[QuantumClue (OP)]

This subforum does not truely give credit to this topic, as it is actually true - but the real question is; whatever happened on 1952 in washington DC, was it one of extraterrestrial origin? Hundreds of witnesses came foward - radar signals showed presence of an unidentified fleet quickly moving over the skyline of washington, a restricted air space.

This presence caused a great panic, which spread tension concerning a possible national threat. Fighters were deployed with extreme orders of shooting the UFO's down, but the objects evaded the best fighter pilots of the day. Any time one intercepted close to the mysterious objects, they would fly off fast at speeds which could not be matched. The UFO's showed such considerable information on the state of the fighter pilots, that even a major in the elite at the time noted that ''they must have known when the pilots where running out of fuel'' simply because they reappeared when the pilots had to call off the interception when critically low on fuel.

These objects were indeed real, being confirmed by the public, airforce fighters and even radar, these objects where soon to be scrutinized by the airforce, but out of it would come some of the most damning UFO denials ever to be witnessed - if not, one of the first damning denials given to the public. In the largest pentagon press ever witnessed till that day, the objects where demystified as merely stars or some other type of natural phenomenon - but it was all too clear that it could not be stars, and who took such a report seriously is not entirely clear (or how such a report could be taken seriously is really beyond even my scope). It reminds me of the NASA comments, always coming out with the most rational of explanations for UFO phenomenon inexorably captured on their footage in space, but never quite fits the bill.

Interestingly, an official came to the remarkable conclusion that whatever was caught on radar was not material, and so it could not pose a threat to National Security, and from that day on, was dismissed as an unidentified, but quite harmless phenomenon, which did not quite make sense. If the object was indeed unidentified, people argued, how could we be so sure it posed no physical threat? Indeed, whatever the bright luminous objects where, they displayed increadible intelligence, and, if you would like, an advanced type of technology which in all purposes of the word, is itself a danger to National Security, no matter how you dress the situation up.

When an interview commenced the radar and control tower personnel at Washington National Airport showed that not a single person agreed with the Air Force explanation. Mirages and mass hallucinations don't cut it for many people, for obvious reasons. Was this the beginning of the UFO coverup? The Military certainly showed a certain ''worry'' over the situation, and more importantly, was the first and last public investigation into the UFO phenomenon conduction by the US Airforce. Indeed, eventually the control tower it was reported, was subjected to higher officials commanding those who saw orange fiery objects to say all they had seen was a bright star, but later investigation showed there was not even any bright stars in the sky that night. This was already shaping up to be a brilliant cover-up indeed. Already the officials and the governement were lying about the nature of these objects, not to mention how embarrassing it must have been for them not to be able to bring them down with the best tactical airforce at the time. 

This case most likely spurred the first real X-Files. It was certainly believed, even by the fighter pilots that the governments explanations of ''radar blips'' was physically impossible. Anything less than an intelligently controlled craft would be highly improbable.

The 1952 video of the bizarre lights:

A more detailed account can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident

[CliffordK]

The 1952 video of the bizarre lights:

Can you tell me what kind of film that 1952 film was shot on?  The origin of the film?

TV of that era would have been virtually all black and white.
Super-8 came out in 1965, although "double-8" would have been contemporary with the film, but I believe it was also black and white only.

There would have been some color movies by 1952, as well as a process of "colorizing", especially on still photos.  Technicolor was a 3-film process, and clearly out of the hands of the amateur film makers.  Eastman Color was just coming out with the first 3-layer movie film in 1950. 

As far as the incident.
I don't know.

It sounds like there is a ton of classified information that has recently been declassified, so presumably one could spend months wading through documentation, and looking at a few grainy photos.  I would imagine that at least some of the photos would have been taken of an effort analyze the phenomena, rather than the phenomena itself.  I.E. actual weather balloons & military aircraft.

[Geezer]

Well, we know one thing. Somebody superimposed the date on the film after it was shot. The technology to do that in real time didn't exist in 1952. So, the film has at least been modified in some respect.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

The footage may have come from a documentary, one person has said I remember responding on youtube. So I kept that in mind..

[CliffordK]

Is it a coincidence that there were many UFO sitings in the early 50's...  About the time that Hollywood started coming up with films as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFOs_in_fiction

Atom Man versus Superman - 1950
Flying Disc Man from Mars - 1950
The Flying Saucer - 1950
Captain Video: Master of the Stratosphere - 1951
The Man from Planet X - 1951
The Day the Earth Stood Still - 1951
The Thing from Another World - 1951
Blackhawk - 1952
Radar Men from the Moon - 1952
Zombies of the Stratosphere - 1952 - aka 'Satan's Satellites'
Commando Cody - Sky Marshall of the Universe - 1953
The Lost Planet - 1953
Planet Outlaws - 1953
The War of the Worlds - 1953
Invaders from Mars - 1953
It Came from Outer Space - 1953
Phantom from Space - 1953
Robot Monster - 1953

[QuantumClue (OP)]

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.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

The UFO incidents are real, and considering the logic of each cases which have impact, more is happening here than a good bottle of sherry and a ssaturday night in watching UFO films. It will be to great embarrasment to people who make such statements to eventually find out that the UFO phenomenon is real, which was first and last admitted to by the AIR force in 1952.

