From: Don Ecsedy <don.nul> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:50:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Dating Arnold >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:22:33 +0100 >Subject: Re: Dating Arnold >>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:29:18 -0600 >>Subject: Dating Arnold [was: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told] >>If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend the ten-part >>series "The Positively True Story of Kenneth Arnold" at >>saturdaynightuforia.com, >>http://tinyurl.com/cgtlk9b ><snip> >The main point to come out of all this is the one Dion Ecsidy >brought up here. Most things come back to this question of why >Arnold recalled flying to Tacoma on July 29 instead of July 30. >I think that Don perhaps suspects some sort of cover-up of a >missing day that Arnold really did spend in Tacoma? If there are >other reasons to suspect this it would be interesting to hear >about them, but for my money, at the moment, this is probably >just a meaningless error. Just to note, I don't think there is a cover-up about the date. I accept the consensus of the record that Arnold arrived in Tacoma on the 30th. If more references to the 29th turn up, then I'd wonder if it is a pattern of some sort. >Arnold's 1952 book says July 29. And a 1948 official report >contains the July 29 date. When we then find that Arnold himself >used the July 29 date in a telegram of August 31, 1947 it seem >at first sight like impressive early corroboration. OK, but of >course this document could simply be the source of a perpetuated >systematic error. In his telegram to Springer, Arnold does not say he arrived on the 29th, but that the events from the 29th were the subject of his article. Arnold's course is set on Tacoma when he accepted Palmer's assignment on the 29th. 'Tacoma' begins for him at that moment it seems. >Could Arnold have written down the wrong date a month after the >event? It's possible. If he did then whatever sources or notes >or memories he was using to reconstruct the affair 5 years later >for Ray Palmer would be contaminated by this early error. The >occurrence of the same date in the document "Analysis of FLYOB >Incidents in US" would be more impressive were it not that the >context of this reference seems confused and may suggest that >some info from the files has been improperly digested by the >writer. >Martin Shough What is surprising is that they didn't correct the error in the Analysis. It seems reasonable to assume at least one person would have noticed the jumble. Someone did make a change between the December 1948 and the April 1949 printings of the Analysis. They replaced the first photograph in the four-image grid of Rhodes' photos with a different crop of it. Regards, Don http://www.foreshadower.net Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp