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

Kenneth Arnold's 1947 UFO Sighting

EnolaGaia said:
Here's the thread for discussion of "Pedro":

Little Mummified Dude ("Pedro"; The San Pedro Mountains Mummy)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ude-pedro-the-san-pedro-mountains-mummy.4780/
Click to expand...
That's the one, thank you!

I have duly cross-referenced this tangent, which Arnold brings up.

Having found my misplaced copy of Arnold's self-published booklet, there's actually some more 'homage' Arnold pays to Charles Fort, in his closing remarks.

i would think it is sufficiently poignant, in the overall context of Fort, Arnold and everything subsequent which owes its genesis to Arnold's misconstrued 'flying saucers' imagery, that an actual copy is appropriate.

This is perhaps a suitable finale... played out in three parts, because Arnold spreads it across three columns!

Resize_20220629_212206_6133~2.jpg


Resize_20220629_212205_5808~2.jpg


Resize_20220629_212205_5404~2.jpg
 
As a result of recent developments, the following has proven necessary.

On this thread, it is dedicated to EnolaGaia, whose astute feedback in discussions, I keep coming upon in my case archives.

Sorely missed and would definitely have a comment or three to make:

KENNETH ARNOLD'S FLYING SAUCERS

https://jceaston.blogspot.com/2023/08/flight-of-fantasy.html?m=1
 
KENNETH ARNOLD'S FINAL WORDS ON 'FLYING SAUCERS'?

I have come across a June 1982, 'Seattle (AP)' newsfeed, highlighting it was now 35 years since Kenneth Arnold sparked the 'flying saucer' genesis and ensuing world-wide perceptions, of an archetypal saucer-shaped spaceship, this, of course, becoming particularly popularised, in science fiction comics and films.

On 25 June, 1982, the Associated Press news release, featured in a small number of newspapers, including the 'Statesman Journal (Salem, Oregon)', which has a more legible print copy, entitled, 'Flying saucer' now 35 years old' - see full article, uploaded with copyright permission:

www.jceaston.com/1982_06_25_Statesman_Journal.pdf

The important aspect, is that this AP story features an actual and rare interview with Kenneth Arnold in his later years.

Poignantly, the interview is dated 24 June, the exact anniversary date and given the fact that a now reclusive Arnold passed on 16 January, 1984, it may well have been his last words on the entire matter.

Perhaps appropriate that in a brief summary of 'flying saucers' and his role therein, Kenneth Arnold ends by reminding us, exactly how it all began, his final words here being:

"There is one thing I'd like to straighten out," he added.

"I didn't create the word "flying saucer. This young reporter from Pendleton asked me how they flew and I said they flew very erratically, they flipped and flashed, like if you took a saucer and threw it across the water.

So from that, everybody wrongly assumed they were round instead of crescent shaped."
 
Comfortably Numb said:
KENNETH ARNOLD'S FINAL WORDS ON 'FLYING SAUCERS'?

I have come across a June 1982, 'Seattle (AP)' newsfeed, highlighting it was now 35 years since Kenneth Arnold sparked the 'flying saucer' genesis and ensuing world-wide perceptions, of an archetypal saucer-shaped spaceship, this, of course, becoming particularly popularised, in science fiction comics and films.

On 25 June, 1982, the Associated Press news release, featured in a small number of newspapers, including the 'Statesman Journal (Salem, Oregon)', which has a more legible print copy, entitled, 'Flying saucer' now 35 years old' - see full article, uploaded with copyright permission:

www.jceaston.com/1982_06_25_Statesman_Journal.pdf

The important aspect, is that this AP story features an actual and rare interview with Kenneth Arnold in his later years.

Poignantly, the interview is dated 24 June, the exact anniversary date and given the fact that a now reclusive Arnold passed on 16 January, 1984, it may well have been his last words on the entire matter.

Perhaps appropriate that in a brief summary of 'flying saucers' and his role therein, Kenneth Arnold ends by reminding us, exactly how it all began, his final words here being:

"There is one thing I'd like to straighten out," he added.

"I didn't create the word "flying saucer. This young reporter from Pendleton asked me how they flew and I said they flew very erratically, they flipped and flashed, like if you took a saucer and threw it across the water.

So from that, everybody wrongly assumed they were round instead of crescent shaped."
Click to expand...
That young reporter may have done the US military a favour by switching the attention from crescent-shaped craft to saucers that fly. Invited disbelief and ridicule from the off, despite so many UFO sightings reporting shapes other than saucers.
 
KENNETH ARNOLD'S FINAL WORDS ON 'FLYING SAUCERS'? - UPDATE

The June 1982 'Seattle (AP)' newsfeed, was published in, at least, the following newspapers:

Spokane Chronicle

The Columbian (Vancouver, Washington)

Statesman Journal (Salem, Oregon)

The Olympian (Olympia, Washington)

Longview Daily News (Longview, Washington)

The News Tribune (Tacoma, Washington).

However, not all included the full content, which seems to be as follows:

SEATTLE (AP) -Thirty-five years after he reported seeing the first modern-day "flying saucer," Kenneth Arnold continues to be visited by new theories of what he saw and where it was coming from.

Arnold, now 67, speculates that the nine shiny, pulsating objects he saw bounding through the daylight sky on June 24, 1947, might have been life forms from another planet. Another possibility is that the visitors are links between the world of the living and the world of the dead, he says.

It was near Mount Rainier that he saw them. His report to the Civil Aeronautics Board on the crescent-shaped, 100-foot-wide objects launched this age of "flying saucer" sightings.

"They were all individual but they were following each other and the formation had a funny diagonal line, like geese or the tail of a Chinese kite. Some would gain on the others, some would lose a bit. But they were going some-place. They weren't interested in me," Arnold said Thursday in a telephone interview. He lives in Meridian, Idaho, with his wife. Formerly of Minot, N.D., Arnold is a retired private pilot and runs his own engineering business.

"It was no optical illusion. I'm positive any pilot in the same place at the same time would have observed the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, I just told things the way they were," he said.

A year later, he saw a group of about 24 UFOs when landing his plane at La Grande, Ore., "clustered together like a bunch of blackbirds, going fast, little ones only three feet in diameter." He said he doesn't know what the objects were.

"We've gone to the moon and that's just a stepping stone to other planets. If there is life out there, maybe there are people or life as we recognize it and maybe they'd make the journey here," he said.

"Then there might be two worlds connecting the living and the dead. Maybe you continue living when you die. I can't envision myself on the steps of God, playing a harp with 10 million other souls...Maybe it has something to do with that," he added.

Arnold has reported seeing Unidentified Flying Objects at least eight times, the last in 1952, when he was over the Nevada desert and "they were below me at treetop level. One was as solid as a Chevrolet car and the other one had the ability to change its density so I concluded these things could be something alive rather than machines."

He has been grilled by hundreds of reporters and military officers. Airline pilots and others have seen dozens of similar shapes fleeting through the sky. All of Arnold's sightings have been in daylight.

"This type of craft has been seen for hundreds of years so to accuse me of being the discoverer of flying saucers isn't right at all," he said. "I just happened to report something substantial enough to be called the modern entry of the fact that we aren't alone."

He added, "There is one thing I'd like to straighten out.

"I didn't create the word 'flying saucer.' This young reporter from Pendleton, Ore., asked me how they flew and I said they flew very erratically, they flipped and flashed, like if you took a saucer and threw it across the water.

So from that, everybody wrongly assumed they were round instead of crescent shaped."
(End)
 
Last edited:
Do you think Arnold's denial of using the saucer shape simile in his original AAF report has something to do with him wanting to distance himself from the stereotype of the flying saucer or is it a case of false memory and he genuinely came to believe he saw crescent shaped objects?

His claim that the objects he saw flew "like they take a saucer and throw it across water" doesn't appear until three years later when he was interviewed by Ed Murrow in 1950.
 
Matt said:
Do you think Arnold's denial of using the saucer shape simile in his original AAF report has something to do with him wanting to distance himself from the stereotype of the flying saucer or is it a case of false memory and he genuinely came to believe he saw crescent shaped objects?

His claim that the objects he saw flew "like they take a saucer and throw it across water" doesn't appear until three years later when he was interviewed by Ed Murrow in 1950.
Click to expand...
I should be able to help clarify these fascinating questions, as I researched this depth and documented the related factual background.

It's quite lengthy!

