Kenneth Arnold's 1947 UFO Sighting

[Comfortably Numb]

No ... That is not the sketch that Shough is discussing at that point in his document. Shough is discussing a sketch for which there's a tangible specimen - a sketch that was definitely done by Arnold on a manila envelope which eventually ended up in CUFOS' files.

Thank you - that is obviously a critical clarification!

As noted, wasn't entirely certain about the image posted being one and the same as Martin Shough referenced.

Furthermore, I know of this one you have highlighted and was searching for it separately. To see the original is immensely helpful.

It's equally of profound interest and shall explain more in due course.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

OK... so where does that leave us then with the image I posted and which does seem to be a source for that IUR cover?

Where does this image originate from?

 

[Ronnie Jersey]

Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting also prompted Fate Magazine, which is still being printed in 2021, for their first magazine in Spring of 1948:

 

[Comfortably Numb]

No ... That is not the sketch that Shough is discussing at that point in his document. Shough is discussing a sketch for which there's a tangible specimen - a sketch that was definitely done by Arnold on a manila envelope which eventually ended up in CUFOS' files.

I have discovered some archive correspondence of my own regarding this very question and it might now provide an answer.

I had a vague memory of same and eventually now realised where it might still exist.

I thought it was from personal email and couldn't find any trace, however, it was on my 'UFO Research List' forum and I have been able to retrieve a copy.

Martin Shough was a subscriber and I wonder if this is also his source.

In reply to my enquiry, querying if anyone might know the origin of the sketch, Brad Sparks replied:

Date: 12 Feb, 2000
Subject: Re: Re:Kenneth Arnnold and the Ho-IXStatus:

James,

An important new piece of evidence in the Arnold case may help to resolve this question at least.

See COMMENTS below.

Any interview material on Arnold is of importance so I would greatly appreciate it if you could post a copy or supply a copy of the Chenowith (Chenoweth?) 1956 interview.

Brad.

In a message dated 2/11/00, James Easton wrote:

I've recently come across some little-known material re the story. It's a letter dated 5 August, 1956 from Maurene Chenowith to Isabel Davis, following the former's interview with Arnold.

Chenowith notes how Arnold has given up on his investigations into 'flying saucers', although he still believes in their existence.

She writes:

"On his own sightings he has seen saucers five separate times and he has made movies of them. One flew under him at Mt. Lassen and he got a movie of that. He says the movies are good.

In his original sighting, a fact that he didn't mention was that one of the nine was slightly larger than the other eight".
(End of quote)

However, in his book, Arnold claims, "I proceeded to gather my scattered wits together, got back in my airplane, and took off for Pendleton, Oregon. I remembered that I had forgotten to mention the fact that one of these craft looked different from the rest, was darker and of a slightly different shape...".

Was it merely slightly larger, or was it only different in shape, or both?

It's a question which I'm surprised was never resolved before Arnold's recent death. I'm sure he would have been able to clarify this.

James.
(End of my original post)

________________________________________


COMMENTS: Mark Rodeghier, CUFOS director, just confirmed on Wednesday that the light-gray hand drawing on the front cover of IUR for March/April 1995 is an early Arnold drawing in pencil on file at CUFOS, done on an envelope of his Great Western company possibly in the late 40's or early 50's.

I had been inquiring around about the drawing and had separately found out from Pierre Lagrange that he had found an envelope at CUFOS with an Arnold drawing - which turned out to be the IUR cover.

This Arnold drawing is the only known Arnold drawing of the objects' flight path.

It also includes drawings of the objects' shapes (which are known however from his letter to the AAF, newspaper articles, etc.). But this drawing seems to be the only one where Arnold draws both the singular object and the shape of the remaining 8 so that they may be compared.

It turns out the bat-shaped singular object is about 15-20% wider than the manta-shaped other eight objects, and that is the longest dimension.

However, the bat-shape is also about 40% shorter, too. So perhaps Arnold had difficulty deciding in his mind what to say about the relative sizes because it depended on which dimension.

Brad.
(END)


I am now more confused than before.

So, the pencil sketch drawing is from our known envelope and actually dates from late 1940s or early 1950s, not the the 24th or 25th June, 1947?

Separately, the sketch I have been trying to source was discovered by Pierre Lagrange and also originates from an old envelope?

It was used as a basis for the IUR cover.

What about the sketch apparently drawn by Arnold on the 24th or 25th - is this it?

I have additionally found that I explained the sketch:

"Featured on an obscure German produced video about 'UFOs', with a voice-over by Arnold when this picture is shown".

It must therefore have been known about for some time previously.


As you will note, some 20 years ago, I seem to have uncovered a letter to Isabel Davis!

I have no recollection of this and naturally following it up.

Likewise, some other case material now rediscovered from those archives.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Martin Shough was a subscriber and I wonder if this is also his source.

On further study, it seems clear Martin's information re the envelope sketch has been obtained separately.

I can also see now, that the attribution to a sketch existing, which was made either on the 24th or 25th was resolved and untrue.

The IUR cover pencil drawing is obviously different from the envelope picture, as it contains considerably more detail.

I wonder if the cover is simply a composite of several different drawings on the envelope.

Does the image I posted from that documentary, also feature on the envelope?

 

[EnolaGaia]

The IUR cover pencil drawing is obviously different from the envelope picture, as it contains constablly more detail.
I wonder if the cover is simply a composite of several different drawings on the envelope.

Yes - the 1995 IUR cover is definitely a composite of images (or excerpts from images) taken from multiple sources. Here are the manila envelope sketch (graphic bits excerpted alone) and the IUR cover:

​

It's clear that the imagery in the center of the IUR cover illustration is copied from the manila envelope sketch held in the CUFOS files.

Notice that I said "copied" ... If you examine these two images closely you'll find multiple subtle differences between them in terms of the graphics, spacing, orientation, and writing. They're very, very similar, but they're not the same in all respects.

IMHO the version of these central image elements included in the IUR cover was traced or hand-copied from the manila envelope sketch.

Conversely, this would indicate the surrounding sketched elements in the IUR cover (terrain; altitude line; etc.) come from some source other than the manila envelope sketch as illustrated in Shough's Appendix 4 (timeline listing). Off hand I don't know that I've seen a sketch of these elements elsewhere.

The shaded images clearly originated elsewhere and were either copied or patched into the composite cover image. The largest was obviously copied from the painting that would appear on Arnold's later (1950s) books.

Does the image I posted from that documentary, also feature on the envelope?

No. I still have no idea where that image of three crescent / bat shaped versions originated.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

No. I still have no idea where that image of three crescent / bat shaped versions originated.

That is the wrong answer...

Otherwise, wondrously helpful, as per usual.

Likewise, I haven't see the IUR cover hand drawing of the landscape anywhere else and note that part of a detail shown in the envelope photograph isn't included.

Above the objects, we can see what is presumably the base of a mountain?

As regards the different shapes depicted, I am leaning towards the idea this is a result of the objects 'fluttering and then gliding'.

The 'crescent' is when they were gliding and is the actual profile, as further evidenced in the enigmatic image I posted.

I think there might be some clues about this and again, needs more delving back into my archive case material.

If anyone has a copy of this IUR issue, is there any further information about the magazine's cover?

A quick question - under the crescent-shaped object, what exactly does the writing say?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

However, I did not, until now, realise Martin later revisits the American White Pelicans hypothesis.

To recap from my post #142:

I wrote:

However, I did not, until now, realise Martin later revisits the American White Pelicans hypothesis.

"Easton apparently did not publish a geometrical analysis, but countered qualitative criticism in a merely qualitative way by pointing out that this is sensitive to Arnold's exact flightpath, and that there are too many uncertainties in the record to be sure of it:

(Start)
"It has become clear there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in Arnold's various accounts, which is perhaps only to be expected and especially over time.

One major question is where and when Arnold first observed the objects. According to the testimony frequently cited, his letter to the Air Force, he was heading on a course toward Yakima and had been for "two or three minutes".

It has sometimes been mistakenly assumed he was on route to Yakima, which was his ultimate destination, however, at this time Arnold was still engaged on a search for the missing C-46 transporter and confirmed he continued with that search after his sighting.

Alternatively, in his book, Arnold claims the incident occurred, "during this search and while making a turn of 180 degrees over Mineral, Washington, at approximately 9200 feet altitude" and in his much later 1977, 'UFO Symposium' speech, reiterated the sighting began when "I made a turn at probably 2000ft over Mineral, Washington and started climbing back slowly but steadily, climbing to gain sufficient altitude to go back on the high plateau again for another pass at this mountain. As I was making this turn and of course flying directly toward Mt. Rainier, at about 9200 ft elevation..."

So, was he, for some reason, heading slightly south of east towards Yakima and had been for 2-3 minutes, or was he heading north-east from Mineral towards Mt. Rainier, continuing his search"?
(End)

Easton is correct that answers to these questions make a significant difference to the pelican hypothesis".
(End of Martin's comments)


I have unearthed my full article, posted to the 'UFO Research List' - of which Martin was a subscriber - and from which the above extract is taken.

There are significantly more issues with Arnold's evidence than those highlighted in Martin's extract.

Essentially, there are so many variables and variances from Arnold's many accounts that you can alter the parameters to achieve whatever outcome is desirable.

If you you want to make an American White Pelican hypothesis impossible, then sure you can.

Conversely, should the wish be to illustrate just how feasible it is, that's easily done as well.

Being lengthy, I have uploaded it to:

www.forteanmedia.com/Arnold_02.pdf

 

[Comfortably Numb]

In a fresh endeavour, attempting to clarify the genesis of 'saucer-like', 'saucer-shaped', 'flying saucer' and primary what Arnold actually described, initially, regarding the entire incident, I have researched....

I have now come across the following article, which features a reported quote from Arnold, explaining what he had remarked concerning his 'saucer' comparison.

The Idaho Statesman (Boise, Idaho)
22 April, 1957

"He has calmed down no end from the state he was in when his "eye-child" was born. But he's still filled up to the brim with it. And he can still talk about it.

"How did you say those things were flying?" a reporter asked Arnold after he landed his plane at Yakima, Wash., and became the first pilot to report the mysterious objects.

"Well," Arnold replied, "they were skimming around the mountain peaks near Mt. Rainier just as though you had taken a saucer and skipped it over the water. Little hops like a saucer would make if you threw it out flat over the surface of the water."

So the gentlemen of the press put saucer and hops together and came up with Flying Saucer.

That was on June 24, 1947".
(End)

It is, of course, from 1957 and although quite specific, unattributed as to where from and when the quote originates.


However, I have also come across the following, which is arguably more significant as it dates from 5 July, 1947.

I have never seen this, brief, Associated Press (AP) news release before and it only appears in a few newspapers.

Here, just days after his sighting and in support of the above contention, Arnold uses a comparative and perhaps equally unusual simile:

BOISE, Idaho, July 5 (AP) The airman who first reported sighting "flying saucers" said today he had invested $150 in movie camera to get film photographic proof of the discs he said flipped through the air "like fish skimming through water."

Kenneth Arnold, 32, Boise flying businessman, said he would take the camera with him on every flight he makes over his five-state business territory because "a picture of them would be the most beautiful thing you ever saw and it would provide a record of what I saw and I know to be true,"
(End)


Have a feeling that this might actually be quite a meaningful little AP news release.

As the objective was to identify and collate the processes, which gave us the elemental terminologies, then being able to now substantiate that Arnold employed a simile such as this, at the time, must surely lend profound credence to his claim of also using our infamous 'saucer skipping', or 'skimming'.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

There are considerably lengthy and hugely insightful discussions between Bruce Maccabee, Brad Sparks and myself, plus other contributions, regarding this IUR cover sketch, during discussions on the 'UFO Research List'.

I had quite forgotten how detailed these were at the time, just over 20 years ago now.

There's no easy way of extracting them from other topics ongoing at the same time (some of which are equally fascinating in hindsight!).

Therefore, I have attempted to reformat the entire 2000 archive as best possible, using Microsoft Word to create one, large readable file.

It's not perfect, however, the content is all legible.

The file size is almost 8Mb and there are just over 4000 pages.

Search for 'march/april' and this should take you to the start of debates concerning the IUR 1995 publication.

It's then simply a matter of following the related dialogue.

There is so much, it will take quite some time to read through and take it all in.

So far, I haven't actually found any clear explanation where the cover sketch has its genesis. However, there is such a wealth of invaluable, archive, documented case material to go through, at:

www.forteanmedia.com/UFORL_2000.pdf

Please enjoy!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

As regards the different shapes depicted, I am leaning towards the idea this is a result of the objects 'fluttering and then gliding'.

The 'crescent' is when they were gliding and is the actual profile, as further evidenced in the enigmatic image I posted.

I think there might be some clues about this and again, needs more delving back into my archive case material.

This is the source of my recollection.

It's self-explanatory and posted by Bruce Maccabee during discussions.

I'm not sure how well known the following evidence might be.

