Have you read Martin Shough's Arnold article 2? You're even quoted in it!
I have now had a further study of Martin Shough's phenomenal research publication and it's been something of a revelation.
Although I had seen his comments regarding my Fortean Times (FT137) cover article, I had not read all of Martin's publication.
He writes:
"In 1997, researcher Martin Kottmeyer attempted to locate some suitable feature near Arnold's estimated "9,200ft" horizon level and reported the "neat little surprise" that no such feature existed on the west side of the mountain.
Kottmeyer mentioned the peaks earlier discussed by McDonald and Arnold, only to dismiss them as far too low for the purpose. The only candidate at the right altitude seemed to be Little Tahoma, at about 10,000ft, but it was on the wrong (SE) side of the mountain, and Arnold's objects, passing west of the mountain, could not have flown behind it.
Kottmeyer speculated that the apparent occultation had been an illusion.
Following Kottmeyer, James Easton later reasoned like this: If Little Tahoma is the only possible feature behind which Arnold could have seen the objects apparently vanish, and if it is geometrically impossible for this to have happened, then Arnold must really have seen them pass in front of Little Tacoma and all other parts of Mt Rainier, in which case the objects might have been many miles closer than he thought, therefore very much smaller, and very much slower.
Three months later Easton circulated what purported to be photographic proof of the identity of Arnold's peak: Two photographs clearly showing Little Tahoma standing proud of the shoulder of Mt Rainier, one of which "seems to have been taken from the same [Arnold's] perspective."
The logic is unassailable, but the premises of the argument are flawed. The premise that the "jagged peak" must be at 9,200(± 1000)ft is invalid because it is based on an improper understanding of the terrestrial horizon dip angle...".
(End)
Grateful that at least my logic was unassailable, I stopped reading there, because I simply did not understand the technical side of things Martin went on to elaborate!
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".
We are talking 20 years ago!
Nonetheless, does anything change when now looking further back to those earliest newspaper reports.
Two points which stand out are the following:
Associated Press newsfeed
25 June
"He said they appeared to fly almost as if fastened together - if one dipped, the others did, too".
The Idaho Daily Statesman
28 June
"Whatever the first object did, he said, the others did also. The result, he said, was a weaving flight path...".
If I had seen this before publication of the FT137 article, I would have been all over it.
Here, whether coincidentally or otherwise, Arnold is describing how a squadron (correct terminology) of American White Pelicans fly in their undulating formation - taking their cue from the one in front:
"A flock of migrating American White Pelicans is a majestic sight-a long line of ponderous birds, flapping and coasting.
Each bird seems to take its cue from the one in front of it, beginning to flap and starting a glide when its predecessor does".
Does Arnold also confirm a 'flapping and gliding' characteristic.. think I might have mentioned this in my article, Arnold recalling in his book:
“Another characteristic of these craft that made a tremendous impression on me was how they
fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their surface.”
I shall have a further good look at these archive news reports as they do contain a fair amount of detail regarding the issues Martin was attempting to, I dare say likewise, unravel.
I wonder if anything therein is a significant clue and perhaps previously unfamiliar. I note, for example that in the 25 June radio interview, Arnold reportedly says:
"...but due to the fact that I had Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams to clock them by...". not Mt. Rainler and Mt. Adams, as he relates elsewhere.