THE 'FLYING SAUCER' GENESIS

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1100706627172357/permalink/1102212320355121/

I would be most interesting to know if this actually helps and welcome any comments you might have.
 
Last edited:
Paul_Exeter said:
That young reporter may have done the US military a favour by switching the attention from crescent-shaped craft to saucers that fly. Invited disbelief and ridicule from the off, despite so many UFO sightings reporting shapes other than saucers.
Click to expand...
If perhaps of interest, your comments were the inspiration for myself spending some time on the following, also just posted to the Facebook group "UFO Research List', which I administer:

'FLYING SAUCERS' v 'FLYING DISCS'

It has always struck myself that our seminal 'Roswell Daily Record' headline 'RAAF Captures Flying Saucer...', might not have such an iconic retrospective connotation, if the newspaper had stuck to the press release and instead proclaimed, 'RAAF Captures Flying Disc...'.

To recap:

"The many rumors regarding the flying disc...

...fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc...

The flying object...

...the rancher stored the disc...

...the disc was picked up at the rancher's home".

Were the terminologies interchangeable...

Essentially so, after all, Kenneth Arnold's formative report had only occurred a couple of weeks beforehand and nobody knew exactly what a 'flying disc', or 'flying saucer' was.

However, the phrase 'flying saucer', does seem to conjure up an image of our classic archetype, so beloved and popularised in comic books and science fiction films of that early genre.

I wondered if there had been a determinable, significant change in common usage of our inaugural, shared terminologies and might the newspaper dot com archives, provide a clue.

I ran some basic searches for occurrences of 'flying saucer', 'flying disc' and 'flying disk' and noted the resultant count of each.

The following, whilst obviously no more than a rough idea, is a snapshot summary.

The totals for spellings of 'disc' (the default for most, at approximately 75%) and 'disk', are grouped in this comparison of p reported:

1947:
"flying saucer" 17279 (61%)
"flying disc/disk" 11252 (39%)

1948:
"flying saucer" 4818 (56%)
"flying disc/disk" 3793 (44%)

1949:
"flying saucer" 7622 (64%)
"flying disc/disk" 4351 (36%)

1950:
"flying saucer" 42147 (87%)
"flying disc/disk" 6855 (13%)

1955:
"flying saucer" 16838 (98%)
"flying disc/disk" 6855 (2%)

1960:
"flying saucer" 10579 (91%)
"flying disc/disk" 1151 (9%)

1965:
"flying saucer" 9586 (99%)
"flying disc/disk" 181 (1%)
(End)

Consequently, thought now occurs... does this reveal anything insightful?

Initially, a 'flying disc(k)' would tend to incorporate sightings of things which were not disc shaped, such as unusual lights in the sky, etc. - effectively 'UFOS', as such.

Before the phrase 'unidentified flying object' came into use, are some incorporated within the 'flying saucer' totals, i.e., not all of our 'saucers', were actually saucer-shaped?

I would have thought so, surely.

Nonetheless, as seems to keep coming up these days, it's all about those 'flying saucers'!

Incidentally, this really doesn't have that same... 'je ne sais quoi...'.

'EARTH vs THE FLYING DISCS'
 
I have always been puzzled in that in my youth the UFOs I saw were in the shape of a clam.

I have never seen a disc or saucer UFO.
 
THE FIRST FORTEAN TO COMMENT ON 'FLYING SAUCERS'?

If maybe of some related interest, I recently came across this interesting snippet:

'Logansport Pharos-Tribune'
(Logansport, Indiana)
July 8, 1947

Says "Saucers" Nothing To Get Excited About

by CLAIRE COX
United Press Staff Correspondent

CHICAGO, R.L. Farnsworth said today the 'flying saucers' reportedly racing through U.S. states aren't anything to get up in the air about.

"People have been seeing things in the sky for years", he said:

(...)

He's a member of the Fortean Society, a club for experts on the unusual things - on land and in the air - people have seen and thought they have seen through the centuries.

The club was founded in honour of Charles Fort, a diligent man, who devoted his life to collecting four volumes of odd happenings'
(End of extract)

Full article (best copy available), uploaded with permission, to:

www.jceaston.com/1957_07_08_Logansport_Pharos-Tribune.pdf

"...the Fortean Society, a club for experts on the unusual things...

:)

 
Comfortably Numb said:
I should be able to help clarify these fascinating questions, as I researched this depth and documented the related factual background.