From: bruce maccabee
To: UFO Research List
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold and Kottmeyer
Date: 19 February, 2000

Here is a transcript of the germane portion of the tape of Arnold's speech at the First International UFO Congress in Chicago, ILL, held on or about June 24, 1977.
(End)

I have extracted same, properly formatted it as one readable document and uploaded to:

www.forteanmedia.com/Arnold_symposium.pdf

Hopefully, it may prove of interest to all and I shall now duly refamiliarise myself with the contents.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Likewise, I haven't see the IUR cover hand drawing of the landscape anywhere else and note that part of a detail shown in the envelope photograph isn't included.
Above the objects, we can see what is presumably the base of a mountain?
View attachment 49151

The terrain / mountains / horizon sketching in the background of the IUR cover has different line weights, was drawn in a more cursory manner than the flying objects, and includes shading that's nowhere evident in the manila envelope image excerpt illustrating the objects.

Most generally, it seems to me there are two reasonable interpretations:

(1) The manila envelope sketch of the objects (as illustrated by Shough) depicts everything drawn on the envelope, and everything surrounding its drawn objects in the IUR cover art came from elsewhere.

(2) The manila envelope drawing(s) contained more than Shough's image of the objects, and the IUR cover background represents a wider-angle / more comprehensive image that includes additional elements from elsewhere on the manila envelope (i.e., additional sketching outside the bounds of Shough's excerpt).

The manila envelope flying object depictions rendered in the IUR cover background are *not* identical to, nor arranged identically as, the elements visible in Shough's manila envelope excerpt.

 

[Carl Grove]

This is the source of my recollection.

It's self-explanatory and posted by Bruce Maccabee during discussions.

I'm not sure how well known the following evidence might be.

From: bruce maccabee
To: UFO Research List
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold and Kottmeyer
Date: 19 February, 2000

Here is a transcript of the germane portion of the tape of Arnold's speech at the First International UFO Congress in Chicago, ILL, held on or about June 24, 1977.
(End)

I have extracted same, properly formatted it as one readable document and uploaded to:

www.forteanmedia.com/Arnold_symposium.pdf

Hopefully, it may prove of interest to all and I shall now duly refamiliarise myself with the contents.

That is about the clearest account from Arnold himself one could hope for, and in many ways it rules out some of the more unlikely theories such as birds. The single most interesting comment he makes is that observatories in the area had also spotted the objects but had not released the information publicly.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Conversely, this would indicate the surrounding sketched elements in the IUR cover (terrain; altitude line; etc.) come from some source other than the manila envelope sketch as illustrated in Shough's Appendix 4 (timeline listing). Off hand I don't know that I've seen a sketch of these elements elsewhere. ...

Found it ...

As it turns out, I have seen the sketch of the terrain / horizon before, and forgotten all about it.

It comes from the manila envelope sketch. Shough illustrates this terrain sketch in a different / distant corner of his report (page 12 of the unpaginated PDF file) and leaves it as an isolated and subsequently un-cited item in the document. Shough invokes it in the context of his early discussion of the objects' flight path and whether or not they passed behind Mt. Rainier (from Arnold's vantage point), but never refers back to it later in his report.

It's another excerpt from the overall manila envelope sketch. Shough's broadest illustration of the excerpt is in his Fig.4:

Shough's Figure 4 includes his own annotations atop the envelope image.

It's clear that this drawing is the most probable source of the terrain elements depicted in the IUR cover illustration.

It's also clear (on close inspection) that:

- the IUR cover version of this sketch is a copy traced or re-drawn from the original envelope sketch, and
- the graphic items were rearranged in assembling the condensed version that appears in the IUR cover illustration.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... A quick question - under the crescent-shaped object, what exactly does the writing say?

The first line = "Black". Arnold annotated other sketches in a similar fashion, apparently to emphasize the fact that the single bat-a-rang / double crescent shaped object was noticeably darker than the others. The handwriting here essentially matches those other annotations elsewhere.

I've never been able to convince myself about what the second line says. It appears to be something like (e.g.) "ie 400 ***". I've never some up with a convincing interpretation based on the "400" allusion. It was Hynek (later) who claimed Arnold has miscalculated the objects' speed and their more likely speed was on the order of 400 mph or kts, so the "400" didn't allude to speed.

It's conceivable the "400" may be related to altitude. Arnold was doing a search and claimed he'd been flying at 500 ft. or less above terrain while searching.

Otherwise - I've no idea what that second line concerns.

The bit that looks like "1800 -> 1200" is odd. On closer inspection it appears the second number is "1700" rather than "1200." What might this mean? To my mind there is one interpretation that recommends itself above the others that have come to mind.

