It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The 1952 UFO Wave.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 08:49 PM

Originally posted by karl 12
Its quite a long read, and it is from one year later, but heres another very interesting multiple radar/visual incident from over South Dakota:

Hi Karl, thanks for mentioning that case. While it's interesting, I think the facts of that case highlight some of the points I was trying to make about how "radar confirmations" can be unreliable. That doesn't mean I know what it was, only that we probably shouldn't put much faith in the radar as I note below.

I read that case in the project bluebook files from a report filed on 17 August 1953 a few days after the incident so it has a lot more credibility for accuracy than the "glorified" version you posted which is from May, 1967, nearly 14 years later.

There are many discrepancies, and maybe this is a little picky, but starting with the date, he didn't even get that right. Besides the date, here are some of the discrepancies he left out of May, 1967 retelling of the incident:

After the initial sighting, when the object was moving south, there was one object seen but TWO "blips" on the scope. This radar does NOT match the visual sighting and furthermore,

"He could not get a decent track because of ground clutter in the area".
So there's a lot of ground clutter, not a good track, 2 objects instead of one, and I'm left feeling not at all convinced that this is a good solid observation of a ground radar confirmation of the visual sighting due to all these discrepancies. But it gets much worse.

After the object headed south, the observer noted that it was right back at it's original location, but there's no mention anywhere of how it got there? If it turned around and headed back north again, nobody reported that, and the absence of such a report further calls into question the already questionable radar sightings because he "never got a good track on it" in the first place.

Then it started heading N-NW and they got 4 "good blips" which they photographed but the camera "malfunctioned" whatever that means as there's no specifics about the type of malfunction, I guess that might happen though every time I've ever had a camera "malfunction" it's been due to operator error

And yet another inconsistency was noted:

"The last blip occurred at 70 miles and at this point the aircraft was returned to base.(This does not exactly correlate with the pilot's report in paragraph ..)"

In his 1967 version of events, Ruppelt notes:

"The pilot followed it 120 miles, with the light staying a couple miles ahead; and then, with fuel running low, the jet returned - with the UFO trailing him! "
But there's no mention of the UFO trailing the pilot in the August 1953 report, just a notation that about the time the first F84 landed and the second F-84 took off, the ground observer called a third time to say the object was back again. So maybe Ruppelt "ASSUMED" the UAP followed the pilot back but can the pilot really see behind them? I didn't think so. And there's no mention of a visual sighting of the object following the pilot back, not any such radar notations, and what's more, the third time the object is right back in its original spot

"Nothing was on the scope (there was possibly a target in the ground clutter)."
So the first time we had 2 blips instead of one, and not very good blips at that, now we can't find any good blips, but still have ground clutter like the first time. The more this story goes on the less I trust any of these radar observations as any type of confirmation, and if you viewed them as reliable, when they DON'T get a target as in this case, does that then confirm there's NO object in the air? I don't know but at best it's very questionable and unreliable per the facts in the report...

But it still gets worse. The object heads N-NW again until it's off the scope, then the pilot heads back to the base. By the way I think the implication that the pilot requested to break off the pursuit because he was "scared" is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst. This battle hardened pilot had been in fights with other planes which had been shooting back at him and did he ever request to bail out of the battle because he was scared? Would any air force pilot do that? So to imply that he wanted to break off the pursuit because he was scared really set my BS detector off as some kind of dramatization most likely to be inconsistent with the facts, especially when you find out what the rest of those facts are.

So the 2nd F-84 returns to base, and there's an object there for let's call it the 4th time except this time it's at 8000 feet instead of 16000 feet like the first two times, but like the third time, there's no object on the radar scope. Ruppelt left out a lot of these inconsistencies in his glorified 1967 retelling of the story. So once again, a visual sighting with no radar confirmation. Does this confirm there's no real object, or what?

Well Ruppelt left out some other details too from his interview with the first pilot:

"He continued his course keeping the object at 11 oclock for a better view After about 30 seconds it disappeared then reappeared for another 30 seconds at the end of which it abruptly faded and was not seen again"
OK this object is sounding less "real" all the time

Then he interviewed the 2nd pilot:

"He thought it was a star or planet but as he looked away it appeared to "jump" 15 to 20 degrees in elevation.
He was sure the light was no reflection from inside the aircraft but such a jump sounds like a possible reflection from atmospheric phenomena could be the cause.

