.

Not going to happen. Here's what you said (with my emphasis), and here's where you said it:

Lol this discussion would be more interesting if the same rules applied to the topic starter as opposed to just anybody else who tries to comment

Now at this point in time, you have a several options:

1. Back up the claim - point out where I 'set rules' (I did offer suggestions and make polite, sensible requests - is there a forum rule against that?) Or do you disagree with my suggestions? - please elaborate. At the same time, tell me how I have breached those suggestions?

2. Run away (again) and pretend to ignore that you said it.

3. Apologise.

4. Tell us someone hijacked your account. (I suggest you talk to the moderators and change your passwords..)

5. Tell us you were under the influence of ... (insert favorite here). (Refer back to point 3.)

6. Do anything you please - after all, I don't set the rules here, right?

So, knock yourself out, but please try to stick to the topic and improving the ontopic content of this discussion (see below for example). At this point I am struggling to see what you have added to the thread topic... Getting back to that topic now -

To Skyeagle, who had (and still has) the option of really contributing something, ANYTHING to this thread that is actual evidence and not hearsay or anecdotes or newspaper reports, may I ask three simple questions... In that Life article (Hi Marilyn!!):

1. Did the USAF directly state that aliens were responsible for any of the 1952 incidents? If so, which one/s and on what evidentiary basis?

2. If they DIDN'T say that, who did? And in what way would that person's opinion be 'evidence'?

3. Why are you unwilling to simply point at the VERY BEST EVIDENCE? The ONE thing that is the deal breaker, that shows definitively that a particular UFO event was a 100% result of extra-terrestrial intelligence. (I'm rashly assuming this Life article isn't it...)

And Skyeagle, why would I go to my local library for that one, when it can be found here:

http://books.google.... 7 1952&f=false

That's the Contents page, interested readers can use the page selector at top right to go to page 101 (oops that's Marilyn Monroe, sorry, got distracted) page 80 and read it for yourselves. Does anyone else see definitive evidence? Sure, there's lots of the anecdotes and fluff that Skyeagle and equally credulous folks get all excited about... but evidence? There's nary a picture of a radar screen, let alone a decent analysis of radar technology of that era..........

Anyone? Frankly, I think these scattergunned out-of-sequence links and 'references' are simply designed to Gish Gallop away from a proper analysis.. they certainly suggest that the person posting them has never actually been involved in a real investigation before.

Anyway, I shall take Sky's silence on the timeline as an indication that he agrees with my choice (July 19, 1952, 11:40pm Edward Nugent) as the first 'worthy' event to look at in detail.... I'll be back later to begin that process. (Yes, it's slow and painful, but we'll get there..)

And I still await, ever patiently, Sky's choice of ONE SINGLE EVENT that is properly documented and evidenced, and clearly is only explainable by alien intelligence. Not holding my breath.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

How many ufo reports were filed when they were testing stealth bombers... also the Blackbird was officially put in use in the 60s. Do you honestly think they just started using something like that without years of trials and error? Like they just said " oh yes sir this incredible new kind of aircraft will fly just fine sir no need to test it, scouts honor. "

Also who knows what other things they tried to make that failed horribly in testing. But yea aliens make way more sense. God I hate this planet.

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

So it makes "sense" to you that the USAF flew secret spy crafts directly over the white house on several different occasions - while testing them??

Does it also make sense that nobody in the White House - including the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, or in Washington DC - including the Air Force, was notified by the Air Force of the impending spy plane tests?

So they tested aircrafts in a place that endangers the President and also exposes the secret craft?

Sorry, "aliens" makes FAR more sense, IMO.