UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 4

Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Descriptions

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:22:33 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 00:32:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Descriptions


>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:03:37 -0500
>Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:20:49 -0500
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Descriptions

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 16:57:27 EST
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Descriptions

>>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>>Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:13:18 -0500
>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 10:09:15 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Descriptions

>>>Regarding:

>>>>Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 23:26:34 -0500
>>>>From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Descriptions
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Obviously, _overall_ their shape was "round" and "saucer" shaped.
>>The problem comes with the _exception_ to the overall rule, namely
>>the cutoff in the back, leading to a more "bat-shaped"
>>appearance as Arnold said early on. The question is in the mode
>>of description. Does one stick to the overall appearance
>>("saucer" shaped) then note the exceptions, or strive to come up
>>with a supposedly more exact descriptive label ("bat") that may
>>not in fact be exactly correct either? I can understand Arnold
>>vacillating between such options as he was hounded by the press.

>>That said, I am nevertheless bothered by the fact that no one
>>else in the 1947 flap ever saw objects shaped like Arnold's,
>>with only one possible exception (a suspected hoax apparently).

>How about Fred Johnson,... who apparently saw the tail ends more
>clearly with something moving back and forth. Also, Trent saucer
>shows a "tendency" toward a convex shape over one portion of the
>edge (at about the 10 o clock position on the ellipse)


Dear Bruce & List,

I considered the Johnson sighting to be the _same_ event as
Arnold's seen from a different location at the same time.  It
had better look similar!  The Trent case which we have worked on
for about 25 years is in 1950 and not in the 1947 flap.  What I
meant was that Project 1947 has collected something like 2,000
UFO cases for 1947 yet only a few were described as similar to
Arnold's.  I felt better once Dave Rudiak cited a few instances
of half-moon shapes reported, but it's only a few and one case
turns out to emanate from a Shaver Mystery-type fan or writer.

If anything, the general _lack_ of UFOs in 1947 shaped similar
to Arnold's argues _against_ media-generated or media-influenced
UFO waves.  If publicity simply incites the public to hysteria
so that people imagine they see what "everyone else" sees
shouldn't _many_ of the 1947 cases be similar in shape to
Arnold's?  Is the media-hysteria theory that people simply read
the headlines screaming "flying saucer" then went out and
thought they saw the same thing without reading the articles?

How would people know that a "flying saucer" was supposed to be
a real object in the sky and not a new dance, party game,
dinnerware, or toy unless they actually read the article and
thus read the actual description of the shape?  People in 1947
didn't know anything about UFOs or flying saucers, this was all
brand new, it was not 1999.

Brad Sparks



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com