But if you want to believe the radar confirmation, here's the most damning evidence of all from Ruppelt's report which he omits from later retellings of the incident:

"As the pilot turned into the light on his initial sighting he turned on his radar gunsight. As he swung onto the target the warning light came on.....The light remained on until the chase was broken off. After the chase, on the way home, the light blinked on and off several times indicating a possible malfunction . The sight was not checked by maintenance on return and had not been checked since. Why, I don't know."

Well that radar "confirmation" would certainly be a lot more satisfying if it weren't for the fact he also got multiple "radar confirmations" on the way home when the light was blinking on and off even though there was nothing there!!!! So the ground radar was extremely unreliable and it appears the aircraft radar is even moreso with indications of a possible malfunction. If anything this incident deepens my previous observation that we don't always hear the full truth about these incidents, even from people like Capt. Ruppelt who should know better.

So, if that was supposed to convince me that there are some good radar confirmations, I'm afraid it had exactly the opposite effect. There may be some good confirmations by radar of visual sightings somewhere however, but I don't think that's one of them.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by Gazrok

Perhaps it was related to our atomic weapons capability? In 1952, it was pretty much the US, Russia, and (first test that same year), the Brits. This is at least one explanation for the focus...

The atomic capability is a popular idea for why UFO sightings were so frequent post-1940s. As it stands, the idea seems as reasonable as any and better than most. True, the Soviets had a tight grip on the media. In Western Europe, there hasn't been the size or frequency of the waves and flaps...plenty of incidents.

Roswell? Maybe. If Roswell really happened (craft crashes, bodies found) and the UFO waves were focused on the US, I've got an original idea. It's a bit too 'lively' for posting and liable to get me labelled a 'true believer' or crank.

My 'logic meltdown' is basically a case of UFO hits me every once in a while after too much thinking about the subject. It seems reasonable that the foo fighters and spheres seen since the 40s could be some form of probes. Data gatherers. The apparent and continued focus on the USA still bugs me.

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Arbitrageur, thanks for the reply and kudos for having the balls to tackle some of these old UFO cases - a lot of the time they just get wilfully ignored so its refreshing to see some sceptical examination - it appears Ruppelt's comments in the report to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Design Engineering Conference did contain some discrepencies yet the subsequent explanation for the incident still remains dubious - I do appreciate (and respect) your post though.

There is a lot more data and information on the incident (including the documents you posted) at this NICAP case directory and Dr Allen J Hyneck has done some very interesting work on the radar aspects of the case here - I'd be interested to know if after reading these reports you agree with Project Bluebook's assessment that the object(s) witnessed were just stars? (link)

The reason I ask is that the staff of Project Bluebook haven't realy got the best track record when it comes to objectively examining radar confirmed UFO reports - there are quite a few examples here where it appears they had utter contempt for the reported facts and went on to 'blatantly concoct' explanations for hot reports such as the planet Venus, aircraft, balloons... right through to high flying seagulls.

As for credible radar confirmation cases, Dr James Mcdonald lists some good examples at this thread and there are some very interesting government documents dealing with the subject here - particularly one example posted in the OP where an unknown object was visualy correlated on radar for 49 minutes.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by Kandinsky

Ramey! Just look at this.

Interview from CBS program "Man of the Week" 1952. Info here from August 4th 1952 NYT

After saying that he was "resonably well" conviced that there was no such thing as UFO he later in the same interview says

"We are reasonably well convinced that they are not material, solid objects".

"About 20% of the reports in Air Force hands remain to be explained"

"I can say definitely they are not our own".

"I still believe they are some phenomena that is not easily explained".

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Logarock]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:01 AM
Dr James McDonald covers some interesting cases in his statement on UFOs to the U.S. House Committee on Science and Aeronautics Symposium on UFOs, 1968:


"The type of UFO reports that are most intriguing are close-range sightings of machine-like objects of unconventional nature and unconventional performance characteristics, seen at low altitudes, and sometimes even on the ground. The general public is entirely unaware of the large number of such reports that are coming from credible witnesses... When one starts searching for such cases, their number are quite astonishing. Also, such sightings appear to be occurring all over the globe."
Dr. James E. McDonald, Senior Physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona.


Case 39. Port Huron, Mich., July 29, 1952:

Many of the radar cases for which sighting details are accessible date back to 1953 and preceding years. After 1953, official policies were changed, and it is not easy to secure good information on subsequent cases in most instances.

A radar case in which both ground-radar and airborne radar contact were involved occurred at about 9:40 p.m. CST on 7/29/52. From the official case summary one finds that the unknown was first detected by GCI radar at an Aircraft Control and Warning station in Michigan, and one of three F-94s doing intercept exercises nearby was vectored over towards it. It was initially coming in out of the north, at a speed put at over 600 mph. As the F-94 was observed on the GCI scope to approach the unknown, the latter suddenly executed a 180 degree turn, and headed back north. The F-94 was by then up to 21,000 ft, and the pilot spotted a brilliant multicolored light just as his radarman got a contact. The F-94 followed on a pursuit course for 20 minutes but could never close with the unknown as it continued on its northbound course. At the time of first radar lock on, the F-94 was 20 miles west of Pt. Huron, Mich. The GCI scope revealed the unknown to be changing speed erratically, and at one stage it was evidently moving at a speed of over 1400 mph, according to Menzel, who evidently drew his information from the official files. Ruppelt states that when the jet began to run low on fuel and turned back to its base, GCI observed the unknown blip slow down, and shortly after it was lost from the GCI scope.

Why Aren't UFOs Ever Tracked by Radar?

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 01:01 PM
List of intriguing UFO incidents from Pentagon/USAF spokesperson Albert Chop:

The Chop Clearance List

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 11:50 AM
Oak Ridge - 1952.

Memo to the Director of the CIA.

At this time, the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention. The details of some of these incidents have been discussed by AD/SI with DDCI. Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and travelling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles.


posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 12:36 PM
I dont know if you are aware, but at the CIA's own web site they talk about how their recon craft are responsible for 50% of all the UFO's reported in the 50's and 60's.

"According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States"

It is entirely plausible that people saw US recon craft of some sort.

posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by alexander_delta

50% of ALL UFO reports for several decades! Get real man. And that coming from the CIA...forget about it.

Think about how many missions they flew, very few in relation to reports in fact almost nill, and at what altitude and geographic area they flew most of thier mission in. The 50% number isnt going to work.

posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by alexander_delta

Alexander -can I ask you if you clicked on any of the links or read any of the reports posted in this thread?

Many of the object descriptions and reported flight characteristics bear little or no resemblance to U2 aircraft.

The main 1952 report link is here and, as well as the incidents involved in the Korean War and Operation Mainbrace (which you can find on the first page), there are other archived links below:

Major Keyhoe archives:

PDF file 1

PDF file 2

PDF file 3

PDF file 4


posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:07 PM
Hey I'm just taken away by that sightings graph. Mid 1951 virtually no sightings, mid 1952 was it 500 sightings, that is just amazing. Why so many sightings so suddenly? Was this the year that Britain opened the worlds first nuclear power station? Something like that attracted the ufos like flies to dung

posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by karl 12

The most interesting aspect of this wave (known as the Summer of the Saucers) is Project Blue Book has over 100 unsolved and unknown cases on its books in that time. This is the same agency that went out of their way to have answers such as swamp gas, weather inversion, weather balloon etc. That information alone speaks volumes something strange went down during the Summer of 1952.

Also, here is a part of the transcript from the National Sighting Press Conference that Kevin Randle posted on his blog:

These cases are among the strongest yet for flying saucers, no matter how hard the debunkers try to ignore the evidence.

posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Yeah, those aliens were hot and heavy back then. Never mind the ignorant and paranoid public, the incpometant government, the cold war, radar technology (and the FOOLS who were stationed at those radars...don't believe me? DO YOUR HOMEWORK)...

1. Over 100 cases in Project Blue Book from the Summer of 1952 are classified as unknowns.

2. While there could be radar problems to account for some of these cases, it would be hard pressed to blame faulty radar for all of them. As has been stated before the Cold War was in full swing and radar systems were very well maintained at the time.

3. Many experienced pilots risked their careers by reporting they saw flying metallic disks doing maneuvers unlike anything they have seen before. These men were constantly evaluated for psychological and physical problems to carry out their missions.

4. Many have done their homework on this subject, and one of the results is a book written by Frank Feschino "Shoot Them Down". The book is packed with information and cites many references.

5. Even many high ranking officers made interesting remarks about flying saucers being of extraterrestrial origin at the time. 1952 was a rather a difficult year for the military, which started to really crack down on information on flying saucers after the Roswell incident.

We are applying logic to these cases. The logic is also ruling out all the simple explanations the government and military throw at us like we are a pack of dogs.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 01:43 PM
I just posted about the 50s:
The forties and before must have been Germany and the Foo in the air.

In the summer of 1950, during the time of the sightings, .....
I had learned that, on the first day of the Korean War, a flying saucer had appeared in broad daylight, above the city hall across the street from our house, and had maneuvered for fifteen minutes, and that, on the following day, two saucers had appeared, and maneuvered for thirty minutes.

my edit ...

Bill Lyne thought the saucer would be used in the Korean War as observation
platforms. He had seen many test planes that soon became operational
but the saucer never did become official or have an outing.

From this I assume the saucer did not spark so much as today and
was easier to see.
The Foo would be in the 40s or before in Germany.

And before Germany, in America would be any test by Tesla as he said the
dirigible torpedo was operational.
America was surprised by German development of Tesla's technology
and perhaps took all his documents and labs as Tesla put up a fight.
The people near Tesla at that time can't speak now and perhaps
didn't speak then. The Foo and free energy submarines were probably
small fry to and Death Ray defense Germany might have been
building because of Tesla's many announcements.
Yeah he could back up what he said.
Its all down in Los Alamos and copied for distribution to various
companies. Who would know, people from operation paper clip.
The submarine was only suspected as being noticed and classified
perhaps 20 years ago.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 01:53 PM
I can't imagine any secret craft in operation in the 50's STILL being classified.
After all, the U-2 was probably THE most classified plane at the time, and it's history (and successors) are well-known and documented.

We're talking about over half a century later... If these objects were ours, they'd have long found their way into a) regular military service and then b) the private sector.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
Do you honestly believe Tesla created the foo/ufo orbs? These things have been documented right back to the birth of Jesus, sure Tesla may have had some plans similar or based on them but the fact is the ufo orbs came before him.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 02:08 PM
Before Tesla:
try Velikovsky cause he read more about what ancients saw
and wrote and found it all cosmic.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

TeslaandLyne has been pushing this theory of his since I can remember coming on this board even though there's ZERO scientific evidence to support his claims other than the BIG SCARY "Illuminati" is hiding everything from us and keeping it secret. According to him, every single UFO in history ever documented have been flown by members of this so called "Illuminati" to try and convince the rest of us that we are being visited by ET's.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

TeslaandLyne has been pushing this theory of his since I can remember coming on this board even though there's ZERO scientific evidence to support his claims other than the BIG SCARY "Illuminati" is hiding everything from us and keeping it secret. According to him, every single UFO in history ever documented have been flown by members of this so called "Illuminati" to try and convince the rest of us that we are being visited by ET's.

What do you know about Jocko Flocko.
You know about me I see.
I just write it and you can think for your self so
don't help any one else about me in the wrong direction.
They can read.
Please contribute to ufoorbhunter some other way.

ED: I left you another post to ignore or talk about:


the Trilateral Commission, in a secret deal cut between the World Bankers and Industrialists, Trilateralists, CFR, Rockefellers and the Nazis, with the U. S. government

perhaps a big part of an Illuminati with operation paperclip people
from part of section in

[edit on 3/23/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by Gazrok

Thank you for bringing up one of the biggest arguments that Roswell or the flying disks were ours. After half a century, the USAF and others would of come clean about it by now. They would at least show us them, even if they could not talk about how they made them fly. They show us stealth aircraft all the time without discussing the materials needed to make the craft invisible.

The argument that the disks were German or ours does not hold up after much scrutiny.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in