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

Hi LS,

Perhaps so in 1952, but since the advent of NORAD (Pave Paws, Cobra Dane, BMEWs) we are able to track objects in space...all based on radar signature and computer guided analysis.

We don't really have data from RADARs that scan LEO do we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't really have data from RADARs that scan LEO do we?

I see that Psyche provided a candidate, but I was thinking along the lines of an object entering the Earth's atmosphere from space as being reasonably track via radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick visit - I have not abandoned the thread at all, just had a whole lot of life intervene so UM is on the back burner, and for a bit longer yet..

Anyway, a coupla points and a wall of text of my own.. This thread was born from Skyeagle's claim that there was definitive and conclusive evidence of UFO's being of alien origin, and I've been trying (with rather limited success) to get him to simply point out the best of that 'evidence' so it can be examined fully and properly.

The nearest we seem to have come is this post by Sky, in which he finally nominates what he thinks is .. 'IT'. Namely some photos of radar screens and a cute little table of data.

What I propose to do is to look at that radar 'sighting' thoroughly. No stone unturned. No assumptions. Proper analysis. A thorough examination of not only the data and provenance thereof, but also good long look at that data as it pertains to the radar technology of the day, the analyses that may have (or not) been done, and also a proper wider look at all the 'possibilities'. And we should finally come to a point where we can first decide whether alien tech is, in fact, even a possibility that should be considered, let alone if it is 'THE ONE'.

Frankly, I think Sky and friends will be struggling to withstand that proper analysis.... But of course that will only be up for the readers to consider once I get the time together to actually do it, so (and a special hi to earl here..) have fun while it lasts. In the meantime, if Sky or anyone else would like to post the step by step logical path from the radar data in that post, to the alien piloted craft causing it, I'd LOVE to see it outlined in FULL. Also, if you know of any deeper or better analyses than those already posted (or in one case, hinted at), knock yourselves out. BTW, for anyone lurking who is visualising the radar systems that were in use as 'mature' and reliable, you probably should do some reading up on the history of radar... Some questions you should be asking yourself are:

- how long had such systems been in use, and how reliable and accurate were they?

- were there any known issues that could cause 'spurious' readings? How were such false signals identifiable, and how often did they occur?

- were any experiments being done (and by whom) in regard to deliberately introducing spurious signals or anomalies? (refer Cuckooold's postings...)

- is any of that documented anywhere?

And Sky, do feel free to continue posting walls of text. But perhaps you really should take note of the number of folks who, like me, are sick to death of it. Get to the flipping point and SHOW YOUR LOGIC. You are NOT dealing with ignorant 911 believers here. So drop the childish and meaningless jumps from one or two questionable 'facts' to a simplistic and biased conclusion, and actually THINK...

About what? Well, in my absence a number of folks have offered some ideas that you seem to be dismissing, and there are more to come yet... Plus, if you have any good data about just why we should assume that the fast moving object actually existed (let alone was 100% alien), now's the time.. Triangulated sightings? Matching data from another radar system - that has been properly correlated?

BTW, I particularly loved Sky's line "There was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE RADAR"." which he used, in probably the most singularly un-scientific and utterly misleading way to:

- first of all suggest that the radar was a perfect tool

- secondly suggest that it it didn't/couldn't possibly have any fault (on the flimsiest of grounds, as we shall see later)

- thirdly, to suggest that the data was accurately analysed

- fourthly, to imply because we have what appears to be a fast moving 'thing', we therefore, inescapably, have alien intelligence...

Oh Rly? Well. like I said earlier, this is someone who hasn't the first clue about what a proper and unbiased analysis looks like. That sort of drivel does not belong here.

BTW, Psyche, glad to see you are here, sorry I'm not doing more right now but I will be back with a touch of vengeance later, as soon as the preXmas rush dies down at work and I can start breathing again.. And to Cuckooold, I'm impressed! You've stolen a bit of my thunder (I've got some stuff up my sleeve, and you have hit upon some of it..) but I'm certainly not complaining - keep it up and there'll be no need for me to return!

Anyway... be patient folks. Getting to the truth sometimes takes a very long time, especially when some folks have invested so much energy in believing, and don't want to see it even after it is waved in front of their faces...

