posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Is there a source of a larger version of this image?Very interesting.
By Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 08, 2015
Yes, but it's only a blow-up of this photo, taken by Alfred Stieglitz and found in Masters of the Camera by Gene Thornton [Ridge Press Book/Holt Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1978, Page 52]Brit UFO researcher Joe McGonagle dismissed this (for me) in 2005 because the photo was listed as a 1910 shot.However, in a review of Stieglitz oeuvre, I found that his photos were often taken at earlier times and provided to publishers later.Whatever the provenance, the photo represents what was reported during the Airship era, and is the only extant photo that shows what observers may have been seeing and talking about.RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 08, 2015
I wonder if modern computer science could clarify this image, or if anyone has attempted it. Seems rather doubtful but perhaps an interesting project with possibly equally interesting results.
Jose Caravaca provided this, which is interesting considering the date:http://sundaymagazine.org/2010/05/torpedo-airship-controlled-by-wireless-is-the-latest-invention/RR
The practical demonstration of radio control is much older than that.http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_robots.html
We're drifting off topic!RR
Yes and no. I think this is a good example of out of place ( advanced for their time) technological applications and while the airship sightings were in advance of the historical accounts of their eventual evolution, who is to say in light of what the various accounts tell us? I suspect what was sighted was "real" and that is a equally challenging one vs a "UFO" to unravel.
I was referring to the robot reference, Bruce, which would allow some to take us down that route, which has little to do with the Airship phenomenon.RR
BTW..I forgot to mention that I thought the airship mystery would be a fascinating exercise for aeronautical engineering students. Their task would be to utilize only materials available at the time of the sightings and follow a general outline of the key characteristics of what was seen. Could they replicate a viable facsimile?
Holy cow.....such endeavors have been spiced here in previous postings to the point of irritating those who find the Airship sightings as bogus or misrepresentations of Venus.You must have not been paying attention when those postings were applied, Bruce.RR
I missed that.Must have been feeding the horses. It would be interesting to see those posts in an aggregate sum but...I am not that ambitious to collate them all considering you have no index I am aware of.An interesting post nonetheless.
A Google of "UFO Iconoclast Airship"should provide some of the postings, Bruce.Gilles Fernandez was particularly exercised by my notes.RR
Very interesting photo. The lighting seems to match what appears to be backlit clouds in the background. And the ship's design itself seems to be possibly functional.
By Daniel Hurd, at Thursday, January 08, 2015
I thought you meant a report on the actual project of attempting to build one in reality. I somewhat recall the other ones, especially the account that came from the street railway fellow. My blood sugar must be low or I am in some similar daze.Sorry.
We're so cold here, that my brain also is not fully functioning, but some would say that's normal.RR
Off Topic Warning"We are five miles North of the South Carolina border and it was 17 degrees this morning. Will be below freezing for a week...We are being asked to conserve electricity as there is so much demand they say the grid might go down. Unusually cold
As an aerospace engineer, what's interesting to me in the text of the newspaper article accompanying the photo is the upward speed of the object being described as like that of an eagle. Blimps and dirigibles don't "dart" at high speed in any direction, much less upward. It's not physically possible. Eagles can get up to speeds of 120 mph. Modern blimps, such as the Goodyear blimp, have absolute top speeds around half that. Normally they cruise at speeds more like 30 mph. Any internal combustion engine from the turn of the 20th century would have had a power-to-weight ratio only a small fraction of today's engines, etc. etc.I could go on, but the upshot of this is that a conventional blimp or dirigible could not behave in the manner described--then or now. It would seem only two conclusions are possible. If you think the witnesses' reports are true and accurate, then the object was not a conventional object (as Paul Hill would use the term). In that case, it was "flying" by unconventional means in the same way that some UFOs seem to fly today and for some reason it was configured to look like an airship of the day. Or, the witnesses were just making stuff up.
By Larry, at Thursday, January 08, 2015
I should add that the idea of having wings on the "car" or "canoe" doesn't really make any sense, either.
I like the idea of the lone genius inventor building this thing in his barn, taking it for a spin, then disappearing into the mists of time.At least we know it's not Hughes-built, right, Rich? :)
By Ron, at Thursday, January 08, 2015
Maybe Hughes' father...RR
That was a quick response. You must be typing like crazy to keep warm.