[JP]

The UFO incidents are real, and considering the logic of each cases which have impact, more is happening here than a good bottle of sherry and a ssaturday night in watching UFO films. It will be to great embarrasment to people who make such statements to eventually find out that the UFO phenomenon is real, which was first and last admitted to by the AIR force in 1952.

This isn't exactly an impartial statement trying to evaluate what was seen scientifically.  This is the problem with UFO theories.  There is a lack of conclusive evidence, so those on either side have to make calls based on their own judgement, not on conclusive science.  I would say just the opposite--that UFOs have logical explanations in terms of known phenomena, but I can't conclusively prove that either.  (Of course, in science, theories aren't considered true until disproven, so most scientists would probably be skeptics.)

In regards to how impossible it is for such an incident to be caused by natural phenomena, consider the sheer number of sightings reported over the years.  If UFOs have a natural explanation, you would expect most of them to be perfectly well explained by natural phenomena, while a handful should seem to defy explanation based purely on the fact that very unlikely sightings will occur when people are reporting thousands of sightings.  I haven't seen someone do an analysis of the sightings, but this seems to be exactly what is observed--most sightings have a natural explanation, while a few get lauded as proof that no natural explanation is possible.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

The UFO incidents are real, and considering the logic of each cases which have impact, more is happening here than a good bottle of sherry and a ssaturday night in watching UFO films. It will be to great embarrasment to people who make such statements to eventually find out that the UFO phenomenon is real, which was first and last admitted to by the AIR force in 1952.

This isn't exactly an impartial statement trying to evaluate what was seen scientifically.  This is the problem with UFO theories.  There is a lack of conclusive evidence, so those on either side have to make calls based on their own judgement, not on conclusive science.  I would say just the opposite--that UFOs have logical explanations in terms of known phenomena, but I can't conclusively prove that either.  (Of course, in science, theories aren't considered true until disproven, so most scientists would probably be skeptics.)

In regards to how impossible it is for such an incident to be caused by natural phenomena, consider the sheer number of sightings reported over the years.  If UFOs have a natural explanation, you would expect most of them to be perfectly well explained by natural phenomena, while a handful should seem to defy explanation based purely on the fact that very unlikely sightings will occur when people are reporting thousands of sightings.  I haven't seen someone do an analysis of the sightings, but this seems to be exactly what is observed--most sightings have a natural explanation, while a few get lauded as proof that no natural explanation is possible.

Oh JP, I doubt this is either a matter of conlusive evidence. This is a matter of trying to deny evidence which cannot be refuted. There is a big difference.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

Also, weighing evidence to support something in how unlikely it is, is a matter of ignorance from the mathematicians part. The liklihood of some alien race reaching is - is in fact - very high, depending on what kind of physics they know. Such as wormhole manipulation (which a doctor of physics I speak to frequently speak of) or maybe a planet not too far away but have managed to find a resourceful way to reach us... either way, there is an infinite amount of room this universe which is logically suited to having an infinite possibilities we manage to deny so frequently.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

JP

I would say just the opposite--that UFOs have logical explanations in terms of known phenomena, but I can't conclusively prove that either.  (Of course, in science, theories aren't considered true until disproven, so most scientists would probably be skeptics.)

Can you answer how natural phenomenon manage to evade UFO's on a daily basis? How did the UFO's of 1952 manage to evade the best airforce of the day... as they reported, was in fact like the UFO's know of their abilities, able to speed away on near contact... Such evidence leads to the idea that they are intelligently flown.

[JP]

I can't really debate you if your claim is "the evidence is conclusive" and my claim is "it isn't."  But since the UFO-supporters are the ones making extraordinary claims that UFOs cannot be explained by any natural phenomena, they're the ones who have to provide conclusive evidence and actually scientifically demonstrate that it's conclusive.  I've seen a lot of inconclusive evidence with plenty of assertions that it is indeed conclusive, but no actual science showing that it is conclusive--i.e. that there is no other natural explanation possible, or even that given the total number of sightings in a period, that the evidence for this one particular sighting is such a statistical outlier that it can't possibly be caused by a very rare combination of natural events.

In the case of this one, I say temperature inversion and optical illusions are likely candidates, coupled with the tendency towards UFO hysteria of the times which probably blew it out of proportion.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

JP, the 1952 was an incident which involved nearly as many officials as it did civilians. ''claims'' as it were in your example gives little justification to its integrity.

[CliffordK]

One of the problems that one encounters with the whole thing is when someone presents a film as the You-Tube clip above which appears to be highly doctored, or perhaps even a "recreation" as being actual footage, the whole argument then looses credibility.