Oh and as I have mentioned many times, our current technology is many magnitudes more powerful, more accurate, more reliable, more photographic. more provable, more documented. Yet do we have any recent credible and well-evidenced UFO incidents that we should be looking at? Sky has already answered that by nominating THIS as the 'best'. There are NO new cases worthy of looking at. Now just why do you suppose that might be? A huge, ginormous gubmint cover up, with not a whistleblower in sight? IF so, what about all the amateurs who also have a lot of this equipment? My, my, that gubmint is super-duper powerful.. Or have the aliunz got bored of us and gone away? Or got much much clebberrer with new Romulan cloaking systems? Yeah it must be one of dose, coz it most certainly couldn't possibly be that now that our radars WORK PROPERLY and we also have much better and more powerful systems, that we are able to properly identify the 'things'.... Sky, feel free to explain why YOU think the alienz have disappeared. But please, FIRST go visit a decent astronomy club and take a long hard look at what these guys are packing, before you make a horrible misjudgment by only considering the military/govt...

Geez, I'd go with swamp gas before swallowing the crud coming from the likes of Sky and EoT..

Back later, gimme a few more days to untangle myself from too many pesky customers wanting a happy xmas.. (I knew I shoulda fully retired when I had the chance.. dang..)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radar sets of this era have been a pet peeve of mine for a long while when used as proof of ET visitation. They were incredibly rudimentary machines, especially when compared to the gear we have now and working them was more art than science. In this case we are looking at civilian ATC radars that had no ECM capability and were not cutting edge for even the 50's. They were basic "throw RF into space and see what is reflected back" systems with some conditioning between the return energy and the user.

These basic pulse radars see everything and are easily fooled by atmospherics and/or spurious energy from other sources. Constant manual tuning is required to get the best out of them (at least with airborne pulse radar sets) and output/input sensitivity varies greatly even on the same system from day to day or even hour to hour. Hence, more art than science when running these things IMHO.

Modern systems don't rely on pure pulse energy any longer and the signals are scrubbed through sophisticated systems to clear out "garbage" (weather, temperature layers, birds, bugs, clouds, t-Cells, RF interference, etc. etc). It is very telling that radar evidence rarely, if ever, coincides with eyewitness accounts of UFOs today, the systems just aren't seeing them any longer, even though they are far more powerful and sophisticated. When radar evidence does coincide with an eyewitness account today, and a modern radar is being used, I take notice but this old stuff I mostly dismiss if a photo isn't included and reliable reports about the weather conditions are available.

It is my assertion that what they were seeing as UFO's in the 50s-70's, the heyday of Ufology, was in fact the garbage that no longer effects modern radar systems. Spoofing or not, odd radar returns happened all the time with these older systems and when a sighting happened it wouldn't be an earth shattering event to be seeing an odd return at about the same time as the sighting, anymore than it would be earth shattering to see one an hour later or the day before. It was a part of doing business.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick visit - I have not abandoned the thread at all, just had a whole lot of life intervene so UM is on the back burner, and for a bit longer yet..Anyway, a coupla points and a wall of text of my own.. This thread was born from Skyeagle's claim that there was definitive and conclusive evidence of UFO's being of alien origin, and I've been trying (with rather limited success) to get him to simply point out the best of that 'evidence' so it can be examined fully and properly.

Understand that the U.S. Air Force has admitted on multiple occasions that the UFOs in question, are, in its own words: "Interplanetary spaceships, which it reconfirmed in 1952 in its intelligence report.

USAF Motion Study / Maj. Dewey Fournet

The Michigan sighting was even better, however. In this case there was a definite reason for every move that the UFO made. In this case there was a definite reason for every move that the UFO made. It made a 180 degree turn because the F-94 was closing on it head on."

"It alternately increased and decreased its speed, but every time it did this it was because the F-94 was closing in and it evidently put on speed to pull out ahead far enough to get out of range of the F-94's radar."

"To say that this motion was random and that it was just a coincidence that the UFO made the 180 degree turn when the F-94 closed in head on and that it was just a coincidence that the UFO speeded up every time the F-94 began to get within radar range is pushing the chance of coincidence pretty hard."

The study covered several hundred of our most detailed UFO reports. By a very critical process of elimination, based on the motion of the reported UFO's, Fournet told the panel how he and any previous analysis by Project Blue Book had been disregarded and how those reports that could have been caused by any one of the many dozen known objects - balloons, airplanes, astronomical bodies, etc., were sifted out.

This sifting took quite a toll, and the study ended up with only ten or twenty reports that fell into the "Unknown" category. Since such critical methods of evaluation had been used, these few reports proved beyond a doubt that the UFO's were intelligently controlled by persons with brains equal to or far surpassing ours.

