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
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also, as Sky has pointed out, the USAF does not scramble jets for weather balloons, tethering balloons, swamp gas or weather inversions...

Sky uses a broad swipe. The Air Force will intercept any target listed as an "unkown" under certain conditions. If it is initially known to be a weather balloon, et al, then they would not waste their time, yet history shows that this is not normally the case, so they do wind up intercepting weather balloons, et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky uses a broad swipe. The Air Force will intercept any target listed as an "unkown" under certain conditions. If it is initially known to be a weather balloon, et al, then they would not waste their time, yet history shows that this is not normally the case, so they do wind up intercepting weather balloons, et al.

Tim, you at least tacitly admit that the USAF attempted to intercept ... something. Progress, mon amis!!

You're a smart, knowledgeable guy, Tim, but you are soooooo reluctant to admit that it is even *possible* that the objects in question were actually UFO's.

There are several folks in here like that, so not really a surprise. I just don't understand why UFO's put such the fear of God in some folks. The facts are obvious, but the denial is as strong as superglue.

good day to you

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, you at least tacitly admit that the USAF attempted to intercept ... something. Progress, mon amis!!

You're a smart, knowledgeable guy, Tim, but you are soooooo reluctant to admit that it is even *possible* that the objects in question were actually UFO's.

There are several folks in here like that, so not really a surprise. I just don't understand why UFO's put such the fear of God in some folks. The facts are obvious, but the denial is as strong as superglue.

good day to you

LOL, I was just thinking about this concerning my last post. So, let's nail down my statement from above. The USAF will intercept an unknown target that poses a threat...based on rules of engagement, etc. I readily admit, that "unknown" can be interchangeable with "UFO" since the unknown target is generally an Unidentifiable Flying Object to the point of initiating the scramble.

Now as far as being "soooooo" reluctant to admit that these objects may possibly be UFOs (being alien technology/alien manned), I've been on record in the past that such may well indeed be the case, but, my friend, the cases that I've been exposed to fall apart under intense scrutiny and thus cast doubt. If UFOs are real, and that may be a reality, then they/it have yet to contribute to anything by means of advanced technology, geopolitical harmony, etc.

Friend, I'm waiting for the case that will knock my socks off, but so far there is nothing...reluctantly nothing, in my most humble opinion.

I do respect your sentiment...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky may be overly verbose, at times, yes, but besides that, in this case here - UFO's over DC, 1952, Sky's got the goods, IMO. And that is what really counts (to me).

<snip>

OK, please, in your own words, explain to me what Sky actually has. Because over the years he has never been able to show anything and one by one his oh-so-convincing-cases are falling apart. So I am very curious as to what you actually think he has.

You have ATC's - military and civilian, claiming the many high speed blips appearing on their screens in four separate incidents, and you have visuals by pilots corroborating the ATC accounts.

You mean radar, which we know is very susceptible to atmospheric phenomena? Especially back then!

There also existed eye witnesses on the ground, which also backed up what the radar images showed - fast flying UFO's over Washington DC.

So what? What did they see?

And local press media covered all the events as well. Most compelling to me was a jet pilot asking the ATC for advice as the UFO's closed in on his jet, and admittance from a high ranking Air Force officer of his distressful emotional reaction to exactly that event.

And that means what exactly?

Also, as Sky has pointed out, the USAF does not scramble jets for weather balloons, tethering balloons, swamp gas or weather inversions. The USAF will scramble jets when it appears that the White House, which is home to the Commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces, appears to be in danger.

Yah.

They scramble jets for the unknown. Why couldn't a weather inversion be unknown? Please explain how you actually identify a weather inversion - in detail.

It may be argued as to exactly *what* those crafts were but it cannot be denied, IMO, that they existed.

IMHO, there were no crafts.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The challenge for you is to prove those flying objects are those of mankind. In other words, compare maneuvering capabilities with high performance aircraft. If you are unwilling to do so, they my case will be made that the objects in question are not those of mankind.

BTW, pull out past histories of the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and other such publications after the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents.

.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The challenge for you is to prove those flying objects are those of mankind.

What objects?! By all means of respect Sky, but you the onus is still on you to provide evidence that these were actually objects and not atmospheric phenomena.

In other words, compare maneuvering capabilities with high performance aircraft. If you are unwilling to do so, they my case will be made that the objects in question are not those of mankind.

Completely irrelevant as so far these phenomena have no physical manifestation.

BTW, pull out past histories of the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and other such publications after the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents.

And they tell us what, exactly?

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, impressive. Put it in the drawers, so to speak:

1) radar data;Just two simple data sets.

Let's return here.

. The radar room of the Center is a long dimly lit chamber, darkened so scopes can be easily read. Its radar equipment, by which controllers have guided thousands of airliners through fog and storms, is an M.E.W. (Microwave Early Warning) type similar to the sets used by the air defense forces.

