The "UFOs" in the famous photo showing lights over Washington DC have been identified

This is a really good explanation of the lights over DC. And may very well explain the famous photograph. I thought the unidentified objects were witnessed over a 5 day period though. So any News photographer looking to make a sensational story would be looking for, what witnesses had seen. I doubt any witnesses during that period in time were carrying around cameras, and the skill to capture the True UFOs. So the picture is most likely a fake, for the Newspapers. Although I still believe we are not alone in the Universe.

I was 4 years old at the time, just learning English with a lot of talk radio as an adjunct to the mom & dad who shipped out most of every month on the Dredge Haines out of Grand Haven Michigan

the photo of lights I remember was sure not that full-frontal of the capitol building,,,

the published lights photograph had the more than a dozen discs-of-lights almost directly overhead (in the night sky) and the oblique angle profile of the Capitol taking up most of the left hand side of the photo (from a cameraman laying on his back on the street surface)

that image presented in the OP thread opener is NOT the ufo lights snapshot printed in the newspapers back in July 1952

a reply to: Glassbender777

The photo just has nothing to do with the events, other than it was used as the cover of a "Flying Saucers" magazine to illustrate it many years later. It's been debunked over and over, but people still keep using the photo since theres not a real one.

The photo has no bearing on the reality of the 1952 Washington, DC events.

a reply to: St Udio

the photo of lights I remember was sure not that full-frontal of the capitol building,,, the published lights photograph had the more than a dozen discs-of-lights almost directly overhead (in the night sky) and the oblique angle profile of the Capitol taking up most of the left hand side of the photo (from a cameraman laying on his back on the street surface)

You mean this one?

a reply to: mirageman

Barnes and Pierman were in radio contact,
"S.C. Pierman, a Capital Airlines pilot, was waiting in the cockpit of his DC-4 for permission to take off. After spotting what he believed to be a meteor, he was told that the control tower's radar had picked up unknown objects closing in on his position. Pierman observed six objects — "white, tailless, fast-moving lights" — over a 14-minute period. Pierman was in radio contact with Barnes during his sighting, and Barnes later related that "each sighting coincided with a pip we could see near his plane."
Other notable stuff, the blips vanished on the three radar screens at the same time.
Two jets were scrambled but found nothing, although after they left being low on fuel, the blips returned.

a reply to: smurfy

I am a bit confused.

I listed Harry Barnes and Pierman as witnesses in my post you are replying to.

I also did a full thread not too long ago about this case and mentioned them here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you trying to tell me something or just offering up some information?

a reply to: smurfy

Other notable stuff, the blips vanished on the three radar screens at the same time.

Two jets were scrambled but found nothing, although after they left being low on fuel, the blips returned.

That's because the radar-spoofing equipment was turned off and then turned back on again.

The CIA and the UFO Mythos

a reply to: WeRpeons

You might as well claim these lights were caused by swamp gas! Lens flares wouldn't have been picked up on radar by the Washington National Airport.

Well said. It never cases to amaze me how far some people are willing to go to deny literally tens of thousands of incidents of alien contact.

In fact, I don't even think the OP has provided any proof at all that they were lens flares.
I just hear a theory, and somebody drew some blue lines on a photo. None of which correspond to the actual positions of the lights they claim are responsible for the alleged lens flares.
Take a good look at those blue lines; they claim some lights caused two seperate lens flares, other lights just caused one lens flare, some lights didn't cause any lens flares at all, it's all very random and amateurish. Lens flares is a poor explanation without any substantial evidence to support it.

a reply to: mirageman

I make that 10. I may have missed a few. But there really weren't a lot of witnesses.

The events happened late at night/early morning and so there very few civilian witnesses.

Excuse me, mm, but don't you mean there were not a lot of witness reports ?

Even today, only a fraction of witnesses report their sightings. And we have far more resources today that will accept UFO reports. At the time, there was no database available to the public to report a UFO sighting; some called police, some called the airports, some called the closest air force base.
Most never called anyone.

