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.
"I Rode On The Goodyear Blimp"
"Even in winds and turbulence, the blimp doesn't seem motivated to react - it just rocks and climbs, very gently."
www.project1947.com...
However, after having checked an aeronautical map of the area over which Mr. Arnold claims that he saw the objects it was determined that all statements made by Mr. Arnold in regard to the distances involved, speed of the objects, course of the objects and size of the objects, could very possibly be facts. The distances mentioned by Mr. Arnold in his report are within a short distance of the actual distances on aeronautical charts of this area, although Mr. Arnold has never consulted aeronautical charts of the type the Army uses.
Originally posted by torbjon
hmmm…
...at 80+ mph. With a strong tail wind, it is said the LZ129 approached 100 mph...
...80 knots in flight.
How high does the blimp usually fly?
“Arnold estimated that the objects were flying at an altitude between 9,500 and 10,000 feet, and at a great speed”
rands’ diagrams have the blimps at 11,000 feet…. okay.
60 year old blimps cruising along between 9000 and 11,000 feet when modern blimps ceiling out at 8000 feet or less… interesting. just don’t make ‘em like they used to, huh?
Originally posted by lost_shaman
On Google maps you can clearly see the "snow covered ridge" Arnold is talking about.
Another thing Arnold compared the objects to the DC-4 approximately 15 miles away.
Considering that there were nine objects in an echelon formation, and Arnold's Call Air A-2 is cruising at 100 m/p/h , he would have almost crashed into one of the last "Blimps" if what your saying is to be considered as true. In fact he would have certainly been able to turn into their flight path and overtake the "Blimps".
Kenneth Arnold originally estimated the objects speed to have been around 15 - 16 times faster than his own speed.
"...could very possibly be facts."
"...although Mr. Arnold has never consulted aeronautical charts of the type the Army uses."
Originally posted by rand
Here's the bad news:
The sad and awful truth is, they've mostly been blimps.
Yes, blimps: slow, rotund, squishy blimps, and most of those have been WWII Navy surplus. No sex, no sizzle, no ultra-high-tech, no aliens.
Just blimps.
Originally posted by rand
"On Google maps you can clearly see the "snow covered ridge" Arnold is talking about." - lost_shaman
It probably isn't either of the two ridges you Googled, since neiither one is directly in the path -- either path -- that Arnold described, although I did include both in the "possible" category and include them in the calculations.
Fifth, I haven't been able to find any reference which says that it is indeed possible to see, much less identify, a large aircraft at 15 miles distance. There's a lot of literature on the factors which limit such recognition, but little concering actual numbers. Here's what I've found on the 'net so far:
There is a pilot with 35 years experience, including time in Washington State, who answered a question on Google Answers about the maximum distance a pilot can see another aircraft. He not only used the kind of comparison I just did, above, but said that it's often hard to see another plane 1 mile away, although he has seen a backlit hot-air balloon 10-15 miles away.
Google Answers
the FAA's exhibits in AdvisoryCircular AC 90-48C imply that air-to-air visibility for another large aircraft should be about 10 miles:
Your best chances of spotting another plane are:
• when it is above you
• when there's a contrasting background (such as aircraft flying across the snow field of Mt. Rainier)
• at high altitude where the air is clearer -- and in the mountain and coastal ranges like the western U.S. where the air is free of dust and humidity.
I forbid you to look at the pictures!
Originally posted by longhaircowboy
There's just not enough there in the pretty pictures to indicate a blimp or anything else.
Dr. Maccabee posited a flock of geese and while it seems just as likely given the trajectories and visual references I tend to side with the mirage explanation.
It's become clear over the years that Arnold described nothing like a blimp.
Originally posted by lost_shaman
"The Ridge" does not need to fit directly in the path of the objects Arnold saw, it is however in the background of both paths from Arnold's line of sight just as he stated. You can look at Google maps in my last post above and measure it at just over 5 miles long.
Fifth, I haven't been able to find any reference which says that it is indeed possible to see, much less identify, a large aircraft at 15 miles distance. There's a lot of literature on the factors which limit such recognition, but little concering actual numbers. Here's what I've found on the 'net so far:
There is a pilot with 35 years experience, including time in Washington State, who answered a question on Google Answers about the maximum distance a pilot can see another aircraft. He not only used the kind of comparison I just did, above, but said that it's often hard to see another plane 1 mile away, although he has seen a backlit hot-air balloon 10-15 miles away.
Rand that sure was very selective on your part don't you think?
Look at some of the things from your own reference that you didn't bother to quote.
Google Answers
the FAA's exhibits in AdvisoryCircular AC 90-48C imply that air-to-air visibility for another large aircraft should be about 10 miles:
The FAA publishes a training chart (AC-90-48c, Appendix 1) to warn pilots of the danger of unseen approaching aircraft. It shows the apparent size of an aircraft at different distances. It only goes as high as 10 miles.
