From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:11:39 -0600 Archived: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:45:17 -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 >>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. Martin, Jerry, Don (Ecsedy & Ledger), List, I've enjoyed your thoughtful comments on this thread, which I've been unable to find time to revisit. Consolidating my replies to all: Using Martin's convention (X = author of The Positively True Story of Kenneth Arnold), I acknowledge he and Don Ecsedy's point that most of X's case rests on the date discrepancy. If a one-day shift in the start date of the Coming Of The Saucers account effectively squared things up with the more contemporaneous reports of Arnold/Smith et al, I wouldn't have given any of this much further thought. In my opinion the newer material, even after such re-synchronization, clearly contains, shall we say, some colorful embellishments. However, having given thought to the comments here regarding Palmer, the pulp-fiction character of his product, and Arnold's own personality, I must concede that I'm probably setting the bar a little high. Clearly, Coming Of The Saucers was not meant to be a documentary so much as a dramatization, and I don't really see this having any substantive bearing on the credibility of Arnold's original account of the Mt. Rainier incident. The subtle 'evolution' of the latter with time (via Arnold himself, not through the filter of Palmer) is of more significance to me in that regard, but as has been discussed here previously, even that has plausible mitigating factors. I'm curious to know how Listers in general gauge the significance of the Arnold case to the entire 'flying saucer' paradigm (not necessarily the UFO phenomenon per se). Consider that, if the Arnold sighting is debunked, there would seem to be two possible conclusions: either (1) Arnold somehow presciently fabricated or hallucinated a phenomenon that would shortly thereafter become manifest as an objective physical phenomenon world-wide; or, (2) post-Arnold sightings of flying saucers are collectively bunk (copycats/hoaxes, mass hysteria, delusions, misidentifications, etc). Which is quite a pickle. Hence my own opinion that quite a bit stands or falls with the Arnold case, at least with regard to the classic 'flying saucer'. Substantially more so IMO than with, say, Roswell, which attracts vastly more study and dissection. Regards, Mike 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