It requires believing the final apparent 'zero' in each text-chunk represents a degrees sign rather than a zero, such that Arnold was actually writing "180º -> 170º" in an idiosyncratic style.

This interpolation would suggest the text represents a directionality, and it's consistent with his reported estimate of the objects' heading / bearing in flight (southward; roughly 170º to 180º). This interpretation also explains why there's an arrow drawn there.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Found it

 

[EnolaGaia]

Something odd but novel occurred to me when looking at the 1995 IUR cover illustration - specifically the seemingly tumbling versions of Arnold's reported shapes:

Here's the odd thought that crossed my mind ...

In all the decades that people have been analyzing and debating the shape of Arnold's flying objects, has anyone suggested the possibility that all the objects had a single basic shape that appeared differently depending on the orientation of the observer and object?

Imagine, if you will ... A planar shape - especially of a flexible or pliable object - turning or tumbling in mid-air. Could a single such shape (especially with pliability / flexibility) account for the diversity of silhouettes* that served as the bases for Arnold's descriptions?

* Bear in mind that Arnold himself mentioned his assessment of the objects' shape(s) mainly derived from the instances in which he could see them contrasted against the mountain's snowy mass behind / beyond.

By way of illustrating the general theme of this query ... Consider this picture of sheets of paper blowing around in mid-air ...

... and notice that the warped version of a rectangular object, when viewed from a particular angle, yields a double-crescent silhouette (lower right).

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It's another excerpt from the overall manila envelope sketch.

From my FT137 article:

"Martin Kottmeyer wrote: “In The Coming of the Saucers [Arnold] said they momentarily disappeared ‘behind a jagged peak that juts out from Mount Rainier proper.’ In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress [Arnold] says, ‘When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to me they were very thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a projection on Mount Rainier in the snowfield’. These are not exactly the same thing, but they give a fair indication of what to look for on the geological survey maps.”

Kottmeyer continues: “Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak, which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier’s base. There is a sharp little projection called Little Tacoma which sticks out around the 10,000 foot level, but it is on the wrong side of the mountain to be seen from Arnold’s flight path. It would be badly stretching things to suggest he got either his position or altitude that far wrong.”

In an attempt to clarify this geographical conundrum, I again took the query to people with good local knowledge. David Basset, a mountaineer with vast experience of Mt. Rainier and surrounding peaks, responded: “The jagged peak you are referring to is clearly Little Tahoma. It is jagged because it is unglaciated and very steep. It rises from the base of Mt. Rainier on the East or Southeast side. You said the observation was taken from the west or southwest.

This might be troubling because it is on the other side of the mountain, but rest assured, Little Tahoma is the peak. It stands out, being much higher than any other mountain close to Rainier.

Located at Mt. Rainier National Park, Park Guide Chris Trotter, and Douglas Kraus, the Park Naturalist, confirmed: “The consensus from my co-workers is that the ‘jagged peak’ is Little Tahoma. This peak can be seen from many areas around the mountain".

It looks likely that Little Tahoma (or Tacoma) is the only peak which matches Arnold’s description and it could have been visible from his location. If we accept this there are fundamental repercussions.

Arnold relied on the apparent, momentary disappearance of the objects behind a far-off peak to establish the objects’ distance and consequently their airspeed. Arnold, flying more or less eastwards towards Mt. Rainier’s slopes, consistently and repeatedly told how the nine objects, travelling southwards, passed directly in front of him on the western slopes of Mt. Rainier. Little Tahoma, however is on the mountain’s far eastern side.

The obvious conclusion is that Arnold misperceived how those nine objects momentarily disappeared behind this remote peak. In fact, they absolutely must have passed in front of it.
(End)


It has since been confirmed, you can observe 'Little Tahoma', from Arnold's position - it's often referred to online as 'a jagged peak', .e.g.:

"Rainier is also known as Big Tahoma, this jagged peak is known as Little Tahoma, as seen from "high break" on the way to the top of Rainier".

Arnold's envelope sketch depicts a sizable 'peak', in front of Mt. Rainler.

As noted, Arnold relied on this 'jagged peak' to give him a size and distance estimate for the nine puzzling 'aircraft'.

The problem is that it appears no such 'jagged peak' of that size exists, where Arnold locates it

There is one compatible and it's Little Tahoma, however, it's much further distant and not between Arnold's position and Mt. Rainler.

Tere is a fabulous photograph illustrating the dilemma.

It seems to have been taken from somewhere close to Arnold's perspective - obviously not categorical - and shows both the slopes of Mt. Rainler and Little Tahoma, to the right.

