UFOs over DC in 1952, Jets Scrambled

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
UFOs over DC in 1952, Jets Scrambled

Often, we’ve mentioned this case (actually two cases), but to my knowledge, we’ve never really gone into detail about it. This is an important case for many reasons. Like some of the other best cases, we’ve got documentation, military involvement, press coverage, etc. However, with this case, we have other information as well. First and foremost, we have the very turning point of Project Bluebook. As many of the project leaders have stated, after this event, the focus of Bluebook went from explain, to outright debunk. So, let’s get to it…


(Photo above for visualization purposes only...not an actual photo of the objects in question)


Front page of the Washington paper.

It started with a National Airlines crew sighting on July 13th, about 60 miles SW of the city, and then continued for a week, with more sightings and radar returns each day for the next week, through the 20th.

It started again on the 25th, this time with Air Route Traffic Control radar picking up numerous UFOs (and multiple such incidents that day), and another National Airlines crew sighting. This continued this time for 4 more days, through the 29th.

You can view an excellent timeline of events here…(complete with sources)
www.project1947.com...

The following is an excerpt from the Washington Post for July 28th:



Two other radar screens in the area picked up the objects.An employee of the National Airport control tower said the radar scope there picked up very weak "blips" of the objects. The tower radar's for "short range" and is not so powerful as that at the center. Radar at Andrews Air Force Base also registered the objects from about seven miles south of the base.

A traffic control center spokesman said the nature of the signals on the radar screen ruled out any possibility they were from clouds or any other "weather" disturbance.

"The returns we received from the unidentified objects were similar and analogous to targets representing aircraft in flight," he said.

The objects, "flying saucer or what have you, appeared on the radar scope at the airport center at 9:08 PM. Varying from 4 to 12 in number, the objects appeared on the screen until 3:00 AM., when they disappeared.

AT 11:25 PM., two F-94 jet fighters fro Air Defense Command squadron, at New CAstle Delaware, capable of 600 hundred mph speeds, took off to investigate the objects.

Airline, civil and military pilots described the objects as looking like the lit end of a cigarette or a cluster of orange and red lights.

One jet pilot observed 4 lights in the vicinity of Andrews Air Force Base, but was not able to over-take them, and they disappeared in about two minutes.

The same pilot observed a steady white light in the vicinity of Mt Vernon at 11:49 PM. The light, about 5 miles from him, faded in a minute. The lights were also observed in the Beltsville, MD., vicinity. At 1:40 AM two-other F-94 jet fighters took off and scanned the area until 2:20 AM., but did not make any sightings.


Ed Ruppelt himself (head of Project Bluebook at the time, now a UFOlogist and author whose gone on record that Bluebook was a coverup) was actually likely involved somewhat in this case, as the paper points out.



The same source reported an expert from the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton Ohio, was here last week investigating the objects sighted July 19.

The expert has been identified as Capt. E. J. Ruppelt. Reached by telephone at his home in Dayton yesterday, Ruppelt said he could make no comment on his activity in Washington.

Capt. Ruppelt confirmed he was in Washington last week but said he had not come here to investigate the mysterious objects. He recalled he did make an investigation after hearing of the objects, but could not say what he investigated.


Here is the transcript of the tower conversation from the Washington National air controllers to the Andrews AFB controllers… ufocasebook.com...



