Kenneth Arnold's 1947 UFO Sighting

[Comfortably Numb]

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...

This is from a post I made to the UFORL, way back:

The question I would like to ask is whether we might actually have historical documented evidence which establishes 'Little Tahoma' as conclusively, 'Arnold's peak'.

There is key evidence, which I don’t believe has previously been highlighted in this context and it originates from several sources, spanning many years. Extracting relevant data in sequence we have:

“Mr. Arnold reported he was flying east at 2:50 p.m. Tuesday toward Mt. Rainier when the objects appeared directly in front of him 25-30 miles away at about 10,000 feet altitude”.

“Mr. Arnold, who flies 60 to 100 hours monthly throughout five western states, said he was 25-30 miles west of Mt. Rainier, en route from Chehalis to Yakima, when he sighted the objects”.

"He said he could estimate the distance of the objects better because an intervening peak once blocked his view of them. He found the peak was 25 miles away, he related".

“Mr. Arnold was flying a three-passenger, single-engined plane at 9200 feet at the time, he reported”.

Source: 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' - June 26, 1947


"I was approximately 25 to 28 miles from Mt. Rainier...". [Arnold doesn't mention the 'peak' in this interview - James]

Source: Radio Interview with KWRC, June 26, 1947


"I observed them quite plainly, and I estimate my distance from them, which was almost at right angles, to be between twenty to twenty-five miles. I knew they must be very large to observe their shape at that distance...". [Arnold doesn't mention the 'peak' in this letter - James]

Source: Letter to the Air Force, 1947


"I determined my distance from their pathway to be in the vicinity of twenty-three miles because I knew where I was and they revealed their true position by disappearing from my sight momentarily behind a jagged peak that juts out from the base of Mount Rainier proper. Considering that I was flying all this time in the direction of their formation, this determination can be only approximately, but it is not too far off".

Source: 'The Coming of the Saucers', 1952


"And actually they disappeared behind a sharp projection on Mt. Rainier in the snow field to my eyesight and since I knew approximately where I was, flying of course toward the mountain, I knew where they had passed. I thought my judgement and my clocking could be within reasonable limits as to about how fast they were going".

Source: Lecture at 'UFO Congress', 1977
(End)


Does this help?

Not quite sure myself!

 

[EnolaGaia]

For more information about the album and the interviewees, see:

http://videosofthedamned.com/factual-eyewitness-testimony

 

[Comfortably Numb]

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

That's just fabulous, thank you!

How interesting and brings us back to this infernal and unattributed sketch.

As noted, part of the same radio interview is played on the VHS tape it came from and in the background there's some film of a small Cessna-type airplane flying over a mountain range and then the enigmatic sketch is briefly shown.

I have a feeling that should we actually get to see this same footage again, there will be no further information - simply our drawing being momentarily displayed.

Can't believe I first asked about it back in 2000 on the UFORL, where most ufolologists who knew the Arnold case in fine detail were subscribers, yet... still nobody seems to have come across it, other than myself posting the screenshot.

I have checked through, must be around 30-40 other YouTube features on the Arnold story and no other trace there either.

Oh well, if we ever do unearth the facts behind the so intriguing illustration, it might be of some consequence. Truly bizarre!

 

[EnolaGaia]

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

Arnold screwed up (IMHO) in his audio interview. He claimed he first saw the objects approaching from the direction of Mount Baker to his right.

As noted earlier, this orientation could only have occurred if he was heading west at the time.

Personally, I wouldn't overturn 5-year-old (or less aged) testimony on the basis of 31-year-old testimony.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

For more information about the album and the interviewees, see:

Awesome - I was wondering what else of interest might be on it.

Along similar lines, there are some notable, historical, documentaries on YouTube, including a feature about NICAP, with archive footage.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

ld screwed up (IMHO) in his audio interview. He claimed he first saw the objects approaching from the direction of Mount Baker to his right.

Yes and It seems he also did so in the early radio interview recently mentioned, when he states using Mt. St. Helens as a timing reference point!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

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."

Incidentally, must confess to being slightly disappointed that Arnold had not used the 'fish' simile, instead of 'saucer', because it might have resulted in 'flying fish'...

'Flying Fish' Up in Air 10,000 Feet, Puzzle Pilot

A certain Mr Fort, would doubtless have approved!

