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

a reply to: Uggielicious

We'll, welcome to reality! Real bit of new news there! It's been known for decades that those are "lens flare", I knew it back in the '60s! However, as some ATS tyro members have expressed, it's news to them.

Just one question how did you know back in the 1960s this was a photograph of lens flares?

Freudian slip or are you the original photographer or something?

Because it was only actually debunked in Flying Saucers magazine #91 in Spring 1976 if you read the thread.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I'm sure he'll let you be in the Scdfellas movie. You can play "Tommy De Zeta".

What? am I here to amuse you? Like I'm a clown?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

All the world's a stage zeta my friend

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I'm sure he'll let you be in the Scdfellas movie. You can play "Tommy De Zeta".

What? am I here to amuse you? Like I'm a clown?

Laughing out loud! Too funny!

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I'm sure he'll let you be in the Scdfellas movie. You can play "Tommy De Zeta".

What? am I here to amuse you? Like I'm a clown?

Laughing out loud! Too funny!

'bout time

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: TrueMessiah

I get an aura of intentional diversion towards what I feel are mundane topics like these instead of addressing more important questions. Of course I could be wrong and this is not to take a jab at any member here but it's just a gut feeling that I get. The cover up aspect of the phenomenon is fueling that feeling.

This photo represents the DC UFO flap of 1952. Its a photo of lens flares from 1965. No matter how many mundane threads are started on this very photo that identify it, it will always be associated with the DC event. Its a dishonest representation. The topic is littered with dishonesty. All I see anymore is dishonesty around here and people fighting to keep that dishonesty from being revealed. So who is doing the covering up? The people that first published the cropped version of this photo as a false representation? The people pointing out that its false? Or is it the people that want photos like this not to be "debunked" by "debunkers". I say get rid of the dishonesty first, then we can move forward.

This is very true however, how far do you wish to take this? Pick a documentary on WW2 shown on any of the specialist channels and even with my limited knowledge I can usually point out several pieces of film used to illustrate the narrative that bare absolutely no relation to events being recounted. Here's an iconic photo of "The Battle of El Alamein.. placetoland.files.wordpress.com... .only, it's not it's for want of a better word, a fake.It was taken days after by British propaganda units and was a re-staging of some of the events. Do we throw out all of the testimony and reports from the battle then because they faked that? No of course we don't in reality we accept the word of those who were there as to the events of the battle.

Back to UFOs, how many times in a documentary that discusses "Foo Fighters" are these two photos used to illustrate the point?

1.bp.blogspot.com...

www.crystalinks.com...

Now, how many times have you heard the documentary whether it be pro/anti/neutral about UFOs, actually admit those two photos could not have been taken in Europe even though, they almost always only ever discuss in any detail, European sightings? One of the reasons is simple, those making the documentary are trying to sell you the idea that, "Foo Fighters" were German in origin so admitting they were seen just as regularly in the Pacific theatre, does sort of chuck a spanner in that particular hypothesis.

Why does programme after programme insist on showing "Jack" Frost's Avro flying saucer as evidence that. "We built flying saucers" yet, only the rare few ever then add that. It was frankly crap and it was referred to as "The world's most expensive lawn mower" by those who worked on it, because it never managed to raise itself more than couple of feet off the floor? The truth is, as much as the pro UFO people have a tendency to "sex up" information, the sceptics are just as guilty of planting false memes in their presentations in order to throw the casual observer off the scent.

One of my pet peeves is the British documentary narrated by the area space engineer when it discusses the Lonnie Zamora sighting. Why, when there is a clear and detailed description of the object he saw, do they bother to go to the hassle of creating a CGI of the craft do make it look absolutely nothing like the object Zamora says he saw? This is pretty much what Zamora claimed to have seen.

www.ufoevidence.org...

The documentary shows a CGI of a "classic two plates stuck together" slim, totally circular craft hat bares virtually nothing in common with what the man himself described. If it's deliberate then surely, that brings into question the whole veracity of the the documentary? After all, if they are willing to be that inaccurate , when a detailed description is freely available, how much of the rest of the documentary can be viewed as "fair and honest"?