Washington: Andrews Tower, do you read? Did you have an airplane in sight west-northwest or east of your airport moving east-bound?
Andrews: No, but we just got a call from the center. We're looking for it.
Washington: We've got a big target showing up on our scope. He's just coming in on the west edge of your airport-the northwest edge of it eastbound. He'll be passing right through the northern portion of your field on an east heading. He's about a quarter of a mile from the northwest runway-right over the edge of your northwest runway now.
Andrews: What happened to your target now?
Washington: He's still eastbound. He went directly over Andrews Fields and is now five miles east.
Andrews: Where did he come from?
Washington: We picked him up ourselves at about seven miles east, slightly southeast, and we have been tracking him ever since then. The Center has been tracking him farther than that.
Andrews: Was he waving his course?
Washington: Holding steady course, due east heading.
Andrews: This is Andrews. Our radar tracking says he's got a big fat target out here northeast of Andrews. He says he's got two more south of the field.
Washington: Yes, well the center has about four or five around the Andrews Range station. The Center is working a National Airlines - the center is working him and vectoring him around his target. He went around Andrews. He saw one of them - looks like a meteor. (Garbled)..Went by him..or something. He said he's got one about three miles off his right wing right now. There are so many targets around here it is hard to tell as they are not moving very fast.
Andrews: What about his altitude?
Washington: Well, must be over 8,000 feet as we don't have him in radar any more.


From controllers at Washington National: www.subversiveelement.com...



In the control tower at Washington National Airport, Ed Nugent saw seven pale violet blips on his radar screen. What were they? Not planes -- at least not any planes that were supposed to be there.

He summoned his boss, Harry G. Barnes, the head of National's air traffic controllers. "Here's a fleet of flying saucers for you," Nugent said, half-joking.

Upstairs, in the tower's glass-enclosed top floor, controller Joe Zacko saw a strange blip streaking across his radar screen. It wasn't a bird. It wasn't a plane. What was it? He looked out the window and spotted a bright light hovering in the sky. He turned to his partner, Howard Cocklin, who was sitting three feet away.

"Look at that bright light," Zacko said. "If you believe in flying saucers, that could sure be one."

And then the light took off, zooming away at an incredible speed.

"Did you see that?" Cocklin remembers saying. "What the hell was that?"

It was Saturday night, July 19, 1952 -- 50 years ago this weekend -- one of the most famous dates in the bizarre history of UFOs. Before the night was over, a pilot reported seeing unexplained objects, radar at two local Air Force bases -- Andrews and Bolling -- picked up the UFOs, and two Air Force F-94 jets streaked over Washington, searching for flying saucers.

Then, a week later, it happened all over again --more UFOs on the radar screen, more jets scrambled over Washington. Across America, the story of jets chasing UFOs over the White House knocked the Korean War and the presidential campaign off the front pages of newspapers.


Other Headlines included such papers as the New York Daily News “Jets Chase D.C. Sky Ghosts”, or the Washington Daily News’ “Aerial Whatzits buzz D.C. Again!”, the Washington Post’s “Radar Spots Air Mystery Objects Here”, or the Washington Daily News’ “Air Force ‘Saucer’ Expert Will Probe Sightings Here”. (referring to an unwitting Ruppelt), or the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s “Saucers Swarm Over Capital”.

Here’s some info about the second incident, and the jets scrambled…



The controllers called for interceptors, and about 11 p.m. the Air Force dispatched F-94s to search the sky over Washington. When the first jets arrived, the blips disappeared from National's radar screens and the F-94 pilots saw nothing unusual. But when they returned to New Castle, the blips returned to the radar screens.

About 1:30 a.m., the jets soared back over Washington. This time, pilots saw several strange lights. One pilot gave chase but he couldn't catch the streaking light.

"I tried to make contact with the bogies below 1,000 feet," pilot William Patterson told investigators. "I was at my maximum speed but . . . I ceased chasing them because I saw no chance of overtaking them."


The “official” explanation given at the time was “temperature inversions” on radar. The press accepted it and let the story die. The radar operators knew better, and plainly stated that they were well aware of such things and how they appeared on radar. Also, nevermind the fact that the objects were also sighted visually by pilots (both civilian and military), and the blips confirmed by numerous radar tracking stations, and even photographed! Even Bluebook eventually dismissed the temperature inversion explanation, and the sightings remain listed in the “unknown” category.


[edit on 12-4-2005 by Gazrok]

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Gazrok]




posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Interesting.Its hard to believe how the press can be so gullible to accept something like that.And also for the White House to make idiots out of the radar operators.Good Post



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
UFOs over DC in 1952, Jets Scrambled



The controllers called for interceptors, and about 11 p.m. the Air Force dispatched F-94s to search the sky over Washington. When the first jets arrived, the blips disappeared from National's radar screens and the F-94 pilots saw nothing unusual. But when they returned to New Castle, the blips returned to the radar screens.

About 1:30 a.m., the jets soared back over Washington. This time, pilots saw several strange lights. One pilot gave chase but he couldn't catch the streaking light.

"I tried to make contact with the bogies below 1,000 feet," pilot William Patterson told investigators. "I was at my maximum speed but . . . I ceased chasing them because I saw no chance of overtaking them."

Gaz, man where do you get all this stuff....

Any idea how fast the F 94's max speed was? The one pilot says he ceased chasing because of no chance to overtake them.


[edit on 12-4-2005 by Muckwa]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Muckwa]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Thanks. Leaving work now, so if any questions, may not get to them till tomorrow.

EDIT:


Any idea how fast the F 94's max speed was? The one pilot says he ceased chasing because of no chance to overtake them.


In the article...600mph


[edit on 12-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I wonder what the UFO's motives were?

Could it have been the Russians by any chance?



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Gaz, thanks - I was reading too fast. I found it.




The “official” explanation given at the time was “temperature inversions” on radar. The press accepted it and let the story die. The radar operators knew better, and plainly stated that they were well aware of such things and how they appeared on radar. Also, nevermind the fact that the objects were also sighted visually by pilots (both civilian and military), and the blips confirmed by numerous radar tracking stations, and even photographed! Even Bluebook eventually dismissed the temperature inversion explanation, and the sightings remain listed in the “unknown” category.


Could it be back in the 50's the government had a 'strangel hold' on the press? I couldn't see that happening today, but back then they probably told members of the press to keep their mouths shut or else.

Didn't the Radio Station Manager that went to the site at the Kecksburg, PA crash get a visit from 'offical' looking characters. After the visit he made no other mention of what he saw. He even changed his story for his report on the air. I believe his assistant said he was a changed man from that day on. That was 1965.

Thanks for posting this Gaz!!!



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
In my next installment of the Case for Roswell threads, I go into what happened with the newsmen of the Roswell case. It's pretty interesting.

The big thing with the 50's though, is that people (even the media) were more willing to BELIEVE the US military then, and had a lot more respect (and fear) when it came to reporting on anything even remotely classified.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I first heard of the Washington merry-go-round incident on the documentary UFO’s Then and Now on the History Channel. I had it on tape, so I popped it in and watched it again. They had an interview with Albert Chop, who I believe worked with Ed Ruppelt on Blue Book. The documentary referred to him as the Air Force Civilian Spokesperson (did not mention he worked on BB). He described the objects as “interplanetary machines” and went on to describe the incident with the jets trying to intercept the objects but the UFO’s disappeared. After 20 minutes the jets returned to the airfield, and the UFO’s then reappeared on their scopes. The documentary also showed the press conference with General John Samford who discredited the incident as atmospheric anomalies due to an inversion layer.

I did a quick search and found some interesting links to the incident on the Nicap site.

The Washington National Sightings
Albert Chop

Nice work Gazrok.