The next step in the study, Fournet explained, was to find out where they came from. "Earthlings" were eliminated, leaving the final answer - spacemen.

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

The nearest we seem to have come is this post by Sky, in which he finally nominates what he thinks is .. 'IT'. Namely some photos of radar screens and a cute little table of data.

What I propose to do is to look at that radar 'sighting' thoroughly. That was done No stone unturned. No assumptions. Proper analysis.

Let's stop there. Did I mention that the radar units were checked and found to be in normal operating condition? Have I mentioned that the 1952 Washington D.C. case was a radar/visual case? If so, then why are you still hampering about radar when the case was not a radar-only case?

A thorough examination of not only the data and provenance thereof, but also good long look at that data as it pertains to the radar technology of the day, the analyses that may have (or not) been done, and also a proper wider look at all the 'possibilities'. And we should finally come to a point where we can first decide whether alien tech is, in fact, even a possibility that should be considered, let alone if it is 'THE ONE'.

Frankly, I think Sky and friends will be struggling to withstand that proper analysis.... But of course that will only be up for the readers to consider once I get the time together to actually do it, so (and a special hi to earl here..) have fun while it lasts. In the meantime, if Sky or anyone else would like to post the step by step logical path from the radar data in that post, to the alien piloted craft causing it, I'd LOVE to see it outlined in FULL. Also, if you know of any deeper or better analyses than those already posted (or in one case, hinted at), knock yourselves out.

I don't think that you place the importance that the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents were radar/visual cases. In other words, the UFOs were not the result of radar 'ghost angels' because the UFOs location of the UFOs on the radar screens were confirmed visually observers on the ground and pilots in the sky. That fact along eliminates radar 'ghost angels' and radar malfunctions. Secondly, the nature of the radar contacts exclude radar 'ghost angels' as well.

So once again, the 1952 Washington D.C. incidents were not radar-only cases, they were radar/visual cases where radar and visual observations complimented one another.

And Sky, do feel free to continue posting walls of text.

Sometimes, it takes time for some folks to get the message. For an example, how many times have I posted that the Washington D.C UFO case was a radar/visual case? That is a hint that automatically eliminates radar malfunctions as the culprit. The radar units were fine and checked out okay by the experts and temperature inversions were common in the Washington D.C. area, but it is obvious why radar 'ghost angels' were ruled out.

To sum it up, you are not paying attention to what has been presented to you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture in the first post seems very unlikely.

Apparently a fake enough smascherabile.

the alleged flying objects seem to me the lighted windows of a ship in the sea .... Obviously some light has been removed.

I studied photography and photomontage as it would not be difficult, even with traditional techniques.

Edited by Growl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bit rich coming from you EOT, what evidence have you brought forth that rely on anything other than appeals to both authority or ignorance? You tend to favor the "if it isn't this then it must be that" logic, a false dichotomy in other words.

LoL!! Really?!?

First of all, I have not brought any evidence forth, SkyEagle has seen to supplying about as much evidence as anyone needs.

And really, Slave to Fate, believing ion those objects as real with all the testimony that has been shown, makes one ignorant...? LoL! Do I read you correctly??

I noticed when the thread first opened, Tim suggested that the radar was in error, despite Sky showing evidence that it was not, as the three scopes were found to be in working order.

Is your side afraid to go under the same scrutiny you put others under when you or anyone proposes some half-hazzard theory like "spoof radar"??? Did the poster pull that one out of his rear?

I'll listen to any theory but....... WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?

That's a fair question. Don't ever think that because you or anyone else proposes a good feeling theory that the theory comes pre-proven. WALK THE WALK and show me.

You know what you're doing..... "If it isn't what we HOPE to see, it must be broken radar", which sounds an awful lot like what you accuse me of, below. to wit:

S2F: "You tend to favor the "if it isn't this then it must be that" logic"

What a load of bullshoosh. I believe that reliable testimony and corroborating testimony from many unlinked sources is to be considered excellent evidence, not necessarily evidence that I want. And as far as saying "then it must be that" is concerned, when did you ever see me or SkyEagle identify the objects over DC other than to say they were UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects aka, UFO's?? - because I never did. I don't know what they are, do you?

