I Know What I Saw

[Pimander]

They came in two's in opposite directions, and seemed to cross each other in a manner that they 'should' have collided.

Highlighted one word from your post.

It is practically impossible to tell how close together two distant aerial objects are.  Just because they appear to intersect does not mean they have made contact.

OK they could be holograms or something.  But I can't help feeling that it is easy to explain anything as a hologram - which is completely different to having evidence something is.  On the other hand we have  very little evidence as to what they are.

[Sinny]

sinny           I would seriously start  following a
direction the objects seem to come from and see  what type of facilities lie in that direction/s
you may be surprised what you find..

Sky, the same has  crossed my mind, but I cannot think of anything note worthy in that area. If anyone else would like to investigate, the area in question (where I no longer am) was Bartley Green, Birmingham UK, and the UFO's each came from East and West..

[Sinny]

Highlighted one word from your post.

It is practically impossible to tell how close together two distant aerial objects are.  Just because they appear to intersect does not mean they have made contact.

OK they could be holograms or something.  But I can't help feeling that it is easy to explain anything as a hologram - which is completely different to having evidence something is.  On the other hand we have  very little evidence as to what they are.

Pi, your point has been highlighted previously by a few people including Birmingham UFO group. As I say, I shrugged a lot of this off as 'normal'... Until the frequency of the events no longer made them 'normal'...

[sky otter]

ok this may sound silly but  looking at the birds eye view on the map..
and taking into account you said


What possible reason would any craft have to behave in this manner?

I saw up to 3 near collisions a day at some points during the summer.


could they in fact be a traffic reporting aircraft for a major highway at peak traffic hours?
or a weather service of some type?

sometimes you really do have to eliminate the obvious

[Sinny]

To further expand, I believe the only major traffic route near by would be the M5 motorway... I was located about 0.7 miles from that at a guess, and to home in on my location approximately..

Ohhh, never mind, the MIB aren't going to come looking for me, the address was 185 Field Lane, BG. The 'Cigars' were directly above said address, and now you can view the Gardens I drew in your thread Sky aha.

As for weather monitoring - I really couldn't say.

Both summers were clear blue skies, with the Sun out high... I recall a few (what I would NOW deem) chemtrails being layed over head.

It is a possibility the craft in question relate to those.

From experience and observation I know that they lay the trails, and then after 20 minutes they send craft below to presumably monitor what ever it is there purpose is...

But the 'cigar things' were indeed wingless, and not the usual Chem Craft.

[sky otter]

ok.. spent a bit of time looking up air ships.. seems there is a huge industry over where you are and they are making big bucks with air ships
now called    hybrid-air-vehicles
and imo they have to test them somewhere..why not where you are

sorry but I don't know what locations would be close to you but if you check the first link it had a really good page of descriptions

imo with you seeing so many .. I would say you witnesses them testing the prototypes
check the dates ...very close to  yours

http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/SNAME/3383113f-3070-4ddd-acd4-504418eb35a9/UploadedImages/Files/2009/March%2009_Taylor_Presentation.pdf

http://www.gizmag.com/hybrid-air-vehicles-airship/19746/

http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/history.aspx

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-inventor-whos-putting-blimps-back-on-the-radar-2353673.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12110386

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26337673


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_airships



found your report here
http://reported-sightings.blogspot.com/2011/06/2010-21062011-bartley-green-birmingham.html


http://www.blimps.co.uk/

[Sinny]

Thank you Sky, you've done a really good job with those links and info.

I thought we'd hit the jackpot on the first from last link (above my report), alas, those were 3 cigar shapes melded into 1, where my sighting were of the typical cigar shape alone.

One of those craft from the Wiki page do resemble what I saw, but not quite.
When I grabbed the binoculars, I could not make out any details, or further features on the 'cigars' such as can be seen on the blimp like craft.

It would be my personal opinion that I have either witnessed a genuine 'Cigar' craft, or some similiar blimps.

If I find a blimp that I'm sure fits the bill for what I saw, I'll be the first to tell.

I'll keep my eye's peeled and hopefully witness the same again, but this time with a decerning eye for any blimp like give aways.

[sky otter]

sinny  there are so many things in this world..


Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle

that is a lovely saying..  but the truth is what exactly..

[Pimander]

I was just trying to remember that quote Sky   but your memory is functioning better than my sleep deprived one 

[onetruekeeper]

I think it might be possible to build a dirigible with today's modern materials to enable it to accelerate into earth orbit and reenter back into the atmosphere to a soft vertical landing. Perhaps attaching a rocket engine to it for thrust into orbit and using some type of inflatable ablative shield for the re-entry part. A very large airship could carry a great deal of payload into space. 

[Pimander]

I agree except for the rocket part.  If you could make the dirigible extremely light using gases - in a manner akin to a submarine - then a rocket might be too powerful.

Some form of low powered propulsion would be capable of powering a virtually weightless object.  This obviates the need for rocket fuels.

[onetruekeeper]

The dirigible needs to achieve escape velocity to get into orbit. I don't know of any propulsion system other than a rocket that could do this. The dirigible of course is supposed to be lighter than the air it's total volume displaces since it has to lift the payload and it's own weight in order to float. The propulsion only needs to speed up the craft to escape velocity and does not have to carry the weight of the vehicle off the ground like typical rocket launches at start up therefore saving a lot of fuel. It is important that in the beginning of acceleration that the dirigible remain in the atmosphere in order to be able to float off the ground. Balloons don't float in a vacuum as you know...LOL.

[Pimander]

With a low mass object you do not need to apply a large force to increase (strictly in physics terms change) velocity.  Escape velocity can be achieved with a much lower force than would require a rocket.  It simply depends on the mass of the object.  Low mass = low force

[onetruekeeper]

With a low mass object you do not need to apply a large force to increase (strictly in physics terms change) velocity.  Escape velocity can be achieved with a much lower force than would require a rocket.  It simply depends on the mass of the object.  Low mass = low force

On the contrary, a large dirigible can have a enormous amount of mass and you also have to factor in the volume of such a dirigible and the aerodynamic resistance such a body needs to overcome.

[Pimander]

I'm specifically talking about a low mass dirigible if you read my posts.

Air resistance is not a big issue if you use very light gases to get to the outer reaches of the atmosphere.  After that altitude a low mass and lower gravity (the force of which is a function of distance and mass) are of little consequence.

I'm right basically.