The 1952 Incident

  • 58 Replies
  • 15778 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« on: 04/01/2011 12:38:48 »
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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZ7O9cfpPQ&feature=&p=F3B1A018FEE14E37&index=0&playnext=1

A more detailed account can be found at:

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

« Last Edit: 04/01/2011 12:45:24 by QuantumClue »

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #1 on: 04/01/2011 23:34:21 »

The 1952 video of the bizarre lights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZ7O9cfpPQ&feature=&p=F3B1A018FEE14E37&index=0&playnext=1

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.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #2 on: 04/01/2011 23:57:51 »
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.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #3 on: 05/01/2011 02:19:07 »
The footage may have come from a documentary, one person has said I remember responding on youtube. So I kept that in mind..

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #4 on: 05/01/2011 10:33:46 »
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

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #5 on: 06/01/2011 00:49:04 »
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.


*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #6 on: 06/01/2011 00:52:31 »
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.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #7 on: 06/01/2011 01:32:43 »
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.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #8 on: 06/01/2011 01:51:40 »
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.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #9 on: 06/01/2011 01:55:39 »
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.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #10 on: 06/01/2011 01:58:07 »
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.


*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #11 on: 06/01/2011 02:08:41 »
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.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #12 on: 06/01/2011 02:19:45 »
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.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 02:43:17 by QuantumClue »

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #13 on: 06/01/2011 02:20:55 »
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%.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 02:22:29 by CliffordK »

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #14 on: 06/01/2011 02:23:13 »
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?

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #15 on: 06/01/2011 02:37:55 »
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!





*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #16 on: 06/01/2011 03:06:59 »
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.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #17 on: 06/01/2011 03:12:53 »
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.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #18 on: 06/01/2011 03:17:01 »
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.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #19 on: 06/01/2011 03:24:34 »
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.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #20 on: 06/01/2011 03:29:13 »
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)
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #21 on: 06/01/2011 03:32:19 »
The problem is when "science" does provide an explanation, and UFO believers choose to ignore it.

So many theories of crashed alien ships...  but no actual hull fragments or alien bodies????

And potential crash sites like Tunguska seem more consistent with meteor impacts than alien landing sites.

I just can't imagine the idea that our government would spend millions or billions of dollars on radio telescopes and other technology to search for alien life, and would turn around and "cover-up" actual terrestrial evidence.  

It is possible that the idea of "aliens" would have caused mass hysteria when the War of the Worlds Radiobroadcast was done on October 30, 1938.  However, I think we are beyond that, and still desperately seeking answers to the age-old question of whether we are alone in the universe.

At some point Aliens might become a fundamental part of a religious question, but the secular nature of at least the USA would tend to preclude that as an argument for a "cover-up".

As far as Carl Sagen, I believe most of his arguments were directed towards the possibility of technologically advanced life living on extra-solar planets.  Arguments that such aliens could actually travel to Earth are much weaker.

If, for example, humans chose to travel to Proxima/Alpha Centauri, and it took several centuries for our "generation ship" to arrive, would we be content to just buzz a planet similar to Earth while hiding the colony ship somewhere out of sight, and not making any efforts to choose an alternative planet or moon to colonize?
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 03:35:57 by CliffordK »

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #22 on: 06/01/2011 03:39:37 »
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.

That is my point. A lack of scientific evidence is a lack of understanding and not a lack of integrity of the public and officials who have serious complaints about these phenomenon. Using the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence requires an extraordinary survay and scientific investigation. The lack of a scientific course lacks a true understanding of how to approach sightings. The very fact we have now reached the year 2011 and without credible explanation gives an even better understanding of how bizarre and unnatural these events are, never mind looking for natural events to appreciate them.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #23 on: 06/01/2011 03:41:23 »
The problem is when "science" does provide an explanation, and UFO believers choose to ignore it.


What evidence have you apprecieted, rather than the dogma? Only dogma appreciates the people who view such sightings as something to fail in the scientific arena. The scientific arena has failed to answer the public, which makes a big difference to your logic.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #24 on: 06/01/2011 03:44:34 »
In other words cliff, the evidence is beyond at most times a credible explanation. If the evidence is incredible then why try and support it with credible explanations when those explanations truely do not phsyically fit the bill? Such wide ignorance is observed and is disliked by UFOLOGISTS wordwide. NASA is famous for such statements.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 03:46:28 by QuantumClue »

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 6321
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KfvLqjxx_I

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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).
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 6890
  • 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'.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.