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.

 

UFO sighted over Washington D.C. - Feb10

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Which is more credible based on the picture at hand?

Theory 1: Fake (on the basis that it looks fake)

Theory 2: Real UFO (alien spacecraft)

Theory 3: Overexposure of a regular airplane (as shown by the vehicle headlights streaking and the guy that says he's seen it before)

I'm still a bit surprised people keep hanging on to the fact its fake just because it looks fake when theory 3 is highly possible and supported by the evidence (not to mention probably the simplest way to create this "ufo").

[edit on 13-2-2005 by merka]




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
I live in the DC Metropolitan Area, and if something like this was seen flying around here itd be in the news. And I havent heard a single thing about it.


All hell would've been breaking loose, and there would be F-16's, Helicopters and spot lights all over the place!

Nothing gets in Radar range in D.C. without being investigated today. heh


Plus BWI is right in the area and the angle of that object is exactly the same angle that I've seen 747's taking off at all the time, when they take off they have that same 45 degree angle and they haul @$$ up in the air.



Please excise my curiosity, but if you have the time and are so inclined, I was hoping you could help clarify a couple things that IMHO seem to be inconsistent with the theory of the lights belonging to an outbound 747 from BWI:

1. BWI is over 30 miles to the (east-north)east from the location of the web-cam. This is easily verifiable as there are many area maps available on-line.

2. The recorded cloud ceiling (click here) as observed 14 min. before this image capture was 11,000 feet (+/- 3,500 meters). As this object is clearly visible below the cloud ceiling, that would place it below 11,000 feet.

3. Even an early-model 747, such as those more commonly used in cargo transport, the climb rate (as listed by the FAA) is 3,000 ft/minute. That means that approximately 3 1/2 minutes -- 210 second -- after takeoff, a 747 would have climbed through the cloud ceiling.

4. The climb rate for smaller aircraft is greater in most instances. For example, the climb rate of a 737-400 is 6,500 ft/minute.

5. Given an aircaft's speed on climb-out is limited by the additional aerodynamic drag (created as a by-product of the additional lift required during takeoff and landings) -- the "average" takeoff speed for a commercial airliner is somewhere around 150-160 mph (around 240-260 kph), according to aerospaceweb.org -- which as per my understanding is maintained (usually) through 10,000 feet.

6. Therefore, as an aircraft would have passed above the cloud ceiling early that morning within 3.5 minutes of takeoff, the question is, how far from the airport would a commercial plane have travelled within 3.5 minutes of taking off, at a speed of 160 mph?

The answer is that a commercial aircraft leaving BWI would have only travelled less than ten miles (9.3 miles) from BWI before passing above the cloud ceiling. This is not nearly enough to cover the 30+ miles separating BWI from central D.C..

Therefore, this image cannot be that of an out-bound aircraft from BWI as it is clearly visible underneath the cloud layer.


So, if this object did not originate from BWI some 30 miles to the ENE, and asuming it is a commercial aviation flight, the question is whether or not it departed from DCA (Reagan National), which cannot accept 747s. IMHO, I would think Dulles is not a possibility, given its location relative to the photograph. Here's a map of the area: Click maps.mapnetwork.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">here for an area map, or here for a local map.


Furthermore, I thought the airspace (in the photo) was restricted to commercial aircraft after Sept. 11?

As to the question of visibility, that has been discussed in depth in a number of other threads in this very forum, in which one may find a plethora of possible explanations pertaining to the visibility (or lack thereof) of UFOs.


Just one man's humble thoughts...



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
It's certainly not coming out of BWI. I live in the Baltimore area, and frequently work in the DC area. Regan National, on the other hand is a possibility. Given the location and angle of the "UFO" in the photo, it's quite possible that it's an over exposure of a jet taking off from National. The planes taking off and landing at National, also follow the exact route of the Potomac River, because there's restricted airspace on both sides (DC proper, and the Pentagon and other government buildings located just South of the river - this airspace directly over the Potomac has not been restricted, because it would completely shut down National as a valid public airport). This object is quite obviously right over the river (given the size of the silver object at the upper left of the streak, as well as the placement of the camera). Given this, it's also not large enough to be a 747, once you take the 3-4 second exposure into account.