A parabolic antenna, rotating six times per minute, transmits a narrow radio beam which swings around the horizon. When the beam strikes a plane, an "echo" or "return" is reflected back. Amplified. this appears as a small spot or "blip" on the face of a cathode ray scope. The Center's main scope.

As the echo comes back from a cruising airliner, a small round violet blip appears on the scope. At that spot, the phosphor coating of the glass maintains a diminishing glow. Every ten seconds, a new blip appears. showing the plane's changed position. The glass retains seven blips before the first one fades out. From the position of the blips and the space between them, the plane's course and speed call be seen at a glance, also its location, distance and compass bearing.

Besides the main scope, which is adjusted to show traffic within a 34 mile radius - a 68 mile circle - the Center operates two smaller console scopes which show the transmitter's full range of 105 miles, or a circle 210 miles in diameter. Radar scopes show other things than planes in the sky - irregular blobs are reflected from thunderstorms, thin spotty blips from flocks of birds, spreading blotches caused by rain or snow clouds.

Very-high-frequency radar sets can pick up even cobwebs or clouds of nearby insects. But these do not appear on the M.E.W. scope, nor would their echoes resemble the clear, sharp blip of a plane. There are two known things which can cause somewhat similar echoes - balloons especially equipped with large panels of metal for radar tracking, and "chaff" or "window." which are strips of aluminum foil dropped by military planes to jam radar sets. The presence of either is indicated by their drift at the speed of the wind. Strips of chaff, usually dumped by the hundreds, cause heavy returns which trained radar men can easily recognize. In addition, chaff falls to the ground. so that its blips soon disappear.

Tower operators Howard Cocklin and Joe Zacko both reported the strange blips on their scope, and in the same position. So did Air Force radar men at Andrews Air Force Base, which uses an A.S.R. set. Not only that, visual observers at both points could see mysterious lights moving in the sky.

A few minutes later, the controllers bending over the scope got a new jolt. One blip track showed an abrupt 90- degree turn, something no plane could do. As the sweep came around, another of the strange objects suddenly reversed, its new blip "blossoming" on top of the one it bad previously made. The unknown craft, or whatever it was, had stopped dead from over 100 m.p.h., then completely reversed direction - all in about five seconds.

"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.

Understand the radar operators had checked their radar sets, which were found to be in normal operating condition. The radar operators also confirmed the location of the blips on their radar scopes by simply looking out their windows. The blips were not indicative of radar 'ghost angels' and furthermore, experienced radar controllers can differentiate between real aircraft and 'ghost angels.'

Now, if you don't believe, me, I have direct contact with radar controllers at Travis AFB. After all, Air Force air traffic controllers were invited earlier this year to do a presentation before my EAA chapter for which I am president. The airport from which we operate is located within close proximity of Travis AFB, and I wanted military air traffic controllers to provide updated radar and airspace information for members of my chapter, which consist of military pilots, commercial pilots, private pilots, instructor pilots, sport pilots and my secretary is a student pilot.. I make sure that safety is # 1 in my chapter. Never mind that I became a pilot before many of them were even born. I do safety briefings for my pilots during each chapter meeting and in addition, I am president of another chapter on Travis AFB, whose members consist of military officers, enlisted personnel, Air Force civil servants and military retirees.

Now, back to business. You will notice that object "E" conducted a right-angled maneuver, now, what aircraft can mimic such a maneuver? The following depiction is based on the controller's original sketch.

true4.jpg

In addition:

1952 Washington D.C. UFO Video

2) eyewitness data.

Recap time.

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 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: 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: 2130 EDT

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

Witnesses included civilian and military ground-based observers, civilian and military pilots, civilian and military air traffic controllers and remember, the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents were radar/visual UFO cases. In other words, radar contacts were visually confirmed by pilots and ground-based observers.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What objects?!

Well, we can start here.

washington1952newspaper.jpg

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.)

Definitely nothing to do with natural phenomena.

By all means of respect Sky, but you the onus is still on you to provide evidence that these were actually objects and not atmospheric phenomena.

As mentioned before, atmospheric phenomena was ruled out by experienced pilots and radar controllers and such phenomena is common over Washington D.C. The blips on the radar scopes were those of solid objects that maneuvered around aircraft. Case in point. Pilots 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. Barnes said, 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.

Commercial pilots also radioed in sightings and descriptions of the movement of the objects was consistent with the military pilots and radar systems at Andrews AFB and National Airport and visible at Bolling AFB. I might add that Bolling AFB is where files of the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU) were taken. In April 1992, I was sent TDY to Andrews AFB and billeted at Bolling AFB and while on TDY, I decided to visit the building on Bolling AFB where the files were held, but at no time did I have access to the IPU files nor did expect to have such access, but I decided to take a nice stroll down the block anyway.

.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its plane as Day,or Night ! Cowboys Are going to Win Tonight ! :tu:

UFO`s in D.C. or Not !

Don't be surprised if my nephew switches to the Cowboys. He is currently a Raider fan and the team has been wearing his patience fairly thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey skyeagle, completely off topic but what is that yellow (puke green) aircraft in your picture? I'm Navy and we paint everything gray so kind of color blind

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It resembles one of these to me...

f14-fighter.jpg

J/K Sky, just a good natured jest. :P

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It resembles one of these to me...

f14-fighter.jpg

J/K Sky, just a good natured jest. :P

LMAO

Looks like a Spitfire/Mustang.

Far too big for that I think. Spits/Mustangs were little hot rods

I'm betting Douglas A-1 Skyraider

That's what I was thinking.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SkyEagle: "Witnesses included civilian and military ground-based observers, civilian and military pilots, civilian and military air traffic controllers and remember, the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents were radar/visual UFO cases. In other words, radar contacts were visually confirmed by pilots and ground-based observers."

You know it's coming, Sky, I know it's coming.

Whenever you have all of your I's dotted and T's crossed in an airtight argument, some one will inevitably sound the tried and true -

"They'ze all just a bunch a' Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy liars. Yeah."

Wait for it!

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey skyeagle, completely off topic but what is that yellow (puke green) aircraft in your picture? I'm Navy and we paint everything gray so kind of color blind

The aircraft is a T-34, which belonged to the Travis AFB Aero Club when the photo was taken.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aircraft is a T-34, which belonged to the Travis AFB Aero Club when the photo was taken.

We have T-34s all over the base (static displays) but that is a bizarre angle which makes a very tiny aircraft appear to be very large. Strange paint job as well. Great example of why eyewitness accounts are worthless. Ok thanks, I'm back to observing.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have T-34s all over the base (static displays) but that is a bizarre angle which makes a very tiny aircraft appear to be very large. Strange paint job as well. Great example of why eyewitness accounts are worthless. Ok thanks, I'm back to observing.

How did you get an "eyewitness" account out of Sky's Avatar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you get an "eyewitness" account out of Sky's Avatar?

Me, a trained observer because I flew fighters in the Navy for years and now work on a Navy base and see T-34s daily on static display (refurbed mess hall and Strike School) and didn't realize he was sitting in a T-34.

He may be lying but I have no proof because I compared that image to other images of the T-34 and they match.

Therefore, as far as I know, that is a T-34 and my feelings about what I thought it was are worthless. No news there, we all make mistakes.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, a trained observer because I flew fighters in the Navy for years and now work on a Navy base and see T-34s daily on static display (refurbed mess hall and Strike School) and didn't realize he was sitting in a T-34.

He may be lying but I have no proof because I compared that image to other images of the T-34 and they match.

Therefore, as far as I know, that is a T-34 and my feelings about what I thought it was are worthless. No news there, we all make mistakes.

To be honest, the pic/avatar did not give us a whole lot to go with. I was way off with my A-1 thought.

Who am I to say, I barfed in a T-37 while on a flight out of Williams AFB, AZ....yes, I'm still embarrassed, but I've learned to forgive myself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, a trained observer because I flew fighters in the Navy for years and now work on a Navy base and see T-34s daily on static display (refurbed mess hall and Strike School) and didn't realize he was sitting in a T-34.

He may be lying but I have no proof because I compared that image to other images of the T-34 and they match.

Therefore, as far as I know, that is a T-34 and my feelings about what I thought it was are worthless. No news there, we all make mistakes.

No offense, but that says nothing about "eyewitness" testimony.

At best it just means you probably are not any good at photo analysis. I personally have never seen a T-34 that I know of*, but I knew it was a two seater trainer from the canopy in the photo thats why I originally thought maybe a T-6 Texan but I quickly realized it wasn't a T-6.

If Sky hadn't jumped to id the aircraft, I would have nailed it today.

Edit: * I've seen T-34's flying overhead, but not up close on the tarmac.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I have ever seen this in a UFO thread here at U-M since I have been here....

The site Nibbling Nabobs of Negativism are SHUT DOWN!!!! Nothing to say LOL! They're sitting on their hands - thank God!

That's what a complete and thorough job SkyEagle did presenting evidences. There are simply no holes with wiggle room in them for the hammer swingers do destroy the thread.

I so do miss Bedeskov, Psyche101 and JimOberg :--) LOL! I bet they lurked for a while and decided not to try, eh? LOL

Good job, Sky, we can kiss this thread goodbye, now. No one's going to try to "debunk" it. And they won't spend any time telling you that they agree with you, either

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.