It seems we cannot get to the stage of discussing the identity of the objects in question because most of the little scared ones in here won't even accept "existence". It would be nice to discuss whether those intelligently controlled objects are controlled by ET's or by future humans, say, coming back in time, BUT..... BUT.... that will never happen in this thread, I'd be talking to an audience of one... ME.

I'd like to take a moment to say hello to Psyche101 and Badeskov, who have been lurking in this thread. Hi guys! Come on in, the water's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't hate the idea that intelligent life exists elsewhere and I am pretty sure most here don't either so you are making things up again to suit your storyline.

Really!? Psyche101, for one, will tell you that UFO-ism is akin to flat earth-ism. And there are others.

Out of all the pilots that flew and it wasn't all that many, a couple thought they saw "something" (not a spaceship not a beam of light, an amorphous blob of light) but most saw nothing. Hardly definitive and seeing odd things at night, while in a cockpit, is not unusual nor indicative of alien visitation.

We are not arguing (yet) over *what* was seen because nobody knows. We are arguing existence.

You fail to mention here that as pilots in the sky saw "Something", military on the ground, civilians on the ground, AND radar all saw "something", as well.

So, because they did not identify the objects mean the objects may not have existed??

There were only a very few eyewitnesses that saw something and what they saw was hardly definitive. Lights of some kind is all. Many, many others saw absolutely nothing. The radar can be explained by other things but possibly it was picking up an object. The problem here is this is proof of nothing.

Ya, an object all right. One that goes 7,500 mph and takes 900 turns LOL! Some "object"

Fear has nothing at all to do with it. There is no proof here and sky did post a lot of garbage. You are frustrated because you so want this to be true but a fantastic story requires solid proof and this is not even close.

Oh, I see, so there is no "proof" that objects existed...? ROFLMAO!! :clap:

You're "one of them", huh? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats photo is unrelated to the events. I thought someone else mentioned it so technically it wouldn't be Sky's argument.

Good point, and unless anyone can show conclusively what date/time that photo was taken, I think we can all agree that it is not evidence for or against objects over DC July 1952.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the most negative poster here. No matter what detailed explanation is offered, you offer the stupid response of "Nope Alienz".

I do not have to participate in every thread that exists, and rather than not have anything to say, I respect Sky, and felt the other posters had clarified this well enough, but I should have realised, nothing works for you unless you can pretend Alinz are here and the Government is covering it all up. You're just a CT junkie with nothing more to add than a spoon to stir the pot. Sky is a good man, and he is entitled to think what he wants on this case, fact is facts have been offered that refute the nonsensical notion of aliens buzzing DC.

LIFE Magazine did an article on it of you need a recap of what was happening at the time, which is something you rarely bother yourself with. LINK - Have a look, familiarise yourself with that which you think you can teach others about.

I bet you did not know that the first time that picture appeared, it was in Ray Palmer's Flying Saucers, Edition No. 81, from the Summer of 1973.

Screen%2520Shot%25202014-08-05%2520at%25202.37.42%2520PM.jpg

And it was CROPPED to remove the streetlights. No prizes for guessing why though.

Bruce Maccabee, UFOlogist whom you should have heard of before had a look and could not call it aliens either, as he states in his email:

From: brumac@compuserve.com

To: nicap@insightbb.com

Subject: Re: 1952 Washington D.C. Capitol photo

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:57:27 -0500 (EST)

This picture which shows the Capitol dome and lights at the left side is, I believe, just a fraction of

the total picture which shows the whole Capito building, parking lot lights in front of it and

numerous "UFO" lights in the sky at both the left and right sides of the dome. Coleman

Von Kevicsky (sp?), years ago, showed the "UFO" light images were actually lens "flares"....

reflections within the lens of the bright streetlights and parking lot lights in front of the ==========

Capitol.

More of the complete picture, but not all of it (as I recall) can be seen at

http://truthquake.co...otos-resurface/

Note: there is no guarantee that this photo of the Capitol was actually taken during the summer of 1952.

And then we have the staff from the magazine that released the pic speaking about it:

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:13:40 -0800 (PST)

From: michael swords <mswords@att.net>

Subject: Re: Fwd: 1952 Washington D.C. Capitol photo

To: francis ridge <nicap@insightbb.com>

Fran, i don't know the exact source [one of our national magazines like LOOK I think], but as you probably remember, the photo is garbage --- the complete photo shows ground street lights in the exact pattern of the so-called UFOs in the sky. An embarrassingly stupid camera reflections photo that persists to give us a bad name with any rational soul.

