It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thank you mirageman, you interpreted the OP correctly. There was a real UFO flap in 1952. The photo in Flying Saucers magazine apparently was not taken in 1952 and has nothing to do with the 1952 UFO flap, so thanks for getting the point and helping to explain it.
originally posted by: mirageman
You seem to think this is a thread de-bunking the DC 1952 UFO flap. But it's not.
I can give you two possibilities.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
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.
By the way I should have read your post in the Roswell thread more carefully, your humor was a little too subtle for me. I read your post and thought you were serious about that flying saucer magazine image being good evidence, so I made this thread in the hopes I could convince you it wasn't good
The other possibility is if you draw a circle with a certain radius around the optical center of that image (where all the lines cross), it's possible that lights outside that circle might not get reflected because of the lens geometry. I'm thinking that might be why there are no reflections of the two lights in the lower right...
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Scdfa
Yeah, UFOs all flying in a very unique and specific formation, which is an exact optical reflection of all the lights but two, is so much more likely than lens flare, right?
originally posted by: Scdfa
People witnessed and reported this event as UFOs, and these vehicles showed up on radar.
So yes, UFOs is more likely than lens flares.
If I read the OP correctly the photo was taken around 1965, 13 years after the "radar" event. So how is it more likely they are UFO's?
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:13:40 -0800 (PST)
From: michael swords
Subject: Re: Fwd: 1952 Washington D.C. Capitol photo
To: francis ridge
Fran, i don't know the exact source [one of our national magazines like LOOK I think], but as you probably remember, the photo is garbage --- the complete photo shows ground street lights [I think it is] in the exact pattern of the so-called UFOs in the sky. An embarrassingly stupid camera reflections photo that persists to give us a bad name with any rational soul. Mike
==========
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1952 Washington D.C. Capitol photo
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:57:27 -0500 (EST)
This picture which shows the Capitol dome and lights at the left side is, I believe, just a fraction of
the total picture which shows the whole Capito building, parking lot lights in front of it and
numerous "UFO" lights in the sky at both the left and right sides of the dome. Coleman
Von Kevicsky (sp?), years ago, showed the "UFO" light images were actually lens "flares"....
reflections within the lens of the bright streetlights and parking lot lights in front of the
Capitol.
More of the complete picture, but not all of it (as I recall) can be seen at
truthquake.com...
Note: there is no guarantee that this photo of the Capitol was actually taken during the summer of 1952.
==========
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:04:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos
Subject: Re: Fwd: 1952 Washington D.C. Capitol photo
To: francis ridge
Dear Fran,
FOTOCAT's input follows, including two versions of the picture:
Event date: July 19, 1952
Location: Washington, D.C. (USA)
Date information: Non-event (actually dated 1965)
Event is filed as: Lens flares
Time: Between 23:40 and 06:00
Photographer: Unknown
Famous Photo of Objects Over Capitol
July 19, 1952 (Actually 1965)
Washington, D.C.
Fran Ridge:
This is a well known example of internal reflection. The Washington Capitol building photo shows a series of lights flying above it. It looks like that photo has been cropped so that you can't see the light sources that form the reflections. According to our photo researcher, Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, the photo is actually dated 1965 and the person who took the photo is unknown, so this is not only a non-UFO-event, the date is incorrect and all the items needed to document and properly qualify this photo are absent.
Ananda Sirisena:
Here is scientific evidence that this photo shows reflections of the lights on the building. Assuming that this color photo is the FULL FRAME, I've found the center of field (COF) and lines from the lights in the sky definitely go through the COF to the respective sources. Can be laid to rest. *
Detailed reports and documents
These are links to high resolution version of the photo
images/1952_19_de_julio_b_y_n2.jpg (Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos)
images/1952_19_de_julio_color2.jpg (Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos)
reports/520719washington_report.htm (Fran Ridge)
images/19520719wash_proof.jpg (Ananda Sirisena) *
I'd like to see some evidence that establishes the date of the photograph.
Do we have the original photograph?
The negative?
Can we examine the film stock to determine its year of manufacture?
Or are we to just take somebody's word for it? Whose word are we taking for it, since we don't have the photographer?
There's can be no doubt it's lens flare despite the lack of cognitive ability of some people to recognize it as such. Sure UFOs may fly in formation, but not in a formation that happens to match a mirror reflection of a unique pattern of that many lights on the ground in a well known photographic phenomenon.
