• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Kenneth Arnold's 1947 UFO Sighting

Kenneth Arnold presumably (unless going by OP's username, it's Arnold Layne uncovering a Saucerful of Secrets?). Could you give us more details, OP?
 
Sorry, which Arnold are you writing about? If this is UFO material, I shall move it.
Kenneth Arnold... athough inherently 'Flying Saucer' related, this concerns Arnold's subsequent fixation with Forteana.

I just wondered if this was well known...
 
I don’t think it is well known, certainly I’d never read about it. An interesting piece of trivia nonetheless!
 
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.
 
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.
You're not far off it there, at all... and we're just touching on the 'mess', as you astutely surmise, which followed...

Will get back, soon as...

Bottom line... just wondered was there anyone on this fabulous Fortean Times website who's aware that Kenneth Arnold, later recalling his *many* experiences of encountering unidentified anomalies during his flights, became *compellingly" fascinated by, what we know identity as 'Fortean'?
 
I don’t think it is well known, certainly I’d never read about it. An interesting piece of trivia nonetheless!
'TRIVIA!!!!!'....

At least you find this equally fascinating!

A wee clue... I would never have highlighted this without being 'Comfortably Numb' about evidencing same...
 
Three things..

It's not that you doubted... you called it out as 'Trivia'....

Due penance now has to be served...

You can choose between a parachute jump and swimming with 'man eating' White Sharks in the wild...

What's that... 'how do I know the shark cage will be safe?'...

Don't recall mentioning anything about a cage...


And here's our evidence... proof, might I suggest... of aforesaid connection between Kenneth Arnold and his fascination with with, indeed *all things*, which we would now recognise as elementary Fortean...

forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/the-flying-saucer-as-i-saw-it.14506/
Link is obsolete. The cited thread has now been merged into this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
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?
There most certainty is...

In his own publication, the two centre pages are entirely newspaper cuttings... the headlines including:

'3-Tailed Twister Kills Oklahoma Man, Hurts Wife'

'Oregon's Sea Monster Said Giant Squid...'

'DEATH RAY SLAUGHTERS 300 BIRDS OVER AIR BASE'

'Mystery Birdman Reported at Chehalis'...

That's all those two centre pages of his rare publication contain... nothing other than newspaper clippings of stories we would now consider as Fortean.

And that's it!

As proven, he was profoundly aware of Charles Fort.
 
Of elementary 'flying saucer' fame, although he never described a 'saucer shaped enigma', did you know he became a profound follower...
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.
 
One example, please...

KK-5014-14cm-Saucer-Kokako-Cropped_1024x1024.jpg floppy.jpg
 
That one's been positively identified already.

BatropePhoto.jpg
 
Kenneth Arnold... athough inherently 'Flying Saucer' related, this concerns Arnold's subsequent fixation with Forteana.

I just wondered if this was well known...

IMHO describing Arnold as having become a dedicated and generalized Fortean investigator is overstating the case.

He rapidly achieved superstar status in the wake of his report, and his subsequent association with Ray Palmer and FATE kept him in the limelight among the paranormal / Fortean community.

Arnold complained about some aspects of this instant (for the times ... ) celebrity, including gripes about being inundated with letters, contact, and newspaper clippings on UFO sightings and an array of other weirdness topics.

My recollection from his 1950 self-published pamphlet (cited and quoted earlier) is that the two-page montage of newspaper clippings included ones he'd been sent rather than ones he had been or was actively pursuing.
 
Last edited:
... 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.

Are you claiming Arnold was lying when he told Edward R. Morrow the following in the nationally-broadcast phone interview?

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.

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?
 
IMHO describing Arnold as having become a dedicated and generalized Fortean investigator is overstating the case....
I profoundly understand what you surmise here.

However, if we go back to that previously cited, comprehensive, text evidence from Arnold's own recollections, note how often he references Charles Fort.
 
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?

Essentially, it all got 'out of hand' almost instantaneously. Nobody was fearful regarding an 'alien threat'... they were however terrified about what 'secret weapons' the Russians had and were they able to fly over the US, carrying atomic bombs.
 
Arnold changed his story to various extents over the years. Only the psychological hypothesis can explain this inconsistency correctly. Later Arnold had another encounter with a 'transparent' UFO that was supposedly 'watching' him. I humbly suggest that the psychological explanation is a good contender for that one, too. In fact Arnold saw UFOs on 8 occasions, whereas ordinary mortals rarely even get to see one.

Far from disproving le modèle socio-psychologique Arnold was practically a prime example of the phenomenon.
 
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
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.

I'm sorry, I had forgotten the links :
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/sep/m09-005.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/sep/m10-002.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/sep/m10-005.shtml
And the most comprehensive and definitive study :
http://darklore.dailygrail.com/samples/DL5-MS.pdf
Note that if the objects he had seen, while not perfectly circular, were indeed quite discoid, and then his metaphor of disc, 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.

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?
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.
 
Last edited:
... 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. ...

Thanks for the clarification ... I'd always considered KA a solid informative witness and his report a quite credible account - especially if one accepts at least the general points of the later-arriving supporting accounts from witnesses on the ground that day.

Even among those who have most harshly critiqued KA's mutating statements on shape, the one angle UFO proponents shy away from is the manner in which these mutations reflect on the fidelity and reliability of his basic sighting report - i.e., they undermine confidence in these factors.
 
... 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.

I agree that KA found himself in an unexpected spotlight of his own making, and he didn't like the situation and its attendant demands at all. He made a concerted effort in the early going to be as specific as possible, but he was never able to secure the lid on the story and move on / move away.

I strongly disagree about the subsequent waffling on the shape issue being irrelevant to evaluating his early testimony and perceived credibility. Giving credence to any statement(s) KA made about the objects' shape(s) entails accepting the notion he could have distinguished the features he claimed from the distance at which he claimed to have observed them.

The bottom line is that it over-strains credulity (on technical / perceptual grounds) to believe the specifics he offered on shape(s) observed, and this strain exceeds the breaking point to a growing extent as his later descriptions grew more, rather than less, reliant on such specifics.

The reliability of KA's comments on shape (all along ... ) is dependent on the contextualizing factoids he offered - most particularly his calculation of the objects' distance and relative speed. He effectively boxed himself in by putting himself in a position from which he couldn't back off without calling these underlying presumptions into question as well.

Figuratively speaking, his comments on shape(s) are like the top tier of a house of cards. Once he'd added that uppermost level he couldn't tweak or remove it without risking a total collapse.
 
...Arnold changed his story to various extents over the years..
Changed stories... and them some...

Elementary, as noted beforehand, it was never intrinsically about 'flying saucers from outer space'.

Do the Russian's have a new secret threat...

So imperative to appreciate that backdrop to it all.

Quite extraordinary how this is the genesis of our entire 'flying saucer' mythology.

How that unfolded... such a long, although comprehensively evidenced, tale.

Though provoking post, thank's for same.
 
... Quite extraordinary how this is the genesis of our entire 'flying saucer' mythology. ...

IMHO Arnold alone didn't launch the UFO craze with the energy it unexpectedly released. It took the synergistic effect of Arnold's sighting propagating through the news, with the second stage boost of Mac Brazel finally getting around to telling folks about the odd debris he found, within the following 2 weeks or so.

I suspect the Roswell story wouldn't have been so big if Arnold's story hadn't been in the air, and I suspect Arnold's story would have faded if the Roswell story hadn't broken hot on its heels.
 
Back
Top