I can fairly confidently conclude that the over exposure of an aircraft theories are correct, just the airport was wrong.

Besides, any pilot flying out of National will tell you, just a hair over the line into restricted airspace, and the airforce is on your radio and military jets are scrambled within minutes (National is also a military base). This was the case since well before 9/11, and after it, even trying to drive a truck downtown is difficult (I've been pulled over countless times in the past 5 months, just driving a truck for work around there), let alone letting an aircraft pass into restricted space. If this object was an alien ship, and didn't reflect radar, it's still within the view of the towers at National at this location, and would have been quickly responded to (this would have been the case even within non-restricted airspace in this area for an aircraft that didn't reflect radar, unless it was one of our own military's aircraft). DC is simply paranoid after 9/11

This can be pretty quickly called a hoax, only because of the lack of military response, and the location of Regan National Airport.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by obsidian468]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468
Given the location and angle of the "UFO" in the photo, it's quite possible that it's an over exposure of a jet taking off from National. The planes taking off and landing at National, also follow the exact route of the Potomac River, because there's restricted airspace on both sides (DC proper, and the Pentagon and other government buildings located just South of the river - this airspace directly over the Potomac has not been restricted, because it would completely shut down National as a valid public airport). This object is quite obviously right over the river (given the size of the silver object at the upper left of the streak, as well as the placement of the camera). Given this, it's also not large enough to be a 747, once you take the 3-4 second exposure into account.

I can fairly confidently conclude that the over exposure of an aircraft theories are correct, just the airport was wrong.

Besides, any pilot flying out of National will tell you, just a hair over the line into restricted airspace, and the airforce is on your radio and military jets are scrambled within minutes (National is also a military base). This was the case since well before 9/11, and after it, even trying to drive a truck downtown is difficult (I've been pulled over countless times in the past 5 months, just driving a truck for work around there), let alone letting an aircraft pass into restricted space. If this object was an alien ship, and didn't reflect radar, it's still within the view of the towers at National at this location, and would have been quickly responded to (this would have been the case even within non-restricted airspace in this area for an aircraft that didn't reflect radar, unless it was one of our own military's aircraft). DC is simply paranoid after 9/11

This can be pretty quickly called a hoax, only because of the lack of military response, and the location of Regan National Airport.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by obsidian468]


Thanks for the clarifications...


You know, one easy way to determine if it was in fact an aircraft out of DCA is simply by checking the timetables for the first and last flight out of the airport on Feb 10.


Anybody up to inquiring to see if this can be put to rest for good? Figure the answer is just a phone call or e-mail away.


Checking on OAG is a nightmare, as you can't sort by time alone -- you have to have the destination city, of which there are many.

Figure the departure time would have been somewhere around 3:00 a.m... Just a thought.


d1k

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Do you see a tail fin? do you see any engines? Even blured you would still make out something that resembles an airplane not to mention if it was an airplane blured it would not show up so crip and clean like it is. Sorry, that's no plane.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   


Thanks Obsidian for the correction, I've never been to through BWI, I just know it is near D.C. and Reagan National is definately there. I've been over Key/Wilson bridge though many times and have driven it as planes are taking off. They have that same 45 degree angle. I'm no trained observer or aircraft specialist but I do know that the picture is quite suspicious. Not to mention the fact that there is always traffic going into and coming out of D.C. so someone would have witnessed this event I'm sure.






[edit on 2/15/2005 by Brainiac]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
As already stated, yes, it is an airplane taken with a long exposure, as someone who takes astoromical pictures, I have taken many just like that...bums me out that a time exposed pic of the sky is ruined when a plane flys over. As for not seing the tail or other parts of the plane, it is because the lights, being overexposed, wash out the plane.

Anyone familiar with nighttime photography will tell you the same thing.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I haven't been following this thread, but I'd like to say something about my mistake. I did make a mistake.

The object is caught in motion by the camera, look at the cars on the beltway they're moving and so is the ufo, so it is gonna be difficult to determine. It is not cut paste from what I see. It only looks fake at first glance because of the caught in motion part.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
it is an airplane taken with a long exposure, as someone who takes astoromical pictures.


