Kenneth Arnold (Seminal UFO Sighting; June 1947)

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
There's no big mystery to it ... The previously dominant western European powers had effectively committed near-suicidal self-harm twice in the space of 30 years, crippling them on the world stage. In the wake of WW2 there were two new powers at the top of the heap - the USA and USSR.

The USA had an economy re-invigorated by the war, the largest array of production facilities left intact, an already leading position in the newly-crowned #1 war tech field of aviation, and exclusive possession of the new nuclear super-weapon. They also had a traumatic memory of Pearl Harbor, which engendered a considerable national paranoia about ever allowing anyone else to ambush us like that again.

Meanwhile, the USSR - who'd suffered the most casualties of anyone - had the largest pool of natural resources under one government's control, a governing structure which had tightened its totalitarian grip domestically, and self-anointed self-validation for pursuing a global communist crusade. They'd also acquired all of eastern Europe as de facto colonies to supplement / augment their war-damaged academic and industrial resources. More specifically, they'd ended up with as much of Germany's advanced rocketry R&D infrastructure and products as anyone.

Both these newly ascendant powers were deeply suspicious of the other. In the USA authorities were keenly apprehensive about two things:

- the prospects for anyone launching a surprise airborne attack against their home territory and
- who might next acquire an A-bomb capability

The former provided compelling motivation for the US government and USAAF / USAF to be keenly interested in aerospace tech and any clues that their airspace could be, or had been, breached. The latter provided the motivation for the top secret monitoring program (Project Mogul) that resulted in the mission failure whose debris Mac Brazel discovered.

In the mean time, Kenneth Arnold's interesting report of mystery objects flying over the Pacific Northwest (bolstered by what were either vapid copycat or valid additional sightings) provided the seed for a general-purpose popular interest in, and paranoia about, airborne 'others' overflying America.

The intersection and synergies among these things in the summer of 1947 engendered a whole new area of popular mysteries and memetic proliferation in the public's consciousness.
Can't disagree with that summary of the historical situation, but if that was the only causative factor it doesn't explain the many genuinely inexplicable UFO reports. If there was a direct relationship between international tension and UFO reports (as has often been claimed) it fails to explain why there were so few reports in the early 60s when East-West tension was at its height, Kennedy was assassinated, and the U2 missile crisis nearly caused nuclear war. UFOs are still a mystery, whichever way you look at it.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,415
Reaction score
39,146
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Can't disagree with that summary of the historical situation, but if that was the only causative factor it doesn't explain the many genuinely inexplicable UFO reports. If there was a direct relationship between international tension and UFO reports (as has often been claimed) it fails to explain why there were so few reports in the early 60s when East-West tension was at its height, Kennedy was assassinated, and the U2 missile crisis nearly caused nuclear war. UFOs are still a mystery, whichever way you look at it.

Agreed ... I didn't claim the international / security situation was the unique cause of UFO sightings. I only intended to illustrate how it served as the background / backdrop to the particular UFO 'mania' or fad that took off so as to become a common memetic component of American popular culture by the early 1950s.

There had been mystery aerial phenomena sightings long before the post-war period (e.g., the 'mystery airships' of the late 19th century). However, none of these earlier waves generated the type of ongoing interest and speculation we've seen since WW2.

If Arnold had never publicized his curious sighting and Roswell hadn't generated the flurry of press coverage it had, there would still have been tons of other sightings later to serve as the basis for a history of modern ufology. On the other hand, it's interesting to wonder whether or how such an alternative emergence of ufological interest would have been different if it had sprung from seminal events other than these canonical ones.
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Agreed ... I didn't claim the international / security situation was the unique cause of UFO sightings. I only intended to illustrate how it served as the background / backdrop to the particular UFO 'mania' or fad that took off so as to become a common memetic component of American popular culture by the early 1950s.

There had been mystery aerial phenomena sightings long before the post-war period (e.g., the 'mystery airships' of the late 19th century). However, none of these earlier waves generated the type of ongoing interest and speculation we've seen since WW2.

