Revisiting the 1952 Washington DC UFO Flap

a reply to: mirageman

Why so many UFO sightings in 1952?

I'm sure that the United States first above ground hydrogen bomb blast in November 1952, sparked a rekindled interest in us, by the otherworlders showing-off with dazzling aerial displays of fusion plasma encased foofighters, over a Washington D.C. night sky.

I tend to speculate --- due to the non-confirmation of various U.S. governmental institutions --- that fusion plasma encased foofighters are radar stealthy, due to the inherent characteristics of plasma; that has the ability to absorb radar waves.

I finally took the time to try to collect the data on the photo in order to decontaminate the case:



The DC Deception: Washington, DC Flying Saucers 1952
www.blueblurrylines.com...

a reply to: drumcrusher

mirageman,you put together a really good thread, lots of info, easy to read...really interesting subject for sure....nice change of pace from the doom and gloom threads!

a reply to: DexterRiley

I'd love to help you with this one. But I am a bit stumped. The photo is on my PC and labelled 'Robertson' but I can't remember where it came from and more importantly why I associated it with the Robertson panel other than the guy on the far left of the photo is Dr. H.P. Robertson the Chairman of the panel.

I must remember to make that appointment at the opticians!

originally posted by: CardDown
I finally took the time to try to collect the data on the photo in order to decontaminate the case:

The DC Deception: Washington, DC Flying Saucers 1952

It's a conspiracy I tell ya' . Someone doesn't want us to know what you found out.

I click your link and get this!






But then I discovered a secret back door to read it.

Clicky link below:

Photo Fakery: Washington, DC Flying Saucers 1952

Excellent analysis and wish you'd wrote it before I created the thread as it is very easy to get confused. Too many websites still pass the various crops of the photo and the video from documentaries as genuine photos of UFOs.

So just to re-iterate it again. Whilst the events of the 1952 DC Sightings were real these photos and video are not.

a reply to: mirageman
Thanks, I fixed the link. Thanks, also for this topic, which prompted me to finally collect that photo data.
Things like this are not unique to the DC case. There are a lot of careless folks that just need a UFO illustration for a story and just aren't that particular about where it comes from. Readers may not know that it's visual candy and mistake it for something genuine.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

.........................

If you're up to it, maybe we both could investigate the phenomenon, PM each other, choose some cases, do some research, play devil's advocate, sort through the hype and disinformation, work on parts of a thread together, and present our cases to the members here. What do you think?

Sounds like an interesting idea and I'm certainly up for it!

originally posted by: mirageman

So just to re-iterate it again. Whilst the events of the 1952 DC Sightings were real these photos and video are not.

So people did not have a camera at that time?|How was It never recorded

a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for the reply. I don't think the error was necessarily on your part. I believe I ran across a few other places where that photo was associated with the Robertson Panel.

I had hoped that it was a picture of the members of the panel after the proceedings. I would like to have summoned a "seer" from some of the more eclectic areas of our community to provide some insight into the circumstances of the photo. Most folks don't have much faith in such things. But I'll take what information I can get, wherever I can get it. Especially since we'll probably never know the full story.

In following up on the Robertson Panel proceedings, based on Wikipedia, it's clear to me that it was another of those dog-and-pony shows put on to calm the masses. There was never any intention on their part to actually examine the phenomena with an unbiased eye.



dex

a reply to: CardDown

Unfortunately, I was almost fooled myself. We discusss government and military cover-ups to conceal the truth about UFOs but sadly there are also charlatans pushing mis-information like this for their own motives.

originally posted by: CollisioN

originally posted by: mirageman

So just to re-iterate it again. Whilst the events of the 1952 DC Sightings were real these photos and video are not.

So people did not have a camera at that time?|How was It never recorded

I assume it was because it was 1952 and most of the sightings were recorded in the early hours of the mornings on the July weekends in question.

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: mirageman

As soon as we began using radar there was an awful lot of 'foo' in the sky

That is a really interesting aspect to consider. It really could be as simple as a radar operator thinking they have a solid return and then asking a pilot for visual confirmation. The pilot now believing he has something in his air space might believe he saw something. I always get in trouble when I speculate but I wonder if such studies were done. Sure seems like a study that should be done if there wasn't one. Maybe the study was done in 52?