So you can't know how many witnessed an event, or how many called to report the sighting, you can only point to how many sightings were written down in an official capacity and compiled in a database. And made public.

a reply to: Scdfa

Hello Scdfella.

Where have you been my friend?

More importantly are the family holding up?

Anyway on topic:

I think the photo in question has been explained satisfactorily as lens flare and it was certainly not used back in '52. However I would like to know its origins. It seems it was taken in 1965 according to some sources. But I have been unable to verify who took it and when.

NICAP did run their own analysis here : www.nicap.org...

It's still somewhat inconclusive.

I am aware that a number of people in the thread, like yourself, have been very doubting about what has been said at times here.

The lens flare on the picture can be checked scientifically (as in the video I posted earlier) The small number of witnesses to the UFOs over the capital is also a verifiable fact in the available documents. It was late night and early morning in 1952. Not many civilians were about. Especially with cameras.

Does that mean nothing happened? Absolutely not.


For a long while media and public (even beyond the USA) were fascinated by this case. It is still a case that resonates today. The USAF were very concerned about what seemed to be penetrating US airspace freely in the the summer of 1952. The official explanation of temperature inversions was accepted by some at the time. But I don't think that's a common view in the UFO community.

I know people have different standpoints because of their own experiences. But we should all try to throw the personal dogma aside, avoid circular arguments, and look for the evidence that proves something beyond reasonable doubt that would be accepted by the many people who really don't have much interest in UFOs or aliens.

Otherwise we can perpetually argue amongst ourselves about what most of the population of the world have no awareness of nor interest in.

I'm confused. Who's saying this is a lens flare and how did they come up with that conclusion?

There is a lot more to debunking this than just lining up the lights in front of the building with the lights in the sky...Although here on ATS lately (and especially in this forum) I am not surprised your OP has been met with little to no objection.

There isn't enough data here to just say "it's lens flares" and to call it debunked. I checked your link and wasn't very impressed with that, either.

I am not saying it's a UFO or aliens, etc...I am just saying that without the rest of the data ESPECIALLY the info about the camera, the film and most importantly THE ACTUAL LENS that took the photograph, this is in no way debunked. Period.

If ATS's motto is "Deny Ignorance" then it goes both ways and also includes those who think everything is a Chinese lantern or, the more popular excuse as of late, a lens flare.

That might work for those with limited knowledge when it comes to FILM cameras, photography, light and the way lens flares are produced. However, I actually have the knowledge base and drawing lines from each light to the ones in the sky and behind the Capital dome does not debunk this.

Not even close...

originally posted by: lovebeck
I am not saying it's a UFO or aliens, etc...I am just saying that without the rest of the data ESPECIALLY the info about the camera, the film and most importantly THE ACTUAL LENS that took the photograph, this is in no way debunked. Period.

While some lenses may be more prone to lens flare than others, this type of pattern is textbook lens flare, with reflection of the lights about the optical center. It's a fairly unique pattern of lights so the odds of things in the sky flying in a formation exactly matching the reflected light pattern is already astronomical before confirming the geometry described below by Caelestia and ipaco.fr which just nails it further. I doubt seriously that you can name any type of lens that would render this explanation invalid but if you think you can, please elaborate, this should be good.

Caelestia explains the textbook geometry we see in the subject photo and they provide other examples:

www.caelestia.be...

Lens flares can make very convincing UFOs. Fortunately, they are easy to identify as both the light source and its reflected image are usually located on a line that crosses the centre of the photograph and at equal distances from that centre (how lens flares can be identified is illustrated in some of our case examples).

There are lots of threads on ATS about lens flare, here's a pretty good post that references the ipaco.fr resource on image analysis, which is informative about lens flare and gives an even more detailed, but similar explanation of the geometry as caelestia.:

www.ipaco.fr...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: elevenaugust

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
But until I see detailed explanation to explain HOW it happened, then it's just a hypothesis...no matter who offers it up. At least that's how I roll....