If Arnold had never publicized his curious sighting and Roswell hadn't generated the flurry of press coverage it had, there would still have been tons of other sightings later to serve as the basis for a history of modern ufology. On the other hand, it's interesting to wonder whether or how such an alternative emergence of ufological interest would have been different if it had sprung from seminal events other than these canonical ones.
Absolutely correct. I also forgot to mention Bernard Newman's remarkable little book The Flying Saucer, which hints pretty directly at the idea that the whole affair might be a clever deception aimed at uniting the world against an ET threat. More recently the idea (said to have been revealed to his aide by von Braun) that the aim is to justify the US weaponising space. Is it coincidence that we do, now, have a US Space Force?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
What parameters herein for taking the data to be accurate, or otherwise?
Is this possibly of significance, as I once highlighted online, from related research, and rediscovered;

"Arnold claimed that he could be sure they were so far away because they fleetingly disappeared behind a "jagged projection" or "sharp peak" on Mt. Rainier and he knew this was some 25 miles distant.

Following my recent enquiries of local expertise, we now also know that he was evidently mistaken about this and fundamentally so. The 'jagged peak' has been identified as almost certainly 'Little Tahoma' - looks like there aren't any alternative candidates - and as it's on the far side of Mt. Rainier from Arnold's location, they couldn't have travelled behind the peak without also having disappeared behind the mountain for some time. As Arnold claimed the objects flew between his position and the mountain, something{ is terribly amiss".
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
Perhaps also of note, as highlighted in my cover article for FT137:

A little known fact is that Kenneth Arnold had a second 'close encounter' only five days later, during which he saw a number of small objects "fluttering and flashing a dull amber colour".

He recalls, in "The Coming of the Saucers', that as he came in to land at La Grande airfield, Oregon, he observed "a cluster of about twenty to twenty-five brass coloured objects that looked like ducks." They seemed about two or three feet in diameter, Arnold said, but "I knew they were not ducks because ducks don't fly that fast."

Ducks are in fact known to be capable of airspeeds reaching 75 mph and there seems little, if any, doubt these were birds, probably wildfowl, and not a miniature alien invasion fleet. Yet Arnold didn't recognise this, even though he says they came within 400 yards of his aircraft.

He even noted: "I was a little bit shocked and exited when I realized they had the same flight characteristics of the llarge objects I had observed on June 24."
[End]

Whether, perhaps ironically, in further pursuit of ducks, Arnold pleaded guilty to illegal hunting in 1949:

Screenshot_20210218-192429.jpg
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
Crescents, Not Saucers

From: Pendleton, Oregon, East Oregonian, Saturday, July 23, 1977

'In One Ear' Column

By The East Oregonian Staff

When Idaho pilot Kenneth Arnold stopped in Pendleton this week, he was particularly interested in a recent EO article about the 30th anniversary of his flying saucer report. His interest centered on an illustration that went with the article, which was written by Joel Davis.

Arnold said ever since he reported his sighting, in late June, 1947, the news media had implied that Arnold saw circular, saucer-shaped craft.

Not so. Arnold said the mysterious craft were shaped like crescents and appeared smooth except for glass-like circles on top. The illustration that accompanied the EO article showed the "saucers" as
crescent-shaped.

Arnold said the confusion probably stemmed from the fact that he told an EO reporter that day 30 years ago that the craft looked "like saucers skipping across water." Thus was born the phrase "flying saucers."

Arnold's wife, Doris, was wearing a necklace with a miniature of the crescent-shaped saucer. The necklace was made in 1948, a year after Arnold's sighting.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
:yellowc:
Hartford Courant (Hartford, Connecticut) 09 Jan 1956, Mon
Not quite sure what an 1878 report of a UFO which might have been described as a 'saucer' has to do with Arnold's misconstrued report and why the yellow card (booking)!

If the contention is that a 'saucer' was mentioned way back then, isn't that irrelevant?

Our popularised 'flying saucer' is a catastrophic mistake - even Arnold is at pains to point this out.

It's equally as disastrous for beliefs in same, as the universe being factually 65 billion years old is for religious devotions and some might say, identical.

A complete and utter waste of research time.

Is a 'stumbling block' for those who were so sure of the, 'flying saucer' reality simply, as again with religious convictions, an acceptance of being so wrong, for so long?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
In Kenneth Arnold's own words...

As I was attempting to emphasise all along, there were never any 'flying saucers'.

Where does that leave all the championed evidence of same?

You know... something which never existed in the first place...
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
In Kenneth Arnold's own words...

As I was attempting to emphasise all along, there were never any 'flying saucers'.

Where does that leave all the championed evidence of same?

You know... something which never existed in the first place...
The interesting thing is that there were lots of impressive sightings of saucer shaped objects afterwards, as well. But let's not forget that there had been experiments with discoid devices long before Arnold, notably Townsend Brown in the US and several attempts in Nazi Germany. The other interesting thing is that Arnold's book contains a lot of strange happenings along Keelian lines -- people expecting him at places he hadn't planned on going to, for example.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
i8The interesting thing is that there were lots of impressive sightings of saucer shaped objects afterwards, as well.
No further sightings though, of the actual objects Arnold described - as he did from the outset - not, 'saucer-shaped' at all.

So, what happened to our originals - did all nine simply drop by for a one-off appearance?

Despite extensive research, I have never came across one other, comparative sighting...

Unless, of course, you want to introduce the possibility of wildlife, as I think I might once have...!

www.forteanmedia.com/ft1.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft2.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft3.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft5.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft6.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft7.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft8.jpg

Furthermore, my new research discovery - see post #72 - to recap:

(Start)
The much interview later interview with Arnold which I recently unearthed, is a further massive clue to identifying our culprits, when Arnold reveals those objects played, 'follow the leader' - "If one dipped, the others did too".

It's a specific characteristic of undulating flight formation.
(End)

Doesn't matter whether anyone is comfortable with my own hypothesis for an explanation of Arnold's sighting, or otherwise. As always emphasised, one is merely a collector and distributor of data - your judgement call.

What does though, is simply my alert that a 'flying saucers' are so obviously a cataclysmic misnomer, it is evidently and essentially chasing rainbows - (although necessarily with conceivable exceptions).

There are countless, 'UFO enigmas' without them and they have been a fundamentally distractive, 'red herring', resulting in a plague of so readily inviting hoaxes.

When the Fortean Times cover feature was published, it naturally met with tremendous acclaim within our hard-core community of fundamental believers.

Well, not really... however, I did cite one reaction:

(Start)
Amongst the most significant endorsements were comments expressed by Dr Jacqueline Mitton, Public Relations Officer for the Royal Astronomical Society these past 13 years or so.

Dr Mitton wrote, "I found what you had to say of great interest and your detailed research adds strong weight to the interpretation of Arnold's sighting as birds".

Dr Mitton considered that my research, particularly the profound repercussions resulting from an almost certain misidentification of, 'Arnold's peak', merited being presented to the 'British
Association for the Advancement of Science'.

Dr Mitton, the Society's spokesperson for the past ten years, is highly knowledgeable about the subject of 'UFOs' and has written a children's book called 'Aliens' (Walker Books) which covers, "UFOs, aliens in fiction, the possibility of life elsewhere in space, and SETI.
(End)

Yes, I knew this would be so irritating (you have to keep a sense of humour!) and stalwart spokesperson Jerry Clark replied:

"Since when does writing a children's book on something make one an authority on that subject? All it tells me is that Easton's beloved Dr. Mitton has a child's-level understanding of the UFO problem's many complexities".

So, I offered a challenge.

I withdrew from any further discussion and ended with this:

"If still alive in 20 years time, I will look back on this day and note you are still championing those mythical, 'flying saucers' as the mainstay of a clandestine cover-up".

That was:

Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:33:48 -0500

All my endeavours are genuinely borne of trying to be helpful!

Conversely, on the, 'triangular UFO' thread, I have some far more intriguing material to upload there soon and it simply does not have that specious foundation.
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
No further sightings though, of the actual objects Arnold described - as he did from the outset - not, 'saucer-shaped' at all.

So, what happened to our originals - did all nine simply drop by for a one-off appearance?

Despite extensive research, I have never came across one other, comparative sighting...

Unless, of course, you want to introduce the possibility of wildlife, as I think I might once have...!

www.forteanmedia.com/ft1.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft2.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft3.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft5.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft6.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft7.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/ft8.jpg

Furthermore, my new research discovery - see post #72 - to recap:

(Start)
The much interview later interview with Arnold which I recently unearthed, is a further massive clue to identifying our culprits, when Arnold reveals those objects played, 'follow the leader' - "If one dipped, the others did too".

It's a specific characteristic of undulating flight formation.
(End)

Doesn't matter whether anyone is comfortable with my own hypothesis for an explanation of Arnold's sighting, or otherwise. As always emphasised, one is merely a collector and distributor of data - your judgement call.

What does though, is simply my alert that a 'flying saucers' are so obviously a cataclysmic misnomer, it is evidently and essentially chasing rainbows - (although necessarily with conceivable exceptions).

There are countless, 'UFO enigmas' without them and they have been a fundamentally distractive, 'red herring', resulting in a plague of so readily inviting hoaxes.

When the Fortean Times cover feature was published, it naturally met with tremendous acclaim within our hard-core community of fundamental believers.

Well, not really... however, I did cite one reaction:

(Start)
Amongst the most significant endorsements were comments expressed by Dr Jacqueline Mitton, Public Relations Officer for the Royal Astronomical Society these past 13 years or so.

Dr Mitton wrote, "I found what you had to say of great interest and your detailed research adds strong weight to the interpretation of Arnold's sighting as birds".

Dr Mitton considered that my research, particularly the profound repercussions resulting from an almost certain misidentification of, 'Arnold's peak', merited being presented to the 'British
Association for the Advancement of Science'.

Dr Mitton, the Society's spokesperson for the past ten years, is highly knowledgeable about the subject of 'UFOs' and has written a children's book called 'Aliens' (Walker Books) which covers, "UFOs, aliens in fiction, the possibility of life elsewhere in space, and SETI.
(End)

Yes, I knew this would be so irritating (you have to keep a sense of humour!) and stalwart spokesperson Jerry Clark replied:

"Since when does writing a children's book on something make one an authority on that subject? All it tells me is that Easton's beloved Dr. Mitton has a child's-level understanding of the UFO problem's many complexities".

So, I offered a challenge.

I withdrew from any further discussion and ended with this:

"If still alive in 20 years time, I will look back on this day and note you are still championing those mythical, 'flying saucers' as the mainstay of a clandestine cover-up".

That was:

Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:33:48 -0500

All my endeavours are genuinely borne of trying to be helpful!

Conversely, on the, 'triangular UFO' thread, I have some far more intriguing material to upload there soon and it simply does not have that specious foundation.
I can't help wondering whether most of the discoid objects reported in the 1950s in the US were indeed early black project craft derived from German designs. It is notable that amongst the landing reports, especially those involving occupants, discs are relatively rare, and ovoid objects are more common.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
Some years back, I posted the following on the UFO Research List (UFORL), which I operated at the time:

Thanks to an exceptionally helpful U.S. library service, after much searching I now have a copy of Kenneth Arnold’s rare, self-published, 1950 booklet, ‘The Flying Saucer as I Saw it’ [the correct punctuation].

This is a summary of inherent contents and Arnold is directly quoted wherever possible.

Unless anyone knows otherwise, it’s presumed all of the booklet was written by Arnold.

My own remarks and further explanations are prefaced by ‘Comment:’.
(End)


I have located a copy of same which has retained original text formatting (yipee!) and has been duly uploaded as a .pdf file:

www.forteanmedia.com/Arnold.pdf

Arnold's allegiance to Charles Fort is quite palpable therein.
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
A quick Google there and...

... thank you so much for some bedtime reading!

https://books.google.co.uk/books/ab...ad_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&redir_esc=y
Yes, Stevens is a brilliant researcher. Also check out his book (not online, I fear)
Hitler's Suppressed and Still-Secret Weapons, Science and Technology, 2007.
Another is Igor Witkowski, the Polish military historian, his major work is
The Truth about the Wunderwaffe (2013 ed.)
Also get Nick Cook's The Hunt for Zero Point. (2002).
Plenty of bedtime reading there, I promise you!
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Some years back, I posted the following on the UFO Research List (UFORL), which I operated at the time:

Thanks to an exceptionally helpful U.S. library service, after much searching I now have a copy of Kenneth Arnold’s rare, self-published, 1950 booklet, ‘The Flying Saucer as I Saw it’ [the correct punctuation].

This is a summary of inherent contents and Arnold is directly quoted wherever possible.

Unless anyone knows otherwise, it’s presumed all of the booklet was written by Arnold.

My own remarks and further explanations are prefaced by ‘Comment:’.
(End)


I have located a copy of same which has retained original text formatting (yipee!) and has been duly uploaded as a .pdf file:

www.forteanmedia.com/Arnold.pdf

Arnold's allegiance to Charles Fort is quite palpable therein.
Yes, looks as if Arnold was aquainted with Fort before his famous sighting, and certainly explains why he was prompted to conduct his own investigations afterwards. Very interesting. I'll see if Global Grey can check on the copyright status of that booklet.
 

