UFO or blimp?

[astrophotographer]

More feedback today from Goodyear following up my inquiry about the article. He stated that the blimp was at the Yankees-Rays game on September 20th. Perhaps there was confusion by the pilot but he mentioned TS Nicole, which went up the coast at the end of the month and early October. I am not sure what to make of this. Either my contact's records are inadequate/incorrect or the article was wrong. Unless somebody has a recording of the ESPN game, which shows the blimp, I can only assume that it probably was not there.

Direct TV hasn't responded to my inquiry. They do Yankee games quite often and seem to be a good suspect.

Metlife probably wasn't present as they tend to do Golf Tournaments.

I hit a dead end here at this point.

In my opinion, the object behaves like a blimp of some kind and the direction seems consistent with Yankee stadium. The facts that ESPN was broadcasting the game, the time was right, and these games usually have a blimp for aerial shots is something that is in favor of the blimp hypothesis. Against this explanation is the simple fact that I have yet to locate the offending blimp. I will keep playing with this and write about it in SUNlite (giving credit to anybody who provides relevant information).

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Malmstrom madness session!

[ryguy]

Thanks for keeping us updated on your hunt for the cause - I think your estimate of the most probable answer is pretty spot on, it's just a matter of eventually tracking down the offending blimp.

[James Carlson]

I asked the New York FAA office a week or so ago, and I finally got a non-response response from them. Basically they told me to contact the New York TRACON Quality Assurance office, which I did via email; I still haven't received a response from them yet, but I'll try again. The number they gave me to contact them via telephone was 516-683-2900. After checking on the number, I discovered that it's basically their equivalent of the front desk. Since that looked to be a possibly lengthy conversation, I didn't make it, trying the email route first. You're welcome to try it if you like -- maybe it won't be as lengthy as I originally assumed. I asked them basically if there were any blimps in the area for September 26 and November 20, 2010. I asked for both dates, because I figured it couldn't hurt to be wary of someone dicking around with the facts, such as recording all of it on November 20, 2010, changing the date for a known date when blimps were not in the area, like possibly September 26, publishing it and stating ahead of time that "we know for a fact there wasn't a blimp", but making the stupid mistake of leaving a bit footage with the real date attached in what you already published. In a way, I'm kind of ashamed that my dealings with Hastings and Salas have reduced me to this sadly suspicious posture of a man who no longer trusts anybody who produces evidence of a UFO, but at the same time, the rampant dishonesty in this field, and the UFO proponent community's failure to either police itself or conduct a proper analysis of the evidence presented is ultimately the primary cause, so screw 'em. You reap what you sow, and you get nothing else unless you steal it, so my shame is fleeting at best.

[astrophotographer]

Whatever the object was (and I still think it was probably a blimp), it is important to note that it had an anti-collision strobe and appropriate navigation lighting. That in itself should make this have a mundane explanation. Of course, I have to add the thousands (if not millions) of people who were out in the Bronx that night and were closer to the object. Yet they did not report seeing anything unusual. Were they blind/did not bother to look up or did they simply realize what it was when they saw it?

I think they identified it readily, which is goes back to what Dr. Hartmann said about the Zond IV incident in 1968. That being, those that consider an object as exotic/unidentified, will file detailed reports describing exotic details of their UFO. Meanwhile, those that readily identify the object will file no report or their report will have less details containing less exotic or emotional descriptions. This is called the "excitedness effect" and I think this is the case here. I can understand Mr. Guerrero's "excitedness" in this case. However, I can't understand why the UFO investigators (Capp and his "scientist" friend) are promoting it as something exoitc. Either they are blinded by their beliefs or they don't care what kind of nonsense they promote as long as it gets them recognized.

[UFOMM]

Dear Reality TV,
There is a book out now called "Distraction" you will find it here.
http://feedroom.businessweek.com/?fr_st ... 6c78dc8e11

The author addresses the ever shrinking attention span of the public which seems to be getting shorter each decade. I mention this because the writer did not view the video though. The object has more than three lights it may have as many as five. The lights are on post or something some directly above the three lights. The object never goes over to the stadium which can't be seen from his window. If these are navigation lights the object does something unheard of in a busy sky way; it turns them off. A light appears which is probably a helicopter. It stops almost right beneath the object which has dimmed it's lights and than the object turns it lights completely.
In all of the video you never see the shape of a blimp. You do however see the shape of a pyramid at times. The object will rotate rather quickly at times. The first thing we look at was a blimp but because I had actually studied this video for weeks on end wI couldn't explain the object that way. Cesar kept the tape because it had a family wedding on it and of course we left that out, but in the end, who cares anyway. Caesar did all the right things. He never asked for money and he gave me the camcorder even though he never met me. The camcorder which was a old analogue and the new operating systems don't take kindly to each other. This is why I wouldn't entertain attacks on this man. He was just the messenger nothing else. Cesar saw this object from the streets first. He never considered a blimp because he had witnessed so many of them. He thought it might be a helicopter but the lights were not right. The way these lights strobe on this UFO is very strange I will be putting up a video with close-ups very soon also showing multiple lights. The reason this was not done is my own health problems and I am sorry I have been slow to write. We are now waiting for Cesar to video with the same camera a blimp from his window when that happens I will put it up on You Tube and put a link here to let people decide for themselves.
The scientist who has to stay anonymous did this out of caring for the subject. He is open minded and a balanced person on this subject.I have sent him aluminum artifacts from a UFO crash sight and he has shown they had roller pin manufacturing marks on them. We went through the blimp explanation and this object doesn't seem to fit the bill.
I was angry when the blimp explanation went out because we had gone thoroughly over that but I hadn't communicated it properly. I felt anyone who took a close look at this would be open that this is not typical
of a blimp. I went on you Tube Google image and type in nighttime blimps and they didn't fit.

However I could be wrong and if I am I certainly will take full responsibility for the mistake after all Cesar came to me for help nothing more.
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
New York UFO Meeting Group
NY Hotline: 347-298-9020
Non-Commrecial

[astrophotographer]

This is not reality TV. It is called reality uncovered.

I offerred the blimp hypothesis because it seemed to behave like one and the direction given was towards Yankee stadium, where a big baseball game was played on national television. Can you let us know where Caeser was located? Additionally, if the stadium was not visible from his location, why does he indicate it was in the direction of the stadium? What direction was the video shot then?

So far, I have yet to see you offer anything that eliminates the blimp hypothesis. It certainly behaves like a blimp and the lighting looks about right based on some of the lighting arrangements I have seen on the goodyear blimp night videos. I think the only problem with the blimp hypothesis is that we have yet to identify the culprit. It may have also been something else like a special helicopter designed for aerial photographs. That is another possibility.

Anytime you have a flashing anti-collision strobe and navigation lights, you can pretty much be guaranteed it is man made. Ignoring those key indicators really is not good investigative process IMO.

BTW, a good reason the lights are being turned on an off in the video probably has to do with the actual blimp or craft blocking them as it turns to port and starboard. When it faces forward, you can see both, when it turns to port you see the starboard light and when it turns to starboard you see the green light. Additionally as it points upward and downward, it will expose the anti-collision light at the top or block it. After watching the video over and over, it seems like a very plausible explanation.

[James Carlson]

I like the part where nobody else in the entire city saw something they thought was odd or otherwise notable in any way.

[chrLz]

To Joe Capp / UFOMM

Dear Reality TV,

When seeking credibility for your cause, it is best to correctly identify the name of the people you are speaking to.

There is a book out now called "..(spam removed)"

Thanks so much for spamming an offtopic book - you get extra points for it being a bandwidth-sucking video link. Next time try to keep your links to the point, and NOT part of an ad hominem attack or spamfest.

the ever shrinking attention span of the public... I mention this because the writer did not view the video though.

So be specific, are you suggesting that the author of this thread didn't view it - yes or no? Or is this about someone else? Please make your comments clear, and be prepared to be challenged. If you are claiming that astrophotographer didn't view it, I'm afraid your credibility (already dropping for reasons above), has now descended into negative territory. It's very obvious to me he has watched them, and so have I.

The object has more than three lights it may have as many as five.

So, how many lights does a typical blimp have? What about a helicopter/aircraft/rc device? Could you please make some sort of point?

The lights are on post or something some directly above the three lights.

I'm sorry, I do not understand this at all. Which particular lights are 'on post'? All of them? Do you mean they are on postS? Again, what is your point? (And can you please use punctuation - I suspect a comma after 'something' might have helped..)

The object never goes over to the stadium which can't be seen from his window.

Based on what? Where is the evidence showing the actual direction and possible angles of view? And again, what is your point? Does a blimp only ever appear directly over a stadium? Gee, that's astonishing - how does it get there, or leave? Guess it must just materialise/dematerialise? And I guess I'm only imagining those views I often see, clearly taken from quite a distance away from the venues as the blimp manuevers around the entire area..

If these are navigation lights the object does something unheard of in a busy sky way; it turns them off.

I'm simply stunned. You can't think of anything that could make lights go out, other than them being turned off...??? They couldn't be blocked / obscured, by the craft itself or something else in front of it? And up above, you seemed to be implying there were too many lights - if some weren't navigation lights, would it be 'unheard of' to turn them off?

A light appears which is probably a helicopter. It stops almost right beneath the object which has dimmed it's{sic} lights and than{sic} the object turns it{sic} lights completely{sic}.

Can you please explain how you have measured the distances from this 2d video, and determined it was 'almost right beneath'? Also, to help persons who might be following this, how about putting in some timings from the videos?

In all of the video you never see the shape of a blimp.

How much of an angle should a typical blimp subtend, given the angle of view of the lens in use, and the distance it might have been - surely you have done all the data gathering, to be able to answer those questions? What were the light levels? How sensitive is the camera, and what settings were in use? How bright would the blimp's body be? Be specific and explain why we would need to be able to see a 'blimp shape'. If you can't do that, you are NOT entitled to dismiss this explanation - indeed your rush to do exactly that, based on nothing specific, is very telling indeed.