The truth is, if people were as picky when it comes to just about every subject that documentaries and books are written about and the photos that are often used to illustrate them as they are about UFOs. Then we'd be arguing over whether whole battles ever really happened in world war 2 as "we only have people's word for it". You might and quite rightly in many ways, think that's ridiculous and yet, that's the logical extrapolation of many people's attitude to towards UFOs and those who witness them.

originally posted by: FireMoon
Then we'd be arguing over whether whole battles ever really happened in world war 2 as "we only have people's word for it".

People are injured and die in battles. A dead body is a piece of evidence that transcends a verbal account. Such occurrences involving UFOs are extraordinarily rare.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Uggielicious

We'll, welcome to reality! Real bit of new news there! It's been known for decades that those are "lens flare", I knew it back in the '60s! However, as some ATS tyro members have expressed, it's news to them.

Just one question how did you know back in the 1960s this was a photograph of lens flares?

Freudian slip or are you the original photographer or something?

Because it was only actually debunked in Flying Saucers magazine #91 in Spring 1976 if you read the thread.

You got me there but the wrong year was a typo on my part, I hit the 6 instead of the 7 without realizing it 'cause my wife asked me a question and I continued typing and submitted it. After my reply appeared I realized my error but for some reason known only to ATS administrators I cannot edit my messages. I thought Arbit would have been the one to reply, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

a reply to: FireMoon

This is very true however, how far do you wish to take this?

Some really good points there. I guess it's really a matter of perspective and what we perceive as the intentions of the people presenting the information. I think as we become more familiar with the subject, those "pet peeves" and inaccuracies start popping out more.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: FireMoon
Then we'd be arguing over whether whole battles ever really happened in world war 2 as "we only have people's word for it".

People are injured and die in battles. A dead body is a piece of evidence that transcends a verbal account. Such occurrences involving UFOs are extraordinarily rare.

"A dead body is a piece of evidence that transcends a verbal account." Not necessarily. I became aware when looking at some Civil War photos of dead soldiers where the photographer moved and arranged the body for different photos. Here is a quote about it: "Thus, one of the most well known photos of the Civil War, purporting to show a dead Confederate sharpshooter at Devil’s Den at Gettysburg, has been recognized as a fake. This photo would fall under Category 3 — the photographer, Alexander Gardner, dragged the body (who was probably an ordinary infantryman) into position behind the wall of stones and used a prop rifle, which shows up in several other photos. Whatever his ethics, Gardner’s compositional sense was impeccable." The photo and the above quote can be found at www.brettschulte.net...

a reply to: FireMoon

Yep some very valid points, I actually think the picture we are discussing of the Capitol building is actually a good illustration for the events and obviously someone else spotted it and thought the same. Probably no intention to mislead back in the days when 'Photoshop' was a place were films were processed and illustrations cost a lot to put together.

That Zamora CGI recreation is one of the worst representations of the craft I have ever seen.

This is the actual clip (you don't need to be fluent in Spanish to see the ship)



Even newspapers have been inclined to place a picture of someone famous right next to a totally unrelated headline from another story to grab our attention. So media is manipulated all the time to manipulate us.

All I can say is that the lens flare explanation was not enough to satisfy those without technical knowledge of the optics involved. So the letter from the Capitol's architect proves beyond reasonable doubt the picture was not taken in 1952. Why such a piece of minutiae from the case had to be discussed I don't know? But this is the way ufology often goes!

The UFO flap did happen in '52 and there is better evidence to mull over as has been said many time in the thread.

a reply to: Uggielicious

Darned women!

I was hoping you'd knew something about the photo's origins before it appeared in the 70s.

originally posted by: Uggielicious
"Thus, one of the most well known photos of the Civil War, purporting to show a dead Confederate sharpshooter at Devil’s Den at Gettysburg, has been recognized as a fake.

