It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 1896 Mystery Airship Sightings: A New Twist & Perspective

page: 4
93
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Korg Trinity

My favorite example is Ezekiel's report about an aerial phenomenon in the skies, dating back to 592 B.C. Also see here for more details. But I'll get back to you with even more examples in a separate post later on.


I must admit that is quite some account. And I would agree with your assessment that there does seem to be some parallels with what was said and the use of technology.

Put given that this account was witnessed by one man and 2600 years ago, it is hard to find anything other than theological interpretations of what was written about the event.

There is also the language to consider as this was obviously not written in English and so there maybe modern concepts leaking into the interpretation of the original texts.

I do think the images you posted though do not describe what was written. Firstly what was described was 'Four Living Creatures each with Four faces'. And secondly the Wings description doesn't make any logical mechanical sense.

My personal view is that this is an incorrectly interpreted translation of an ancient religious metaphor.

But that's just my opinion.

Peace,

Korg.


edit on 28-5-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It's not a story based on just one source, but rather a recurring theme throughout old scripture by different authors. The glory of the lord on pillars of smoke & clouds as well as the "living creatures with four faces" are found in different books, Ezekiel just happens to deliver the most detailed description of what seems to be a UFO.

But in order to prevent thread drift, there are other examples of the pre-flight era that could be examined and discussed (for a start):

1. List of reported UFO sightings in Classical Antiquity
2. A discussion of Historical UFO Sightings on ATS

But that might be enough material for a variety of new threads. The point I wanted to make is that JiggyPotamus made a valid argument (see this post) for reports about similar observations throughout human history prior to the invention of balloons.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Why have you shown the 1900 launch of the LZ1 against a newspaper of 1896 ?

Are you saying there is a link ?



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Why have you shown the 1900 launch of the LZ1 against a newspaper of 1896 ?

Are you saying there is a link ?


Of course I am...

Do you think they made the LZ1 on the day of launch?

Or would you suppose it is reasonable to assume they had this in development for a good few years. With a working prototype being tested in 1896, just three and bit years before the official launch?

Korg.


edit on 28-5-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

No, I don't think that's reasonable at all.

Firstly what on earth would make you think they would test the LZ1 across America (including night flights) before it's official launch in Germany and secondly construction didn't begin on it until June 1898 anyway.

If you have a link between any known airships and the 1896 sightings please provide it, otherwise stop trying to force fit an explanation that isn't.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: Korg Trinity

No, I don't think that's reasonable at all.

Firstly what on earth would make you think they would test the LZ1 across America (including night flights) before it's official launch in Germany and secondly construction didn't begin on it until June 1898 anyway.

If you have a link between any known airships and the 1896 sightings please provide it, otherwise stop trying to force fit an explanation that isn't.


And you think the Americans didn't have spies in Germany back then?

You think the Americans weren't doing their own experiments?

I mean Goodyear were mass producing them by 1911 and selling them commercially....

I cannot believe you cannot see the parallels.

Korg.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Quoting from your source:


A Very Brief History of Airships

The inaugural flight carried five people, reached an altitude of thirteen hundred feet and flew a distance of three and a half miles. But after eighteen minutes the craft was forced to return to the hanger due to engine trouble and a bent frame—not the flawless debut Zeppelin was hoping for.

So, after numerous "alleged" testflights over longer distances incl. nightflights one probably wouldn't expect Zeppelin to demonstrate such a short trip in front of 12.000 spectators at daylight, I suppose. Also, where were all those folks witnessing the brights ligths in 1896? Not a trace of the inventor, no public promotion of this cutting edge technology and no interested crowd that accompanied this special event?

Over a period of several months in 1896-97, aerial vehicles were moving about above the U.S. working flawlessly while being reminiscent of bright lights moving very rapidly in the skies? And Zeppelin's LZ-1 is grounded after a few miles due to engine malfunctions?

Linking those 1896 encounters to the LZ-1 development and F.v.Zeppelin seems to be a bit of a stretch IMO.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Quoting from your source:


A Very Brief History of Airships

The inaugural flight carried five people, reached an altitude of thirteen hundred feet and flew a distance of three and a half miles. But after eighteen minutes the craft was forced to return to the hanger due to engine trouble and a bent frame—not the flawless debut Zeppelin was hoping for.

So, after numerous "alleged" testflights over longer distances incl. nightflights one probably wouldn't expect Zeppelin to demonstrate such a short trip in front of 12.000 spectators at daylight, I suppose. Also, where were all those folks witnessing the brights ligths in 1896? Not a trace of the inventor, no public promotion of this cutting edge technology and no interested crowd that accompanied this special event?

Over a period of several months in 1896-97, aerial vehicles were moving about above the U.S. working flawlessly while being reminiscent of bright lights moving very rapidly in the skies? And Zeppelin's LZ-1 is grounded after a few miles due to engine malfunctions?

Linking those 1896 encounters to the LZ-1 development and F.v.Zeppelin seems to be a bit of a stretch IMO.




I think you need to learn more about how aircraft designed and tested. Especially taking note of the time period.

At night? What perfect cover for something you are testing that is not public knowledge yet and won't be for another 3 or so years.

Do you follow?

Korg.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think the 1896-7 sightings reflect a growing interest in aerial vehicles, which were only a few years ahead of that time. The Aurora crash particularly interests me. Was it a hoax designed to spark some interest in a dying town, or our first alien encounter? Funny how the alien's grave and headstone disappeared right before they were about to dig it up and get some answers.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I understand what you're getting at and your rationale is comprehensible. But IMHO, had something really been tested 'undercover' back then, we'd certainly know about it today.

