From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:30:31 -0300 Archived: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:42:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Dating Arnold >From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:49:43 -0600 >Subject: Re: Dating Arnold >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:54:54 -0500 >>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] >><snip> >>>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 >>>which goes into great detail about this and other >>>'inconsistencies', including outright fabrications, in the >>>Coming of the Saucers version of Arnold's involvement in Maury >>>Island affair. And while I suspect most or all of these were due >>>to Ray Palmer, I have distinct unease with Arnold's apparent >>>complicity in their publication. >>Actually, I would be surprised if Arnold ever read the book. >>Arnold was not a reader of anything not directly related to >>business. >>He simply trusted Ray Palmer to take care of things, which is >>why he made the mistake of passing on a book offer from >>Doubleday and taking Palmer's assurances that they should co- >>author (or at least co-byline) a book on their own. Arnold never >>saw a cent from The Coming of the Saucers. Amazingly, even so, >>he didn't hold a grudge against Palmer for that. >This is somewhat more responsive to the point. But if we presume >Arnold was of unimpeachable character and honesty, then we >cannot merely speculate that Arnold may not have read or >participated in the book, rather we must definitively _conclude_ >so. Otherwise (given the material referenced above), our premise >is evidently false. >I _would_ speculate, however, that neither you nor myself would >knowingly allow a book to be published, with our name listed as >one of two co-authors, without having personally reviewed/edited >the material in it. Hence my unease with Arnold having >apparently done so. I make due note that you knew him and >evidently do not find this particularly troubling or surprising. >For my own part it has not diminished my interest in the >original Mt. Rainier incident. Hi Mike, I'm not sure that pulp fiction writers or publications would give those mentioned in books much notice-if any- back in the late '40s or early '50s. They were more 'tabloid-like' and seemingly unanswerable to those who objected. Many writers noted witnesses names with impunity without any worries about the type of litigation one would expect today. Don Ledger 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp