Is the UFO Over Washington DC Real or a Reflection?

  • Thread starter Thread starter polyb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dc
Click For Summary
A webcam from a national park captured an object over Washington, D.C., which some claim is a UFO, while others suggest it may be a reflection or a plane. Observers note that the object appears stationary, unlike the streaks from car headlights, leading to speculation about its nature. The discussion highlights the proximity of nearby airports and the implications of restricted airspace, with some arguing that military aircraft could be involved. Many participants express skepticism about the authenticity of the image, suggesting it may be a ploy to drive traffic to the IntelDesk website. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the object being a photographic artifact rather than an extraterrestrial phenomenon.
  • #31
russ_watters said:
I still vote for landing though.

The one thing that inclines me toward landing is the time the photo was taken. It was around 3 AM. If a flight was that badly delayed to just be taking off at that hour, they'd probably cancel it until the next morning (unless they really needed that plane to be at the destination airport to be positioned for a morning flight back out). Though, I know from experience that flights will still be arriving at 3 AM due to delays elsewhere earlier in the evening (when a thunderstorm hits an airport in the evening delaying everything coming in and out of it, those 9 PM flights might not leave until midnight).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
chroot said:
This is false. The flare (consisting of a level-off followed by a few seconds of nose-up attitude) occurs only about 10-20 feet off the ground, and always above the runway. The flare is in effect a controlled stall, transferring lift from the wings to wheels, and cannot be done anywhere but over good tarmac. Until just a few seconds before touchdown, the aircraft descends with a nose-down attitude, exactly as shown in the photograph.

- Warren

Woo Hoo, I got something wrong and I learned something new in exchange! :biggrin: Thanx Warren!

I was basing my thoughts on 1) the picture that was posted at the site, which shows the plane to be relatively level and 2) by observations of air traffic going into OIA, which has a pretty convaluted airspace that is dynamic.

I am still not convinced that it is an airplane and as I said if you read the inteldesk analysis it turns into a promotional for the site. Now if you look into the 'amateur' analysis you will find some interesting comments and pictures. There is a link in there to the rense website analysis that has a picture which does a good job on the airline hypothesis. Needless to say though so far this thing is ambiguous and perhaps that is to the advantage of inteldesk. Dayle has a good point about the photo being doctored and demonstrated that it could have been done. This photo has generated a lot of interest for the site and I think this thread demonstrates the point.
 
  • #33
I really don't see what's ambiguous about it. Why bother creating a doctored photo when one showing a perfectly ordinary occurrence can create the same hullabaloo? Of course websites post things to increase hits on their site; this too is nothing out of the ordinary.
 
  • #34
This works better if it is a helicopter. They fly more slowly, and the long tail at the higher end, might be the signature of the graduated end of a helicopter. The three lights might show up, because they are a strobe that is flashing faster than a helicopter could move. I will go into the photo again, and turn it upside down, and stretch the harbor lights in relation to the brightly lit building above them. I still think it is an upside down reflection.
 
  • #35
Well I turned it over and created one likely upside down reflection. But turning the entire large image upside down, makes it much more obvious, that this is a reflection of cars on a very straight avenue. The street lights are still, but the moving autos make the nice straight line you are seeing. Because of the night lighting, and some effect of the weather, an extra reflection was picked up.

http://groups.msn.com/StreetCollaborations/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=66
this is the doctored version of a likely reflection, it is streaked a little, this is the waterfront lights and the bright building, just below the "UFO".

http://groups.msn.com/StreetCollaborations/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=67

this is just the upside down version, in general, and it seems very obvious to me that this is a reflection, of some sort, due to the lateness of the evening, and the weather, there is a lot of ambient light. Digital imaging, really plays to the reds, and does pick up infra red information, digital picks up more information than we can see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
I'm not sure I get what you mean... Reflected from precisely where?
 
