UFO Conjectures

Sunday, June 03, 2018

The (true?) 1896-1897 Airship Wave(s)

Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
In the last 50 some pages of Albert Rosales’ 350 page  Humanoid Encounters (Volume 1 A.D.-1899), said to be his last effort but containing the earliest listings of anomalous creatures and sightings he has collected and provided in a series, are dozens of Airship sightings accumulated from various sources: Jerome Clark and his books, The Magonia Exchange, various newspapers (large city papers, small town weeklies, et al.), web-sites and even Kevin Randle.

The accounts contain mostly sightings of airships seen by farmers, fishermen, and multiple witnesses … in distress, landed, and being worked on by crew members or passengers.

(This removes the category of sightings addressed by French skeptic Gilles Fernandez who has competently rebuffed some airship sightings by explaining that they were misperceptions of the planet Venus.)

Many have concluded that the great Airship wave, which took place, primarily, in the United States, was a manifold concoction of newspaper reporters working to increase their print circulations.

While newspaper journalism was rife with contrived stories, for various purposes, not all newspapers abdicated their journalistic intents, and many of the listings that Mr. Rosales’ sources cite are from established papers known for their verisimilitude: The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, et cetera.

And I can’t imagine that every paper noted by Mr. Rosales was in on an airship joke, but I do see the possibility of a journalistic hysteria that may have captured normally moderate newspaper men and women, especially those serving smaller venues.

The witness accounts lining the final pages of Mr. Rosales’ book are replete with folksy renditions of persons seeing and speaking with airship passengers and crews who said they were from Mars or some far-flung place in and around America, many offering they were off to Cuba to interact with conflict there.

The ships were invariably described as cigar-shaped, with propellers or fans, odd, moving wings, and bright lights for and aft, with some red and green lights festooning the things.

The passengers were men, women, and children, some small in stature (a few described as “midgets”), some exceedingly tall, many of the men bearded, but many seen as normal in height, dress, and characteristic, often speaking English yet sometimes talking in a undecipherable tongues.

Passengers/crew sometimes asked for food, water or tools, then departed when obtained or when their ships were repaired.

The accounts are fraught with witness details that bespeak either a mass hallucination that afflicted U.S. citizens for a few years or the airship “phenomenon” may be explained, in an oblique way, by Spanish UFO researcher Jose Caravaca’s Distortion Theory.

Notable are the reports that refer to a sighting of “The Airship,” a sop to what persons had read or heard about and a real “viral” story of the time.

But some related experiences seem distant from the rumored and highlighted airship reports that suffused California and the newspapers there. There is a unique patina to many of the references Mr. Rosales provides.

Something was going on in various vicinities of the States in 1896 and 1897 particularly and I am loath to write that it was a delusionary epidemic. But the occurrences do seem to be hallucinatory in most cases.

However, not all the sightings were misperceptions of Venus or newspaper contrivances, nor, it seems, the result of addled minds.

There was something there. What exactly, I have no real idea, but the reports are fascinating no matter what they represent.

N.B. Image above from an interesting site about the 1896 Airship wave: https://www.flyingcarsandfoodpills.com/what-was-it

RR

23 Comments:

  • Tsk. Tsk. You're not keeping up with Walter Bosley or the latest developments at MUFON conferences. These were the Sonora Aero Club's experimental craft in the early days of the breakaway civilization that ultimately led to their secret space program and creation of off-world colonies for Earth's elites.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Monday, June 04, 2018  

  • Many have concluded that the great Airship wave, which took place, primarily, in the United States, was a manifold concoction of newspaper reporters working to increase their print circulations.

    Hello here,

    Yep, but a little more complex for me.

    Fastly, I think we can divise the articles in at least two categories:

    April 1897 variable: Many of such encounters with occupants/passengers are from April 1897. I call it the "April 1897 variable".
    I mean that for me the wave required sensationalism at a moment (circa April), before the "wave" and interest simply falls flat or implodes (none the dirigible patented flyed or succeeded). - as it can be noticed regarding the 1947 wave by Bloecher himself - and journalists (or suscribers) have invented many (if not all) such tales for different attempts, goals (entertainement, to be read, 2 minutes of glory, etc).

    Also, in such from April articles, it is imho important to notice the "tongue-in-cheek tones", the fact many of such "articles" have a last line mentioning "the article or the author was writing from an insane asylum" (as noticed by Jacobs early in 1975.

    First 1896 sightings: They are for me several prosaic stimuli misidentified by observers, because the airship prevailling culture in the very same newspapers which will reveal the November 1896 two first big sightings (Venus was the cullprit), then by people full of expectations legitimally misindentifying Venus (or other).
    I think there was also (in California mainly by a sort of coincidence^^ aka where the wave will start) a sort of "psychological warfare" regarding Cuba/Spain (USA have fanstastic "airship", be prevented, be affraid). I will present this variable in an incoming article.

    Add pranks, first sort of "chinese lanterns" and one or two more variables, and we have cracked the wave* or very close the "big picture" :p

    * http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.com/2014/01/cracking-189697-airships-mystery-toward_11.html

    Best regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, June 04, 2018  

  • Thanks PG...I've presented several Sonora pieces here over the years.

    Gilles:

    Your "overview" is a bit simplistic for me. There is a sociological patina to all the newspapers reports -- not actual airship sightings or events perhaps -- but a mental conflagration of some sort that psychologists (you?) should examine accordingly.

    The Venus explanation falls short of a real explanation, as I've noted here a few times and you've attempted to support, wrongfully, in my estimation.

    The Airship accounts fit right in with Jose Caravaca's Distortion Theory too, I think.

    Bloecher and Jacobs don't get much appreciation from me, both flawed UFO researchers.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, June 04, 2018  

  • Last comment,

    Simplistic, there is, falls, fit right, flawed, goofy, I'm with José whathever it costs. Blabla bla...

    In general, you are presenting only your opinion (in general ad hominem, straw man or a lazy effort), but never attaching it by something factual, testable or responding to the quality of what was offered.

    It then was the last time I replied to a comment or any your thread not supported by other than opinion and non testable things or blabla.

    Your "I call to "the magic" or to "an external agent [to decline] because I have nothing other to say in fact" have here reached the boundaries of my precious time (and yours?^^).

    Bonne continuation with magic entities and long live to UFO conjectures. Maybe to rename it UFO ruminations would be more appropriate, no? :p

    RCT/HSP rock!

    Mes amitiés, et mon adieu.

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, June 04, 2018  

  • Gilles....

    You are too sensitive....not scientific.

    I offer no explanation for the Airships or anything else.

    I merely provide "reports" and ask what do they mean?

    Your Venus explanation for the Airship reports is facile. No one really saw Venus and thought it was a cigar-shaped craft, often filled with people.

    You fall back on a Menzelian explanation for "wonders seen in the skies" -- it's simplistic.

    Jose Caravaca's Distortion Theory offers a psychological paradigm for some UFO encounters. You should revel in the possibility but, no, you choose to discard it out of hand with lots of peripheral, old explanations that have been trotted out by UFO skeptics since 1947.

    I admire your skeptical zeal but it is wrong-headed and not unique or ingenious.

    But I luv ya, you know that. And I would hope you'll continue to challenge my "conjectures" (but will do so understanding the exact meaning of that word).

    You provide counterpoints to foolishness, but are not free of foolishness yourself sometimes.

    I accept that, but would not abandon you or your Facebook page because of it.

    It's a matter of academic debate first, for a phenomenon that is nowhere within explanation. Venus notwithstanding.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, June 04, 2018  

  • Never ceases to amaze me the number of times 'skeptics' invoke the planet Venus as a supposedly credible explanation for detailed witness reports.

    Again it's the Chris Morris 'Blue light bouncing off a stut' routine. Hahahahahahaha.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsapOr4KXig

    By Blogger DrDee, at Monday, June 04, 2018  

  • I'm sad for Dr Dee.

    "No one really saw Venus and thought it was a cigar-shaped craft".

    Again, before to interest you to UFOlogy, dear Rich, learn FIRST from IFOlogy. And come after to have an interesting debate (and to open your mouth) and not only your easy claims.

    Sorry if today I feel as "totally idiot" such claims (and not the individual who is claiming it).

    If you are still an ignorant about IFOlogy and mainly concerning Venus and the reports the planet generated, I CANT nothing for you (or for "Doctor" Dee).

    It is always the same thing: there are reports (for example November 1896 the 17 and 20) aka the two principle sightings generating the wave which are mentioning an airship, giving azimuth or direction, (all fit with Venus to be short) but not mentioning Venus + the airship!

