The "UFOs" in the famous photo showing lights over Washington DC have been identified

originally posted by: mirageman
You seem to think this is a thread de-bunking the DC 1952 UFO flap. But it's not.

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.

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 evidence. However, after I made the thread, I then clicked on the link where you sourced the image, and found it was the same debunking source I used for my OP, and then I noticed the winky emoticon and realized you already knew it was not valid evidence, and you were just joking. So I caught my own gaffe in not getting your joke at first, but it's probably still worthwhile to make sure people know this image is unrelated to the real UFO flap and I appreciate your clear efforts in helping to explain that.

For more information on the real UFO flap people should see your excellent thread on the topic which I believe you linked to in a previous post in this thread.

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.

I can give you two possibilities.

One possibility is that the other lights which appear "just as bright" as you put it, are not "just as bright". While I can't prove this exactly, what I think can be demonstrated is that the photo is overexposed and therefore once that happens, the photo is no longer an accurate gauge of how bright something is. Let me give an example.

Let's say you have two lights, one is 100 watts and one is 1000 watts, and that they are the same size so they will occupy the same size in an image. At lower exposure levels you should be able to see the brightness difference. However, if you leave the shutter open a long time as was done in the OP photo, eventually the 100 watt light bulb will "saturate the emulsion" with light so longer exposure can't saturate it any more. Once that happens, you won't be able to tell any difference between the 100W light and the 1000W light as they've both saturated the image.

One thing that could be done to explore this possibility is to search for similar images from a similar vantage point taken at a similar point in time, which are not overexposed, and which might therefore better show any brightness differences in the lights. I'd be wary of using modern images because lights get changed over time and don't always have the same brightness when that happens.

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 as seen here, that are outside the circle:



More specifically they could get reflected but the path of the reflected light rays might not lead back to the camera's negative. So if you are talking about some of the outermost lights not appearing in the reflection, this is a possibility also.

The two lights at the bottom which would have reflected into the image of the capitol's dome have their reflections obscured by that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you. Like I said, I'm not an expert on this and am still learning. I appreciate you taking the time to "hold my hand" and walk me through it. The photo does look overexposed, which is something I noticed right away.

I do understand, also, that you are not attempting to debunk the entire event, but merely the photo that was taken after the fact and used to "illustrate" the event.




- AB

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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

Aah that was a little joke aimed at someone else actually who prefers generally to ignore what others say and simply post walls of (often irrelevant) text on here and other boards.

Unfortunately a lot of people get defensive immediately when their favourite UFO cases seem to be getting dismantled and I suspect that might have been what was going on in this thread. There are also people who just skim a thread and then dive in with their own thoughts, or possibly just mis-read/misinterpreted the point being made.

But it was a good idea to make this thread because I very nearly fell into the trap of believing the photo was a pic from 1952 myself a while back.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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...

There's a lot of wild guessing involved in this "debunking". I'm afraid I must side with those in camp 'debunk fail'.

But thank you for the discussion.

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: 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?

I think you have failed to establish any "exact optical reflection" at all. Did you draw the blue lines on the photograph? No? Can you tell us who did?
Whoever did, it is sloppy work, and they don't match up in the least.

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 you suggest that UFOs are not very often seen flying in formation? Kenneth Arnold himself reported them flying in formation.

People witnessed and reported this event as UFOs, and these vehicles showed up on radar.
So yes, UFOs is more likely than lens flares.

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?

a reply to: tekeem

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?

Actually it was mirageman who suggested the photo was taken in 1965, not the OP. But he admits the photographer remains unknown, so exactly how is the date of the photograph known?

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?

a reply to: Scdfa
Mirageman didn't make up the 1965 date, it came from fotocat.

However it makes no difference to me if it was from 1952 or 1965 or some other date. 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.

The photo was apparently attributed to nicap at some point and here's the information on their website about it (emphasis mine), which shows the 1965 date which I agree is unconfirmed but since it's lens flare, why would the date be important?

www.nicap.org...

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

By the way Bruce Maccabee commented there and with his PhD in optical physics I'm sure he would have said something if he found any problem with the explanation that it was lens flares, but apparently he found that article he cited persuasive. 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. It doesn't really matter since it's only lens flares.

I admit the provenance of the photo used in Flying Saucer Magazine has proven impossible using the web. However there are a number of other factors throwing serious doubt on it being taken during July 1952 and showing a UFO flyby of the Capitol Building in Washington.

For those unable to get their heads around the lens flare explanation. (Which is pretty solid in my view) here are those factors:

1) Plenty of news and magazine clippings from July and August of 1952 are available regarding the DC Flap and none of them used this photo.

2) It does not seem to have appeared until the 1970s and suggests this is some kind of stock footage that was never intended as a UFO photo.

3) No one has come forward to admit they took the photo and confirm its authenticity.

4) Very few people were out and about in the early hours of a July 1952 Sunday morning, let alone equipped with a camera and tripod lined up ready because of foreknowledge of a UFO flyby of the Capitol building

5) Radar reports indicate the maximum number of unknown aerial objects in close proximity was 7 coming in from the SW over Washington. This photo shows around a dozen and they clearly match the pattern of the lights below in the foreground.