And so should we conclude from this that we should be more accepting of UFO accounts because "we only have people's word for it"? I think not, rather this shows us that we should all be skeptical of any kind of evidence. The problem with verbal accounts is that there needs to be no intention of fakery for the accounts to be mistaken. Scientists are aware of a number of physiological and psychological reasons why people misinterpret what they see, but even scientists haven't documented some of the more unusual atmospheric conditions which occur on occasion as apparently happened in Washington DC in 1952. According to this witness ordinary stars did not appear ordinary apparently due to distortion from the atmosphere (and we know there was unusually hot weather):

Washington DC UFO incident

Air Force Captain Harold May was in the radar center at Andrews AFB during the sightings of July 19–20. Upon hearing that National Airport's radar had picked up an unknown object heading in his direction, May stepped outside and saw "a light that was changing from red to orange to green to red again...at times it dipped suddenly and appeared to lose altitude." However, May eventually concluded that he was simply seeing a star that was distorted by the atmosphere, and that its "movement" was an illusion.

So if this captain is reporting stars flying around in the sky, isn't that reason for at least some skepticism about other "UFOs" flying around?

In this case, unlike in the faked photograph cases, there doesn't need to be any intent to deceive with false reports. We've probably all seen atmospheric distortion from a hot road before, and we're used to seeing a little higher in the sky because it's atmospheric distortions that make stars twinkle. But in the unusually hot weather Washington had perhaps the distortions were greater than usual, which seems like a reasonable interpretation of Captain Harold May's account which could also explain other "hide and seek" type sightings as the distortions wavered.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Uggielicious

Darned women!

I was hoping you'd knew something about the photo's origins before it appeared in the 70s.

I also wish I had been correct but I've been "into" UFOs since 1957 and during the '60s right up until the '80s I attended a ton of UFO lectures and since I'm now 77 it's only normal to have put some or most of those early memories into "permanent" storage and losing the key! I could have known or guessed back in the '50s or '60s that because of my photographic skills I could not accept the photo as real as far as the lights being UFOs.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

we should all be skeptical of any kind of evidence. The problem with verbal accounts is that there needs to be no intention of fakery for the accounts to be mistaken. Scientists are aware of a number of physiological and psychological reasons why people misinterpret what they see, but even scientists haven't documented some of the more unusual atmospheric conditions which occur on occasion

This is a common tactic used by people who wish to deny the reality of alien contact.

"Don't believe the evidence."
Then they trot out some cliche that people are to stupid to know what they see.
Then they fall back on "atmospheric conditions" or "swamp gas".

Never mind the fact that nearly all eyewitness accounts are corroborated by tens of thousands of other witnesses and whistleblowers, decades of documents and photo, video, and radar recordings, and physical evidence cases.
But they don't want you to think about that.

You hear these tactics a lot from the denier side of the UFO discussion.
"We just don't know."
"Jury's still out."
"We need more evidence."
"There is no established link between UFO sightings and reports of alien contact."

Folks, these are well-establish and often used PR tactics, and they've been used very effectively in recent years to prevent or delay citizens from taking action on important issues.

1.Stall.
2.Cast doubt on evidence.
3.Pretend the matter is unresolved.
4.Delay people from addressing the issue by insisting we must be patient and wait for even more data, or for a better investigation, or telling us to wait until "real" science gets around to the issue.

These very tactics were used by cigarette manufactures to delay citizens, and Congress, from taking action:

"We just don't know if smoking is harmful."
"Jury's still out."
"We need more evidence that nicotine is addictive."
"There is no established link between cigarettes and cancer."

Sound familiar?
Just switch out "cigarettes" and "cancer" for "UFOs" and "aliens". Then you will begin to see what's really going on here.

These tactics are used for a reason; they work.
Let me make the picture clearer with a current example of this very deceptive technique:

Climate change.
Right now, there are PR men posing as experts, being paid to refute the decades of evidence of global warming.
They go on TV and repeat these same mantras.

"We just don't know if climate change is real."
"Jury's still out."
"We need more evidence that it's getting warmer."
"There is no link between carbon emissions and climate change."

Sounding familiar yet?
Same technique used in the debate over genetically modified foods. The list goes on. As long as the gullible fall for it, they'll keep using it.

