The Washington National Airport Sightings

UFO believers are just... nuts, right?

In the words of Read Only, they are ''gullible'' and stupid. Of course, many people attending this site in fury against the believers have said worse.

But we don't believe in these things for no reason. When asked to cite evidence, we can actually cite hundreds of cases which are valid cases of evidence, but when we do, we are confronted with the usual ''you haven't provided evidence.''

In the modern day age of texting... LOL

Of course what we give is evidence. It might not be absolute proof, but it is tantalizing evidence nonetheless. One case, which is undisputed in its authenticity, is the Washinton 1952 sighting of several saucer shaped craft over washington and the white house.

The White House must have a selective memory for this event, considering there most recent statement saying there was absolutely no evidence that alien civilizations have been visiting the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident

taken are excerpts from wiki

Barnes had two controllers check Nugent's radar; they found that it was working normally. Barnes then called National Airport's other radar center; the controller there, Howard Cocklin, told Barnes that he also had the objects on his radarscope. Furthermore, Cocklin said that by looking out of the control tower window he could see one of the objects:

"a bright orange light. I can't tell what's behind it" (Clark, 653).


Airman William Brady, who was in the tower, then saw an "object which appeared to be like an orange ball of fire, trailing a tail . . . [it was] unlike anything I had ever seen before."

As Brady tried to alert the other personnel in the tower, the strange object "took off at an unbelievable speed." Meanwhile, another person in the National Airport control tower reported seeing "an orange disk about 3,000 feet altitude". On one of the airport's runways, S.C. Pierman, a Capital Airlines pilot, was waiting in the cockpit of his DC-4 for permission to take off. After spotting what he believed to be a meteor, he was told that the control tower's radar had picked up unknown objects closing in on his position. Pierman observed six objects — "white, tailless, fast-moving lights" — over a 14-minute period (Clark, 655). Pierman was in radio contact with Barnes during his sighting, and Barnes later related that "each sighting coincided with a pip we could see near his plane. When he reported that the light streaked off at a high speed, it disappeared on our scope."

The object vanished in all three radar centers at the same time (Ruppelt, p. 160). At 3 a.m., shortly before two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington, all of the objects vanished from the radar at National Airport. However, when the jets ran low on fuel and left, the objects returned, which convinced Barnes that "the UFOs were monitoring radio traffic and behaving accordingly" (Clark, 656). The objects were last detected by radar at 5:30 a.m. Around sunrise, E.W. Chambers, a civilian radio engineer in Washington's suburbs, observed "five huge disks circling in a loose formation. They tilted upward and left on a steep ascent."

The officials working at the time tried to account the radar blips as being due to ''bad weather''.... yeah right. How long did it take them to make that story up? Because no objects were actually seen, right?

two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington. Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar pips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts (Peebles, 76). However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter.

Suggests intelligence behind the objects.

So how long will skeptics honestly keep the cherade up, that those who believe, believe for no good reason and are nothing but a bunch of unintelligent crackpots, who are niave and without good judgement?

The 1952 case is the best reported UFO case. It cannot be denied in any shape or form. The nature of the event is spectacular as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is original video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D326UXwubKA&feature=related

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I expect that most people think that the question is unimportant. What's your view concerning importance?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, it is annoying to say the least, that there should be such a myth that the people who believe in UFO's cannot be trusted at all. And should be kept at arms length in case our disease of stupidity might rub off on others

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The point is, is that the question is rhetorical. It should not need or require an answer.

 

I dont suppose that many people think that. Have you conducted a poll, or have you alternative evidence for that claim?

Do you mean this question; "UFO believers are just... nuts, right?" If so, what's the point of this thread? If not, what question do you mean?
In any case, what's your view on the importance of whether or not one believes in UFOs, whatever the believer takes that to mean?

 

Oh... considering how many skeptics I have just read conferring with each other concerning UFOlogists as ''nuts'' and ''crackpots'' in the neighbouring thread, I'd like to see that theory put to the test.

To be proven wrong would delight me incredibly.

