UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 24

Re: U.S. Department Of Defense On UFOs - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 01:04:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:00:19 -0400
Subject: Re:  U.S. Department Of Defense On UFOs - Maccabee

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:10:47 +0100
>Subject: Re: U.S. Department Of Defense On UFOs

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 01:46:32 -0300
>>Subject: Re: U.S. Department Of Defense On UFOs

>>>From: Michael Christol <spachopr.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 09:00:43 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: U.S. Department Of Defense On UFOs


>>>It is amazing how close the Kenneth Arnold description of the
>>>objects he saw, comes to matching the Horton Brothers flying
>>>wings designed for Germany during WWII, yet no one, even today
>>>wants to consider the possibility that this was what Arnold
>>>could have seen.

>>Aw Mike, come on. This is another thing that has been gone over
>>ad nauseum off and on for the last 10 years on this List.


>>The same holds true of the B-2 and the Hortons. To sustain a
>>lifting body, like a flying wing, the box cross section of the
>>wings has to be so thick it just can't ram itself through the
>>air due to compressibility fast enough to exceed the speed of


>>It's not the date that matters it's the R&D time leading up to
>>the development of these engines. It's just too much of a
>>stretch to think that the United States had grabbed a dozen or
>>so of these Hortons, which they didn't, developed them, built
>>far superior engines. They hadn't done any real research on jets
>>and had little expertise, if any, on the technology.>

>Hi Mike & Don

>One can always make that argument that *if* the objects reported
>by Arnold *did* strongly resemble the Horten wings in shape (and
>I suppose nobody can argue with that - they did), and if there
>was some chance that Horten designs might have been flown in the
>US in June 1947, then probability favours the conclusion that
>Arnold must have misjudged the speed/distance of unfamiliar
>aeroforms by a factor 3 or something. But that depends on it
>being likely that Horten designs were in use in the US at that

>If there was a secret underground programme of successful jet
>Hortens flying in numbers before June 1947 then a heck of a lot
>of money and effort was wasted om Northrop.

As you pointed out, it was not only the shape but also the speed
that set Arnold's discs "apart" from the "mundance Horton"

Arnold would have had to be off by a factor 3 or more to be
consistent with the jet capability of the day. Yeager with the
"Right Stuff" exceeded the sound "barrier" 4 months after
Arnold's sighting, and that speed was about 700 mph, about 1000
less than Arnold's report implies.

Of course this has all be argued up down and sideways in recent
years since there are those who claim that Arnold saw pelicans,
or geese, and for those few who remember, the ultimate challenge
as to... draw a map!!

So let's not get into that argument again.

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