One you recognize the pattern, you will see it used whenever and wherever powerful people need the truth to be hidden from the public.

Are people going to fall for it?
Or are they able to see that the massive available evidence clearly points to alien contact?

I guess the jury is still out.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Uggielicious
"Thus, one of the most well known photos of the Civil War, purporting to show a dead Confederate sharpshooter at Devil’s Den at Gettysburg, has been recognized as a fake.

And so should we conclude from this that we should be more accepting of UFO accounts because "we only have people's word for it"? I think not, rather this shows us that we should all be skeptical of any kind of evidence. The problem with verbal accounts is that there needs to be no intention of fakery for the accounts to be mistaken. Scientists are aware of a number of physiological and psychological reasons why people misinterpret what they see, but even scientists haven't documented some of the more unusual atmospheric conditions which occur on occasion as apparently happened in Washington DC in 1952. According to this witness ordinary stars did not appear ordinary apparently due to distortion from the atmosphere (and we know there was unusually hot weather):

Uggie: "I've been a skeptic all of my life. But I'm also open-minded and wait for the irrefutable evidence to prove a claim. Reports of UFOs have to be kept on the back burner regardless of the honesty of the reporter. My 5 or 6 superb sightings, when described, can be seen to have acceptable details. But I'm also aware that people "normally" misrepresent what they claim they've seen according to the way they've educated themselves about the world around them and their educational level. If everyone were to read a small paperback titled (not sure if this is the one I have in storage) "Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena" by William R. Corliss. It explains natural wonders such as "Glories", "sun dogs", lenticular clouds, etc. Not everyone is familiar with all shapes and flying characteristics of human craft, especially at night."

Washington DC UFO incident

Air Force Captain Harold May was in the radar center at Andrews AFB during the sightings of July 19–20. Upon hearing that National Airport's radar had picked up an unknown object heading in his direction, May stepped outside and saw "a light that was changing from red to orange to green to red again...at times it dipped suddenly and appeared to lose altitude." However, May eventually concluded that he was simply seeing a star that was distorted by the atmosphere, and that its "movement" was an illusion.

So if this captain is reporting stars flying around in the sky, isn't that reason for at least some skepticism about other "UFOs" flying around?

In this case, unlike in the faked photograph cases, there doesn't need to be any intent to deceive with false reports. We've probably all seen atmospheric distortion from a hot road before, and we're used to seeing a little higher in the sky because it's atmospheric distortions that make stars twinkle. But in the unusually hot weather Washington had perhaps the distortions were greater than usual, which seems like a reasonable interpretation of Captain Harold May's account which could also explain other "hide and seek" type sightings as the distortions wavered.

Uggie: "And keep in mind the autokinetic effect (also referred to as autokinesis): a phenomenon of visual perception in which a stationary, small point of light in an otherwise dark or featureless environment appears to move. Some nighttime UFO reports are the consequence of the autokinetic effect which the "witness" might not recognize or be aware of."

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Arbitrageur

we should all be skeptical of any kind of evidence. The problem with verbal accounts is that there needs to be no intention of fakery for the accounts to be mistaken. Scientists are aware of a number of physiological and psychological reasons why people misinterpret what they see, but even scientists haven't documented some of the more unusual atmospheric conditions which occur on occasion

This is a common tactic used by people who wish to deny the reality of alien contact.

"Don't believe the evidence."
Then they trot out some cliche that people are to stupid to know what they see.
Then they fall back on "atmospheric conditions" or "swamp gas".

