Kenneth Arnold... athough inherently 'Flying Saucer' related, this concerns Arnold's subsequent fixation with Forteana.Sorry, which Arnold are you writing about? If this is UFO material, I shall move it.
You're not far off it there, at all... and we're just touching on the 'mess', as you astutely surmise, which followed...I think I read that pretty much the opposite was true. He was very interested in the UFO phenomenon, and worked for Gray Barker investigating the Maury Island mess. I'm sure I read that he told someone, maybe Jerry Clark, that he never even read the book Barker published under Arnold's name. Barker apparently fabricated all the "high strangeness" material in that book. I'm interested in learning more about this.
'TRIVIA!!!!!'....I don’t think it is well known, certainly I’d never read about it. An interesting piece of trivia nonetheless!
There most certainty is...Most of that stuff seems to be related to flying saucers though. Is there any evidence that KA was interested in the paranormal, out of place animals or any of the other topics that usually fall under the description of forteana?
He does time travel, fight aliens, demons, and cult priests with gigantic snakes, so you could certainly understand a Fortean interest.Or it could be Arnold Schwarzenegger...?
You're right, Kenneth Arnold did become a Fortean investigator, interested in a variety of anomalous phenomena. But you're wrong when you write that he never described a saucer shaped enigma, as I suppose you refer to the 'fact' that he had refered to the movement and not the shape, an incomprehensible assertion in itself. But it is just an urban legend, as he had indeed described saucer- or disk-shaped objects. It is a canard that has been propagated by all manners of 'psychosociologist' pseudo-scientists and incompetent ufologists, and has parasited many books and discussions ; well, they have an excuse, as it was originated by Arnold himself, who, a few years later, distorted the truth and gave a bogus account of what he had said. And many people came to genuinely believe him. But now that the truth has been well established years ago, it should be put to rest once and for all.Of elementary 'flying saucer' fame, although he never described a 'saucer shaped enigma', did you know he became a profound follower...
One example, please...You're right, Kenneth Arnold did become a Fortean investigator...
...he had indeed described saucer- or disk-shaped objects...
That doesn't look much like a saucer or disk.
Where do you want to start and how long have you got...That doesn't look much like a saucer or disk.
Kenneth Arnold... athough inherently 'Flying Saucer' related, this concerns Arnold's subsequent fixation with Forteana.
I just wondered if this was well known...
... But you're wrong when you write that he never described a saucer shaped enigma, as I suppose you refer to the 'fact' that he had refered to the movement and not the shape, an incomprehensible assertion in itself. But it is just an urban legend, as he had indeed described saucer- or disk-shaped objects. It is a canard that has been propagated by all manners of 'psychosociologist' pseudo-scientists and incompetent ufologists, and has parasited many books and discussions ;well, they have an excuse, as it was originated by Arnold himself, who, a few years later, distorted the truth and gave a bogus account of what he had said. And many people came to genuinely believe him. But now that the truth has been well established years ago, it should be put to rest once and for all.
That's right. Now of course some of the reports they did take from newspapers which did not quote me properly. Now, when I told the press, they misquoted me, and in the excitement of it all, one newspaper and another on got it as ensnarled up that nobody knew just exactly what they were talking about, I guess.
These objects more or less fluttered like they were, oh, I'd say, boats on very rough water or very rough air of some type, and when I described how they flew, I said that they flew like they take a saucer and throw it across the water. Most of the newspapers misunderstood and misquoted that too. They said that I said that they were saucer-like; I said that they flew in a saucer-like fashion.
I profoundly understand what you surmise here.IMHO describing Arnold as having become a dedicated and generalized Fortean investigator is overstating the case....
Are you claiming Arnold was lying when he told Edward R. Morrow the following in the nationally-broadcast phone interview?
SOURCE: http://www.project1947.com/fig/kamurrow.htm
If so:
- How does this reflect on Arnold's veracity in the first place (i.e., 1947)?
- To what extent does this exercise in convolution derive from Arnold himself?
- What basis was there for establishing this storyline of self-contradiction somehow resulting in 'truth' as the 'true facts' of the matter?
You may use the word 'lie', as he did mispresent the truth. What he had told at the time can be inferred from multiple quotations, and there is not an hint of a motive to doubt that this is what he had said, on numerous occasions from many interviews. Any quotation of him stating that he referred to the motion as like a saucer skipping on water is conspicuous by their absence, too, and there is, again, no reason to suspect that he ever used the metaphor. The mere idea that he had used this analogy is in itself not plausible, as nobody uses saucers or plates to have them skip on water. Small pebbles, yes ; but dishes, no.Are you claiming Arnold was lying when he told Edward R. Morrow the following in the nationally-broadcast phone interview?
SOURCE: http://www.project1947.com/fig/kamurrow.htm
As for what his reasons to change his claims were and how it affects his initial sightings, I believe that they not difficult to asset, that Shough has rightly guessed them, and that they had no relevance regarding his initial testimony and his credibility as a witness. At the time, flying saucer or flying disk had already become a pejorative locution, tied with popular (i.e. lower) culture, and Arnold felt ashamed to be at the origin of this shameful expression, so he didn't want to take reponsability for being its originator and wished to distance himself from it.If so:
- How does this reflect on Arnold's veracity in the first place (i.e., 1947)?
- To what extent does this exercise in convolution derive from Arnold himself?
- What basis was there for establishing this storyline of self-contradiction somehow resulting in 'truth' as the 'true facts' of the matter?
... Note that if the objects he had seen, while not perfectly circular, were indeed quite discoid, and mere his metphor of dic, saucer or plate not unjustified, things were made more confused by his claim, a few weeks later, that one of the objects was different and close in shape to a flying wing. But he never described a group of flying wings. ...
... As for what his reasons to change his claims were and how it affects his initial sightings, I believe that they not difficult to asset, that Shough has rightly guessed them, and that they had no relevance regarding his initial testimony and his credibility as a witness. At the time, flying saucer or flying disk had already become a pejorative locution, tied with popular (i.e. lower) culture, and Arnold felt ashamed to be at the origin of this shameful expression, so he didn't want to take reponsability for being its originator and wished to distance himself from it.
Changed stories... and them some......Arnold changed his story to various extents over the years..
... Quite extraordinary how this is the genesis of our entire 'flying saucer' mythology. ...