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 Awful Truth About UFOs (long) -- not for believers!

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Do you have a link to a sighting which really was identified as a blimp?

This is the point I'm trying to get across. There should be thousands and thousands of UFO cases which end with the object being positivly identiied as a blimp, but they are just not there.

Nobody ever WANTS to see a blimp

That’s because people know what blimps are so they are not unidentified.


Originally posted by rand
The really sad thing is that noone seems to be able mount a decent argument to my theories.

Here’s something for you to think about. I grew up in Akron Ohio, which as you know is home to the Goodyear Company and we had the largest blimp hanger in the World.



Goodyear usually keeps a fleet of around 3 to 4 blimps (except when they crash).



They constantly fly around and do advertising, and cover football games, as you know.

So my question is, if blimps are mistaken to be UFO’s, then why is it I have never heard in my life of anyone mistaking a blimp for a UFO or flying saucer? You would think Akron would be a hotbed for UFO sightings, yet it is not.

You’ve done some excellent research in this thread, but I don’t think many will accept it. I certainly am not convinced of your theory. Sorry.




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
...if blimps are mistaken to be UFO’s, then why is it I have never heard in my life of anyone mistaking a blimp for a UFO or flying saucer? You would think Akron would be a hotbed for UFO sightings, yet it is not.


It's happened to me, personally, or, should I say, a friend. He wasn't too happy to learn that there was a football game on the other side of that hill that night, and that the Goodyear Blimp was in attendance (but I couldn't let him live in ingorance
).

www.larryhatch.net...]Lary Hatch's UFO Database:
"Of all states in the US, Ohio has the second highest raw count of UFO sightings listed...Ohio ranks 9th for sightings per square mile in the USA.

Akron, Ohio: "...Aug 14 2001, I thought it was the goodyear blimp but this object wasn't moving..."

News Channel 5 - Cleveland/Akron: "Last week, Olmsted Falls police officers took pictures after getting calls from anxious residents who saw strange green and red lights moving across the night sky...Police later heard that a new blimp from Akron Goodyear was being tested, but there were no sightings reported between Akron and Olmsted Falls..."

An Army Reserve helicopter enroute from Columbus to Cleveland encounters a "..cigar-shaped, slightly domed object...featureless, gray, metallic-looking..." about 63 miles southwest of Akron. One of my favorites. "To have presented the reported configurations, and been in accordance with FAA regulations, an aircraft would have had to be flying sideways..." Hmmm, what hovers and can fly sideways? Must be extra-terrestrial.

BTW, I actually found one, a UFO classed by a UFO investigating body as a blimp. I'm impressed:

From FilersFiles via Rense
ILLINOIS UFO IDENTIFIED AS PROBABLE BLIMP

DUNDEE - On September 29, 1999, four witnesses saw a white saucer lit up almost like a crystal...was most likely a blimp with an electronic advertising apparatus ...Editors Note: These advertising blimps have often been mistaken for UFOs when a person is unable to make out the writing.


But that still won't make up for the hunderds of reports like this one: a guy almost perfectly describes a Navy ZPG, including the fore-and-aft cockpits, the ballast siphon, and the underslung radome, and is even told point-blank
by the CAA that he'd just shot a blimp, "...one of a fleet of Navy blimps en route from Georgia to North Carolina", but somehow, someway, it's not a blimp.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand
www.larryhatch.net...]Lary Hatch's UFO Database:
"Of all states in the US, Ohio has the second highest raw count of UFO sightings listed...Ohio ranks 9th for sightings per square mile in the USA.

Hmm... I did'nt know that, and stand corrected. BTW your link did'nt work.



Akron, Ohio: "...Aug 14 2001, I thought it was the goodyear blimp but this object wasn't moving..."

But this report says what they saw is not a blimp. Your providing evidence against your own theory.



News Channel 5 - Cleveland/Akron: "Last week, Olmsted Falls police officers took pictures after getting calls from anxious residents who saw strange green and red lights moving across the night sky...Police later heard that a new blimp from Akron Goodyear was being tested, but there were no sightings reported between Akron and Olmsted Falls..."

Are you saying the picture they took is a blimp?



I don't think so. The Goodyear blimps are not internally illuminated, and judging from the picture it would be in a nosedive.


Originally posted by rand
An Army Reserve helicopter enroute from Columbus to Cleveland encounters a "..cigar-shaped, slightly domed object...featureless, gray, metallic-looking..." about 63 miles southwest of Akron. One of my favorites. "To have presented the reported configurations, and been in accordance with FAA regulations, an aircraft would have had to be flying sideways..." Hmmm, what hovers and can fly sideways? Must be extra-terrestrial.

This report is being told by a pilot and won an award, but somehow you still think he is mistaken and it was a blimp?


The crew won the NATIONAL ENQUIRER Blue Ribbon Panel's $ 5,000 award for "the most scientifically valuable report of 1973."
from the source

I find that unlikely.



BTW, I actually found one, a UFO classed by a UFO investigating body as a blimp. I'm impressed:

From FilersFiles via Rense
ILLINOIS UFO IDENTIFIED AS PROBABLE BLIMP

DUNDEE - On September 29, 1999, four witnesses saw a white saucer lit up almost like a crystal...was most likely a blimp with an electronic advertising apparatus ...Editors Note: These advertising blimps have often been mistaken for UFOs when a person is unable to make out the writing.


Except for this one report, aren't you debunking your own theory?

Nice research, but I think you should re-read these reports. Except for the last one, they don't support your theory.

Regards.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Arguments for why your theories won't pan out in the long run, even though they may account for the occassional case of mistaken identity:

I. Historical accounts
2. Modern day accounts
3. Scientific support for life on other planets
4. Scientific support for life on other planets that exceeds ours, technologically
5. Defying the laws of physics as we know them

Historical accounts
provide not only myriad eye witness accounts, but hundreds if not thousands, of paintings, sculptures and carvings, depicting flying devices and flying beings.

Modern day accounts
provide a wide array of witneses, from every walk of life, every career and professional position, every level of education, every intelligence quotient, every financial bracket, different times of the night and day, in different places in the world, and in various states of mind and physical status.

Scientific support for life on other planets
Over that past decade, astronomers have discovered more than 150 planets around stars other than the sun, but none so far are considered hospitable to life. Nonetheless, Raghavan said the team's unexpected findings inspire speculation of life very different from ours.

N = r * Fs * Fp * Ne * Fl * Fi * Fc * L

"r" stands for the number of stars in a galaxy
"Fs" is the number of suitable "sun-type" stars (approx. 10% are the right size and spectral class)
"Fp" is the number of suitable suns with planets (new discoveries put this as high as an optomistic 50%!)
"Ne" is the number of planets in the sun's habitability zone ASSUMING liquid water is needed for life.

The rest of the equasion has to do with the chances of life and civilization.

Just plug in your own numbers:
100 million stars in the galaxy, 10% are the right type of stars, 50% have planets, and 1 in 10 of those are in the habitable zone, the number could be as high as half a million!!

www.bautforum.com...

Planet Quest, from Jet Propulsion Labs and NASA
planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov...

Terrestrial Planet Finder
planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Oops:
Larry Hatch's UFO Database
Doncha hate those misplaced brackets?


Originally posted by Hal9000


Akron, Ohio: "...Aug 14 2001, I thought it was the goodyear blimp but this object wasn't moving..."

But this report says what they saw is not a blimp. Your providing evidence against your own theory.

No, the report says the witness said it wasn't a blimp, even though he thought it was a blimp. This story is the epitome of the 'I don't what it was but it wasn't a blimp' school of UFO reporting. The only reason it wasn't the goodyear[sic] blimp was that it wasn't moving? Maybe it wasn't moving and not doing so at supersonic velocity
. It also illustrates that many people only know of one blimp, the 'goodyear-with-a-little-g' blimp.

This is close to the the crux of the thesis: things which should be classed "possible blimp" and things which should be "probably blimp" and things that sould be "yep, it's a blimp" are called unknown on the say-so of someone who didn't know what it was, and the characterization is allowed to stand without challenge.

It's got to be at least partly psycological -- no one wants their UFO to be a blimp -- but the spooks are taking advantage of that quirk to mess with the public psyche.


Are you saying the picture they took is a blimp? I don't think so. The Goodyear blimps are not internally illuminated, and judging from the picture it would be in a nosedive.


Can't tell much from that image in any event; it doesn't have to be internally lit, it could be just reflective. There's no horizon showing, so maybe it was shot straight up: no nosedive there. But then, there's no caption data, so it could be from anywhere; I think it's just there to "illustrate" the story. The cop's pictures are in the slide show, I think, and are just shaky images of what look like two lights in the night sky. This link might work to get there.

I thought at least one Goodyear model (A-60? can't find the @#$%^&! link) has internal lights, but maybe that's just in Europe.

The important thing in that report is that the it couldn't have been a blimp, even though Goodyear was testing one nearby, because there weren't more UFO reports that night. (You do realize I'm being sarcastic here, right?)

This report is being told by a pilot and won an award, but somehow you still think he is mistaken and it was a blimp?


NATIONAL ENQUIRER is high on my list of scientifically reliable journals, too
:

I think it's possible the crew saw a blimp, yes. The pilot was never mistaken: he honestly didn't know what he saw, and that's not a mistake, just a fact. I think they may have almost collided with a blimp manned by a very surprised blimp crew. I even think I know what it was doing there, when and where no blimp should have been. But even more important is what's missing: any hint that an airship was ever considered, any mention of the nearby Goodyear facilities, any suggestion whatsoever of the dreaded B-word.

This was right in the middle of a major wave of sightings of silvery, blimp-like things. A wave that started right after the Navy officially stopped flying silvery, blimp-like things. The incidence of coincdence may apprach unity, but sometimes things just don't smell right.


Except for this one report, aren't you debunking your own theory?


No, as I've aways said, blimps can't explain every sighting; but they should explain more sightings. It's important to ask why they are not considered more often, and why the powers-that-be seem to do everything possible to avoid the suggestion that blimps might be at the bottom of more UFO sightings.

Regards, also. You make a clean argument. Feel free to challenge me any time.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand
Oops:
Larry Hatch's UFO Database
Doncha hate those misplaced brackets?

Thanks for the link. I have visited this site before a while back. I thought they stopped adding info but it looks like there is some recent data.




No, the report says the witness said it wasn't a blimp, even though he thought it was a blimp. This story is the epitome of the 'I don't what it was but it wasn't a blimp' school of UFO reporting. The only reason it wasn't the goodyear[sic] blimp was that it wasn't moving? Maybe it wasn't moving and not doing so at supersonic velocity
. It also illustrates that many people only know of one blimp, the 'goodyear-with-a-little-g' blimp.

The way I read the report is that he brought up the blimp because it is so common to see in these parts. But then he realized (or thought) that it wasn't. It depends on how you read it.



This is close to the the crux of the thesis: things which should be classed "possible blimp" and things which should be "probably blimp" and things that sould be "yep, it's a blimp" are called unknown on the say-so of someone who didn't know what it was, and the characterization is allowed to stand without challenge.

Thus the term unidentified is used. Using the logic that you're following, you could also say, because they didn't know what it was, it could be a 747 or anything for that matter. Why does it have to be a blimp?



Can't tell much from that image in any event; it doesn't have to be internally lit, it could be just reflective. There's no horizon showing, so maybe it was shot straight up: no nosedive there. But then, there's no caption data, so it could be from anywhere; I think it's just there to "illustrate" the story. The cop's pictures are in the slide show, I think, and are just shaky images of what look like two lights in the night sky. This link might work to get there.

You may be right, they don't say that was the picture taken and doesn't match the description, and the pictures in the slide show aren't very good. But as many times as I have seen the blimps flying around, I have never seen one reflect sunlight. They appear as dark objects even on a sunny day.



I thought at least one Goodyear model (A-60? can't find the @#$%^&! link) has internal lights, but maybe that's just in Europe.

I haven't seen any illuminated blimps around here, and I think there are cases that they have been mistaken as UFO's, but very rarely.



I think it's possible the crew saw a blimp, yes. The pilot was never mistaken: he honestly didn't know what he saw, and that's not a mistake, just a fact.

Again, you’re assuming it was a blimp, but for the same reason your giving it could have been something else.