Ron, I'm hooked into my sites and blogs like God....omnipresent.RR
I know it's cold even without the benefit of a thermometer as I am glued to the internet despite the fact I am bored with it. Id rather be fussing around in the garden, but that pile of dirty dishes waiting to be cleaned up is an impetus to keep browsing the vast wasteland.
By Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 09, 2015
It's imho Alfred Stieglitz period' ARTwork! Based on Santos-Dumont's "Baladeuse" (1903) and inversed...Read my blog...Regards,Gilles.
By Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, January 09, 2015
Sorry Gilles...It's a real photograph by noted/gifted and famous photographer Stieglitz.RR
By RRRGroup, at Friday, January 09, 2015
A photograph is always "real" lolWell if you dont recognize Santos-Dumont's "Baladeuse" "balloon" (1903), I cant nothing for you :(Same if you dunno what is ARTwork...May I quote Alfred Stieglitz book where this ARTwork is from?"To make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, they say is an impossibility. 'Impossibilities' have always allured me. In making this book I have not entirely succeeded in realizing the silk purse - but remember the 'impossibility' I am attempting. To one who has suffered and understands -" To my friend Kennerly - Alfred Stieglitz New York JuneGilles
Because of the blatantly obvious blunted or rounded nose of Stiegltiz's object, I discounted the Santos-Dumont's "Baladeuse" "balloon" of (1903), Gilles.And, indeed, it is a photograph as I've noted previously in my account of eyewitness Fred Hoertz whom I met in Florida...an artist who painted pictures while Stieglitz used a camera, for those familiar with the history of photography.RR
You understand nothing of ARTwork!Another one of Alfred Stieglitzhttps://www.pinterest.com/pin/431219733044739788/Again Santos-Dumont (but n°1 here)...
Take it easy, Gilles...You get too worked up about Airships. Why?Did you fall out of one in your youth?RR
I take it easy, thank's!The famous 1896/97 Airships wave is well explained and not a mystery at my blog. Guys like You will continue to defend there is a mystery and Fortean Entities to invoke here ;)For the rest, well, that's ufology, after all.Sans rancune,Gilles
Hello Rich; Happy New Year!You say: "the only extant photo that shows what observers may have been seeing and talking about."But there's no shortage of images of the fanciful flying machines people were imagining they saw during the Airship manias of 1896-97 and later: They described seeing exactly what the newspapers told them they would see! [g]And they even reported hearing the Airships' motors and the voices of their crews. But there never were any airships. Comprenez vous, mon ami?But here's the Möbius twist: Then the newspapers reported on these Airship "sightings" as REAL! And they sold even more newspapers! So you see the twisted loop is essential to the "UFO" myth. Hoax the fantastic to captive readers, then report the feedback of the most credulous boobs in the readership as reality. (Something I'm sure a newspaper man understands thoroughly.) [g]Then again in 1947, the public was entirely predisposed by the newspapers' "saucer" error--so they reported seeing Flying Saucers! [Gasp!]And that's the story: Believing is Seeing! The PSH in a nutshell.The Null hypothesis--the fact that there are no real "UFOs"--requires the PSH; if there were real "UFOs" of any kind, the PSH of reports would not be necessary.
By zoamchomsky, at Friday, January 09, 2015
Let's review over a century of "UFO" social delusions:American Airship Mania of 1896-97Edison's Electric Star Illusion of 1897Canadian Ghost Balloons of 1896-97New Zealand Zeppelin Scare of 1909New England Airship Hoax of 1909-10British Phantom Zeppelin Panic of 1912-13Phantom German Air Raids and Spy Missions over Canada, America and South America during the World War of 1914-18The Martian Invasion Panic of 1938Ghost Aircraft and Balloon Scares Worldwide from 1938-45European Ghost Rocket Delusion of 1946Flying Saucer Hysteria of 1947The worldwide "UFO" Collective Delusion, 1947-....
Hello Rich and friends,http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/19/01/83/59/santos11.jpgRegards,Gilles
Gilles, mon ami...That's not even close.The Stieglitz ship is higher in the sky and lacking that pointy nose.You do know that I'm not advocating an ET ship with this posting and photo, don't you?I'm pointing out that this is what some people were seeing and reporting, a suggestion that McGonagle made also when I asked him about it ten years ago.RR
By RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 10, 2015
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile