From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 21:45:07 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 00:46:47 -0500 Subject: Re: >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:24:56 -0500 >From: James Easton <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Description >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Regarding recent comments on this topic, with Bruce's reference >to the enigmatic Trent photographs appreciated and duly noted, >the following observations and questions are essentially cross- >posted from related discussions elsewhere. >Taking care of one issue first of all. >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com> >>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:49:26 EST >>To: email@example.com >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Saucer-like Description> >>As to motion, what did make it into the 1947 press was Arnold's >>repeated descriptions of how they weaved and dipped together in >>single file, "like the tail of a kite." He also described them >>flipping and flashing in the sun like fish. But nothing about >>skimming or skipping motion. Maybe he said it, but you don't >>see it. >For easy reference, as confirmed on the 'Project 1947' web site: >"Norman, Oklahoma Transcript - June 26, 1947 <snip> >Further, Arnold initially thought the earlier sighting was of >geese, then dismissed this possibility because the objects were >apparently travelling too fast. A similar situation arose in the >second sighting, Arnold again deducing the 20-25 objects could >not be birds, specifically ducks, as they wouldn't have flown so >fast as he perceived. >If the latter was merely a flight of birds, probably ducks as >Oregon is prime duck country, then Arnold believed they displayed >the same distinctive flight characteristics as the former and >similarly flew too fast for him to catch up with them. >In which case, who could have any confidence that his landmark >sighting wasn't also simply of birds. Would it not in fact have >to be concluded they were, as he attributed the same >distinguishing features to both.> >Both reported sightings therefore seem to stand or fall together.> <snip> >In short, there are only two logical conclusions.> >Firstly, that Arnold's sighting of 20-25 small, brass/amber >coloured objects were almost certainly of birds and added to the >documented errors he made in calculating the altitude of the >original 9 objects, it's testimony that his celebrated account of >those 9 objects, with the same flight characteristics, is not >trustworthy as evidence of 'alien spacecraft'.> >Alternatively, he witnessed 9 'alien spaceships' and only a few >weeks later saw another 20-25 small alien craft, either piloted >by tiny extraterrestrials or remote controlled and the original >objects were either 'bat-like', 'crescent-shaped' or, as per the >Wright Field sketch,'heel-shaped', yet somehow 'saucers'.> >Even if the latter is accepted, as a foundation for the perfect >disc-shaped, then 'upturned saucer-shaped' and 'double saucer- >shaped' (a la 'Billy Meier') 'UFOs' which followed, it seems to >have a somewhat less than comfortable foundation.>> >Unless answers to the above questions may indicate otherwise, >evidently, there appears to be no foundation at all. All this brilliant reasoning leaves me cold. Arnold reported that during his first sighting he turned his plane to look directly at the objects through his open window to rule out any possibilities of reflection. That means he was flying parallel to these "birds." It would have taken him only a few seconds to realize that his plane was gaining on the objects had they been birds (at several thousand feet, perhaps, rather than 20 miles or so; have to keep the angular size constant.) Regardless of his second sighting, the first still stands.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp