The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The 1952 Incident  (Read 15547 times)

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #25 on: 06/01/2011 03:57:07 »
It was sciences job to make sure the world did not revolve around the sun, I don't see how its any different today, as much as it was the Vatican's idea to say it was sciences job to make sure the shroud of turin was neither true or not, until science proved it.

QC, you might take a look at this if you don't already know the story.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)
\

I know of this, what is it meant to mean though???
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #26 on: 06/01/2011 04:15:10 »
Look up the "Project Blue Book".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book
http://www.nicap.org/rufo/contents.htm

"There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.[1]"

Here is a sample from the "Blue Book".  There are numerous events that are likely balloons, but records are often sparse.   

The pilot had just finished making some practice passes for night fighters when he spotted an orange light to the east of his plane. He checked on aircraft in the area, learned that the object was unidentified,

44.The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects

and started after it. Here is his report, written immediately after he landed:
Quote
As it [the light] approached the city from the east it started a left turn. I started to intercept. During the first part of the chase the closest I got to the light was 8 to 10 miles. At this time it appeared to be as large as an SNJ and had a greenish tail that looked to be five to six times as long as the light's diameter. This tail was seen several times in the next 10 minutes in periods of from 5 to 30 seconds each. As I reached 10,000 feet it appeared to be at 15,000 feet and in a left turn. It took 40 degrees of bank to keep the nose of my plane on the light. At this time I estimated the light to be in a 10-to-l 5 mile orbit.

At 12,000 feet I stopped climbing, but the light was still climbing faster than I was. I then reversed my turn from left to right and the light also reversed. As I was not gaining distance, I held a steady course south trying to estimate a perpendicular between the light and myself. The light was moving north, so I turned north. As I turned, the light appeared to move west, then south over the base. I again tried to intercept but the light appeared to climb rapidly at a 60 degree angle. It climbed to 35,000 feet, then started a rapid descent.

Prior to this, while the light was still at approximately 15,000 feet, I deliberately placed it between the moon and myself three times to try to identify a solid body. I and my two crewmen all had a good view of the light as it passed the moon. We could see no solid body. We considered the fact that it might be an aerologist's balloon, but we did not see a silhouette. Also, we would have rapidly caught up with and passed a balloon.

During its descent, the light appeared to slow down at about 10,000 feet, at which time I made three runs on it. Two were on a 90 degree collision course, and the light traveled at tremendous speed across my bow. On the third run I was so close that the light blanked out the airfield below me. Suddenly it started a dive and I followed, losing it at 1,500 feet.
In this incident the UFO was a balloon.

The following night a lighted balloon was sent up and the pilot was ordered up to compare his experiences. He duplicated his dogfight - illusions and all. The Navy furnished us with a long analysis of the affair, explaining how the pilot had been fooled.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #27 on: 06/01/2011 04:18:08 »
No, no... I know of this project. Most UFOLOGISTS believe that the survay was made by dogmatists. Even if not, there is believed there is a great deal more sightings which where not recorded which cannot be explained.

I've done my homework on this. Project Bluebook is like a skeptics handbook.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #28 on: 06/01/2011 04:19:43 »
Th incident of 1952 was eluminated by events which cannot be explained by hot air balloons, one of the biggest explanations, and one of the most unconvincing of them all, used to demystify sightings.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #29 on: 06/01/2011 04:22:04 »
Hot airballons simply do not have the sort of technology to evade the US AIRFORCE, unless you disagree> Maybe they where natural phenomenon... what was it...? Nearly seven lights within a 50 mile radius from each other... which managed to disappear on the arrival of the US AIRFORCE....
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #30 on: 06/01/2011 04:53:17 »
It was sciences job to make sure the world did not revolve around the sun, I don't see how its any different today, as much as it was the Vatican's idea to say it was sciences job to make sure the shroud of turin was neither true or not, until science proved it.

QC, you might take a look at this if you don't already know the story.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)
\

I know of this, what is it meant to mean though???

Oh, I think it's just an interesting example of how people can be deceived, even when there is no intention to deceive.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #31 on: 06/01/2011 05:11:31 »
So can clouds... which is why I don't understand your statement in what it to achieve? There are many people who know the difference between a stationary cloud, and a slow moving weather balloon... hence why I get frustrated over some answers made at this site concerning this very real phenomenon. Glowing bright, evading US aiforce officials, to even the officials who cover such things up with incredible evidence, are all evident enough something is happening. To deny it in my opinion, is one of the highest ignorances. As I said, extraordinary proof requires an extraordinary explanation is only the tip of what is, a most inconceivable and extraordinary unsolved mystery of the skies... one which cannot so easily dismissed with the evidence in hand.