Junopsis

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
173
Reaction score
268
Points
99
Oh, Witkowski is the Bell guy!
Hn. Not sure how far I can go with that one.
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Oh, Witkowski is the Bell guy!
Hn. Not sure how far I can go with that one.
Get his book before you decide. He is perhaps the leading historian in Poland and I think Polish Intelligence were keen to get the information out. I contacted him a few years ago because one theory put forward by Nick Cook's mentor was that the aim of the Bell was a time machine of some kind, and it tied in with my own time slip research. However, I would be inclined to agree with him now that it was a propulsion unit for a secret craft designed to use bio-chem weapons. The henge structure makes more sense as a testing area for that than visions of the past. Moreover the Poles (presumably based on Russian reports) said that the US was continuing to try to use the Bell despite its fatal effect on the test pilots.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
Just a note and dare say would be remiss not too, even some...

...20 years later... :popc:

When I copiously evidenced a plausible explanation in 'Fortean Times' FT137, I wrote:

"As more people began to report seeing 'flying disks', the media perspective changed; soon the phenomenon became a
predicament for the American government and military, concerned both with the extent of the sighting 'flaps' and America's mastery of its own skies. To some extent that dilemma is still with us as part of Arnold's substantial legacy.

Almost every major aspect of UFO lore since 1947 - Roswell, the 'Trent' photographs, George Adamski, Billy Meier's photographic portfolio, Gulf Breeze, Area 51 and numerous other examples, relate to the archetypal 'flying saucer' and the many offshoots that have sprouted from this seed.

With such a demonstrably specious foundation, if the chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, the odds that it will look like an upturned dish are now even more remote".

Further emphasising same...a new, recent discovery, in which Arnold again categorically emphasises the indisputable facts:

 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Yes, certainly Arnold never reported discoid objects. But we do know that experimental discoid craft, some based upon the Biefield Brown effect and some based upon captured Nazi devices, were around in that period. It is quite possible that many of the reported sightings were of some of these, especially those seen near facilities in the US SW. Maybe that's why they were pushing the alien agenda through their disinformation. It has always interested me that the majority of close encounters through the 50s and 60s involved egg-shaped craft rather than the classical flying saucer model.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
Yes, certainly Arnold never reported discoid objects. But we do know that experimental discoid craft, some based upon the Biefield Brown effect and some based upon captured Nazi devices, were around in that period. It
Unless actually evidenced otherwise, it seems none whatsoever, especially re captured German, experimental 'flying wing' aircraft.

I researched this at length and as evidenced in my aforenoted FT137 cover article:

"On first examination, there are some intriguing possibilities about this hypothesis. Arnold’s crescent-like object resembles the tail-less ‘flying wing’ concept pioneered by John ‘Jack’ Northrop in the United States. Northrop’s XB-35, YB-49 and particularly YRB-49A were all similar to Arnold’s depiction.

However, prior to 24 June 1947, only one XB-35 had been built and due to several mechanical problems it had been grounded since the previous September. The second XB-35 to be built made its maiden flight on 26 June, 1947, two days after Arnold’s sighting. The testing was carried out at Muroc Dry Lake (later re-named Edwards Air Force Base) in California, far removed from Washington’s Cascade mountain range.

The Northrop YB-49, a jet-propelled derivative of the XB-35, first flew on 21 October 1948. Only one YRB-49A was built, but that didn’t take off until May 1950.

In Germany, the Horten brothers - contemporaries and counterparts of Jack Northrop – had also developed innovative ‘flying wing’ designs. Their ‘Ho IX’ (also known as the ‘Go 229’) was nearing production as WWII ended.

During late April 1945, the Horten plant at Friedrichsroda was occupied by American troops and, allegedly, one of the ‘Ho IX’ airframes was transported back to the to the US. The design is almost identical to Arnold’s crescent-like sketch.

So, decades before today’s dark rumours about recovered alien technology at Area 51, could the US Air Force have been indulging in a spot of clandestine reverse-engineering, not of alien but German craft?

Aviation historians seem satisfied that the looted ‘Ho IX’ airframe was never completed and test-flown in the US. Even if it had been, those other eight, tail-less objects that escorted it and matched its airspeed are not accounted for.

