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

a reply to: Ectoplasm8
Great illustration, thanks.

a reply to: AboveBoard
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you find the extra explanations helpful.

a reply to: mirageman

4) It would be very difficult to set up a camera and tripod in that very location without foreknowledge of exactly where the UFOs would appear.

And we know for a fact a tripod was used how?

Like I said before ,this debate is a bit pointless because the DC Flap did happen and even President Truman asked to be briefed on the subject. There is much better evidence to look at.

I agree wholeheartedly, mirageman, that point has been overlooked in this discussion dealing solely with the photograph of unknown origin.
And if I were forced to say one way or the other, I would say that is not a photograph of alien vehicles.

However I have taken the trouble to email the photo analyst named in the NICAP report to ask if any further information on it's provenance is available.

That's why you're one of the best, mm.

a reply to: Scdfa

I agree wholeheartedly, mirageman, that point has been overlooked in this discussion dealing solely with the photograph of unknown origin.

I think the point of the thread is that it IS a photo of unknown origin and has nothing to do with the actual event that it is often associated with.

And if I were forced to say one way or the other, I would say that is not a photograph of alien vehicles.

What?

a reply to: Blue Shift

That evidence pile is pretty big, considering it doesn't add up to proof of anything, other than weird stuff going on.

The weird stuff going on is that this photo along with all the other ambiguous photos of unknown origin will end up in that huge pile and is somehow convincing people aliens are here and then when someone points out that its not a real photo, they are disinfo agents and the people that perpetrate the dishonesty are truth seekers. Weird stuff indeed

a reply to: Scdfa

My assumption a tripod was used is based on the definition of the photo (and long exposure time the lights suggest). Without a solid structure to rest one's camera it would be awfully difficult to take such a photo without serious blurring of the Capitol Building. The hi-res photos point to the camera being steadied in some way.

Although I admit a tripod may not have been used. Perhaps an opportunist tourist rested his camera on the shoulder of an oversized dwarf on beta-blockers?

And (I hope you know I was half joking there :lol I think it's best I wait for an answer from the guy who looked at the pictures. No luck so far but it's only been a few hours.

1952 was one hell of a year for UFO sightings and also possibly the last time that the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic were still being open with the media about what was going on.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I think the point of the thread is that it IS a photo of unknown origin and has nothing to do with the actual event that it is often associated with.

Really? Which is it? Is it of unknown origin? Or do we know it has nothing to do with the actual event?

Since its origin is unknown, the year it was taken is unknown, and the photographer is unknown, you cannot honestly say it has nothing to do with the event, correct?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

The weird stuff going on is that this photo along with all the other ambiguous photos of unknown origin will end up in that huge pile and is somehow convincing people aliens are here

I respectfully disagree, I don't think this is the least bit accurate. I don't know of anyone who was convinced that aliens are here by any photographs, ambiguous or otherwise.

I think personal sightings convince a lot of people, once it happens to you, you know it's real.
Others are convinced by friends or family with experiences or insider knowledge.
Still others are convinced by the overwhelming public record of military officials, Presidents, and astronauts.
Some are convinced by the UFOs incidents that make the news and defy conventional explanation.

But I doubt many people find that photographs are the evidence that finally convince them that alien contact is a reality.
Just my opinion, but an informed opinion.

a reply to: Scdfa

Really? Which is it? Is it of unknown origin? Or do we know it has nothing to do with the actual event?

Since its origin is unknown, the year it was taken is unknown, and the photographer is unknown, you cannot honestly say it has nothing to do with the event, correct?

You are arguing in circles. I can honestly say it has nothing to do with the event because it is a photo of lens flares.

a reply to: Scdfa

Really? Which is it? Is it of unknown origin? Or do we know it has nothing to do with the actual event?

Since its origin is unknown, the year it was taken is unknown, and the photographer is unknown, you cannot honestly say it has nothing to do with the event, correct?

You are arguing in circles. I can honestly say it has nothing to do with the event because it is a photo of lens flares.

Since you now think this is not a photo of alien vehicles, why does it matter?

Unless you are saying that the event has nothing do with aliens? Perhaps it was all misperceptions and misidentifications and people being dishonest. Is that what you are saying?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You are arguing in circles. I can honestly say it has nothing to do with the event because it is a photo of lens flares.

Actually, I'm not arguing in circles, but I do apologize if I have caused you any confusion, that was not my intent.

No one has established "lens flares" to be anything more than a theory that doesn't seem to match up, or has ever been repeated in any picture of the Capitol since.

Unless you are saying that the event has nothing do with aliens? Perhaps it was all misperceptions and misidentifications and people being dishonest. Is that what you are saying?

Thank you, but I haven't said anything like that, and I always try to be clear in my posts.

a reply to: Scdfa


Most importantly, since you now think this is not a photo of alien vehicles, why does it matter?

a reply to: mirageman

1952 was one hell of a year for UFO sightings and also possibly the last time that the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic were still being open with the media about what was going on.

I agree, it was a huge year, from what I understand.
I do tend to think that the cover-up was well under way by that point. I tend to think the cover-up started about one day after the Roswell crash. Although of course there have been incidents where a fair amount of straight talk got out, at least initially.

I was shown the real image from 1952 and the forensic study of the lens flares from all the lights in front of and around the capitol years ago.

The "alien ships" (at least in the photo I was shown which is the "famous one") were absolutely lens flares and there was even a direct reflcto-forensic-lightography (I just made that word up bit it seems to fit) done that lines every "alien light" up with every street light/atmospheric light banging on the capital. It's pretty simple when seen in that way, I'll see if I ca find the study again.

a reply to: Springer
According to the source in the OP there was a detailed write-up in Official UFO Magazine #9, July 1976, but I don't have that and wasn't able to find that write-up in an on-line search. If you can find that or something similar that would be interesting to see for historical purposes, not that I have any doubts it's lens flare without seeing the previous article.

Hello All,

I am glad to say that V.J. Ballester-Olmos ,who if you recall was quoted in the NICAP report, has taken the time to respond to my email regarding the provenance of the famous (or perhaps infamous photo being discussed in this thread). He has also took the time to enclosed scanned photos to explain the analysis covered.

The optical theory establishes a symmetry in the position of flares with respect to (1) the light source and (2) the geographical centre of the picture, see the enclosed graphs in similar pictures (as below).

Regarding the date, 1965 not 1952, the picture was examined by the Capitol's architect who in a letter (sorry for the bad scan enclosed) informed that a certain structure seen in the building was not erected until 1965. You can find this letter printed in an article by Colman S. Von Keviczky in the US magazine Flying Saucers, #91, Spring 1976, pages 14-37.

June 18th 1975

Dear Mr. Von Keviczky,

Your letter of May 5th, 1975 relating to the picture of the West Central Front of the Capitol, has been referred to me for attention.

The photograph forwarded with your letter is still a valid representation of that portion of the building. Some additional temporary wood shoring has been erected between the columns during the last few years, but there have been no changes in the basic structure.

Your photograph shows wood shoring in two of the bays between the columns. This initial shoring was installed in 1965, so the photograph was made sometime after that time, rather than in 1952 as you understand.

Your interest in the Capitol is appreciated. If there is any further information you desire, please feel free to call upon us.

Cordially,

George M. White FAIA
Architect of the Capitol

I think this letter seals the debate once and for all. This photo was taken in 1965 or later.


I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Ballester Olmos for taking the time to respond to my request for this information and will inform him duly of this post in case any corrections are required.

His website is : UFO FOTOCAT BLOG

A great resource for those of us who study this topic.

Now I am going to watch some English Premier League Football. Catch y'all later!

a reply to: mirageman
Great response and thanks for sharing it. It confirms the date was 1965 or later. Even though I don't think I can spell or pronounce Mr. Keviczky's name, I think he did a great job in his investigation and I'm glad to finally see the details.

It's case closed for me unless someone pulls a rabbit out of their hat..

a reply to: mirageman

I wouldn't argue with the Architect of the Capitol. Great work mm.

So mm, why is it you never use your powers for good? With great power comes great responsibility, to quote Stan Lee.

a reply to: Scdfa
It seems to me he just did use his powers for good. The truth is good, right? Unless someone has another agenda besides truth.

This post might be worth a look too.

Here's an excerpt from me:

You know, having read the Wikipedia entry for the 1952 Washington, DC UFO Incident of July 21-29 of that year, I think I have found a positive correlation between some of the visual sightings (particularly the fireball ones) with the Southern Delta Aquarid meteor shower which also peaks around July 28-29.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: mirageman

I wouldn't argue with the Architect of the Capitol. Great work mm.

So mm, why is it you never use your powers for good? With great power comes great responsibility, to quote Stan Lee.

What? Great powers.

You and anyone else with an internet connection could have emailed Mr. Ballester Olmos for the information. So all the credit must go to him for finding and sending on the information. And he went above and beyond my original request.

I am just the messenger in this case.

It simply eliminates something that is often (mistakenly or misleadingly) used as evidence in the 1952 case. Admittedly it's a good illustration as well. But now we know that it is not a photo taken during the UFO flap over DC.

Wouldn't you say it's good we all know that?