Not a UFO over 2012 Olympic opening ceremony

Originally posted by sirnukeem

Originally posted by ThePeaceMaker
reply to post by sirnukeem

 

I live not too far from London and a week or so ago now there was a Goodyear blimp flying around during the day. I'm pretty sure there is more than one Goodyear blimp around the world

No, not possible. There are only three en.wikipedia.org... and they were all

being used over the major league baseball game stadiums in America. The alien queen probing theory stands.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Screwed

 

Make sure you let HA know about it if you do.

Don't you mean HR>? (humans resources)

edit on 28-7-2012 by sirnukeem because: (no reason given)

You seem to have missed the following sentence from that Wikipedia article you quoted "Goodyear also has blimps operating in other parts of the world"

To the questions on if it is dangerous to be flying a blimp...

Yeah, sure. There are always dangers involving aviation and somehow flying a blimp is part of aviation? lol... Well, if you've ever taken art class, you would have learned about a thing called perception. If you're facing something, the perception may be different from reality, which is why eye witness reports are unreliable. The blimp could have been flying quite far away, and if it were a UFO they would probably be chillin' someone where there aren't explosives being shot towards them. You could create an artificial perception grid if you like to see what could be the distance between the blimp and the fireworks.

My best guess is that it's an Unidentified Flying Blimp but there are a lot of speculations that it was a Goodyear Blimp.

reply to post by Pedro4077

Exactly, they would never miss an event like this, they are watching all major events don't worry about that and I'm surprized they haven't delivered a crop circle yet, but there is still time so keep em peeled folks!

2012 Olympics Goodyear blimp The Goodyear blimp started its aerial coverage almost 90 years ago when it took to the skies to share a different angle of events. In even in 2012, the Goodyear Blimp will be a big part of the 2012 Olympics with the vehicle offering overhead coverage of the Olympic Games. On Thursday the company announced that Goodyear will work once again with the NBC Olympics for television coverage.

www.examiner.com...

reply to post by sirnukeem


I was at the olympic site all afternoon. The blimp was there all day. It had no visible goodyear logo, was dark grey, had two horizontal white light arrays and a single white strobe on the top. It was not the normal yellow/black coloured one and you could hear the engine drone during the opening ceremony. I understand it was used by NBC.

Apart from the flypast there were only three aircraft around stratford all day - two helicopters and a blimp.

Sorry.

Originally posted by avatard
The saucer in the 80s was super cool, right in the midst of all the 80s alien classics..As for Nick Popes alien/olympics theory, it aint over til its over,

Exactly, look for UFO's at the closing ceremony.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

2012 Olympics Goodyear blimp The Goodyear blimp started its aerial coverage almost 90 years ago when it took to the skies to share a different angle of events. In even in 2012, the Goodyear Blimp will be a big part of the 2012 Olympics with the vehicle offering overhead coverage of the Olympic Games. On Thursday the company announced that Goodyear will work once again with the NBC Olympics for television coverage.

www.examiner.com...

If his link wasn't enough for anyone that still thinks this was a ufo:

www.tirereview.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DBCooper71

 

None in particular.

The problem is that often a lack of sufficient information and a reliance on eyewitness testimony often makes it impossible to offer "mundane" explanations. This does not mean that a UFO is unidentifiable or unexplainable or extraterrestrial. It just means that there is not enough information.

Nonsense, that there will ALWAYS be enough information at hand when a sighting needs debunking but never enough to justify a sighting as unknown or not mundane in origins is a total red flag to me.That such UFO cases exist that exhibit after official scientific investigation's and where deemed unknowns or very hard to find mundane explanations was NOT because of the lack or quality of the information possible or the credibility witness testimonies but because of the available data that pointed to genuine discrepancies involving the main flight characteristics,speed, acceleration and the sudden stop and start capabilities.I take it a certain late Dr James E MacDonald"s scientific conclusions and findings on the inadequate scientific methods used in investigating UFOs by Blue Book is to dismissed or that a very imminent and highly respectable atmospheric physicist and meteorologist like Dr MacDonald is to be ignored by those who come out with such ludicrous statements as It "just means that there is not enough information" in ALL of those cases where a conclusion is reached after investigation that no explanation is on offer.

It is far from the truth that there are NO UFO cases that point to possible unknown technically abilities prevalent in some UFO cases or that ALL those UFO cases that offer no mundane or natural explanations are so because of a lack of information that would deem then as not mundane or explainable by current scientific understandings

.What of those cases that where deemed "blue books" unknowns by Dr Hynek after investgation, are we to believe that ALL of them or others that he came across were deemed "unknowns" by the simply and rather handy exsuse of "not enough information. Sorry it is shown by Dr MaDonald and Dr Hynek that the argument of not enough information is redundant in SOME cases but not ALL of them.The real reality hear is that if just ONE UFO case is excepted or shown to contain enough scientific "information" that deems it unknown in scientific explanations then it opens up a can of worms and and a hole new approach to the debunking of those UFO reports that are shown to contain high levels of strangeness or cannot be easily debunked by the use of the "not enough information tactic or approach is often use by hard line debunkers when faced by such high strangeness cases.

James Edward McDonald (May 7, 1920 – June 13, 1971) was an American physicist. He is best known for his research regarding UFOs. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson. McDonald campaigned in support of expanding UFO studies during the mid and late 1960s, arguing that UFOs represented an important unsolved mystery which had not been adequately studied by science. He was one of the more prominent figures of his time who argued in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a plausible, but not completely proved, model of UFO phenomena. McDonald interviewed over 500 UFO witnesses, uncovered many important government UFO documents, and gave important presentations of UFO evidence.

He testified before Congress during the UFO hearings of 1968[1]. McDonald also gave a famous talk called "Science in Default" to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was a summary of the current UFO evidence and a critique of the 1969 Condon Report UFO study[2].

link; en.wikipedia.org...

Helicopter Intercepts UFO At Olympic Opening 27,07,2012

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by onemix


You posted this as a joke, right?

Originally posted by oxbow
reply to post by onemix

 

You posted this as a joke, right?

Jokes are funny, that video is sad.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Where did you post THAT video?

So if I see a blimp where a blimp is known to be, I'm assuming?

Not the Hannard video you added afterward but the London one. I posted it a few pages ago here

I don't see a Blimp. I see an object that's too far away to make out just like everyone else. Seems like I'm the only honest poster thus far.

How about this?
Will Goodyear's own photos of opening day fireworks convince you that they were there and
shooting film of the festivities?

Another poster posted this earlier but you must have missed the post.

www.facebook.com...

reply to post by oxbow


No joke, just want your opinion.

reply to post by onemix

My opinion is the video you posted is a joke. Ratings for that video are disabled....because the thousands of thumbs down people would give it would crash the servers.

Actually this video is a good test to see how irrational and crazy someone's thoughts can be. If you claim there was a UFO out of a light blob when so many fireworks and things were launched, NO WITNESSES claiming AIRCRAFT, I think you really need to go outside and take a fresh air.

This should not be even debated, unfortunately they put those who post such videos and claim them to be UFOs and those who can think critically and are just more open-minded than the dumb skepticism under the same group. And we who do not easily exclude potential possibility are not these whackos who think these would be UFOs.

And any common sense will tell you - IT IS LEAST OF ALL a UFO in such a storm of fireworks...

nvermind

An aircraft "relay" station had a complete electrical failure and had to make an emergency landing using nothing but charts, a bent coat-hanger and a slice of Dairylee: www.bbc.co.uk...

I want to be the first to speculate "UFO interference!!", despite this being on the Saturday and not the opening ceremony night. Could this be 100% sensationalist proof of the malevolent work of a goodyear blimp?

reply to post by Phage


Well, isn't anything unidentified until you or someone else identifies it?

I bet the guy feels real silly now!

reply to post by Pedro4077


And the queen being there was a dead give away looking more reptilian than ever bet icke loved that ceremony! Hahaha

reply to post by markymint


"A slice of dairylea" hahahahaha that reminded me of the boosh!