[edit on 4/12/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
In those days the press didn't have the power and even the freedom which they have today. Theoretically, they could have written or reported anything that they wished. But at that time they would have been blackballed and had all their access taken away by the government. It's common knowledge that reporters of the day knew about JFK sleeping around, but out of "respect" and likely fear, they never reported such things. I think they also cared a lot more back then about the good of the country. These days reporters will do a story on just about anything, regardless of the implications it may have on the nation as a whole.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Gazrok youve done it agian


thankfully we have hard core ufo researcher like yourself here

ahhh a breath of fresh air

hey Gazrok you notice how when you post up neat storys like this and have your MOUNTAINS of EVIDENCE (which is awesome)

that very few if any; debunkers ever try to 'debunk' your findings?


its because you have EVIDENCE

you know PROOF
LOL

when you go back into the archives; and find newspaper articles like this, and then research dozens of surrounding sources/facts; you build a compelling arguement

i think you will get a vote from me for coolest dude on the website

ive seen the dang ufos myself so when i see you posting stuff like this it really helps me feel better; because all these ignorant naysayers think that they know what i saw or didnt see
they are quite ignorant; perhaps that explains why the constantly talk crap on UFOS but yet they never once thought about it logically for one second.

anyways;
lets see the debunkers try to take this one down

ill go ahead and say it

The DC cases; the 'Battle of LA' alone are CONCRETE PROOF OF UFOS EXISTANCE;
and to go further

they are SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CONCLUSION THAT UFOS ARE PILOTED BY EXTRETERRESTRIAL ENTITYS

(keep in mind that the USA and the USSR were the undisputed technological leaders in aerospace technology - and when BOTH nations were trying to 'chase down' or 'intercept' these "UFOS" that OBVIOUSLY, the craft were not piloted by EITHER group.. which supports the conclusion that they are piloted by ET entitys)

if i know im crazy am i sane? or just crazier?



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

if i know im crazy am i sane? or just crazier?


I believe the term is eccentric...


Thanks, but most of my sources deserve the credit. I'm just reorganizing what's out there, and presenting what I believe to be the most compelling facts about such cases, as well as presenting what explanations skeptics have provided. In these "best cases", such explanations fail, and even the government itself is left simply going, "we don't know". Such cases as this though, are really what make me wonder how more can't accept this reality. Skeptics always claim, "but there's no proof!" The evidence is there, has been there for a long time....we've simply ignored it.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   
i noticed i cant vote for you above top secret award....

is it cuz your a moderator? im guessing so

if i was able to; id vote you



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I want to add something everyone always over looks:

1. Yeah it could and might be ET's. Extra-Terrestials. Meaning Non-Humans not form our planet.

2, It also could and might be..... IT's. Inner-Terrestials. Meaning Non-Humans from our planet. Beings who live inside our planet. The Germans in WW2 had a base in Antartica. The reason? Supposivly there's a spot that's an intrance to inside the Earth.

A super famous American explorer in 1947 ventured inside the Earth. His name was Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd. He used an entrance at the North Pole area. He even brought communications equipment with him, and broadcasted from inside the Earth. Every single magazine article, news article, on and about him has been burried, "lost", and blatantly destroyed.

The book "The Biggest Secret" shows a chart on how our planet might really look if one were to cut it open and view a cross section.. It's some super serious stuff to think about, cuz it's possible. When planets form, and cool off, they're rotating the entire time. As everyone knows, when something rotates, all mass spins outward. So it's possible the center of the Earth isn't solid, but hollow.

More evidence is the fact Ice Bergs are made of Fresh Water. Meanwhile the oceans that scientists claim they form in are full of... Salt Water. Very possible Ice Bergs form from rivers and streams that are inside the Earth, on the "mirror side". (Yeah, people and animals are walking "upside down" under us, inside the planet.) Those rivers flow from the lands, mountains, inside the Earth, into our oceans on our side of the Earth.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   


2, It also could and might be..... IT's. Inner-Terrestials. Meaning Non-Humans from our planet. Beings who live inside our planet. The Germans in WW2 had a base in Antartica. The reason? Supposivly there's a spot that's an intrance to inside the Earth.


You're stating this as fact? You do realize of course, that we and many other nations have since been to Antarctica and have numerous permanent outposts there. Not to mention, there is almost nothing to support this, nor the Hollow Earth theory.