Mike

So unless UFO Investigators and Magazine Editors are the Ebil Gubbermint trying to suppress visitation, I don't think you have anything more than a wild rumour based on wild rumours.

Of course there is always investigation and or research, but I don't see you take that leap here.

It's been looked at, and it's nothing more than just another alienz story without any substance whatsoever, but a good armful of old wives tales.

Screen%2520Shot%25202014-12-02%2520at%252010.49.31%2520AM.jpg

Think twice before you take my name in vain next time. What this is is an urban legend, not fact by any stretch of the imagination. Ohh I know you want alienz soooo bad you can taste it, but not this time Earl. Old verbal assurances just don't cut the mustard.

I never said the photo was real. In fact, I spoke out about having it presented as evidence.

Oh, and have nice day, oh pleasant one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/size]

What evidence supports Alienz?

I never said aliens. and learn to spell.

Great lets see a RADAR track that goes into space to show one of these UFO's is actually a spaceship, and not something else.

I never said the ship went into space. Pulling this out of your butt? I don't know where the OBJECTS went, all I know is they went there very fast

You being the master of wasting time, do we need to buy you a present for your contribution?

You're the one that seems to have responded to ME, buck-o.

Is this one of your posts where you get everything bass-ackwards again?

Cuckooold seems to be offering more substance than you? The problem is you object to the smashing of your fantasy, and react in a manner befitting a small child, as opposed to presenting actual evidences. Foot stamping just does not get papers published you know Earl.

I presented exactly ZERO evidence. Why should I? Sky did a very good job of that.

What's the matter, frustrated that you can't prove him wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that photo is unrelated to the event then why in the name of all that's holy is it trotted out every. single. time.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you know for certain that spoofing the radar means the radar is not in working order?

http://en.m.wikipedi...countermeasures

As far as I can tell, the radar works as it should, it is merely tricked by 'faking' external returns. Therefore, checking the hardware should show the unit to be functioning correctly.

As Pilkington notes;

http://www.forteanti..._deception.html

The ability to perform radar 'tricks' certainly gives food for thought as an alternative explanation for what was detected on radar. If the second paragraph is true, then that gives further credence to the possibility this was a staged event (loathe as I am to use that term considering how it is employed by CT's these days). I don't know that the unnamed scientist's statement can be taken as true or not, but if it is true, then the entire incident should be looked at in an entirely different fashion.

As for this being a waste of time, what is more worthy; looking at possible theories as to what the sightings and radar anomalies could be, or simply ignoring potentially valid data so as to state 'it must be extra-terrestrial craft'?

Did you prove that the radar was spoofed on the four dates/times in question?

Did you even show any evidence that the radar was spoofed on the four dates/times in question?

Do you also have a theory that is the equivalent of "human spoofing" on the same dates/times for the military eye witnesses that said they saw objects over DC...? the civilian witnesses that saw objects over DC?

thank you.

Yes, I am going to put your "evidences" and theories under the same scrutiny that Sky's evidences have gone under. Absolutley.

Oh, and thanks for the wonderful update on theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with "objects over DC 1957".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EoT, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I and others need to provide proof that ET is not visiting earth. You couldn't be more wrong. You are making the claim of something fantastical going on so you need fantastical proof and this ain't it bud. A few amorphous lights in the night sky and some spurious hits on the radar, I myself have tracked mach-5 targets in the air with my AWG-9 radar. They weren't real of course, but the radar was showing a target (sometimes targets) traveling at extremely high speeds and jinking at multiple G's. It happens when the radar loses the target and extrapolates and tries to "guess" the present position. Radars get screwed up.

In this case some radars had a target and others didn't, some pilots saw "something" and others didn't. That isn't proof of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yes, but as Ben Franklin once said, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead." Surely there are lot of people involved in something of this magnitude, would not many eventually speak up and corroborate these stories?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that photo is unrelated to the event then why in the name of all that's holy is it trotted out every. single. time.?

I can't answer for what other people do.

All I can tell you is, we do not know who took the *original* photo, and most importantly, what was the date and time?

If one cannot establish that much, the photo is a waste of time, IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EoT, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I and others need to provide proof that ET is not visiting earth.

Absolutely not. I would think that it is unprovable for either side to show that the intelligently controlled objects were controlled by ET's or humans, so why would I ever put the onus on your side only?