Arnold clearly states he could make out the objects shape against the mountain's slopes.

Then they momentarily flew behind a 'jagged peak', giving him his size/distance context.

Consider the height of the 'jagged peak' shown in his drawing.

Evidently, there is nothing reven emotely similar where Arnold shows it to be.

Only Little Tahoma looks to be a candidate and as I expressed, if Arnold believed the objects flew behind it, they could not possibly have done so, in addition to being visible against the mountain slopes and his size/distance estimates are consequently askew.

I have still, yet to see any evidence to the contrary, which convincingly determines an alternative to Arnold's statedly 'jagged peak' being Little Tahoma.

As significantly substantive, supporting, documented evidence, Arnold's own drawing palpably doesn't do that conclusion any harm at all.

Look at how close this matches up...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

OK... so where does that leave us then with the image I posted and which does seem to be a source for that IUR cover?

Where does this image originate from?

View attachment 49122

I have found an old reference to my source, "a 1993 video entitled, 'The UFO Phenomenon', by Labyrinth Media Ltd".

A Google search locates the following:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ufos-The-Evidence-VHS/dp/B000NCQNQ0

That's definitely the same cover photograph, although this release is eentitled 'UFOs - The Evidence' and looks to be dated 1991.

I suspect it has been re-released in various guises, over the years

If anyone has a copy and might please confirm if there's any further information about the image - perhaps it comes from a more expansive drawing with additional details, etc., that would, to say the least, be gratefully appreciated!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This interpolation would suggest the text represents a directionality, and it's consistent with his reported estimate of the objects' heading / bearing in flight (southward; roughly 170º to 180º). This interpretation also explains why there's an arrow drawn there.

I believe you are absolutely correct with all of those conclusions.

Regarding the origin of Kenneth Arnold's envelope sketch, I've been having a think about something I happened to feature in my FT137 article:

"When Arnold landed at Yakima, he asked to speak in private with an acquaintance, Al Baxter, manager of Central Aircraft. Arnold related his tale and Baxter then called in several other pilots to hear the story. One of them suggested that Arnold had merely seen some guided missiles from Moses Lake. Somehow the seeds of the ‘saucer myth’ were sown during the Yakima stop. As Arnold recollects - in his book The Coming of the Saucers (1952) - its growth was rapid… “I proceeded to gather my scattered wits together, got back in my airplane, and took off for Pendleton, Oregon.

I remembered that I had forgotten to mention the fact that one of these craft looked different from the rest, was darker and of a slightly different shape, and that I hadn’t told the Yakima boys that I had clocked the speed of this formation within fairly accurate limits.

(...)

“When I landed at the large airfield at Pendleton there was quite a group of people to greet me. When I got out of my plane no one said anything. They just stood around and looked at me. I don’t recall just how the subject came up in those first few minutes after I landed, but before very long it seemed everybody around the airfield was listening to the story of my experience. I mentioned the speed I had calculated but assured everybody that I was positive that my mathematics were lousy.”


Does this possibly tie-in with the envelope drawing?

It's apparently a quick, rough sketch and does emphasise the one object which seemed to be darker and a different shape - an aspect he statedly did not mention at Yakima.

Could it therefore originate from his stop at Pendleton?

Arnold clearly shows the 'jagged peak' he thought those enigmatic aircraft, only momentarily, passed behind at circa 9,200 feet, thus giving him a size and distance estimate.

It was between his location and Mt. Rainier.

There isn't one though.

However, right in his line of sight, as both indicated from Arnold's illustration and the photograph, would be Little Tahoma.

It was presumably an unfamiliar, mountainous landscape - he had made a detour in search of the lost Marine transporter flight - and if the objects were perceived to have been lost from sight only momentarily, etc.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It requires believing the final apparent 'zero' in each text-chunk represents a degrees sign rather than a zero, such that Arnold was actually writing "180º -> 170º" in an idiosyncratic style.

As you might do if the flight details had been roughly sketched, literally on the back of an envelope, for fellow pilots?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Does this possibly tie-in with the envelope drawing?

It's apparently a quick, rough sketch and does emphasise the one object which seemed to be darker and a different shape - an aspect he statedly did not mention at Yakima.

Could it therefore originate from his stop at Pendleton? ...

Let me address your queries (as I understand their thrusts ... ) from a different angle.

Here's what I strongly suspect the manila envelope represents ...