    OK: you guys like ad hoc blabla & ruminations: the external agent is very malicious and have parasyted Venus (and this for each witness and their particular & unique point of view :p

    Sacrés ufologues et doux rêveurs :( I understand why it is and it will remain a microcosm. Wait there is Dr Dee and it will remain adepts of this modern myth.

    Without my best regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, June 05, 2018  

  • May I suggest, Gilles, the elaborate presentation of Jerome Clark and my (now deceased pal) Lucius Farish Airship reports, in various magazines, and Prairie magazine, online at one of my blogs and elsewhere.

    This may give you pause about the hoax or Venus explanations for many of the Airship reports (tales).

    You're arguing from one or two particular Airship "sightings" or tales, and extrapolating them to account for all sightings. Not scientific or logical.

    The sightings may be mundane (prosaic) or psychologically explained (mass hysteria or hallucination), something that you, as a cognitive psychologist should want to get your teeth into.

    If the Airship "craze" is a (modern) myth, it's a damn good one.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, June 05, 2018  

  • "It's a damned good one!"

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, June 05, 2018  

  • Don't cry for me, Gilles Fernandez! Hahahahahahaha.

    As Rich is no doubt referring to there are airship reports where witnesess spoke to the occupants, examined the external attributes of the craft & were sometimes given an account of where they'd come from, where they were going & how the ship 'worked' (invariably a load of deceptive 'trickster' nonsense)

    Don't REALLY think 'Venus was very bright that night' covers it.

    By Blogger DrDee, at Wednesday, June 06, 2018  

  • "witnesess spoke to the occupants, examined the external attributes of the craft & were sometimes given an account of where they'd come from, where they were going & how the ship 'worked'"

    From a period that was the height of yellow journalism, ie, make-it-up to sell newspapers.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, June 06, 2018  

  • There's one other aspect of the 1896-1897 airship wave that paradoxically hinders research. It was the largest 19th century ufo flap, and as a consequence it stole the limelight and a lot of other interesting mini-flaps did not get the same amount of attention.

    One could study the 1896-1897 airship wave for a lifetime and never be done with it. I find it hard to believe that a dirigible of some sort was traveling all around the States and after 1897 stopped doing so and not leave a single physical trace. I find it even harder to think that these airships were a cloaked manifestation of an alien presence, that sounds so silly - it is a desperate attempt to reconcile hypothetical avant-garde alien hightech with antiquated balloon designs at the base of human flight that did not even work.

    Yes, an important thing; the airships as described, with their wings, rudders, wheels, cabins and gasbags could have never have flown as we know from the history of aviation.

    I think that perhaps 99 percent of the thousands airship wave accounts are hoaxes, misinterpretations and bandwagon hysteria - but there is a small core that is comprised of a set of truly anomalous experiences. That should not surprise us as anomalies were experienced before and after the 1896-1897 airship wave, including several interesting mini-flaps.

    For instance, I discovered that in 1907 Tennessee had a minor airship flap with an unusual percentage of close encounters of the third kind. Looking at my database, apart from that flap, 1907 yielded 84 other sightings of unusual objects in the atmosphere in Canada, Australia, England and America.

    I have a feeling that parts of the answer may be found in what occurred before and after the great airship wave of 1896-1897.

    Best regards,

    Theo

    By Blogger theo paijmans, at Wednesday, June 06, 2018  

  • Thanks Theo...

    I'm going through Rosales' book for Gilles, who wants a list of the "encounters" where the alleged crew or supposed passengers asked about or mentioned Cuba; Gilles thinking, I believe, that some of newspaper stories were propaganda fictions to abet the war.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 06, 2018  

  • Hi Rich,

    With all respect, but what Gilles hunts after is old hat; already back in the day books like Daniel Cohen's 'The Great Airship Mystery' (1981) discussed the role of the newspapers owned by magnate William Randolph Hearst in connection with his war mongering towards Cuba, and his strategy and use of 'fake news' airship accounts.

    Best regards,

    Theo

    By Blogger theo paijmans, at Wednesday, June 06, 2018  

  • Yes, Theo...

    I mentioned this (the Hearst/Examiner phony intrusion in the matter) at Gilles Facebook page where he's covered the matter rather extensively.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 06, 2018  

  • I see no reason to think that a minuscule 1% should be any different from the 99% that are definitely known to have been newspaper hoaxes, feedback reports from hoaxes, and so on in what would become the standard "UFO" mania (flap) model.