To deny it, is with little understanding into these incidences. The 1952 shoots down every claim of weather balloons, or any balloon of any type... and also any known phenomenon.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 05:13:05 by QuantumClue »
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #32 on: 06/01/2011 10:33:46 »
Like project bluebook, many documents can be hoaxes. To prove this happens, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman

Criticisms and controversiesFriedman is outspoken in his articulation of positions and in his criticism of UFO debunkers, often stating he is not an "apologist ufologist". His positions are regarded as controversial in mainstream science and media, but Friedman claims to have received little opposition at his many lectures, most of which have been at colleges and universities, many to engineering societies and other groups of physicists.[2](p. 24) He has had a number of debates in the mainstream media, including one with UFO skeptic Michael Shermer on CNN.

Friedman has been criticized both by skeptics and other Roswell researchers for taking the position that there are no substantive grounds for dismissing the authenticity of some Majestic 12 documents. Friedman himself was the first to provide evidence that some of the documents are clearly hoaxes. For example, he showed that a supposed memo from Admiral Hillenkoetter to President Truman, dated February 17, 1948, was actually the emulation of a letter from Marshall to Roosevelt that featured in the book The American MAGIC. Friedman has researched the MJ-12 documents since first becoming aware of them from Wiliam Moore and Jaime Shandera in 1984.[2][10] He addressed criticisms of the original documents in both sources. As an example, Philip J. Klass claimed lexicographic inconsistencies based on the use of Pica typeface in the Cutler-Twining memo and offered $100, in a challenge to Friedman, for each legitimate example of the use of the same style and size Pica type as used in the memo. Friedman provided 14 examples and was paid $1000 by Klass.[2](reproduced on p. 262)


Because of this, one has to ask why certain officials even ''feel the need'' to fake documents or have a half-hearted view on the phenomenon. Until a true extensive research is made by respectful and trustworthy scientists, I cannot believe anything the government tells me.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #33 on: 06/01/2011 10:56:27 »
Here, Friedman, arguably a brilliant man has some interesting points about the project - some unusual facts about the statements themselves made:

 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #34 on: 06/01/2011 11:01:51 »
So many ''illogical conlcusions being brought forth'' here.

Films have very little impact. If anything, sightings have impacted movies. Wrong logic. After the 1952 incident the well watched and biggest movie out of all previous came out The Day the Earth Stood Still. To believe that movies have contributed to the 1952 incident is obviously false and blindly led. How can one come to these conclusions cliff? I am perplexed by ignorance of others into these situations, and get quite angry sometimes within myself.

I'm going to have to directly contradict you here.  Although I don't have any data specifically pertaining to UFO sightings, depictions in fiction certainly do have an enormous impact on people's descriptions of unusual events.  To take the example of alien abductions...

Early reports of abduction are rare, either because they were not taken seriously or (and here's the clincher) nobody claimed their experience to be extra-terrestrial in origin.  Alien abduction reports increase after aliens started appearing in fiction (pulp novels and comics initially).  However, in early abduction reports, the aliens were described as a huge range of body shapes & sizes.  As I'm sure you know, aliens are often now depicted as small, humanoid, grey figures with elongate faces and almond shaped eyes.  This is the description many abductees give, but is was never given prior to it's use in comics and science fiction.

This is merely one example, but it shows how wrong you would be to come to the conclusions you have reached.  

I have no knowledge of this particular incident, so cannot comment on it.  I merely intend to point out that popular depictions have an enormous impact on public perception, and it would be very, very wrong to discount them out of hand as you have done.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #35 on: 06/01/2011 11:26:35 »
I base what I said on UFO sightings, not abductions. I cannot take abductions too seriously. The first UFO movie was brought out in 1950. Before this there is a plethora of UFO sightings - usually saucerlike or brightly colored, gleaming with a great light. World War two had hundreds of sightings, named foo fighters - the War began in 1939 and ended in 1945 - it was during this age such things of saucer like craft where never spoke about.

No I hold to what I said BenV. Sightings have shaped UFO movies, not the other way round. Now with what sightings have been made, perhaps many want to hoax their way in this world, but it gives it no justice to call it a true sighting. 
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #36 on: 06/01/2011 11:30:52 »
You appreciate that pulp novels, non-pulp novels, comics, radio plays etc will have all contained aliens, UFOs etc long before any movies did?  These are what the movies are based on.

Edit - and my point still stands.  Dismissing the impact of popular media out of hand is foolhardy.

Extra Edit - The first Flash Gordon films came out in 1940!  So by 1952, people would already be keyed in to the idea that things they see in the sky and can't explain might be aliens.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 11:34:23 by BenV »
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #37 on: 06/01/2011 11:42:14 »
We are referring to populare culture, yes? Of course aliens where mentioned in pulp novels and whatnot. I do believe one of the best examples comes from 1898 - The war of the worlds. I don't believe there where any saucers in that exactly - yes an alien craft, but no saucers. Saucers are like a trademark of the UFOLOGIST era. You will however, find tapestries and paintings which predate 1800's of what looks like UFO's in the background. Some art even predate that with mysterious objects in the sky and if anyone was to research this, one will find most of them do look like flying saucers, but their recognition was not taken into hand until very late, until the 70's to present day.