And of course, the biggest logical pitfall of this is the simple fact that if the "surviving" Nazis had such weapons, then surely they would have been able to regain some of their former glory, and would certainly have USED them...not just died off in obscurity in Antarctica....
Also, between the US and the USSR, their scientists were pretty much rounded up, so we'd know of such advances.

The biggest reason to rule out terrestrial sources is a simple one. The most advanced nations on Earth technologically, BOTH were plagued with these UFOs buzzing their defense installations with impunity...and BOTH didn't have a clue what they were.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Came across this... This was a report that was created to debunk the sightings and put forward the "temperature inversion" theory as the explanation.



A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF
UNIDENTIFIED TARGETS OBSERVED
ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RADARS
By
Richard C. Borden, Electronics Division
and
Tirey K. Vickers, Navigation Aids Evaluation Division
Technical Development -Report No, 180

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT AND
EVALUATION CENTER
INDIANAPOLIS INDIANA
May 1953


www.cufon.org...

The funny part of this of course, is that the government later flip-flopped on this, and even admitted that this simply wouldn't explain the sightings by their own pilots (as such inversions would not be seen VISUALLY), and it's status in Bluebook was again changed to "unknown".

They sure went through a lot of work to try and use this though, huh? (and almost a YEAR later)


Some FOIA documents...

CIA Memo:



SECURITY INFORMATION
JUL 29 1952

MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director/Intelligence

SUBJECT: Recent Sightings of Unexplained Objects

In the past several weeks a number of radar and visual sightings of unidentified aerial objects have been reported. Although this office has maintained a continuing review of such reported sightings during the past three years, a special study group has been formed to review this subject to date. D/CI will participate in the study with D/SI and a report should be ready about 15 August.

RALPH L. CLARK
Acting Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence

OSI:FCD:RLC mtw (28July52)

Opns/SI - 3
AD/SI - 2


This is of course, after this particular story made headlines. The CIA obviously wasn't chasing "temperature inversions", hehe....


Here's more on the follow up (all of this is FOIA released documents, from the horse's mouth so to speak)



SECURITY INFORMATION

INFORMAL

Deputy Assistant Director/SI 1 August 1952

Acting Chief, Weapons & Equipment Division

"Flying Saucers"

1. Pursuant to your request for overall evaluation of "flying saucers" and associated reports, the following is pertinent:

a. Of 1000 to 2000 such reports received by ATIC, a large percentage are clearly "phoney". An equally large percentage can be satisfactorily explained as known flights of currently operational U.S. equipment (aircraft, weather balloons, etc.) and many others are undoubtedly of natural phenomena (meteorites, clouds, aberration of light caused by thermal inversion or reflections, etc.).
b. Less than 100 reasonably credible reports remain "unexplainable" at this time; regarding these reports, there is no pattern of specific sizes, configurations, characteristics, performance, or location. The sources of these reports are generally no more or less credible than the sources of the other categories. It is probable that if complete information were available for presently "unexplainable" reports, they, too, could be evaluated into categories as indicated in "a" above.

2. Notwithstanding the foregoing tentative facts, so long as a series of reports remains "unexplainable" (interplanetary aspects and alien origin not being thoroughly excluded from consideration) caution requires that intelligence continue coverage of the subject.

3. It is recommended that CIA surveillance of subject matter, in coordination with proper authorities of primary operational concern at ATIC, be continued. It is strongly urged, however, that no indication of CIA interest or concern reach the press or public, in view of their probable alarmist tendencies to accept such interest as "confirmatory" of the soundness of "unpublished facts" in the hands of the U. S.

4. The undersigned has arranged with the Commanding Officer of the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, for a thorough and comprehensive briefing related to this subject on 8 August 1952. Subsequent to obtaining full detains, a detailed analysis will be prepared and forwarded.

EDWARD TAUSS


So we have a confirmed CIA study of them, starting on the day after this hit the press, independent of Bluebook.

It gets better...