    All we have are stories known to be based not in fact but fantasy. How can we possibly tease out 1% as being "truly anomalous?" If anything, any study will produce a "residue" that is merely the innocuous artifact of making a study.

    Theo, just because a few reports out of hundreds are different that the mass, are stranger and seemingly inexplicable compared to the typical fanciful "airship" story doesn't indicate any real anomaly--only the extreme expression of the human imagination in a particular social environment.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

  • @Zoam Well you think everything's bullshit - including cockpit footage with the accompanying pilot's own testimony of how the object looked & the manouevres it performed.

    You wouldn't accept it even if it hit you in the head.

    By Blogger DrDee, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

  • Zoam,

    The one percent could be categorized as "false positives."

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

  • Thanks, Tim!

    DR Dee says, "cockpit footage with the accompanying pilot's own testimony"

    A hardcore ETH Believer pilot's claim, and an unrelated innocuous video from another year forced into a "UFO" context by Elizondo who obtained the mundane video under false pretenses. Oh, that's "evidence." Evidence of gullible belief.

    What part don't you understand, Dee?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

  • We have strayed off topic, again, fellows.

    There is a posting here where the comments belong/pertain.

    Why not go there for your vituperations?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

  • @zoamchomsky - if I want to blindly believe someone other than myself I'll find myself religion. Until then, all pontificating stops at my doorstep.

    If you base your belief on serious study or analysis of the 1896-1897 wave, please direct me to your work and I am happy to read it.

    Until then there is, as you write on your blog, 'nothing there'.

    Best regards,

    Theo

    By Blogger theo paijmans, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

  • @Zoam - What part don't I understand? The part where someone with a supposed 'interest in UFOs' repeatedly comes on to trot out their one & only answer of 'it's all garbage'.

    I read another comment of yours on here the other day saying 'other fellow skeptics warned me this would go on forever'.

    So, what's your objective in then? To shut down the whole debate once & for all?

    Exactly what aspect of the UFO subject are you actually 'interested' in? (Other than repeatedly telling us it's all garbage & it 'doesn't exist' which is a meaningless statement in itself since anything truly 'non-existent' can neither be named or thought of.)

    Seriously - what do you get out of it other than some sort of smug, self-satisfied ego massage that you're right & everyone else is wrong?

    The pilot in question is probably a 'hard core believer' since he was a Navy Fighter Pilot ordered to intercept them (after being observed for 2 weeks prior to this) plus he's witnessed them at first hand. Hence the testimony.

    Indeed, there's probably nothing like being a Navy Pilot on active duty, receiving orders to intercept an unidentified target then witnessing said unidentified target defying the Laws of Physics at close quarters for turning someone into a confirmed 'believer' I would've thought!

    You don't make any distinction between your average idiot who says they 'saw a light in the sky' and experienced Navy Pilots on active duty who were ordered (presumably by other 'deluded idiots' in charge of our nuclear defences) to intercept unknown targets that were no doubt perceived as a 'potential threat'.

    YOUR 'hard core belief' of course is rigid 'skepticism' that posits EVERYONE as either a liar or a deluded half-wit & literally accepts NOTHING as evidence be it objects/materials, physical traces/effects, cockpit footage, expert eye-witness testimony - you know the usual stuff accepted in a court of law.

    Like I said you still wouldn't accept it if one hit you in the head, since as you've already stated - THAT wouldn't qualify as a UFO either 'cos once it'd embedded itself in your thick skull it'd be an 'identified' object then wouldn't it?

    It's just a circular, self-validating argument that refuses to acknowledge credible observations of the real world - much like Theoretical Physics for the last 40 years.

    'There are NO UFOs' is used as a Categorical Imperative - to be applied univerally in all instances as an assertion of unassailable 'truth' (as opposed to a flexible hypothesis).

    Once this position is established, any 'evidence' of course must therefore be either 'erroneous' or 'fraudulent'.

    The classic 'Heads I win - Tails you lose' argument.

    By Blogger DrDee, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

  • Since this back-and-forth has nothing to so with the Airship sagas, I'm shutting down further comments (and may delete those already here).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 07, 2018  

Post a Comment

<< Home