You couldn't be more wrong. You are making the claim of something fantastical going on so you need fantastical proof and this ain't it bud. A few amorphous lights in the night sky and some spurious hits on the radar, I myself have tracked mach-5 targets in the air with my AWG-9 radar. They weren't real of course, but the radar was showing a target (sometimes targets) traveling at extremely high speeds and jinking at multiple G's. It happens when the radar loses the target and extrapolates and tries to "guess" the present position. Radars get screwed up.

Merc, please. You're being unreasonable here.

If all there was for evidence was RADAR evidence, I would agree with you! But Sky has been more than generous with his time bothering to point out - over and over, this is about radar/visual evidence as the two are clearly not inexplicable, they are closely entwined and to be viewed as corroborators of eachother.

In this case some radars had a target and others didn't, some pilots saw "something" and others didn't. That isn't proof of anything.

Really? Not everyone in NYC saw 911 too, but that does not mean the ones who DID see are mistaken. One pilot seeing it and one NOT seeing is saying that one happen to catch IT - whatever it was, and the other was looking away. That's all. You don't need the entire staff at Andrews to be witness to objects over DC to make it so, you only need a few trusted AF personnel. Agreed? Same with the civilian witnesses, you don't need everyone in Washington DC, a few witnesses will do.

Because in the end, you have four UNLINKED sources that say the same things about objects over Washington DC on the four dates and times specified. They are military pilots, military ground personnel, civilians, and, oh, precious RADAR.

If you try to construct four strange theories on how ALL FOUR UNLINKED information sources made the exact same mistakes on the same four dates and same four times to account for the whole embroglio, I'd be thinking you are a one desperate man, Merc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but as Ben Franklin once said, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead." Surely there are lot of people involved in something of this magnitude, would not many eventually speak up and corroborate these stories?

Excellent, bro! :clap:

I had never heard that one before

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not. I would think that it is unprovable for either side to show that the intelligently controlled objects were controlled by ET's or humans, so why would I ever put the onus on your side only?

Yet you post this:

Is your side afraid to go under the same scrutiny you put others under when you or anyone proposes some half-hazzard theory like "spoof radar"??? Did the poster pull that one out of his rear?

I'll listen to
any
theory but.......
WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?

That's a fair question. Don't ever think that because you or anyone else proposes a good feeling theory that the theory comes pre-proven. WALK THE WALK and
show
me.
Merc, please. You're being unreasonable here.

If all there was for evidence was RADAR evidence, I would agree with you! But Sky has been more than generous with his time bothering to point out - over and over, this is about radar/visual evidence as the two are clearly not inexplicable, they are closely entwined and to be viewed as corroborators of eachother.

Some saw "blobs of light" in the sky. That doesn't mean they saw ET? It doesn't mean much of anything and it certainly is proof of nothing.

Really? Not everyone in NYC saw 911 too, but that does not mean the ones who DID see are mistaken. One pilot seeing it and one NOT seeing is saying that one happen to catch IT - whatever it was, and the other was looking away. That's all. You don't need the entire staff at Andrews to be witness to objects over DC to make it so, you only need a few trusted AF personnel. Agreed? Same with the civilian witnesses, you don't need everyone in Washington DC, a few witnesses will do.

Hardly a good comparison there EoT and it reeks of desperation. Comparing those who saw 911 to this thing where NOT ONE photograph was taken of "all these lights". Not one. You'd think all these witnesses would've gotten on picture don't you? One newspaper photograph?

Because in the end, you have four UNLINKED sources that say the same things about objects over Washington DC on the four dates and times specified. They are military pilots, military ground personnel, civilians, and, oh, precious RADAR.

If you try to construct four strange theories on how ALL FOUR UNLINKED information sources made the exact same mistakes on the same four dates and same four times to account for the whole embroglio, I'd be thinking you are a one desperate man, Merc.

I don't have to do anything, you do.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed when the thread first opened, Tim suggested that the radar was in error, despite Sky showing evidence that it was not, as the three scopes were found to be in working order.

Is your side afraid to go under the same scrutiny you put others under when you or anyone proposes some half-hazzard theory like "spoof radar"??? Did the poster pull that one out of his rear?

I'll listen to any theory but....... WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?

That's a fair question. Don't ever think that because you or anyone else proposes a good feeling theory that the theory comes pre-proven. WALK THE WALK and show me.

Did you prove that the radar was spoofed on the four dates/times in question?

Did you even show any evidence that the radar was spoofed on the four dates/times in question?