  • #37
The "UFO" in the image, is too much like many other images within the image, to not be a stray reflection. Occams Razor. So, for instance, on the surface of any camera lens, is the reflection of the viewed scene. In night photography, a brightly lit scene might have a strong reflection on the face of a lens, depending on the weather, and a bunch of other optical effects. The Mt St Helens cam gets all kinds of stuff on the surface, depending on the weather. The line is so straight, that it probably isn't an image upside down, as in a rain drop, that makes a small lens, on the lens. If there is a glass door, in front of this camera, that can open and close, or any other object that can pick up the a reflection in front of the lens of this camera, then that is how a reflection can be set up, that reads as an image. Digital film is so delightfully weird, motion does all kinds of things in digital, that it never did in regular film-based photography. Since the advent of digital imaging, there have been a slew of things that people think are brand new in the sky. There was this big talk of these rod-things in the sky, that happened right about the advent of popular digital photography. The way digital imaging works, it was probably the trajectory of birds. Old film didn't make the kind of long streaks that digital does. This image has a lot of red light in it, because it is dark, and whatever else it is. The infrared aspect of digital, might be even picking up the heat from the rear exhaust of a helicopter.

Anyway, I think that if it is a flying object, it would be a helicopter. The aliens don't fly in for visits in DC.
 
  • #38
Dayle, occam's razor as your reasoning would suggest we stick with the plane explanation, when we know a plane can make a light "trail" like that one on a long exposure shot AND we have proof that planes do fly in that vicinity (you can almost overlay the streak in the nighttime pic with the plane in the daytime pick as in the same location on the image). It's actually a more complex explanation to account for how a reflection from a light on the river would be reflecting on the camera lens differently on that one night than on any other night due to some mysterious atmospheric anomaly.
 
  • #39
From: William Matchen to UFO udates

I sent an e-mail the the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority and asked if any flights arrived or departed from
ronald reagan national airport on Feb 10, 2005 at 3:15 am.

Here's the response I got:

-----
Subject:
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:53:04 -0500
From: "Phillips, Neal" <Neal.Phillips.nul>

Thank you for your inquiry concerning flights on February 10,
2005. According to the operations log for the 10th of February
there were no arrivals, or departures, around 3:15 A.M. There
were two arrivals after midnight (12:15 A.M. and 1:11 A.M.) then
none until after 6:00 A.M.

Neal Phillips

Manager, Noise Abatement

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

=======

actually 'looks' like the 'object' is heading towards the Pentagon:
which is to the right before RR-half mile past Memorial Bridge-
helicopters land there -unlikely to get any info on this... or might be a News Copter?

for the record: it's 1 mile from Lincoln M to Washington Monument;
little over a mile (1.2) from Netherlands Carillion (Bell tower) to Lincoln M-
-not sure of the height maybe 100ft, and this is on elevated
ground-guesstimate 500ft for 'webcam' (not stated anywhere, but seems
this is location)

MBridge .4 miles
 
  • #40
Even though it has not been settled as to what the object in the image is, I'll go ahead ahead and stick one foot in my mouth!
*shifts, brings up left foot and stuffs it into mouth*

MNowPHGGGH, MMI MMstPHill thMMMinkPGH iMt MisPPHHG aGHHM MMdocMMtMMoredPPGHM MpMhoMPGHtoMPGH!:smile:
 
  • #42
Ivan Seeking said:
Occam's razor is not appropriate for this problem. The correct approach is analysis, not philosophical guesses.

Can't agree. Not positing little green men until you have real evidence of them still works for me.
 
  • #43
I don't see any evidence for little green men. It is silly to suggest otherwise. Also, if you read the linked analysis you will see that the UFO crowd agrees. Its a plane or a helicopter. Occams razor applies when we have two otherwise equal and competing theories. I don't see two competing theories to apply. And even then its only a guideline. Less some specific mathematical applications, it is not a principle of science.

It seems that a few lights in video shot gets some of you pretty worked up.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
I still think it is a reflection of something on the ground. After looking at it again, I decided it is a piece of road, illuminated, with street lights, and car lights make up the brighter strip with the tail being just the lit roadway. The section of road, is most likely right under the camera. The object optically is just too much like what is on the ground, to not be a reflected image. That is just me, I take a lot of photographs.