Never mind the fact that nearly all eyewitness accounts are corroborated by tens of thousands of other witnesses and whistleblowers, decades of documents and photo, video, and radar recordings, and physical evidence cases.
But they don't want you to think about that.

snip

Your "argument" holds no water and lacks logic. There is no "reality of alien contact". It may be wishful thinking by romantics who have seen too many movies and/or too many "Ancient Aliens" episodes. Isn't the "hair guy" enough evidence that alleged aliens are just that, alleged? Corroboration is simply repeat what you've heard or read. Whitley Strieber did a disservice to UFOlogy with his books' covers where after they were seen everyone saw THAT type of alien. The Hills, or mainly Betty, "corroborated" kidnapping by aliens after watching TV. What have whistleblowers blown? Nothing that could not be found with some research even deep research. Photo and videos? By the thousands if not by millions by now. What "physical" evidence cases that have passed scrutiny? None that I'm aware of. And who doesn't want you to think? No one stops from thinking or going public with my opinions as I do here and all over the Internet. There are no "MIBs", or gov't agency that goes out of their way to silence anyone. It's all press.

a reply to: Uggielicious

Your "argument" holds no water and lacks logic. There is no "reality of alien contact". It may be wishful thinking by romantics who have seen too many movies and/or too many "Ancient Aliens" episodes.

I'm sorry, but you've mistaken me for someone who knows as little about alien contact as you do.

I've known alien contact was real since 1966, when they came into my house.

You may convince some people with your rhetoric that aliens are not here, you may even convince yourself, but it is completely real whether you like it or not.
And clearly, you do not like it.

I understand where you're coming from, I honestly do, I hear ya.
Many highly educated, very intelligent, and rational people share your opinion. Many of them people far more intelligent than I am, certainly.

Many bright, capable minds have reached the same conclusion that you have, and they've done so by weighing the evidence carefully and forming a reasoned opinion.

And that's fine. But unfortunately, the alien situation is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.
Now, you any everybody else are welcome to think I am lying, or mistaken, or a hoaxer, or just plain koo-koo for Cocoa puffs.
If you need to think I'm lying, wrong, or crazy, then by all means, do so.

But there is nothing either of us, any of us, could do or say to make the alien situation any less real.

And sadly, as long as people treat this as a topic for endless debate and speculation, we will continue to fail to act in our best interest.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Uggielicious

Your "argument" holds no water and lacks logic. There is no "reality of alien contact". It may be wishful thinking by romantics who have seen too many movies and/or too many "Ancient Aliens" episodes.

I'm sorry, but you've mistaken me for someone who knows as little about alien contact as you do.

I've known alien contact was real since 1966, when they came into my house.

You may convince some people with your rhetoric that aliens are not here, you may even convince yourself, but it is completely real whether you like it or not.
And clearly, you do not like it.

I understand where you're coming from, I honestly do, I hear ya.
Many highly educated, very intelligent, and rational people share your opinion. Many of them people far more intelligent than I am, certainly.

Many bright, capable minds have reached the same conclusion that you have, and they've done so by weighing the evidence carefully and forming a reasoned opinion.

And that's fine. But this is not a matter of opinion.

There is nothing either of us, any of us, could do or say to make the alien situation any less real.
And as long as people treat this as fact as if it were a topic for endless debate and speculation, we will continue to fail to act in our best interest.

Your sentiment is appreciated. But, frankly, something deep within me rejects any and all similar claims. Let me explain where I'm coming from. In the beginning (for me in 1957), there were UFO sighting reports, mostly in books and magazines, rarely in world-famous newspapers such as THE NEW YORK TIMES. I didn't accept UFOs as being real because I started with Adamski and you know where that's at. But I did wonder about the veracity of such tales. Time took me to the early 1980s while I was living in L.A. where I saw my first UFO. During the day, thru binoculars, clear and bright. THEN and there I joined the growing number of witnesses and my acceptance of past UFO reports didn't change but new reports did.

Because I kept up being informed about UFOlogy, I saw the creeping in of alleged aliens reports and once again I doubted them. Alien reports were different from UFO sightings reports in that they are not convincing and because aliens became the new road to fame and fortune for quite a crowd, I could not make the jump to acceptance especially because I have not had that experience and I doubt that I ever will.

Whatever your explanation for your alleged experiences is, it's not good enough for me.

a reply to: Uggielicious

Whatever your explanation for your alleged experiences is, it's not good enough for me.

I couldn't care less what you believe. This is America, you are allowed to be ignorant. In fact it's encouraged.