Here you go:

Extracted from "analysis methodology" here

If we apply this to your photo, it's evident that this is a lens flare with picture’s optical center matches its geometrical center:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: elevenaugust
reply to post by againuntodust

 

Yes, it's a lens flare.

One simple way to detect such flare anomalies is to draw two diagonal lines to determine the center of the photo, the flare is generally located at the opposite side of its source, through the central point, also called point reflection (or inversion through a point, or central inversion).

Similar samples:

a reply to: lovebeck

That might work for those with limited knowledge when it comes to FILM cameras, photography, light and the way lens flares are produced. However, I actually have the knowledge base and drawing lines from each light to the ones in the sky and behind the Capital dome does not debunk this.

Not even close...

I tend to share your cynicism on this. Who said it was a lens flare? Where's the proof?
I'm not saying this is a photo of the actual event that took place, either.
And I'm not saying this event was alien in nature because I was not there, but it certainly fits a pattern of events that do point to alien contact.

a reply to: mirageman

Hello Scdfella.

Where have you been my friend?

More importantly are the family holding up?

Great to speak with you again, mm. Thank you deeply for the kind words and thoughts, they are greatly appreciated.

Keep up the great posts!

Somewhere? there was actual reel footage of this event, as i had seen it when i was younger.

Here it is

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: SPECULUM
actual reel footage

No. Read page 1 of this thread. That's fake.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You might as well claim these lights were caused by swamp gas!

Lens flares wouldn't have been picked up on radar by the Washington National Airport. Skeptic fail.

Glad you mentioned that, these skeptics do try don't they...

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: game over man

I hope I was clear. I was in no way talking about the 1952 incident itself. I have an opinion about that (pretty similar to Miragemans post...) but this post was about that photo taken years later.

I was saying it's highly unusual that there have been no other pictures of 'lens flare' over all these years.

Kev

also no eyewitnesses seeing UFO's in the same place over all these years.....I'm in the camp of "debunker fail"

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey Arbitrageur,

I have a question regarding your OP. Only some of the lights in your reconstruction are showing 'lens flare' - why?

There are several, just as bright, that are not showing a lens flare. ?? I'm no expert at this and so, it doesn't make sense.

Thank you!

- AB

a reply to: jimmyx

also no eyewitnesses seeing UFO's in the same place over all these years.....I'm in the camp of "debunker fail"

You seem to think this is a thread de-bunking the DC 1952 UFO flap. But it's not.

The fact remains that over the two July weekends of 19th/20th and 26th/27th July multiple UFOs were tracked on radar. Military and civilian pilots and a number of control tower staff also witnessed visual sightings.

So let's keep this clear and simple about what the thread does and doesn't cover.

The Washington DC 1952 UFO Flap of July 1952 was a real event. The picture often used to illustrate is not a genuine shot of the UFOs in 1952 over the Capitol

The picture was first used on the front cover of 'Flying Saucer Magazine in 1973. It was was taken in 1965 (according to NICAP) and does not show UFOs but reflections from the street lamps near to the Capitol Building.

This picture cannot be traced back to any media source in 1952. Because it was not taken in 1952
NICAP Details

Here is the cover of the said magazine:



Here is a version of the photo often claimed by many sources as a genuine photograph from 1952. Sometimes it is cropped and photo shopped to appear differently.



Even the UK Daily Telegraph mistakenly credited a cropped version to the US Air Force in their online guide to UFOs

Source : www.telegraph.co.uk...


There is also a High Res version that NICAP used here : www.nicap.org...

Just in case someone else thinks they saw this video and claim it is from a 1952 news reel as well



Sorry it's not it was CGI using the very photo we are talking about. I believe the video was created for the 2005 UK Channel 4 TV documentary "UFOs the Secret Evidence" and has been used in numerous other TV shows since.



I thought Arby (whilst giving his opinions on what caused the flap) made it very clear in his posts that the photo used in Flying Saucer Magazine was not an original photo of the events of the Capitol in 1952 because it was taken years later.

To summarize




Photo above is not a real shot of UFOs in 1952


Washington DC 1952 UFO flap really did happen


All got it now