No, as I've aways said, blimps can't explain every sighting; but they should explain more sightings. It's important to ask why they are not considered more often, and why the powers-that-be seem to do everything possible to avoid the suggestion that blimps might be at the bottom of more UFO sightings.

This statement makes much more sense, and I must have missed it if you stated this earlier. From your initial post, I thought your point was that all UFO reports were due to covert blimps. I have no doubt that some reports are in fact blimps, but there are many that can't be explained to this day.

As for Roswell, or the Kenneth Arnold sighting, I think that if they were blimps that they would have been declassified by now, and we would know all about them. Furthermore, as blimps go for surveillance, they were obsolete after the CIA started using the U2, then the Blackbird, and eventually satellites. How do we know about all these programs, but these covert blimps were never declassified?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Hmm. I'll admit the blimp theory is at least partially feasible in the US, UK and other indstruialized nations who have massive sports outings. But what about reports from Zimbabwe, Argentina and other south american countries that wouldn't have any blimp for a normal reason. So, are blimps invading Argentina, or did a blimp land off the coast of Canada?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

[Originally posted by Hal9000
Thus the term unidentified is used. Using the logic that you're following, you could also say, because they didn't know what it was, it could be a 747 or anything for that matter. Why does it have to be a blimp?

Maybe the description screams "airship".

Turn it around: If it's silver, has wings, engines, a head like a salamander, and a big tail, flies straight and steady, and screams like a banshee, yeah, it could be a 747. But then, should a serious researcher automatically accept the statement "it looked like a passenger jet, but it wasn't a passenger jet"? Of course not. Would you be a bit suspicious if the event was investigated, and the only call the investigators made was to Goodyear? (I can see the Air Force response: "The United States Air Force does not a own flying salamander and does not have any information on salamanders operating in that area.") Of course you would be suspicious. At least, I hope you would.

Yet, that's the sort of thing that's been happening, blimp-wise, for almost sixty years.

But as many times as I have seen the blimps flying around, I have never seen one reflect sunlight. They appear as dark objects even on a sunny day.

You're probably right. It's been over 40 years since the US officially stop flying shiny silver blimps, and its probably been -- what? 20, 30 years? -- since the adoption of matte finish synthetic envelope fabrics. We're already into a second generation which may never have seen an aluminum-finish blimp gleaming like spun silver in early/late sunlight.

It seems like a raw, naked advertising blimp might glow under the right conditions. They're translucent enough; with the sun coming behind, and parked in front of a particularly blue sky, or a dark could bank, perhaps. I have noticed that the latest Goodyears are much darker than earlier models.

Again, you’re assuming it was a blimp, but for the same reason your giving it could have been something else.

But it couild have been a blimp, the description is very much like a blimp. They didn't know for sure that it wasn't a blimp. Does it not seem suspicious that the possibilty of blimp-hood was not considered?

It seems to be difficult concept for most people to wrap their minds around.

Try this: lets say it was a Navy crew driving along in a Humvee at 2 AM. They almost collide with something that's huge, green, and growled a lot. Would you expect someone to call the local tank factory? Would it be a bit odd if the investigators didn't list the mere possibilty of a tank, and concluded that it was just "unknown" (and possibly a dragon
)


...as blimps go for surveillance, they were obsolete after the CIA started using the U2, then the Blackbird, and eventually satellites.

You might as well ask why the CIA still runs covert operatives.

The spooks were flying aircraft well after the satellite programs were working at full throttle, and the current feeling, as I understand it, is that they're still using aircraft (Aurora, perhaps).

Another hypothetical: what do you do if your satellite spots a possible downed Soviet spy satellite in, say, Brazil? OR, even better, what if you lost the satellite?
(1) Go appologize to the Brazillians for dropping possibly radioactive debris on their heads and ask them to find the pieces for you;
(2) Mount a covert ground operation to search for the debris and return it (It could happen! Archaelogists carry rad suits and Geiger counters, don't they? Nobody's going to notice a few multi-spectrum hard-ultaviolet searchlights.);
(3) Send in the choppers and take the stuff by force;
(4) Quetly scout the area at night in a blimp then slip in and hoist out the debris. If anyone seed you, you'll just be
reported as a flying saucer



How do we know about all these programs, but these covert blimps were never declassified?