Somewhere sometime Arnold pulled out a manila envelope as a handy sketching surface to use in illustrating what he was describing - i.e., an improvised surrogate for a whiteboard or flip chart.

The diversity in things depicted (types; scale) reflected a sequence of steps in which he drew upon the envelope during the course of describing his experience.

The manila envelope sketch does not represent a single panoramic image (sketched all at once) of everything involved in Arnold's experience as it appeared at a given time. It's actually a composite of views at different scales, each one of which is illustrating a different aspect of the story / observations.

Some of these disparate sub-views of interrelated elements could have been added at a different time than the first drawing action taken on the envelope. The implied sequence of drawing actions could all have occurred during a single recitation / discussion of his story, or it could have spanned multiple meetings during which he told the story.

For example, here's a strictly hypothetical storyline for illustration ...

Arnold could have grabbed a sizable envelope from among his business papers to use as a sketch pad and inserted only the terrain / background sketching at Yakima. By the time he arrived at Pendleton he'd remembered failing to mention a second / different shape. When he pulled out the original envelope sketch to use in the second impromptu recitation he added a "zoomed view" illustrating the different shapes. And so on ...

The end result was a set of illustrations created for different reasons and at different scales (and quite probably at different times, be they all in one session or across sessions). This end result gives the appearance of a single panoramic overview, but it really isn't.

The three objects illustrated in the 'close-up' showing different shapes clearly aren't the objects as seen in the broader panoramic background of the terrain.

Maybe the 'jagged peak' (Shouh's label) is another one of these later-added 'zoomed-in' views and doesn't represent the seemingly prominent large peak it seems to depict when looking at the entire sketch results as if they were a single all-in-one panorama.

 

[EnolaGaia]

As you might do if the flight details had been roughly sketched, literally on the back of an envelope, for fellow pilots?

Yes. For example ... Some listener asks, "Which way were they headed?" You draw an arrow to show relative direction in relation to the background / terrain imagery, then add "180º" and "170º" to label your illustration.

 

[EnolaGaia]

As Shouh points out and analyzes in great detail, the big problem with the manila envelope sketch is not knowing when it was made. According to Shouh, CUFOS was confident it had been in their files by 1977 (30 years after the incident), and the lack of any Zip Code in the envelope's addressing suggests it dated back earlier than 1970. However, the lack of Zip Code is consistent with any time from 1970 all the way back to 1947.

Bottom Line: We have no idea when the manila envelope sketch was made (nor where it was done).

Shouh notes there had been allegations the envelope sketch was created as early as the day(s) immediately following the incident. He ends up concluding there's no basis for believing this early a creation date. I agree with him.

If Arnold had already noted his failure to mention a second / different shape *and* sketched it at least once (on the envelope), why wasn't it included in his early July report to the Air Force (letter to Commander WPAFB), and only hand-annotated on a second copy supposedly given the FBI later in July?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

If Arnold had already noted his failure to mention a second / different shape *and* sketched it at least once (on the envelope), why wasn't it included in his early July report to the Air Force (letter to Commander WPAFB), and only annotated on a second copy supposedly given the FBI later in July?

All of your related comments are so appreciated and I will have a look into ye olde archives to see if I can help shed some significant illumination!

These UFORL discussions are seriously tough going... I think one outcome is that Brad Sparks adamantly agrees that Little Tahoma is Arnold's 'jagged peak'.

However... and it gets complicated.... he believes the objects were always flying further away than Arnold being able to determine their outline against the slopes of Mt. Rainler. In essence, they flew behind the peaks of both Mt. Rainler and Little Tahoma.

This needs more time to take in and I shall now endeavour to extract all of the related UFORL discussions into one document.

It's a fairly torturous undertaking with the existing formatting not 'travelling well', when you start to edit same.

Nonetheless, there is such a wealth of experienced research being presented, it justifies doing so.

One reason is that we are starting to go over old grounds, when there is no need. It has all been addressed previously to a comprehensive extent and some inherent issues perhaps already resolved.

Is there anything further we might now be able to clarify or determine?

Possibly... that debate was just over 20 years ago and maybe with the online research resources since...?

We shall doubtless see...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

That's definitely the same cover photograph, although this release is eentitled 'UFOs - The Evidence' and looks to be dated 1991.

I have located a similar 'UFO - the evidence' compilation on YouTube

It features that Arnold material as the same brief 'interview' I recall. Alas... it doesn't have the sketch...

