UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 11

Re: The Arnold Case - Solved?

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:36:03 -0800
Archived: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:47:19 -0500
Subject: Re: The Arnold Case - Solved?


>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:51:04 -0500
>Subject: Re: The Arnold Case - Solved?

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:08:15 -0600
>>Subject: Re: The Arnold Case - Solved?

>>>From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:44:59 +0000
>>Subject: The Arnold Case - Solved?

>>This to Bruce Maccabee: I know you've been counting, so
>>perhaps
>>you can answer this question: What number explanation is this
>>for the Arnold sighting? Are we in three figures by now?

>As I pointed out in my earlier email response directly to
>Rimmer, I consider this to be a variant of the Hynek
>explanation: Hynek didn't specify the type of aircraft, just
>that it was a large aircraft about 6 miles in front of Arnold,
>if I recall correctly (and flying about 400 mph).

>This 'explanation' merely specifies the type of aircraft.

>So If Hynek's explanation is #1A, this is #1B.

So let's add to the list. Here's an article I stumbled across
from the Hood River News, Hood River, Oregon, Friday, July 18,
1947. In it a witness claims to have viewed through binoculars a
large plane "mothering" several smaller planes. Hood River is
about 30 miles due south of Mt. Adams, where Arnold said he saw
his objects disappear.

-----

"Flying Saucers" Proved to Be Small, Fast Planes

Several residents of Hood River Valley, shortly after 7 p.m.
Wednesday [July 16], thought that at last they had definitely
seen "flying saucers" when they noticed a group of flashing
objects traveling swiftly from east to west high in the air of
the middle valley. A few seconds later, a few noticed a large
plane, behind and above the flashing objects.

Willis (Doc.) Eby, his wife and daughter, and the editor of the
News apparently saw them about the same moment, and the latter
[News editor] turned a pair of glasses on the flashing objects,
only to discover that they were small planes, five of them,
traveling at high speed, and apparently "mothered" by a large
plane above and behind them. Had the high-powered glasses not
been available to identify the objects, it is probable that
another "flying saucers" story would have been written, and two
more local people would have been inline to be accused of
"seeing things," for, at first glance, they could have accepted
as flying saucers.

The army now reports it is experimenting with small planes to
take off from the bomb bay of a four-moted giant plane, while
the navy has been using radio-controlled "drone" planes for
several years. Which of these were seen Wednesday evening, by at
least five valley residents is not known.

-----

This has some elements of Arnold's story in it. There were
multiple flashing objects (six instead of Arnold's nine), with
one of them being larger than the others (Arnold's one crescent-
shaped object). Supposedly they were traveling at "high speed",
whatever that means for conventional airplanes, presumably less
than 400 mph.

Beyond that, one runs into problems matching details. If the
objects were flying several times slower than Arnold's
calculated speed of at least 1200 mph (if not 1700 mph), then
their distance would likewise have to be scaled several times
closer. Why is it then that these witnesses had no problems
identifying the large "mother" plane whereas a highly
experienced pilot like Arnold could not, even after intensely
scrutinizing the objects for 2 to 3 minutes? Arnold, e.g., had
no problems seeing and identifying a DC-4 in the air at the time
which he estimated to be 15 miles away, but a plane 2 or 3 times
closer he could not identify as a plane. That makes no sense.

Although the objects in the story are all identified as
"planes", there are no details as to what they looked like, such
as having wings, tails, engines, etc. So were they really
"planes"? Did the news editor looking through binoculars really
do that or accurately report what he had seen? Maybe he was just
a 1947 skeptic looking to debunk the saucer sightings.

There is also nothing like Arnold's single-file, reverse-echelon
formation with well-coordinated flying such that they appeared
to weave like the tail of a kite. How and why did they do that
if they were conventional "planes".

I remember reading a newspaper article from a year later about
plans to build a mother plane carrying several smaller planes,
but I'm unaware that such a project ever got off the ground. I
seriously doubt it was around in 1947. Maybe the aviation
experts here know more.


David Rudiak


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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