We crashed a U-2 in Russia; that's a sure way to blow your cover. The program was not even acknowleged until then. Wasn't it Johnson who let the SR-71 slip? I heard the Air Force was not at all amused. There are still things about the SR-71 that are classified -- top speed, for one. And you can bet that details of the cameras are still under wraps. MONGOL would never have been revealed if there wasn't such a fuss about Roswell. CORONA was unknown until Carter blabbed, and so on (Hmmm...maybe a good reason to vote Democrat
)



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
You're wrong about one thing though, the UFO sightings "started" in the 19th century, not in the 20th.

It was then openly admitted to be an extraterrestrial craft and being inside of it.

www.unmuseum.org...

Furthermore, I'm surprised you get 8 pages of replies if you try to write off most UFO sightings as blimps. That's a bit arrogant on your side towards all the witnesses. No matter how you spin that 3d model.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gunman
...what about reports from Zimbabwe, Argentina and other south american countries that wouldn't have any blimp for a normal reason. So, are blimps invading Argentina, or did a blimp land off the coast of Canada?


Stay tuned, I'm still in Washinton state, 1947.

Hmmm...Zimbabwe. I don't have time to take a close look right now, but even so...

The spooks were really interested in this area just southeast of Harare. Ten overlapping shots in just 8 months; that's
got to be a record. They sure wanted a picture of whatever it was/is.


Yeah, definitely worth a closer look.

Say, does anyone have a better link than the ones that all start "Back in 1985, a round object topped with a cone was seen by dozens of people over the skies of Zimbabwe...."? I've been trying to pin down some coordinates but not having much luck.

(edit: blackSt33L posted a story just now; Seek and you shall find, Ask and you shall be made to look like a idjit.)

(edit: Oops, posted the wrong picture: it doesn't match the GoogleMaps link given; instead, it seems I've accidently posted the one hi-res CORONA image the spooks took of Ruwa, Zimbabwe. I've switched them. This one is now the Ruwa image





[edit on 19-3-2006 by rand]

[edit on 19-3-2006 by rand]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
It's not surprising they took shots of Zimbabwe since it's been a CIA field of operation almost as long as Afganistan(see the CIA World Fact Book).
Ten pics in 8 months is a record alright. A low record. They took more pics of where I live(near the HQ of SOCom). I mean that's just more than one pic a MONTH. Hardly a reason to suspect unusually high interest.
Not sure what it has to do with the blimp theory.

I will concede that there may be a small percent of sightings, explained or unexplained, that could be attributed to blimps(1-2%).

Your take on the Arnold sighting while well done tends to reinforce the mirage theory which got me in a heated debate some years ago with certain UFOlogists who favored the duck theory. Your animations while good hardly prove he saw a blimp or group of blimps. Arnolds testimony was just too inconsistent to form any sort of rational explaination. You could say he saw a flying cracker tin and it would be just as reasonable.

Go through the Blue Book files, the Condon Report, the Robertson Panel conclusions, the U of C investigation or any other material and point me to one case where it was conclusively shown to be a blimp(either explained or unexplained). So far you have only speculated. I see no evidence to support a blimp explanation.

In my own field investigations of UFO reports the witness testimonies do not support you speculation. I've conducted hundreds of investigations and the overwhelming majority of witness' have never once led me to believe they saw a flying bag of air.

I'm not saying it's impossible just highly unlikely. People who know what a blimp is would likely say "well it looked like the goodyear blimp but......" but this is not the case. Even in describing cigar shaped objects they don't use the term blimp. Even in the Texas mystery airship incident of the late 1800s noone thought to use the term even though at that time they were an emerging technology that could have easily been mistaken for a flying object of unknown origin.

Btw Rand are employed in the PR dept of a blimp manufacturer?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
i still think it was a ufo because if i were aliens and i knew humans were evolving at this rate of speed, i would also want to fly over to earth and observe humans too.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Ten pics in 8 months is a record alright. A low record. They took more pics of where I live(near the HQ of SOCom).Not sure what it has to do with the blimp theory.

I wasn't counting medium resolution sweeps or cartographic images, which would have brought the total up to over 200 over 15 years or so.

A quick look shows three 1-meter resolution CORONA images that include McDill, and none are really centered on it. In the continental US the 1-meter shots of military bases run from 0 to several, depending on how much hardware/earthworks the facility supports. One of their all-time favorite target for all types of images seems to have been Vandenburg.
(EDIT: Checked Google, duh...it looks like one target was what is now Tampa Interantional Airport. That makes sense. They bagged two ground-truths with the same shot(s))

It was surprising to find 10 hi-res images centered on a single point in Zimbabwe, which seems pretty high for an underdeveloped area, mostly rural, forest and savannah. There must have been be a high-value target of some kind there.
vs

There seems to be a link between these images and UFO sightings. Sometimes it's historical, like the shots of what I swear are all the reported crash sites around Roswell. They may just be ground-truthing of oil wells or something, but the coincidence seems eerie. Even more startling are the times the CIA/NRO took sudden interest in some quiet backwater etc. which soon after was host to a major close encounter. Check out my earlier posts about Rendlesham and Corales.

Arnolds testimony was just too inconsistent to form any sort of rational explaination. You could say he saw a flying cracker tin and it would be just as reasonable.
Too true, but it's good practice. Again, I feel I have to confront it. There may be no way I can absolutely prove Arnold saw some blimps, but the theory has to at least stand against the pivotal UFO sighting of 1947 or it's worthless.

Go through the Blue Book files, the Condon Report, the Robertson Panel conclusions, the U of C investigation or any other material and point me to one case where it was conclusively shown to be a blimp...

Hey! That's my line!
Really, that's the problem. Not only were they never shown to be a blimp,the catagory didn't even exist. We kid people -- Ha, ha, you saw the Goodyear Blimp -- but the investigations tapdance all around the possiblity. There's one case, buried in the reports somewhere, listed as "blimp (misc)" (see below) That's too low by at least an order of magnitude. You yourself suggest that 1-2% could be a fair figure: where are they?

I've conducted hundreds of investigations and the overwhelming majority of witness' have never once led me to believe they saw a flying bag of air.

Is that "overwhelming" as in 100%?

More to the point: have you, yourself, in your investigations, ever entertained the possibility that a witness may have seen a blimp, commercial, toy, military, or otherwise?

...in describing cigar shaped objects they don't use the term blimp.

The word appears in a number of Blue Book reports, just not in the conclusions. There is one, just one case, which was concluded to be a blimp, out of over ten thousand, but I'm still searching for the report itself (June 14, 1954, Memphis, Tennessee, Case #3048(?)). You're a field researcher? Maybe you can help me figure out where to find it; I'm not ashamed to say I get lost in those records.

Even in the Texas mystery airship incident of the late 1800s noone thought to use the term...

Could be because the term wasn't invented until the 1920s.

Btw Rand are employed in the PR dept of a blimp manufacturer?

No. I'm a photographer/lab-weenie turned programmer. I've been watching the UFO parade since a kid and frankly, I'm PISSED.
I cut my teeth on Adamsky. I subscribed to the NICAP newsletter. I was promised flying saucers and little green men and nobody delivered. In 60 years of organized research there has been no, none, nada, zip, zilch, NO progress in the field. Then I discovered this wonderful thing called the Internet and all the wonderful research tools here, and starting looking into things myself.


(EDIT: mephis=memphis)
(EDIT: and I can't type, either)
[edit on 19-3-2006 by rand]

[edit on 19-3-2006 by rand]

[edit on 19-3-2006 by rand]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
" Sometimes it's historical, like the shots of what I swear are all the reported crash sites around Roswell. "

You may be on to something Rand. Although I have to admit I'm not convinced yet that its "Blimp" related.

The July 10th 1947 sighting be Dr. Lincoln LaPaz North of Roswell comes to mind.

Have you posted anything about these pictures around Roswell before?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Rand your amazing!!! I have on 3 occasions been with people that said LOOK A UFO !!! and instead they were blimps 2 of them were large blimp shaped balloons used for advertising and the other was an airship. A few years ago several company's along main roads started using small string attached large blimp shaped balloons to attract attention to their business's. Every since I have often wondered how many sightings were simply blimps that people misidentified. When they put the balloons up again I am going to take some pictures on the sunny days to show how tricky the light can shine off of them.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
The July 10th 1947 sighting be Dr. Lincoln LaPaz North of Roswell comes to mind.
Have you posted anything about these pictures around Roswell before?


I I may have mentioned them, but haven't had time to investigate the satellite images completely; I really don't like to present anything I can't back up. They just seem to correlate. Basically, I plugged in the coordinates of a few of the supposed crash-sites in New Mexico and Arizona, and out popped hi-res spy satellite photos. Once I get finished with the Caliornia and Washington/Oregon sightings I'll see if I can put more info together.

If the (spy satellite) subject interests you, you should go to EarthExplorer and either browse anonomously or get an account. The Declassified Satellite Images 1 & 2 are the early CORONA images. The 1-meter (Set 2 with 2-4 Foot Resolution) are the ones that interest me most right now. Those were the missions they used to get immediate point-source information, instead of the grand sweeps and mapping information missions, so you can sort of get a sense of what they were looking for and what they were thinking at the time.

There were a lot of airships being moved around at that time; just three weeks after Dr. LaPaz's encounter six ships from NAS Moffett were flown across New Mexico on their way to North Carolina. Several almost crashed. Of the six, two were supposedly assigned to NAS Richmond two years earlier when that base burned to the ground, destroying their entire fleet. There are other discrepencies which I'm still trying to track down, like the actual number of airships which made it to N.C.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand

I really don't like to present anything I can't back up.


I understand and respect that.

Although I think you don't have to have a final conclusion to present facts.




Once I get finished with the Caliornia and Washington/Oregon sightings I'll see if I can put more info together.


I think you really should . I tend to think as a rule in the periphery and I think based on what I've seen so far that you may have really uncovered something. Something I would be interested in to see your version of the simple FACTS.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by rand
I really don't like to present anything I can't back up.

I understand and respect that.
Although I think you don't have to have a final conclusion to present facts.
I would be interested in to see your version of the simple FACTS.

You're probably right, although I am still struggling to understand what I have so far. I promise to finish with Arnold ASAP and then start slinging facts as fast as I can.

But in the meantime, here for your edification and amusement are the New Mexico footprints of the declassified 1-meter CORONA files. Really huge digital files (500MB+ tiff's) are available on DVD from USGS at EarthExlorer, kinda pricey but they're the real deal. I can reccommend the VIPS image processing library and the NIP gui from www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk... if you want to play with the big 'uns; the price is right (free!).

I added the approx. location of 5 supposed UFO crash sites, found on this page and a few cities.
The track marked in blue is the very first hi-res image they took in NM, which I find interesting. The track markd in green, which may be the first Roswell crash site south of Corona, is shown here:

North is to the right. Click here for an unrotated, uncomressed version. It's only the preview, no great shakes in resolution, only about 138 ft/pixel. I've sweetened the contrast a bit and cropped out a lot of black sky.

The Google version is here; what do you suppose they were looking for?

(EDIT)
ARGHHH...this is what seems to happen every stinkin' time:

I was admiring this post and suddenly realized those crash sites seems to lie along a line. You don't suppose...? Naw, couldn't be, it's all in my head, there's no connection between the blimps which sailed across southern NM in August, 1947 and any supposed UFO crash(es) in the middle of the state in July. Besides, I've already made up my mind not to get into that complicated mess called 'Roswell'.

Except..I had been wondering why the southern flight had used El Paso as a stop-over; it's not known for its friendly blimp facilties. So, I gotta go look, right?

Dang it...looks like those stupid crash sites sit on the great-circle route from NAS Moffett Field (ended blimp ops, summer of 1947) to NAS Hitchcock (also ended blimp ops in 1947).




[edit on 22-3-2006 by rand]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Rand,

Can you clarify?

I don't seem to be able to locate the Track marked in Blue.

All of them seem to me to be marked in Green.

Also can you give the Time Frame these images were taken?






The Google version is here; what do you suppose they were looking for?



Well I bet if you asked Dr. C. B. Moore he'd say MOGUL flight #4 .










[edit on 22-3-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Can you clarify?


Oops, I'd swear I saved that image...


1964-1970ish



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join