I've pointed out more than one way that the two cases differ, but since you want to focus on the location, and that suggests that there is some reasonable comparison, perhaps you can tell me where the off-shore oil platforms are are around Washington D.C.
You've missed the entire point. You can't see the forest for the trees.
His point is not that the Maryland/Delaware/Virginia area has oil wells that were mistaken for flying craft.
His point is that the DC sighting is probably similar to the Campeche incident, in that the cause was likely something earthly and mundane, yet so completely unexpected that none of the principals in the event were able to recognize it.
The only reason the Campeche incident was resolved at all is because the story spread so quickly to so many independent researchers via the Internet, allowing individuals and groups to examine the minutiae in great detail. Accurate maps and satellite photos were readily available, as were operational and technical information about the aircraft and monitoring systems involved. Anybody can buy a FLIR night-vision setup in the hunting department of the local Sportmart, for chrissakes. In addition to all that, public discourse on the Internet undeniably increased the chances of somebody putting 2+2 together.
Now compare that to the early 1950s when, except for the odd letter to the editor and such, all public media were one-way conduits of information. Sure, lots of people probably talked about the "case" over their morning coffee, but everybody didn't have access to detailed maps and satellite imagery of the entire world right at their fingertips. The details of the relevant technology were little-known military secrets. People did not have online forums to share ideas and resources. There were no organizations of laypeople dedicated to promoting skepticism and critical thinking.
Back in those days—just as now—most people did not question the information they were told in the news. If the papers said it was flying saucers from outer space, and some military guy was quoted in the article as not denying that interpretation, that's what many folks believed. As for the newsmen themselves, the editors in chief understood what kinds of stories sell papers. Back then—just as now—they tended to run the kind of material that's likely to bring in the most ad revenue, and everybody knows flying saucers were all the rage and sold a lot of papers in the 1950s.
Now, 60 years later, the opportunity for investigation into the 1952 DC craze is pretty much over. Too many of the details have been lost to time, and none of the official reports obtained through FOIA actually corroborate the sensationalistic newspaper stories of the day. Even the principals in the actual event have denied seeing any alien spacecraft, yet we still have some self-deluded individuals who insist that it was ZOMG aliens!!! and that the whole thing was covered up in a big conspiracy of the US gubmint just to keep its citizens in the dark for some unclear reason.
By the way
ufology, when are you going to present the "plenty of evidence" you boasted about, that supposedly proves that alien spaceships were theorized by the military and then the whole thing got covered up?
) so I'll not make a big deal of it, just point out the discrepancy in passing. 
) Philosophy . 