SEP 24 1952

MEMORANDUM FOR : Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH : Deputy Director (Intelligence)
SUBJECT : Flying Saucers

(skipping down to the conclusion)

11. I consider this problem to be of such importance that it should be brought to the attention of the National Security Council in order that a community-wide coordinated effort towards its solution may be initiated.

/s/ HM Chadwell
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence


In December of 1952...



MEMORANDUM TO : The Executive Secretary
National Security Council
SUBJECT : Unidentified Flying Objects (Flying Saucers)

1. The Central Intelligence Agency has reviewed the current situation concerning unidentified flying objects which have caused extensive speculation in the press and have been the subject of concern to Government organizations. The Air Force, within the limitations of manpower which could be devoted to the subject, has thus far carried the full responsibility for investigating and analyzing individual reports of sightings. Since 1947, approximately 2000 official reports of sightings have been received and, of these, about 20% are as yet unexplained.

2. It is my view that this situation has possible implications for our national security which transcend the interests of a single service. A broader, coordinated effort should be initiated to develop a firm scientific understanding of the several phenomena which apparently are involved in these reports, and to assure ourselves that the incidents will not hamper our efforts in the Cold War or confuse our early warning system in case of an attack.

3. I therefore recommend that this Agency and the agencies of the Department of Defense be directed to formulate and carry out a program of intelligence and research activities required to solve the problem of instant positive identification of unidentified flying objects. A draft of an appropriate directive is attached.

Walter B. Smith
Director

Enclosure


[edit on 13-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Gazrok wrote
And of course, the biggest logical pitfall of this is the simple fact that if the "surviving" Nazis had such weapons, then surely they would have been able to regain some of their former glory, and would certainly have USED them...not just died off in obscurity in Antarctica.... Also, between the US and the USSR, their scientists were pretty much rounded up, so we'd know of such advances.


Who said they died off?
The whole story about "Operation Longjump" , which was led by Admiral Byrd to Antarctica is extremely interesting. Gazrok, perhaps you should look into that if you haven´t already.

This is interesting; (emphasis added)



On March 5, 1947 the "El Mercurio" newspaper of Santiago, Chile, had a headline article "On Board the Mount Olympus on the High Seas" which quoted Byrd in an interview with Lee van Atta: "Adm. Byrd declared today that it was imperative for the United States to initiate immediate defense measures against hostile regions. The admiral further stated that he didn't want to frighten anyone unduly but that it was a bitter reality that in case of a new war the continental United States would be attacked by flying objects which could fly from pole to pole at incredible speeds. [Earlier he had recommended defense bases AT the NORTH Pole.] Admiral Byrd repeated the above points of view, resulting from his personal knowledge gathered both at the north and south poles, before a news conference held for International News Service."
www.think-aboutit.com...

I wonder why he said that. Unless . . .



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Excellent diggin' Gaz, just a footnote:

The inital picture (I dont believe having anything to do with the validity of your research) shows....



Reflection lights from the lower end of the photo, reflected in the lens (upside down and mirrored as typical with in-camera/lens reflection) accounts for the lights in the sky of the photo. Evident throughout the photo, but especially the 2 to the right of the dome. I know this isnt the highest resolution example, but it's all I have at the moment.

As I said it has nothing to do with the validity of the work you've done on the sightings, etc...just that particular photo, in case nobody knew that.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Thanks, I had trouble finding out more about the photo, and I'm no image expert, so I included it along with the paper headline, as more of an attention grabber. That's why I didn't validate/invalidate or caption the photo. I had toyed with not including it, but thought it gave a great visual.... And your example of the reflection is more than enough to show that Jeff...thanks!


(I have edited a caption under the picture to show this).

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
No problem Gaz, I'd figured it was just for era-time-story purposes...and it works for that. I just didnt know how many would know what the explanation for that one was. I know...anal huh.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Anal is really the only way to be when you're talking about a subject that commonly endures ridicule...despite the evidence. Still, I'd avoid the term as it evokes a probing response...





top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join