I have already posted various sources that give explanations:

This video is reasonably simple explanation of how the lights that appear to be in the sky are simply a lens reflection of what is below.



Here is a write up explaining it all in detail : lookathimnow.wordpress.com...

Here's another one explaining the animation used for Channel 4 "UFOs the Secret Evidence" often passed off as news reel of amateur footage of the 1952 UFO fly over.



As regards the NICAP investigation

Their conclusions were :

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) *

The photo we are discussing cannot be proven, even circumstantially, to have been taken in July 1952 during the UFO flap over DC. Why try to preserve some kind of argument that it was?

Once again I will re-iterate that the UFO wave over Washington DC was a real event and there are other elements of the case which are a lot more solid.

a reply to: Scdfa

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?

I know, right? Until then, we should assume this is a genuine photo of real UFOs taken at the time of the event!

We can throw it right into the mountain of evidence pile along with all the others.

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.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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.

It's amazing how fast this "debunking" story changes when you take a close look and start asking relevant questions.

First it was " this photo is from 1965".
Now it is "there's no guarantee it is from 1952".
LOL!

Even this admission from mirageman, who claimed the photo was from 1965:
"The photo we are discussing cannot be proven, even circumstantially, to have been taken in July 1952 during the UFO flap over DC".

Nor can you prove it was NOT taken in 1952, correct?
Nor can you prove it was taken in 1965, correct?
Mirageman is a man of integrity, and admits it, "I admit the provenance of the photo used in Flying Saucer Magazine has proven impossible using the web."

So everybody please stop claiming this photo was not taken in 1952 until you have some evidence.
In fact, you have no idea who took the photograph, or what year they took it in.

Gentlemen, thank you for confirming my doubts.
It didn't take much to debunk this debunking.

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.

Take the center points of the lights below, rotate 180 degrees and place them over the "lights" in the sky. They match, with the exception of the upper left light. Far too good of a match to be a coincidence. I'll animate it later if you still can't see it.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I dont necessarily have a problem with the lens flare theory in general (so long as its not incorrectly applied to the actual flap over 3 days).

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.

Kev

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.

Where don't the blue lines match up? I doubt you understood the explanations from Caelestia and from ipaco here.

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.

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.

The sun is one of the brightest objects typically photographed and it's almost impossible to avoid lens flare when photographing the sun if it's bright and a fair amount above the horizon. But with lights like in the OP photo, the fact that the photo is overexposed is a factor. If you compare to other photos that aren't overexposed, there's not as much light from the street lights or their reflections hitting the camera so the reflections may not show up on shorter exposures.

Here's a list of things I know that can affect it:
-Is the lens coated or uncoated? Uncoated lenses can make brighter lens flares.
-If coated, what is the quality of the coating? Not all coatings of lenses are equal in suppressing reflections.
-How bright is the light source?
-What is the aperture setting and exposure time?
-Is the lens a zoom lens?
-What is the focal length?
-How many optical elements does the lens have?
-Was a filter used on the front of the lens? (The filter makes extra surfaces for reflections to occur though some lenses have plenty already without any filter).
-What is the ISO rating of the film, or the ISO setting on the digital camera?

All these can influence what gets reflected. The key point is that modern cameras and lenses are designed to suppress internal reflections, but adding a filter or overexposing the image can defeat this reflection suppression. Some older cameras did not have these lens coatings to suppress reflections, even some professional cameras. Here are some other lens flares, which Scdfa will probably think are all UFOs:

From above link:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

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?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

a reply to: Scdfa

That is correct I cannot prove the photo was taken in July 1952. If I make a mistake I will gladly correct it and if I cannot prove something then I will say so. NICAP claimed that FOTOCAT analysis date it to 1965. I assume you don't trust NICAP's analysis?

It doesn't prove it was taken in 1952 either.

Although Arby's explanation of the lens flare, as well as the video and written explanations I linked to in my earlier post make perfect logical sense to me.

However I accept we all have different ways of thinking. Optical physics is not necessarily everyone's subject of expertise and that is why I also provided some further information that throws doubt on this photo being taken during the UFO flap during July 1952. Here they are again written more concisely.



1) The media did not use this photo during 1952

2) It's first appearance was in the 1970s

3) The photographer has never come forward and authenticated it as a shot of UFOs over the Capitol.

4) It would be very difficult to set up a camera and tripod in that very location without foreknowledge of exactly where the UFOs would appear.

5) Radar reports indicate the maximum number of unknown object tracked over Washington on any one time was 7. The photo clearly shows at least 11.

Like I said before ,this debate is a bit pointless because the DC Flap did happen and even President Truman asked to be briefed on the subject. There is much better evidence to look at.

However I have taken the trouble to email the photo analyst named in the NICAP report to ask if any further information on it's provenance is available. Assuming he gets back to me I will gladly post his reply in this thread.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
We can throw it right into the mountain of evidence pile along with all the others.

That evidence pile is pretty big, considering it doesn't add up to proof of anything, other than weird stuff going on.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

That image really helps, too, Ectoplasm8! Thanks for doing that!





Between you and Arbitrageur, it is very clear. Also, the extra examples Arbitrageur presented above also help - especially that street scene.

Thanks guys!

- AB

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ah! Now that makes much more sense, thank you.

See? i do learn something new every day!

Kev