The contemporary similarity between experimental flying wings and Arnold’s ‘flying saucers’ is therefore a remarkable coincidence and nothing more.

The hypothesis that Arnold witnessed nine such top-secret, tail-less aircraft is not, evidently, sustainable".
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Unless actually evidenced otherwise, it seems none whatsoever, especially re captured German, experimental 'flying wing' aircraft.

I researched this at length and as evidenced in my aforenoted FT137 cover article:

"On first examination, there are some intriguing possibilities about this hypothesis. Arnold’s crescent-like object resembles the tail-less ‘flying wing’ concept pioneered by John ‘Jack’ Northrop in the United States. Northrop’s XB-35, YB-49 and particularly YRB-49A were all similar to Arnold’s depiction.

However, prior to 24 June 1947, only one XB-35 had been built and due to several mechanical problems it had been grounded since the previous September. The second XB-35 to be built made its maiden flight on 26 June, 1947, two days after Arnold’s sighting. The testing was carried out at Muroc Dry Lake (later re-named Edwards Air Force Base) in California, far removed from Washington’s Cascade mountain range.

The Northrop YB-49, a jet-propelled derivative of the XB-35, first flew on 21 October 1948. Only one YRB-49A was built, but that didn’t take off until May 1950.

In Germany, the Horten brothers - contemporaries and counterparts of Jack Northrop – had also developed innovative ‘flying wing’ designs. Their ‘Ho IX’ (also known as the ‘Go 229’) was nearing production as WWII ended.

During late April 1945, the Horten plant at Friedrichsroda was occupied by American troops and, allegedly, one of the ‘Ho IX’ airframes was transported back to the to the US. The design is almost identical to Arnold’s crescent-like sketch.

So, decades before today’s dark rumours about recovered alien technology at Area 51, could the US Air Force have been indulging in a spot of clandestine reverse-engineering, not of alien but German craft?

Aviation historians seem satisfied that the looted ‘Ho IX’ airframe was never completed and test-flown in the US. Even if it had been, those other eight, tail-less objects that escorted it and matched its airspeed are not accounted for.

The contemporary similarity between experimental flying wings and Arnold’s ‘flying saucers’ is therefore a remarkable coincidence and nothing more.

The hypothesis that Arnold witnessed nine such top-secret, tail-less aircraft is not, evidently, sustainable".
I agree, I was just making the point that it would have been in the interest of the US to emphasize the "flying saucer" motif because that would automatically provide a cover story for their experimental projects based on both US and Nazi devices.
 

Matt

Fresh Blood
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
6
Points
3
Kenneth Arnold used both "saucer like objects" and "saucer-like disk" as shape-similes in his own original air force report on or about July 08 1947.

"As I was flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least five miles long".

"When the sun reflected from one or two or three of these units, they appeared to be completely round".

"Some descriptions could not be very accurate taken from the ground unless these saucer-like disks were at a great height".

The shape of the object Arnold drew in this report is not remotely crescent or boomerang shaped.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
Kenneth Arnold used both "saucer like objects" and "saucer-like disk" as shape-similes in his own original air force report on or about July 08 1947.
Indeed he did and it didn't help.

There was considerable skepticism and some ridicule following media coverage of his sighting on 24 June, 1947.

Some time afterwards, Arnold sent that detailed account and by then, the terminology 'flying disk' had become established.

Arnold's report mentions a related newspaper article concerning Captain Smith, a United Air Lines pilot and that was published some days after Arnold's sighting.

It wasn't a documented account, submitted immediately.

Initially having described the undulating flight characters of the enigmatic objects with the now infamous comparison "they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water", on a couple of occasions Arnold describe the 'disks', as they had become known, being 'saucer-like', or 'disk-like', not 'saucer-shaped', or 'disk-shaped'.

It's a mute point anyway, because Arnold, in his first published interviews confirmed the objects were "flat like a pie pan and somewhat bat-shaped," according to Pendleton, Oregon, East Oregonian of June 26. They were "crescent-shaped planes", stated the Oregon Journal on June 27, reporting Arnold as saying: "They looked like they were rocking. I looked for the tails but suddenly realized they didn't have any. They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear"."

In a 1950 radio interview, Arnold reiterated:

"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".

http://www.project1947.com/fig/kamurrow.htm

Arnold did, of course, in his report describe them as 'saucer-like'.