Nevertheless, thanks for posting your personal opinion in this thread incl. all the references & links you referred to.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: mirageman

The New Zealand stories authenticity has always been questioned as no local NZ papers have the reports in their archives. If you can find those archives then that's awesome, but it seems the NZ reports were Yellow Journalism by UK prints.

What a lot of people need to realize when it comes to articles from the 1800's and early 1900's (the peak was the 1890's) is that many of these papers printed flat out false stories which had no grounding in reality. It was meant for entertainment. This is easily researched; Simply Google "Yellow Journalism".

en.wikipedia.org...



I must admit that I hadn't looked into ANY of the stories coming out from New Zealand so have no familiarity with them. So, yes, you are right to point out about the amount of "yellow journalism" that was about. Tut, tut who would have thought that newspapers make stuff up like that? So glad they don't do it today. LOL.

I think the History Channel production for UFO files even mentions this may have been the case for the Aurora Crash.

I have found some newspaper cuttings from NZ which may be of interest which I'll post a bit later in this thread.

edit on 28/5/14 by mirageman because: edits



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
I have found some newspaper cuttings from NZ which may be of interest which I'll post a bit later in this thread.


Didn't know we had a supposed balloon flap here in NZ (unless the article was in fact just a piece done by others else where for some other reason) One of things that in my opinion might make it genuine is that back then NZers were (and still are) innovators to a degree. There very well may have been some farmer or other person in the South Island who decided to build a balloon for himself and took it on a one way trip up the country... and given the way we were back then (and now) i can tell you now on one would have taken credit for it more than likely (ok maybe they would now, but back then I highly doubt it given the typical cultural mores and attitude of the time in my country)

We do after all have the claim that Richard Pearse beat the wright brothers to their claim to be the first person to achieve proper flight. Although like the pavlova saga, i doubt the poor guys ever gonna get the recognition he deserves
(and yes I believe that guy beat the Wright Brothers, but being a NZer myself im biased lol). So who knows maybe there was a NZer fooling around with ballooning and managed a solo trip.

Ah and I also agree with the few people who mentioned that like today we gotta remember that witnesses would have used tech of the day to describe what they saw, so its no surprise they likened or flat out described them as Air Balloons, thing is.. they might not have been that much like them at all...

Still, good quality thread... this forum needs more of em.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Night "test" flights?

Doubt it.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Yes. Most secret or military test flights have always been done at night...

a reply to: FlyingFox



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

No the Americans didn't have spies in Germany at that time, they didn't even have an embassy.

Yes some American individuals (and possibly organisations) were no doubt experimenting - but there is no evidence at all this led to any kind of craft capable of being responsible for the sightings.

The Youngs Rubber Company were making condoms in 1916 - but it wasn't a giant one of those either.

I can see the parallels - it wasn't LZ1 and it wasn't anything Goodyear made (their first factory opened in 1898).

If you have anything other than a fictional plot to a second rate period thriller then please provide, otherwise stop trying to force fit an explanation that isn't.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Yes. Most secret or military test flights have always been done at night...

a reply to: FlyingFox



No they aren't, nearly all secret and military test flights are carried out during daylight.....

And no, I don't feel the need to substantiate that considering your claim otherwise didn't.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I understand what you're getting at and your rationale is comprehensible. But IMHO, had something really been tested 'undercover' back then, we'd certainly know about it today.

Nevertheless, thanks for posting your personal opinion in this thread incl. all the references & links you referred to.


You are more than welcome, there is nothing more compelling than long lived mystery


And I absolutely accept that this is my opinion and although I may not agree with others assessments or opinions I do accept their point of view are just as valid as mine and should be considered.

No rock should be left unturned if you want to get to the truth!

Peace,

Korg.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Hah. You made me chuckle. I present the F-117 nighthawk, a plane that didn't see the daylight until 1990. This is normal for secret projects.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: chunder



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BigfootNZ

I was having terrible memory problems (not with my brain just yet) with my PC last night. So finally here are a few clippings from NZ.



Source : Observer 31st July 1909. It was suggesting that all this airship stuff was nonsense as much as it was in the British Isles and America.




Source : Auckland Star Volume XL Issue 190 11th August 1909

The Star featured a letter wondering if the airship flap was nothing more than a model aeroplane. This was also an explanation given in some reports in Britain during the time.





Source : NZ Auckland Star 11th Aug 1909

The same Auckland Star was also reporting on an “airship of some description”.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

If as in "daylight" you mean "general public access" then yes, the development of many aircraft takes place outside of that "daylight" i.e. in secret.

However, we are obviously talking about "daylight" as in "the daytime / facing the sun / able to see without artificial light / opposite to night / not dark".

The F-117, as with all other secret and military test flights, was first flown in daylight and the majority of all development and test flights was done in daylight. Obviously there would have been night tests but the basic premise of your original statement is plain and simply wrong.

Sorry about that but don't be too concerned, it isn't a big deal, just that probably not worth spending too much time trying to wriggle around semantics in some kind of attempt to make it seem as if it was correct.

By the way, according to the link you provided, the F-117 Nighthawk "was "acknowledged" and revealed to the world in November 1988", not 1990 as stated in your post.



new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join