It's quite lengthy!

THE 'FLYING SAUCER' GENESIS

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1100706627172357/permalink/1102212320355121/

I would be most interesting to know if this actually helps and welcome any comments you might have.
Click to expand...

The link you provided isn't working for me, I get the message "Sorry, this content isn't available right now" when I click on it.
 
Matt said:
The link you provided isn't working for me, I get the message "Sorry, this content isn't available right now" when I click on it.
Click to expand...
Matt, I have no problems with the link and wonder if maybe a temporary issue.

Could you please try again and if still not working, let me know.
 
Do you need to be signed up to Facebook to be able to see it. I use Facebook and can see the link.
 
Erinaceus said:
Do you need to be signed up to Facebook to be able to see it. I use Facebook and can see the link.
Click to expand...

Yes, that must be it. I don't do Facebook. A message like "Sorry, you must be logged into Facebook to view this page" would of been more helpful.
 
Good Folks, having now comprehended the issue, I have copied this research material into a blog:

https://jceaston.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-flying-saucer-genesis.html?m=1

Hopefully this resolves the issue, which has actually never been highlighted previously, when providing a link to content on the Facebook group.

I am presuming this is because there are only a few of you good selves, without a Facebook account, left behind. :cool:
 
Matt said:
Yes, that must be it. I don't do Facebook. A message like "Sorry, you must be logged into Facebook to view this page" would of been more helpful.
Click to expand...
Absolutely and as noted, perhaps extraordinarily, I was entirely unaware of this barrier.

I hope this now permits you to follow the pathway to how we arrived at 'flying saucers'!

If of related interest, I also recently posted the following:

'FLYING SAUCERS' v 'FLYING DISCS'

It has always struck myself that our seminal 'Roswell Daily Record' headline 'RAAF Captures Flying Saucer...', might not have such an iconic retrospective connotation, if the newspaper had stuck to the press release and instead proclaimed, 'RAAF Captures Flying Disc...'.

To recap:

"The many rumors regarding the flying disc...

...fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc...

The flying object...

...the rancher stored the disc...

...the disc was picked up at the rancher's home".

Were the terminologies interchangeable...

Essentially so, after all, Kenneth Arnold's formative report had only occurred a couple of weeks beforehand and nobody knew exactly what a 'flying disc', or 'flying saucer' was.

However, the phrase 'flying saucer', does seem to conjure up an image of our classic archetype, so beloved and popularised in comic books and science fiction films of that early genre.

I wondered if there had been a determinable, significant change in common usage of our inaugural, shared terminologies and might the newspaper dot com archives, provide a clue.

I ran some basic searches for occurrences of 'flying saucer', 'flying disc' and 'flying disk' and noted the resultant count of each.

The following, whilst obviously no more than a rough idea, is a snapshot summary.

The totals for spellings of 'disc' (the default for most, at approximately 75%) and 'disk', are grouped in this comparison of p reported:

1947:
"flying saucer" 17279 (61%)
"flying disc/disk" 11252 (39%)

1948:
"flying saucer" 4818 (56%)
"flying disc/disk" 3793 (44%)

1949:
"flying saucer" 7622 (64%)
"flying disc/disk" 4351 (36%)

1950:
"flying saucer" 42147 (87%)
"flying disc/disk" 6855 (13%)

1955:
"flying saucer" 16838 (98%)
"flying disc/disk" 6855 (2%)

1960:
"flying saucer" 10579 (91%)
"flying disc/disk" 1151 (9%)

1965:
"flying saucer" 9586 (99%)
"flying disc/disk" 181 (1%)
(End)

Consequently, thought now occurs... does this reveal anything insightful?

Initially, a 'flying disc(k)' would tend to incorporate sightings of things which were not disc shaped, such as unusual lights in the sky, etc. - effectively 'UFOS', as such.

Before the phrase 'unidentified flying object' came into use, are some incorporated within the 'flying saucer' totals, i.e., not all of our 'saucers', were actually saucer-shaped?

I would have thought so, surely.

Nonetheless, as seems to keep coming up these days, it's all about those 'flying saucers'!

Incidentally, this really doesn't have that same... 'je ne sais quoi...'.

'EARTH vs THE FLYING DISKS'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top