Nonetheless, he had unequivocally clarified the misunderstanding and had already left no doubt in his 1 January, 1950 self-published booklet:

Compress_20211106_201141_1988.jpg


Further explaing the true context, see also my post #100 and you can listen to Arnold himself.

As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s, regularly attended each years 'UFO Magazine' conference in Leeds, become good friends with its editor, Graham Birdsall and eventually began writing for the magazine, it was naturally disappointing when I subsequently recognised the true picture.

We do need though, to to distinguish our archetypal 'flying saucer' separately from 'UFOs' intrinsically.

Having recently discovered an old-timer ufologists goldmine of online archives from the circa 1950s, nascent UFO organisation's 'flying saucer' newsletter publications, it was striking that amidst all the Adamski, etc. 'contactee' fervour of the time, just how many sightings being reported to them, had nothing to do with saucer-shaped objects at all.

Not, of course, to conclude that saucer-shaped UFOs could not exist, simply that caution seems sensible.

Highly recommended:

Archives for the Unexplained

http://www.afu.se

Select 'Collections' from top menu.

Then 'AFU Downloads' link, towards the bottom of page.

Some great stuff there. :)
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
1,941
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Indeed he did and it didn't help.

There was considerable skepticism and some ridicule following media coverage of his sighting on 24 June, 1947.

Some time afterwards, Arnold sent that detailed account and by then, the terminology 'flying disk' had become established.

Arnold's report mentions a related newspaper article concerning Captain Smith, a United Air Lines pilot and that was published some days after Arnold's sighting.

It wasn't a documented account, submitted immediately.

Initially having described the undulating flight characters of the enigmatic objects with the now infamous comparison "they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water", on a couple of occasions Arnold describe the 'disks', as they had become known, being 'saucer-like', or 'disk-like', not 'saucer-shaped', or 'disk-shaped'.

It's a mute point anyway, because Arnold, in his first published interviews confirmed the objects were "flat like a pie pan and somewhat bat-shaped," according to Pendleton, Oregon, East Oregonian of June 26. They were "crescent-shaped planes", stated the Oregon Journal on June 27, reporting Arnold as saying: "They looked like they were rocking. I looked for the tails but suddenly realized they didn't have any. They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear"."

In a 1950 radio interview, Arnold reiterated:

"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".

http://www.project1947.com/fig/kamurrow.htm

Arnold did, of course, in his report describe them as 'saucer-like'.

Nonetheless, he had unequivocally clarified the misunderstanding and had already left no doubt in his 1 January, 1950 self-published booklet:

View attachment 47795

Further explaing the true context, see also my post #100 and you can listen to Arnold himself.

As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s, regularly attended each years 'UFO Magazine' conference in Leeds, become good friends with its editor, Graham Birdsall and eventually began writing for the magazine, it was naturally disappointing when I subsequently recognised the true picture.

We do need though, to to distinguish our archetypal 'flying saucer' separately from 'UFOs' intrinsically.

Having recently discovered an old-timer ufologists goldmine of online archives from the circa 1950s, nascent UFO organisation's 'flying saucer' newsletter publications, it was striking that amidst all the Adamski, etc. 'contactee' fervour of the time, just how many sightings being reported to them, had nothing to do with saucer-shaped objects at all.

Not, of course, to conclude that saucer-shaped UFOs could not exist, simply that caution seems sensible.

Highly recommended:

Archives for the Unexplained

http://www.afu.se

Select 'Collections' from top menu.

Then 'AFU Downloads' link, towards the bottom of page.

Some great stuff there. :)
Fascinating. Arnold's book The Coming of the Saucers is also fascinating, not just because of his initial sighting, but his subsequent experiences. Has any other UFO witness decided to follow up with a personal investigation of the phenomenon? I still have a disturbing sense of something going on behind the scenes -- either some intelligence operation designed to set the stage for possible advanced projects, so that anyone witnessing a test flight (and the media) would have an extraterrestrial explanation to call upon, or some more Keelian element at work.
 

Matt

Fresh Blood
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
6
Points
3
The "skipping saucers" description is nowhere to be found in the early reports. Arnold only started using the saucer skipping across water motion simile three years after his sighting.

Arnold complained that "most" newspapers had misquoted him in 1947. That should mean that at least one didn't, but all the early sources misquoted him.