You do however see the shape of a pyramid at times.

Video timings please. And again, your ability to establish 3d information from a 2d video is quite remarkable. Some (me included) would say impossible..

The object will rotate rather quickly at times.

I'm sorry - is there a future video coming out that 'will' show this, or is this just sloppy use of future tense? If you are in fact claiming that this object (the 'pyramid'?) is shown rotating quickly, then you will now provide timings in the videos and/or some annotated screen grabs, please.

The first thing we look at was a blimp but because I had actually studied this video for weeks on end wI{sic} couldn't explain the object that way.

That sounds like confirmation bias to me - surely you should come up with a list of alternatives, and then *only* dismiss them if there was clear contrary evidence. If your evidence for the not-blimp hypothesis is that shown above, then clearly that investigation was shallow and based on highly flawed reasoning. If you claim otherwise, then I suggest you go about answering in detail the points I have raised above, in bold red.

Cesar kept the tape ..., who cares anyway.

Indeed, who does care about that lovely but irrelevant backstory to try to convince us of your/Cesar's respectable motivations. I care about evidence and coming up with the *reality*, not flogging ufo stories to the eager but uninformed public.

The camcorder which was a old analogue and the new operating systems don't take kindly to each other.

Rubbish. Getting the output from an analogue video at a good level of quality is trivial. Indeed, now would be a good time to identify the video, and what problems you had - perhaps we can give you some tips on how to do it better next time (or redo this one assuming the original still exists).

This is why I wouldn't entertain attacks on this man.

Who is attacking him? We are trying to get to the bottom of what is, frankly, a pretty mediocre video, that is completely unsupported by corroborating reports, despite being over a heavily populated city! It fails at even the most basic preliminary first stage of information gathering.

He was just the messenger nothing else.

Yes, that's fine and agreed. So really, the problem would be anyone who is purporting this video is something it was not. Correct?

Cesar saw this object from the streets first. He never considered a blimp because he had witnessed so many of them. He thought it might be a helicopter but the lights were not right...

Hmm, these opinions of Cesar's weren't mentioned before.. It just goes to show, when you post something, you should:
1. Investigate it PROPERLY before posting (you can prove you did that by answering the points above).
2. Include anything/everything that is relevant, right at the start. If you start adding stuff later on, when things are looking a bit grim, I'm afraid it looks very suspicious.

The way these lights strobe on this UFO is very strange

BE SPECIFIC. In what way, and at what timing in the video.

I will be putting up a video with close-ups very soon also showing multiple lights.

I shall await that with interest...

The reason this was not done is my own health problems and I am sorry I have been slow to write.

That's fine, take your time, do it PROPERLY.

We are now waiting for Cesar to video with the same camera a blimp from his window when that happens I will put it up on You Tube and put a link here to let people decide for themselves.

And how about addressing all the holes pointed out above. What does the view from this window look like in daytime, what angles are visible, what camera was in use and what settings were used/played with? Given that Cesar states he has seen many blimps/helicopters, it shouldn't take long for him to film them, surely..

The scientist who has to stay anonymous did this out of caring for the subject.

Yeah, right... So post his analysis here, and let's see how good his knowledge is, and what sort of methodology he has applied. If he/you won't do that (and he can feel free to stay anonymous), then your claims about it having been subjected to scientific scrutiny are worthless. Indeed it is worse than that - if you/he will not provide that analysis, the clear implication is that no such analysis was done, or that it was substandard and you/he recognises that there is a level of expertise here that will show that in no uncertain terms.

He is open minded and a balanced person on this subject.I have sent him aluminum artifacts from a UFO crash sight{sic} and he has shown they had roller pin manufacturing marks on them.

Clearly that claim is worth another thread. Feel free to post that analysis here as well, in order that the credibility of this person may be demonstrated.

We went through the blimp explanation and this object doesn't seem to fit the bill.

Isn't there something missing here? (I'm noticing a pattern.. - anyone else?) Hint - WHY doesn't it fit the bill?

I've not seen this much handwaving since the Queen passed by..

I was angry when the blimp explanation went out because we had gone thoroughly over that but I hadn't communicated it properly.

Again, I just don't follow you - why on earth would you be 'angry' about carefully eliminating a possibility? And unless you explain in detail how that possibility was eliminated, then I'm afraid this just doesn't fly...

I felt anyone who took a close look at this would be open that this is not typical
of a blimp. I went on you Tube Google image and type in nighttime blimps and they didn't fit.

Umm.. that was 'research'? Oh dear.

However I could be wrong..

Out of the mouths of...


BTW, I've read your (non-)responses to the comments on the original article (the lengthy 'anonymous' one was me), and I'd have to observe that your avoidance of questions is simply first class...

So how about handing this over to your scientist, and let him have a go at actually researching this properly - you know, providing information, answering questions..?