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.
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
Originally posted by rand
The really sad thing is that noone seems to be able mount a decent argument to my theories.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
The crew won the NATIONAL ENQUIRER Blue Ribbon Panel's $ 5,000 award for "the most scientifically valuable report of 1973."
from the source
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.
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.
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.
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?
Except for this one report, aren't you debunking your own theory?
Originally posted by rand
Oops:
Larry Hatch's UFO Database
Doncha hate those misplaced brackets?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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?
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.
Again, you’re assuming it was a blimp, but for the same reason your giving it could have been something else.
...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?
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
...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...
Btw Rand are employed in the PR dept of a blimp manufacturer?
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?
Originally posted by rand
I really don't like to present anything I can't back up.
Once I get finished with the Caliornia and Washington/Oregon sightings I'll see if I can put more info together.
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.
The Google version is here; what do you suppose they were looking for?