The early press reported Arnold's frustration with how his sighting was being misinterpreted, but not a single early source reports Arnold saying that his use of the word "saucer" had been misunderstood. He must of had the opportunity to correct the reports at that point.

In an early report on June 25th Arnold was mistakenly identified as a US Forest Service Employee, but in an article the next day the error was corrected but it did not correct the use of the word "saucer" as a shape simile. Instead, Arnold himself repeats the shape simile description of the object as "saucer-like".

Arnold also gives two other motion similes, neither of which is the "skipping on water" simile. He is quoted as saying their motion was "weaving like the tail of a Chinese kite" and "like a fish flipping in the sun".

If Arnold really reported nine "boomerangs" he had ample opportunity to correct any misinterpretation in an interview with KWRC Radio he gave on June 26th. Arnold also does not mention anything about "skipping on water".

In the Oregon Journal article, June 27 the "crescent-shaped planes" description is not in quotes from Arnold, they are the words of the journalist. Arnold is quoted in the article as saying "They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex on the rear. I was in a beautiful position to watch them... they looked like a big flat disk". Arnold seems to have meant a shape like a gibbous moon according to his drawing, but the reporter has assumed "half" means crescent.

In the East Oregonian report on June 26th Arnold describes the objects as "flat like a pie-pan and somewhat bat-shaped" but confusingly also says they were "saucer-like".

It has been suggested by Martin Shough that Arnold, as an aviator is comparing the shape to an aircraft marshalling signal bat, which Arnold's drawing in the original report resembles, not as some people assume a description of a flying mammal. He never used the simile of flying bats after he changed his story, but mentioned other things such as manta rays, medieval axes, rafts and other things.

Not until August 1947 did Arnold describe that just one of the objects were crescent-shaped and not until the 1970's did he publicly describe all nine objects as crescents.

I think Arnold wanted to distance himself from the flying saucer stereotype and regretted using the saucer shape simile so changed his description to flying crescents and the strange "saucers skipped on water" description. (Who skips saucers across water?).

All this information I've paraphrased/plagiarized from Martin Shough's excellent articles you should read if you're interested about the facts of the original Arnold sighting.

Return of the Flying Saucers: https://darklore.dailygrail.com/samples/DL5-MS.pdf

Arnold analysis: http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/Arnold analysis2.pdf
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
13,773
Points
284
Location
Phone
The "skipping saucers" description is nowhere to be found in the early reports. Arnold only started using the saucer skipping across water motion simile three years after his sighting.
Arnold recalled the synonym, not a situation where he only first used it some three years later.

From 'The Coming of the Saucers' (Arnold/Palmer), 1952:

"As I put it to newsmen in Pendleton, Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water".

You further comment:

"In the Oregon Journal article, June 27 the "crescent-shaped planes" description is not in quotes from Arnold, they are the words of the journalist. Arnold is quoted in the article as saying "They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex on the rear. I was in a beautiful position to watch them... they looked like a big flat disk". Arnold seems to have meant a shape like a gibbous moon according to his drawing, but the reporter has assumed "half" means crescent".

As copiously evidenced, Kenneth Arnold did not observe a 'flying saucer', let alone nine of them.

If I might emphasise further, to recap post #97:

Pendleton, Oregon, East Oregonian,
23 July, 1977


Crescents, Not Saucers

"When Idaho pilot Kenneth Arnold stopped in Pendleton this week, he was particularly interested in a recent EO article about the 30th anniversary of his flying saucer report. His
interest centered on an illustration that went with the article, which was written by Joel Davis.

Arnold said ever since he reported his sighting, in late June, 1947, the news media had implied that Arnold saw circular, saucer-shaped craft. Not so. Arnold said the mysterious craft were shaped like crescents and appeared smooth except for glass-like circles on top.

Arnold said the confusion probably stemmed from the fact that he told an EO reporter that day 30 years ago that the craft looked "like saucers skipping across water." Thus was born the phrase "flying saucers."

Arnold's wife, Doris, was wearing a necklace with a miniature of the crescent-shaped saucer. The necklace was made in 1948, a year after Arnold's sighting".

You so remind of myself... once upon a time, I too championed the exact same evidence.

That was around 20 years ago though.

Alas... not to be.

What changed?

You add:

"The information I've paraphrased/plagiarized from Martin Shough's excellent articles you should read if you're interested about the facts of the original Arnold sighting".

This changed.... I kinda know a bit about the case...

See post #103.
 
Top