This is a transcript and the exact same narrative doesn't seem to exist elsewhere:

I am uncertain if it is Arnold speaking, or a voiceover:

"I had reached an altitude of about ninety-two hundred feet, when a very brilliant flash lit the sky around me and actually lit up the aeroplane that I was flying and I could see way off to the right, coming in the vicinity of mount Baker, a whole chain-like string of very... aircraft coming at a tremendous speed...

I could see plainly that they didn't have any tails... I have never seen aircraft of that kind and I made a quick judgement that they must be approximately a hundred foot in their wingspan... and the first unit, or aircraft, flew at a higher altitude than the last... and of course this is completely the reverse from our normal flight patterns.

I had a good fix with mount Adams and I thought I would try to clock their speed between mount Rainier and mount Adams...

{There is now a break and the documentary's narrator cuts in... "He was asked by a reporter to describe the mysterious objects"...}

"You know, they would skip or sail... whatever and give off these flashes and you take a saucer or whatever and you skip it across the water and it's erratic and this is how the name 'flying saucer' was born...".
(End)

As with the sketch, where does this interview originate?

And where's the rest of it - there must surely be more in-between these two segments quoted?

It begins at 10 minutes into the video:

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I am uncertain if it is Arnold speaking, or a voiceover

"I had reached an altitude of about ninety-two hundred feet, when a very brilliant flash lit the sky around me and actually lit up the aeroplane that I was flying and I could see way off to the right, coming in the vicinity of mount Baker, a whole chain-like string of very... aircraft coming at a tremendous speed ... "

(Emphasis Added)

Anyone who's pushing the correlation of 'jagged peak' with Little Tahoma would have to claim Arnold had seen the objects approaching from his right.

If Arnold had seen something off to his right / starboard, and it was in the direction of Mount Baker (well to the north of Mount Rainier), he would necessarily have been traveling west / westward.

In the 1952 book co-authored with Ray Palmer (The Coming of the Saucers), Arnold writes:

(p. 10)​

... which clearly indicates he was flying east / eastward.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... These UFORL discussions are seriously tough going... I think one outcome is that Brad Sparks adamantly agrees that Little Tahoma is Arnold's 'jagged peak'.
However... and it gets complicated.... he believes the objects were always flying further away than Arnold being able to determine their outline against the slopes of Mt. Rainler. In essence, they flew behind the peaks of both Mt. Rainler and Little Tahoma. ...

Yes / agreed - the only way the objects were occluded behind Little Tahoma was if they were farther away than *both* Rainier and Little Tahoma.

However, this interpretation conflicts with Arnold's clearly stated ability to discern the objects' shape only against the backdrop of Rainier.

I tend to agree with Shouh that the "jagged peak" was not a peak outlined against the sky, but rather a prominence visible on the flank of Mount Rainier. In the 1952 book his only allusion to a jagged peak is this:

(p. 12)​

 

[Comfortably Numb]

As with the sketch, where does this interview originate?

And where's the rest of it - there must surely be more in-between these two segments quoted?

Found the full interview - definitely never heard this before.

Still don't know it's origin, although clearly an early(ish) radio broadcast:

 

[EnolaGaia]

That was a double (vinyl) album released in 1978:

No Artist – Factual Eyewitness Testimony Of: UFO Encounters
Label: IRA Records (4) – IRA-1178
Format: 2 x Vinyl, LP, Album
Country: US
Released: 1978
Genre: Non-Music
Style: Interview

---

Credits​

• Coordinator [Music Coordination] – Walt Peters
• Design – Steve Schaul
• Effects – Ron Figura
• Executive Producer – Ben Christ
• Music Librarian [Music By] – De Wolfe Music
• Narrator – Walt Peters
• Producer – Steve Cronen
• Research – Peter Bordwell, Steve Tom
• Research [Investigation] – Peter Bordwell, Steve Tom
• Research [Scientific Consultant] – Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Sherman J. Larsen
• Script By [Writing] – Peter Bordwell, Steve Tom

---

NOTE: Click on the "More Images" link at the source webpage below to see images of the album sleeve and inserts(?). Arnold is shown being interviewed with a microphone held in front of him.

NOTE: According to the introduction printed on the record sleeve:

This record will allow you to hear the actual eyewitness testimony of individuals who claim to have had UFO encounters.

According to a comment posted by "bubcentral" on 10 August 2021:

This was released in the UK btw but by a different company in a completely different sleeve but same interviews minus any background music.

SOURCE: https://www.discogs.com/release/7348060-No-Artist-Factual-Eyewitness-Testimony-Of-UFO-Encounters