I think I came across this when looking over the Rendlesham case. Andrew Pike was a scientist who was investigating certain phenomena in East Anglia around the same time so this was 1980 onwards. However I will have to double check my facts before stating this as absolute. And if I am wrong then I will happily admit so.

Zeta - I have dug out the relevant magazine article.

You may remember the Rendlesham thread from around this time last year?

A small part of that thread concerned the studies by qualified astro-physicist Andrew Pike on what occurred at Rendlesham. Although he produced , a now out of print, book "The Rendlesham File" in 2005/6 I do not own a copy nor have I read his report in full.

However he did give an abbreviated summary in UFO Matrix magazine Vol.1 Issue 3 - 2010 (which is still available electronically). Here's what he said about "foo fighters". I think you may find this interesting.

..I revisited the sightings (foo fighters) and found that the research astronomers had done during 1939 -1945 fitted. It even explained why foo fighters seemed to take a break during 1943 and then return with a vengeance. The dates of planes and their types, Halifax, Stirling, Lancasters, etc...fitted.

There was also reason to keep foo fighters a secret. If the Nazis knew what was causing them they could target the specific planes, and knockout the few aircraft, carrying the new, precious and experimental H25 AI (Air Interception) radar on board. It seemed clear that the microwaves pumped out from this new radar equipment were creating the foo fighters.The limited equipment even had to be transferred to Coastal Command in 1943 to detect U-boats in the North Atlantic....Powerful microwaves pumped into air...seemed to produce foo at certain wavelengths and powers under the right atmospherice conditions..

The research being carried out by astronomers like Bernard Lovell and Martin Ryle fitted the dates and bombing raids spot on. Smokey Stover was almost right when he said "Where there's foo there's fire."

In fact where there's foo there's radar

Source : UFO Matrix Magazine : Volume 1 Issue 3

Could there be a direct link to what happened in July 1952 over Washington?

a reply to: mirageman
Thank you much. That is really interesting. Foo fighters, as I understand, were small balls of light that followed planes around during WW2. So these systems would actually cause visible balls of light?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: mirageman
Thank you much. That is really interesting. Foo fighters, as I understand, were small balls of light that followed planes around during WW2. So these systems would actually cause visible balls of light?

The WW2 Allied pilots reported that some foofighters were "small fiery balls of light and some much bigger;" yet they continue too be seen to this very day.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: mirageman
Thank you much. That is really interesting. Foo fighters, as I understand, were small balls of light that followed planes around during WW2. So these systems would actually cause visible balls of light?

That's the conclusion Andrew Pike came to after looking at the data. Specific types of radar, in the right weather conditions, would actually interact with the atmosphere to create "foo". Now he was linking some of the sightings in Rendlesham Forest during 1980.

But what I found intriguing is that he says:

.I revisited the sightings (foo fighters) and found that the research astronomers had done during 1939 -1945 fitted

So in the next decade had the development of radar been taken to a different level? Had we learned enough that we could now control enemy radar to the extent of spoofing radar returns and objects in the sky [plasmas?) Was this somehow tested on home turf (well airspace) in 1952?

If you look at the quote at the start of the thread how did a scientist who spoke to Ruppelt know :

"......they're (UFOs) going to blow up and you're going to have the granddaddy of all UFO sightings. The sighting will occur in Washington or New York...."

It's all conjecture I know. But there were also the later odd sightings in Europe (during a military exercise)

Operation Mainbrace

Not only that but in Britain, Churchill was asking questions about Flying Saucers too.

a reply to: mirageman

Yeah, that's the same type of thing I was referring to earlier. This one blogger has a series of blogs along those lines.

Now, it just so happens that in my research for my book on Dr. J. Allen Hynek, I came across a government memo that outlines just such a project... In the August, 1949 final report issued by Project Grudge, the Air Force's UFO investigation program, the following conclusions were reached:

a. “(T)hese flying objects constitute no direct threat to the national security of the United States.

b. “Reports of unidentified flying objects are the result of:

1. Misinterpretations of various conventional objects.

2. A mild form of mass hysteria or ‘war nerves.’

3. Individuals who fabricate such reports to perpetuate a hoax or to seek publicity.

4. Psychopathological persons.

c. “Planned release of unusual aerial objects coupled with the release of related psychological propaganda could cause mass hysteria.”

did you read the whole list? Item "c" kind of jumps out at you, doesn't it? Why the hell is the Air Force daydreaming about using the UFO phenomenon as a front for creating mass hysteria? On whom exactly are they thinking of unleashing this massive mind-#? The report doesn't say, but the reader is left with the uncomfortable impression that the authors could have the American public in mind...

www.highstrangenessufo.com...
www.highstrangenessufo.com...
www.highstrangenessufo.com...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I'll take a look at those links in more detail. The Condign report ,which was conducted in the late 1990s by the UK MoD hints at weaponising the "phenomena" observed in Rendlesham Forest. Whatever that really means. Rendlesham happened 28 years after the DC incidents.