All he said about the date is that there's no guarantee it was from 1952, so we can shift the burden of proof here if someone thinks it was from 1952, then prove it.
originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Arbitrageur
There's can be no doubt it's lens flare despite the lack of cognitive ability of some people to recognize it as such. Sure UFOs may fly in formation, but not in a formation that happens to match a mirror reflection of a unique pattern of that many lights on the ground in a well known photographic phenomenon.
Ah, but there is doubt it is "lens flare". Lots of doubt. And no evidence to support this theory, other than some blue lines that don't match up.
And my cognitive abilities are just fine, thank you very much. How are yours? Because you ignored all my questions to you in my last post:
Did you draw the blue lines on the photo that don't match up? No? Do you know who did? Whoever did, it is sloppy work, and they don't match up in the least.
Do we have the original photograph?
The negative?
Can we examine the film stock to determine its year of manufacture?
Or are we to just take somebody's word for it? Whose word are we taking for it, since we don't have the photographer?
And you also seem to have forgotten that I think you have failed to establish any "exact optical reflection" at all.
You suggest the formation of lights in the sky, which are far from evenly dispersed, somehow match the lights on the ground, which are all evenly spaced? And somehow, some of the lights cause two "lens flares", others cause one, and some of the lights cause no "lens flare"? And in subsequent posts,you have to suggest theories as to why they don't match up?
And if it is such a "well-known phenomenon" as you claim, and since all those lights are still right there, then where are all the other photos of the Capitol that show the same exact effect?
Hmm...then I guess there must be thousands of photos that look like there are UFOs over the Capitol, right?
Show them to us, please.
If you want to address these questions intelligently, I'm all ears.
Until you do, I'm afraid this thread goes in the Debunk Fail file.
Where don't the blue lines match up? I doubt you understood the explanations from Caelestia and from ipaco here.
originally posted by: Scdfa
And my cognitive abilities are just fine, thank you very much. How are yours? Because you ignored all my questions to you in my last post:
Did you draw the blue lines on the photo that don't match up? No? Do you know who did? Whoever did, it is sloppy work, and they don't match up in the least.
It depends on what you mean by "all the time". It does happen, but not on every photo. Certain conditions have to be met for it to happen. If those conditions are met, it happens, if they aren't it doesn't.
originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
But I find it highly unusual that this lens flare phenomenon isn't routinely captured on film all the time - not just that once. That makes no sense at all to me.
Note the long exposure time, 201 seconds. I'll bet the Washington photo had a very long exposure time too, based on how overexposed it is. Most people aren't making exposures that long, so that's part of the reason you're not getting the effect of such long exposures frequently. How many 201 second exposures have YOU taken with YOUR camera?
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: predator0187
As others have said Lens flare
NIKON 810 Nice Camera by the way exif data below.
EXIF IFD0
Camera Make [0x010F] = NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model [0x0110] = NIKON D810
Picture Orientation [0x0112] = normal (1)
X-Resolution [0x011A] = 2400000/10000 ===> 240
Y-Resolution [0x011B] = 2400000/10000 ===> 240
X/Y-Resolution Unit [0x0128] = inch (2)
Software / Firmware Version [0x0131] = Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Last Modified Date/Time [0x0132] = 2015:07:07 21:30:20
EXIF Sub IFD
Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 201/1 second ===> 201 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 8/1 ===> ƒ/8
Exposure Program [0x8822] = manual control (1)
ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] = 100
Sensitivity Type [0x8830] = recommended exposure index (REI) (2)
EXIF Version [0x9000] = 0230
Original Date/Time [0x9003] = 2015:07:04 00:40:22
Digitization Date/Time [0x9004] = 2015:07:04 00:40:22
Shutter Speed Value (APEX) [0x9201] = -7651052/1000000
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/0 second
Aperture Value (APEX) [0x9202] = 6/1
Aperture = ƒ/8
Exposure Bias (EV) [0x9204] = 0/6 ===> 0
Max Aperture Value (APEX) [0x9205] = 30/10 ===> 3
Max Aperture = ƒ/2.83
Metering Mode [0x9207] = spot (3)
Light Source / White Balance [0x9208] = unknown (0)
Flash [0x9209] = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length [0x920A] = 240/10 mm ===> 24 mm
Still can't believe 2 professional photographers did not know what that was.
originally posted by: elevenaugust
2- Taken during night
originally posted by: elevenaugust
Here's are some lens flare examples that are often taken as UFOs....
1- Taken during daylight
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
We can throw it right into the mountain of evidence pile along with all the others.