I forgot about those airplanes in D.C. When I was staying at Georgetown I'd wake up and it would scare the hell outta me cause I could hear the planes engines when they were getting low, and I'd think, "oh ****! Another terror attack." But eventually I just got used to it.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Sorry to beat a dead horse but I emailed the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. and confirmed that there was no arrivals or departures between 1am and 6am.

here's the email,

Subject:
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:53:04 -0500
From: "Phillips, Neal" Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book
To: heyzeus321@yahoo.com
CC: "Hamilton, Tara"

Thank you for your inquiry concerning flights on February 10, 2005. According to the operations log for the 10th of February there were no arrivals, or departures, around 3:15 A.M. There were two arrivals after midnight (12:15 A.M. and 1:11 A.M.) then none until after 6:00 A.M.



Neal Phillips

Manager, Noise Abatement

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyzeus321
Sorry to beat a dead horse but I emailed the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. and confirmed that there was no arrivals or departures between 1am and 6am.


So there were no commercial aircraft arriving or departing at that time. Remember, National is also a military installation (that's what it was first built as, and later the commercial airport was added). The flight logs would only include commercial aircraft arriving and departing. The military logs are only accessable with the proper clearance. With this, we can rule out a commercial aircraft. However, keep in mind that it is at National where Air Force One is kept, several commercial grade aircraft for military use are kept here, as well as several wings of military fighters. It could have been any one of these, which would not fall under the jurisdiction of the commercial airlines/airport.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Well then, for argument sake, if it were a real UFO, then the military would have to be involved. They would have the power to stop any logging of this aircraft for denial purposes.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyzeus321
Well then, for argument sake, if it were a real UFO, then the military would have to be involved. They would have the power to stop any logging of this aircraft for denial purposes.


In that area, as I've stated before, if it was an unidentified craft, of human origin or otherwise, the military around DC is so paranoid after 9-11, they would certainly be involved... with missiles.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Unless.... they wouldn't be paranoid if it was a scheduled arrival to meet with the aliens, for argument's sake., if it were a spacecraft.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyzeus321
Unless.... they wouldn't be paranoid if it was a scheduled arrival to meet with the aliens, for argument's sake., if it were a spacecraft.


With the alien coverup as it is, do you actually think they'd meet with aliens at a site just outside of the Nation's Capital, which happens to also be used as a commercial airport? There's just no logic in that.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
You never know

Best place to hide something is out in the open.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Excellent find....(Macabee's analysis)...



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Check out little brother at this link.

www.rense.com...


I Know. please no comments about the source.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Hi,

I live in Arlington, VA, just across the river from Washington, D.C. in a high-rise apartment (the Potomac at Riverhouse).

Each night I have one or two cigarettes on my roof. The view from the roof is very similar to the view from the webcam: I look directly over the Pentagon into D.C. and can see the Washington Monument, Capitol, etc.

The webcam appears to be located near the Pentagon.

I believe that what is captured in this image is a helicopter flying over the Potomac river.

I have lived in the building for 5 years, and helicopters fly right by my apartment and into D.C. on a daily basis.

They fly very low (obscured by buildings behind my apartment) and appear to follow 395. They fly by the Pentagon on the west side, and then continue to the Potomac River.

If I'm right about the location of the webcam, I haven't seen any helicopters fly directly past it in the last few days that I've been observing, but I am only up there for about 10 minutes per night.

The helicopters fly very low, and from my point of view on the roof (essentially on the 17th floor of the building) they obscure the buildings on the northern bank of the Potomac river.

I initially thought they must be flying to the Pentagon until I actually paid attention and noticed that they are flying into D.C. At the moment I feel like they could be going to the White House or Capitol, because I have never tracked one past the Capitol building, although it could be that they are so low that I lose sight of them.

The cabin is usually brightly lit, which I believe accounts for the large bright blur in the photograph.

The helicopter would be moving very quickly in front of the webcam, and would be very close to the camera, which accounts for the amount of blur.

This also explains why there is no reflection in the river: because the helicopter is flying close to the southern shore of the Potomac, which is nearest to the webcam.

This isn't a violation of airspace, and it wouldn't have been perceived as out of the ordinary by anyone.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join