So 62 years on it's difficult to guess what toys and countermeasures have been introduced by the world's military powers.

The question is does any of it have anything to do with UFOs?

a reply to: mirageman

Mirageman, a couple of things don't add up with the radar "spoofing" to explain the Washington 1952 UFO incidents. Most glaringly, as we have both mentioned, there were multiple eyewitness sightings that coincided with the radar returns.

That brings me to the next point, I can see how maybe returns could be "spoofed" on radar, but due to the laws of conservation of mass and energy, I cannot see how this spoofing would create actual mass/energy out of thin air. The only thing that I know which can appear to do that is a hologram, but I don't think they can make holograms move thousand's of miles per hour, and I don't think holograms have any radar return.

Also, given this radar "spoofing" existed, it would have been a highly secret classified project, and it is extremely logically inconsistent they would be testing it out over Washington DC when they could easily test it in Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Kwajelin etc, especially over multiple days.

So I don't think this one has ever been satisfactorily debunked.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

So I don't think this one has ever been satisfactorily debunked.

Its not a "debunking", its exploring alternate interpretations.

Most glaringly, as we have both mentioned, there were multiple eyewitness sightings that coincided with the radar returns.

If they are spoofing radar to fool their own people, why wouldn't they plant some eye witness reports?

“Planned release of unusual aerial objects coupled with the release of related psychological propaganda could cause mass hysteria.”

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: mirageman

Mirageman, a couple of things don't add up with the radar "spoofing" to explain the Washington 1952 UFO incidents. Most glaringly, as we have both mentioned, there were multiple eyewitness sightings that coincided with the radar returns.

That brings me to the next point, I can see how maybe returns could be "spoofed" on radar, but due to the laws of conservation of mass and energy, I cannot see how this spoofing would create actual mass/energy out of thin air. The only thing that I know which can appear to do that is a hologram, but I don't think they can make holograms move thousand's of miles per hour, and I don't think holograms have any radar return.

Also, given this radar "spoofing" existed, it would have been a highly secret classified project, and it is extremely logically inconsistent they would be testing it out over Washington DC when they could easily test it in Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Kwajelin etc, especially over multiple days.

So I don't think this one has ever been satisfactorily debunked.

I agree it has not been satisfactorily explained. I was merely trying to formulate a theory based on Zeta's details on Project Palladium and my knowledge gleaned from another case.

The eye witnesses are important and they did report visual confirmation of something also creating blips on radar. Which means if this was radar spoofing then something else had to have been involved to create a visual "phenomenon".

My line of thinking here is firstly that Ed Ruppelt (the Head of Project Bluebook) publishes a book a few years after the events clearly stating

the scientist made a prediction: ..... 'Within the next few days....they're going to blow up and you're going to have the granddaddy of all UFO sightings. The sighting will occur in Washington or New York,' he predicted, 'probably Washington.'"

Quite some revelation. Here we are being told that scientists back in the 1950s could 'predict' UFO flaps.

This made me wonder why a 'scientist' who could not be named was involved and mentioned in a book about UFOs?

Then Zeta bring up Project Palladium. So here we have scientists predictions UFOs and military projects on radar spoofing.

That triggered the details of a post I made (click). on Andrew Pike's scientific investigation into Rendlesham. If you are not familiar with that case then that thread will bring you up to speed and it will probably be Christmas before you finish reading it!

He not only appears to confirm that research was undertaken into the effects of radar but also mentions how certain "foo fighter" type effects could be created when energy (such as that from a radar) was pumped into the atmosphere when conditions were right.

So at a time when the Cold War was at it's height and the Soviets were testing H-bombs could this all be an experiment that would test the military without the Soviets realising?

That I don't know. But if you follow the history of the UFO age it runs almost concurrently with the Cold War and slowly goes out with the Phoenix Lights in 1997.