 

Listen, Bub, if you are going to attempt to talk about what I said, at least PAY ATTENTION to what I actually said!!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(But your lack of attention to detail IS a hallmark of most of you UFOlogists anyway. :shrug: )

Nowhere, anywhere did I ever say you and your ilk were "stupid." However, I did say "gullible" and "ignorant" - the latter word meaning "not knowing something" which is a VERY common condition in the world. And that leads to many wild and sometimes nutty conclusions.

 

Don't play games with me. Fair enough, you might not have used the word ''stupid'' but since you are defending people like phlog or maybe even Ophiliote who are quite clearly attacking the intelligence of UFO believers, who can't help but wonder if you fall into the same catagory?

Indeed, only people who have a poor education are most likely to be gullible and ignorant of facts. Do you deny this?

 

If the question is: do lights in the sky imply the existence of aliens, i would say no. Since aliens (as the term commonly is used) are ideas created by ingenious fantasy writers such as Asimov and Wells. Without their inspiration, it is not likely that this concept would exist in the pubic psyche.

What would these objects be called otherwise? Meteors? Who knows.

 

Meteors don't intelligently evade interception.

As I have explained, no conventional explanation can account for this sighting. Which means two possible explanations can only hold:

A) They are intellects from another world
B) They are intellects from this world

In conjunction with B), they are highly doubftul aircraft from the US government. These objects where ordered to be shot down and seems very unlikely that the US gov. would shoot down their own aircraft. Taking into consideration the year in which this event happened, it seems almost doubtful B) could hold up for any country taking into account how technologically advanced these objects were.

 

Sure, I deny that statement. When you use a word like ONLY you are indicating that you aren't bright enough to leave room for exceptions. In fact, there have been several well-known scientists who fall/fell in that category that you are now claiming does not exist. If you had chosen a word like "generally" then I would have agreed with you.

Back to the main topic, I've seen *several* UFOs myself - but it a BIG leap from an object being simply unidentified to aliens.

 

When I have used the word ''Only''.... please give me an example.

There may be some exceptional cases I have used the word ''Only'' in conjecture when all other explanations fail to suffice. This is the principle of Occams Razor, nonetheless. I don't use that word willy nilly, and any time I have used that word will be far inbetween.

So I would like an example.

 

Also, I don't jump from ''UFO'' to aliens. You should know this if you have read any of my threads. Some exceptional cases will in fact warrant that explanation when conventional explanations are drained from the cloth.

 

WOW!! You really ARE sad, aren't you??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How about this from just a couple of posts earlier?:

"Indeed, only people who have a poor education are most likely to be gullible and ignorant of facts. Do you deny this? "

Sheesh!!!!!:bugeye:

 

@Mister --

Who said that no one who believes in ETs can be trusted? One of my friends believes in aliens and I'd trust him with my life, but then he's one of those believers who will accept and admit when he was wrong about something in response to new evidence and arguments. Then there's people like you who are nuts, people who hold on to debunked stories like Roswell and the Phoenix Lights in order to keep their fragile worldview from shattering. You're the ones who give UFO enthusiasts a bad name.

 

It was a question towards you, whether you believed it. Why would I believe it? :bugeye:

You're not good with this, questioning and answering thing are you? Even if the question is towards you to see if you will admit your true intent towards posters like me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I understand that some people have some selective memories here concerning posts...

Ophiliote offended me by stating in a post that I must be uneducated because I believe in such things. Since read only and yourself are quick to stand beside him, who cannot help but think you must think along the same lines?

If no one else believes this, then why didn't anyone say anything?

 

Pay attention AGAIN, Bub!!! You were the one who claimed to seldom if ever use the word "only" and I pointed you DIRECTLY to where you had just said it only minutes earlier! It's clearly YOU that has a terrible problem with "selective memories" here - even ULTRA-short-term ones. :bugeye:

And as far as my attitude towards you, I will continue to point out how irrational your thinking is along the UFO lines. You ARE the kind (as someone pointed out recently) who give the UFOlogists a bad name. They would be more credible without a sucker like you among their ranks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, I said I rarely used because I thought you were implying a UFO case. Fine I used it in that sense. Big deal.

I thought you were saying I used it in conjecture of saying ''the only solution must be Aliens.''

Which I've never done. Hence why there has been confusement up till now. Get over it.

 

And whatever has rocked your boat, I hope you drown in the waters.