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 17:46:21 -0800
Archived: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:04:10 -0500
Subject: Re: The Arnold Case - Solved?

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:13:21 -0500
>Subject: Re: The Arnold Case - Solved?

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:49:27 -0800
>>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?


>>>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).

>>Hynek's, incorrect, argument was that according to his incorrect
>>calculation based on Arnold's description, the objects would
>>have been over 2000 feet long, which he deemed impossible.

>>Hynek was off by at least a factor of 5-10, as I have explained
>>previously on the List, based on his misunderstanding of how
>>human visual acuity is measured.

>This is also discussed in the article at my web site.

Quite right--"Science still in default".

>>So Hynek instead proposed jet planes maybe 6 miles away instead
>>of Arnold's 23. Does anybody see the second flaw in his argument?

>>All Hynek did was bring his giant objects about 4 times closer,
>>which would scale them 4 times smaller. So instead of objects
>>over 2000 feet long, we would have "jet fighters" over 500 feet
>>long. That's still a trifle big. This is pretty elementary
>>stuff, yet Hynek never seems to have seen the obvious
>>of his argument. He was still dismissing the Arnold sighting
>>even after his Bluebook days.

As you mention in your article, the fact that Hynek (and also
Menzel with his 6 different "explanations") could get away with
such obvious tripe without comment from the scientific community
is an indication of the prejudice of the scientific community
against the subject. Thus Maccabee's first rule of debunkery:
any explanation, no matter how stupid, is better than none.

>And no self-respecting bomber would "flip and flash in the

Another argument used by Hynek (and others) against the ETH,
namely UFOs don't behave rationally enough by his/their personal
standards to be extraterrestrial.

I once had a personal encounter with two jet fighters in the
Mohave Desert where the pilots buzzed our car, passing maybe
only 50 feet over our heads at near supersonic speed. Was that
"rationale"? Maybe it was for two 20-year old jet-jockeys who
decided to have a little fun with us, potentionally putting both
their and our lives in jeopardy. I bet they broke a whole batch
of regulations in the process.

Acting "irrationally" can actually be very rational if the point
is to play with somebody's head and confuse them as to your
intentions, Hamlet pretending to be mad to cite but one example.
Or it can be done for fun or demonstration purposes: "Let's put
on a show for the primitive primates."

David "rationally irrational" Rudiak

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



[ 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