Your best chances of spotting another plane are:
• when it is above you
• when there's a contrasting background (such as aircraft flying across the snow field of Mt. Rainier)
• at high altitude where the air is clearer -- and in the mountain and coasal ranges like the western U.S. where the air is free of dust and humidity.
Originally posted by rand
I'm not sure of your point here. I considered all the possible ridges and used a median value for the apparent size of the formation of objects. I didn't ignore any of the possible ridges, the one you pointed out included.
Originally posted by rand
The only way the formation could be five miles long was if it passed over, or, at least, very close to the five-mile ridge. If it were closer, it would have been shorter; if further away, it would have been longer. So if Arnold thought the formation was 5 miles long, he had to have thought it passed over or very close in front of the ridge. If the objects were travelling along a 160-degree path OR a 170-degree path, and passed close to Mt. Rainier, they passed over or very close to the ridge just south of Mt. Rainier.
Originally posted by rand
Despite that, I was unwilling to force my thoughts and feelings onto Arnold's words, and considered every snow-covered ridge in the area.
But, yes, he may have been referring to another ridge; his reports were just that indistinct.
Originally posted by rand
Ten miles, not 15. Remember, "visibility" refers to a maximum distance.
Originally posted by rand
And I did refer directly to AC 90-48c:
The FAA publishes a training chart (AC-90-48c, Appendix 1) to warn pilots of the danger of unseen approaching aircraft. It shows the apparent size of an aircraft at different distances. It only goes as high as 10 miles.
( Google Answers reference )
Your best chances of spotting another plane are:
• at high altitude where the air is clearer -- and in the mountain and coastal ranges like the western U.S. where the air is free of dust and humidity.
Originally posted by rand
I mentioned humidty a paragraph or two down. This was Washington State, middle of summer, and a small storm passed over the region the previous day. The relative humidity ranged from 30% southeast of Mt. Adams, to 87% in Seattle, to 100% nodrth of Mt. Rainier. There were a lot of water molecules between Arnold and the DC-4 that day.
Originally posted by rand
PS, the visibility reported for Seattle was 7.0 miles.
FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary
VISIBILITY- The ability, as determined by atmospheric conditions and expressed in units of distance, to see and identify prominent unlighted objects by day and prominent lighted objects by night. Visibility is reported as statute miles, hundreds of feet or meters.
(Refer to 14 CFR Part 91.)
(Refer to AIM.)
a. Flight Visibility- The average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.
b. Ground Visibility- Prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an accredited observer.
c. Prevailing Visibility- The greatest horizontal visibility equaled or exceeded throughout at least half the horizon circle which need not necessarily be continuous.
d. Runway Visibility Value (RVV)- The visibility determined for a particular runway by a transmissometer. A meter provides a continuous indication of the visibility (reported in miles or fractions of miles) for the runway. RVV is used in lieu of prevailing visibility in determining minimums for a particular runway.
e. Runway Visual Range (RVR)- An instrumentally derived value, based on standard calibrations, that represents the horizontal distance a pilot will see down the runway from the approach end. It is based on the sighting of either high intensity runway lights or on the visual contrast of other targets whichever yields the greater visual range. RVR, in contrast to prevailing or runway visibility, is based on what a pilot in a moving aircraft should see looking down the runway. RVR is horizontal visual range, not slant visual range. It is based on the measurement of a transmissometer made near the touchdown point of the instrument runway and is reported in hundreds of feet. RVR is used in lieu of RVV and/or prevailing visibility in determining minimums for a particular runway.
1. Touchdown RVR- The RVR visibility readout values obtained from RVR equipment serving the runway touchdown zone.
2. Mid-RVR- The RVR readout values obtained from RVR equipment located midfield of the runway.
3. Rollout RVR- The RVR readout values obtained from RVR equipment located nearest the rollout end of the runway.
(See ICAO term FLIGHT VISIBILITY.)
(See ICAO term GROUND VISIBILITY.)
(See ICAO term RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE.)
(See ICAO term VISIBILITY.)
VISIBILITY [ICAO]- The ability, as determined by atmospheric conditions and expressed in units of distance, to see and identify prominent unlighted objects by day and prominent lighted objects by night.
a. Flight Visibility-The visibility forward from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight.
b. Ground Visibility-The visibility at an aerodrome as reported by an accredited observer.
c. Runway Visual Range [RVR]-The range over which the pilot of an aircraft on the centerline of a runway can see the runway surface markings or the lights delineating the runway or identifying its centerline.
There was a low pressure region northeast of Mt. Rainier, not west; it would have been dragging in saturated moisture from the north.
Weather conditions are just one of the things should have been scrutinized by the AAF and others, but apparently were not. They didn't hold up, they were just never questioned. That should be a red flag.
www.project1947.com... - USAF Air Intelligence Report 1948
( Page 12 )
r. An object, similar in shape to the one in the preceding incident was reported by an experienced American newspaper reporter about 25 kilometers northeast of Moscow on 3 August 1948. A Russian acquaintance identified it as a rigid airship but the reporter disagrees because it flew at a high, but not excessive speed.