Do you also have a theory that is the equivalent of "human spoofing" on the same dates/times for the military eye witnesses that said they saw objects over DC...? the civilian witnesses that saw objects over DC?

thank you.

Yes, I am going to put your "evidences" and theories under the same scrutiny that Sky's evidences have gone under. Absolutley.

Oh, and thanks for the wonderful update on theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with "objects over DC 1957".

Radar spoofing is real, are you disputing that?

As to whether there were objects 'spoofed' on radar on the dates of the alleged Washington sightings will probably never be proven as definitively happening or not. However, if we look at the article I have provided it certainly connects enough dots to suggest an alternative theory with as much (if not more) credibility than the purely speculative 'aliens are flying over D.C' hypothesis.

Indeed, if we use our own reasoning processes, what seems more likely; there was an exercise concocted that very few knew about to possibly test the response rate of pilots to an external threat, or there were aliens flying over Washington D.C?

One other thing, if you're going to pull up posters on their spelling (of which alienz is obviously a joke), you'd want to ensure your own spelling and grammar are impeccable, which would including capitalising the start of every sentence, and not omitting required placements of the definite article. By the way, I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it, but simply because you've pulled another poster up on their (intentional) errors, whilst making a number of your own.

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

Earl said:

I noticed when the thread first opened, Tim suggested that the radar was in error, despite Sky showing evidence that it was not, as the three scopes were found to be in working order.

Earl, I've proffered that NO ONE had ever checked out the B-52's radar system as requested by Project Blue Book team to discern whether an anomaly had occurred or if there was a maintenance history that this specific radar had experienced problems in the past. And Earl, FYI, there were at least 13 radar scope photos and....there was only one scope that ran the photo shoot, not three.

So, what did I really say to Sky?

Sky produces an interesting set of radar scope photos. Is this the definitive proof which CHrlz asks for? Again, it falls to the eye of the beholder. We have a series of scope photos showing something maneuvering at roughly 3000 mph, but then pacing the aircraft at speed for approximately 20 miles then disappearing off scope.

The issues concerning the scope photos:

1. Radar system was not checked out for possible operational issues after the aircraft returned to base.

2. No visual observation of the object by pilot and co-pilot, that is they do not see an object pacing the aircraft.

3. Ground observers are able to discern the aircraft, but do no see an object pacing the aircraft nor performing the high speed maneuvers as shown on the aircraft's radar scope.

So, the scope photos are interesting, but open to interpretation. How does this relate to Wash. DC 1952? I'm hoping that my response to Sky does not turn this thread into a Minot discussion, thus derailing CHrlz's effort or intent.

And...

Sky, I very familiar with this case, so no need to carpet bomb this thread. After I post this reply, I will ignore any future responses based on common courtesy to the OP of this thread.

Read the entire case history, including all of the PBB data...the radar was never pulled from the aircraft and checked out...that is fact. So, we do not have any data to rule out possible anomalies...or not.

The visual observations do not support the radar data.

There is a thread that I started awhile back. That would be a good place to discuss Minot while keeping this thread pristine for the DC 1952 case.

So, there we have it in black and white...not blue.

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

<snip>

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.

What evidence? There was none.

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

Frankly, as others have stated, we have made our points. And frankly, I personally is not particularly fond of repeating myself. If you don't get it. it is not going to leave me sleepless at night.

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

It has debunked itself, pretty much.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of bullshoosh. I believe that reliable testimony and corroborating testimony from many unlinked sources is to be considered excellent evidence, not necessarily evidence that I want. And as far as saying "then it must be that" is concerned, when did you ever see me or SkyEagle identify the objects over DC other than to say they were UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects aka, UFO's?? - because I never did. I don't know what they are, do you?

Neither you or Sky are the least bit interested in UAP or atmospheric phenomena or misidentifications etc. etc. You and I both know that when you say UFO what you really mean is an alien piloted vehicle. I've never denied the existence of UFO's. Only a fool would. However the case is not to say that UFO's exist but to determine what they may or may not be. There is a lot of evidence that needs to be verified and corroborated or even outright offered before I would jump on the alien visitation bandwagon. As the evidence stands we have not moved one iota from unknown. That's not my fault nor is it yours or Sky's. The evidence (not just for this case but even overall) just doesn't support the declaration that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Don't be angry with me, be angry that the evidence doesn't suggest what you wish it did.

  • Like 2
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.