The first sighting was on June 24, 1947, so thus was borne the saucer age. This was before movies even intended to depict saucer like craft and even before this, I doubt there was any literature of flying saucers - only indirect reports dating back to the middle ages, which I am sure very few people, maybe just a handful knew about.

What is appreciated, atleast from my stance, is that the possibility of UFO's (probably not even called that in many literatures before 1950) was not widely recognized as saucer shape, which is the whole point here - how saucer like craft became recognized is quite clearly from the world war and from the first saucer sighting in 1947. Movies today, are not wholey based on our primitive culture before 1950. The saucer age did not stem from there. If there had been no sightings of saucer shaped craft in the skies, then I doubt very much it would have had any significant role in the movie industry.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 11:43:51 by QuantumClue »
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #38 on: 06/01/2011 11:45:09 »
Flash Gorden did not have flying saucers. I appreciate aliens where speculated about; but I don't think you fully understand my arguement BenV.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #39 on: 06/01/2011 11:49:23 »
I might be wrong on something afterall. The press did use saucershape crafts in their illustrations... http://ufopop.org/ufopop_mags.php How this was adopted is somewhat baffling me right now.

I apologize ben.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 11:53:10 by QuantumClue »
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #40 on: 06/01/2011 11:56:56 »
Though defending myself again... If saucerlike objects date as far back as the middle ages, well before any photographic techniques where discovered, how can one say movies truely spawned the developement of sightings?

I agree, it must be true today many people create hoaxes because of the popular demand of the ufo-culture, but there was one point in our history where people genuinely saw these objects, and its not until later we have fully appreciated these claims..
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #41 on: 06/01/2011 11:58:23 »
Here are reports of sightings in ancient rome, egypt and the middle ages.

http://spookysky.com/2009/09/ufo-sightings-in-ancient-egypt-rome-and.html
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #42 on: 06/01/2011 17:32:23 »
QC - I think you are wasting your time trying to prove anything based on events that happened years ago. There has been too much time for manipulation and embellishment of the data.

Unless it's a current event, you are not going to convince skeptics (like me).
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #43 on: 06/01/2011 17:50:55 »
Then I will attempt this a different route and ask you questions. First would be what makes you such a skeptic?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #44 on: 06/01/2011 18:09:43 »
Sorry, but I'm not going to get into a circular debate with you.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #45 on: 06/01/2011 18:13:30 »
You say it's circular without even beginning?
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #46 on: 07/01/2011 10:33:31 »
QC, if you are looking for 'popular culture' in which flying saucers feature, try the H G Wells novel 'War of the Worlds'.

Orson Welles broadcast an adaptation of this book on radio in 1938 at Halloween. It was done in a manner which was akin to radio announcements. As a result, there was some panic and a considerable number of residents of New York and New Jersey started to flee the cities.

Strange, is it not, that before the advent of SF there are no reported UFO sightings.

BTW, your interpretation of 'popular culture' as being film and TV may stand good today, but before film and TV, books and news sheets were regarded as 'popular culture'.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #47 on: 07/01/2011 14:41:02 »
a short animation on openmindedness which was just posted in another place yet I feel sums up my feelings on this and quite a few other controversies
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #48 on: 08/01/2011 07:46:32 »
Imatfaal

Well, I have drawn some conclusions myself on this. The first few paragraph of the video beginning is riddled itself with flaws. First of all the video stipulates that this video can be applied to certain scientific concepts. If a theory presented has had little or no scientific investigation, then it is with good scientific regime to not have an expressed view of that unless it can be thought upon generally dismissable through a set of axioms.

In none of my existence have I seen proof for or against alien encounters. The scientist in me is more than aware of the technical implications, but I will keep an open mind on the possibility until such time evidence can be brought forth to clear this matter. A speculatory theory, which has not received wide scientific discipline is tenebrous and also dangerous to cast initial feelings on. UFO's sit on the boarder between reality and fantasy, and because of the lack of scientific discipline, some people find drawing results from it as futile.

The video also makes a point of saying that open mindedness is being wiling to appreciate new ideas. Whilst this true to some extent, it is not true in all cases. Some people being forwarded with new ideas, may have heard these ideas before. In this case, open mindedness can be also a way of trying to rethink an old way of thinking so a new paradigm can be unleashed.

Your video is strict, and speaks to us like babies. If that is the drive of your mentality, then by all means, enjoy your little videos.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2011 07:48:52 by QuantumClue »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #49 on: 08/01/2011 08:07:22 »
QC, as I said, you are presenting "evidence" that is almost as old as me.

If you provide something much more current, it is much more likely to be given serious consideration.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The 1952 Incident
« Reply #49 on: 08/01/2011 08:07:22 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums