Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't always believe the official story...and obviously they lied in the Roswell incident...but even pro-UFO investigators learned there were
temperature inversions in Washington which supported the official story:
Even if you don't believe the official story, it has enough plausibility that the Washington incident doesn't even
come close to proof, and in my opinion, the official story in this case is probably close to correct.
Air Force intelligence director John Samford told the press that the sightings may have been a false radar reading, caused by a temperature
inversion in the atmosphere.
That official Samford quote is meaningful only to someone who thinks the Air Force took an objective and unbiased stance on UFOs. It did not. And
that's absolutely TRIVIAL to show....
But you're right that the D.C. '52 case cannot be considered "proof". No case can. But it and several others are evidence of something
interesting, and cannot just be casually explained away. Nor have these types of compelling cases been
explained, over 60 years later....
The official temperature inversion explanation for the D.C. sightings (which you classify as "close to correct") is actually embarrassingly absurd, if
one looks at all the evidence.
For example, from the Princeton U. archive of his work, here's what Dr. James McDonald (atmospheric physicist, U. Arizona) had to say about the
"inversion layer" explanation in his 1968 "Statement on UFOs"
presented to the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics at its July 29 UFO Symposium:
"I have interviewed five of the CAA personnel involved in this case and four of the commercial airline pilots involved, I have checked the
radiosonde data against well-known radar propagation relations, and I have studied the CAA report subsequently published on this event. Only an
extremely lengthy discussion would suffice to present the serious objections to the official explanation ... of anomalous radar propagation and
refractive anomalies of the mirage type. The refractive index gradient ... was far too low for "ducting" or "trapping" to occur; and, still more
significant, the angular elevations of the visually observed unknowns lay far too high for radar- ducting under even the most extreme conditions that
have ever been observed in the atmosphere. Some of the pilots, directed by ground radar to look for any airborne objects, saw them at altitudes well
above their own flight altitudes, and these objects were maneuvering in wholly unconventional manner. One crew saw one of the unknown luminous objects
shoot straight up, and simultaneously the object' s return disappeared from the ARTC scope being watched by the CAA radar operators. The official
suggestion that the same weak (1.7"C) low-level "inversion" that was blamed for the radar ducting could produce miraging effects was quantitatively
absurd, even if one overlooks the airline-pilot sightings and deals only with the reported ground-visual sightings". From the CAA radar operators I
interviewed, as well as from the pilots I talked to about this case, I got the impression that the propagation-anomaly hypothesis struck them as
quite out of the question, then and now." (My emphasis.)
I suppose anyone who wished could write statements like that off as the 'subjective opinions of a UFO believer' ... but is that really the most
There is a ton more out there -- statements of those actually present in the control tower, the pilots, etc. -- which shows that the D.C,. '52
sightings cannot be reasonably explained as inversion layers, mirage effects and the like.
ATS user karl12 has done an outstanding
job of noting some of these materials on
page of the D.C. '52 sightings thread.
edit on 10-3-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)