Then there are so many hoaxes that causes the whole field to loose credibility.

According to Wikipedia, The Day the Earth Stood Still was released on September 28, 1951, and predates the July 19–20, 1952 and July 26–27, 1952 incidents (oddly noted on consecutive weekends, there is no reason an alien would be constrained to a 7 day week).  And, of course, noting the film, The Day the Earth Stood Still, showed the UFO buzzing the US Capitol building, and other global monuments.

Movies and Literature obviously pushes the limit of science, and one does not have to have an actual "alien" to write about them.  Perhaps we should debate the qualities of "red matter"?  

Different cultures might have labeled things differently based on their cultural history, and the media.  So the Ancient Greeks would likely have labeled a UFO as a "God".  But it just seems odd the high rate of "sitings" this century.

If the UFO hunters would accept the likely alternative explanations for the 99% of sitings, then it would be much easier to concentrate on the remaining 1%.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

Also friend, are UFO reporters being extreem to say they cannot be explained by natural phenoms when, and this is the best interest of science, to say when the natural phenomenon cannot be answered by natural sciences? In other words, is it fair to put the blame on UFO reporters, when it is sciences job to provide the evidence? If science cannot answer, then how can one expect to find the integrity of claims faulty - that is, unless the general public finds such an idea incomprehensible?

[QuantumClue (OP)]

Cliff

One of the problems that one encounters with the whole thing is when someone presents a film as the You-Tube clip above which appears to be highly doctored, or perhaps even a "recreation" as being actual footage, the whole argument then looses credibility.

I will admit when something is doctored, but as an expert has said, and as much as they have said it about NASA footage I have posted, such footage cannot be questioned!!!! This is a big statement - too many people have commented that such an integrity cannot be questioned in the footage. This is footage originally live-wired to the Nation.

Then there are so many hoaxes that causes the whole field to loose credibility.

Cliff... please. How many mysteries are caused by people making hoaxes? The whole of history, both Britain and America is based on them, for goodness sake. It sounds like a bad conference so it does.

According to Wikipedia, The Day the Earth Stood Still was released on September 28, 1951, and predates the July 19–20, 1952 and July 26–27, 1952 incidents (oddly noted on consecutive weekends, there is no reason an alien would be constrained to a 7 day week).  And, of course, noting the film, The Day the Earth Stood Still, showed the UFO buzzing the US Capitol building, and other global monuments.

I have a different idea of when the film came out... maybe you are right?

Different cultures might have labeled things differently based on their cultural history, and the media.  So the Ancient Greeks would likely have labeled a UFO as a "God".  But it just seems odd the high rate of "sitings" this century.

When the public awoke from their sleep, so did officials. They are just to blame if anything to the UFO phenom. Indeed! If the US Airforce did not take it seriously, then they would not have been so embarrisngly evaded by some highly intelligent light devices in the sky.

When taking all alternatives such explanations seem... inconsistent.

If the UFO hunters would accept the likely alternative explanations for the 99% of sitings, then it would be much easier to concentrate on the remaining 1%.

Please, again!

If UFO disbielvers could accept than 1% possibility, there is still an undeniable chance that that rest remaining 99% is still open for arguement. why do you think some of the best astrophicists that have ever existed like Carl Sagan, believed that UFO's could be of an extratterestrial origin? It must be quite clear even with their best of minds, that such an opportunity cannot be mistaken for a bad logical sense!

[JP]

Also friend, are UFO reporters being extreem to say they cannot be explained by natural phenoms when, and this is the best interest of science, to say when the natural phenomenon cannot be answered by natural sciences? In other words, is it fair to put the blame on UFO reporters, when it is sciences job to provide the evidence? If science cannot answer, then how can one expect to find the integrity of claims faulty - that is, unless the general public finds such an idea incomprehensible?

Surely you're not saying that science's job is to provide evidence to back up every extraordinary claim made by non-scientists!  That would at least require funding, and would set a terrible precedent about the kind of claims that scientists should research.

However, the government did at one point fund research into UFOs, so that cases were examined in detail.  For example, this particular case was investigated and the official explanation was in terms of natural phenomena (i.e. temperature inversion).  Of course, believers say that this is a cover up.  To believers, scientists are damned if they do provide evidence, and damned if they don't.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

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.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

Also Jp, the you do not give the information credit of the details of the event. There was a lot more to the ''official explanation'' was unlikely according to a greater amount of professionals, as my OP gave away.

[JP]

Eh... we'll apparently have to disagree then.  I don't think either of us can provide a detailed analysis of the evidence to get the other to give ground. 

As I pointed out in a different thread, though, a majority of scientists have similar views to those I've expressed--the evidence just isn't conclusive to them.  Unless something much more concrete appears, this type of sighting will convince believers, but not skeptics, and won't have mainstream scientific support.