 

[EnolaGaia]

Yes and It seems he also did so in the early radio interview recently mentioned, when he states using Mt. St. Helens as a timing reference point!

Speaking of Mt. St. Helens ... When he made his 180º turn over Mineral and resumed heading eastward toward Yakima (passing by Mt. Rainier) Mt. St. Helens was closer than Mt. Adams, approximately due south of his position (off to his right), and circa 1,300 feet taller than it's been since 1980.

I'm not saying I believe this happened, but I can't help but wonder whether he could have confused Mt. St. Helens for Mt. Adams at some point.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

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...

That's all it takes though.

On further due consideration, there's sufficient evidence cited in my post #181, that the otherwise simply named 'peak' was Little Tahoma, specifically:

"He said he could estimate the distance of the objects better because an intervening peak once blocked his view of them. He found the peak was 25 miles away, he related".

It's the same distance as he statedly was from Mt. Rainler itself, which places the peak right there.

It's further evidenced from his sketch, how tall the 'intervening' peak was.

The objects' also statedly disappared "momentarily" behind his "jagged peak", plus separately and fundamentally:

"And actually they disappeared behind a sharp projection on Mt. Rainier in the snow field to my eyesight and since I knew approximately where I was, flying of course toward the mountain, I knew where they had passed. I thought my judgement and my clocking could be within reasonable limits as to about how fast they were going".

(Lecture at 'UFO Congress', 1977)

This was the key to Arnold perceiving how far distant the objects were, what size they were and consequently how fast they were.

Little Tahoma is quite simply not an 'intervening' peak, as again, depicted in his drawing.

If the objects were further distant and in fact also flew beyond the peak of Mt. Rainler, that's one thing.

However, as also evidenced, Arnold claims the objects were visible against the slopes of Mt. Rainler and that's how he was able to determine their shape, e.g. "I cIould see them against the
snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier"...

The obvious explanation to the apparent dilemma of being able to see them against the mountain slopes, if they were on the far side beyond the mountain's peak, is that in the fleeting moment Arnold lost sight of them, they merely passed in front of the peak.

My point has always been, if that's not the actual case, then which one is it?

Either they traveled beyond the peak of Mt. Rainler and therefore how could Arnold see them against the mountain, or he did see them against the mountain and therefore they couldn't have been so far distant.

The obvious clue is that there is no 'intervening' peak and they only passed in front of a distant Little Tahoma, in his line of sight, which proved to be deceptive.

That's the reason his distance/size/speed context isn't viable.

It's all Around's own evidence, nothing added.

Alternatively, if the peak was a ''prominence' on the flank of Mt. Rainier, as Martin Shough suggests, then where precisely is that located?

It's a scenario which has been comprehensively looked into and would appear to have zero supporting evidence - see the UFORL discussions...

If you have a spare hour or several...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

...I can't help but wonder whether he could have confused Mt. St. Helens for Mt. Adams at some point...

On which very point....'confusion'.... having just had another good look through the UFORL discussions... goodness sakes.... it's confusion personified.

The upshot of everything seems to be a concensus that there is, well, little concensus at all.

This, often without myself being involved, might I add!

Brad Sparks astutely sums up the inherent difficulties:

"The problem is WHICH story of Arnold's should we take at "face value"? Behind the mountain or in front? A 180 or 360 turn over Mineral? First seen in front of the mountain or first seen far to the north? First thought geese or first thought an aircraft in near-collision? Clocked with a stop watch, wristwatch or his instrument panel clock?

Saucer-shaped, or bat-shaped, or tadpole-shaped, or wraith-like, or a half moon? Above the ridge or swerving in and out? At 9,000 feet, or 9,500, or 10,000, or perhaps 6,000 feet? Constant elevation or climbing? Flying towards Mt. Rainier, or Yakima, or Goat Ridge?

Flying parallel to the objects or at right angles? Continued his search for the crashed C-46 for 15-20 minutes after the sighting or dropped it in his excitement and eagerness to report?

He changed his story a lot and that should tell us something.

I can't resolve these contradictions by using Arnold's statements "at face value" because there are "face value" statements for all of them.

But I think I can resolve most, if not eventually all, of them by careful ANALYSIS such as we've been doing here".
(End)


Most of them never were!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Having had no success on YouTube, I have subscribed to the GAIA online video archive, in search of a 'UFO history' documentary, which might feature our puzzling sketch and maybe a clue as to its origin.

First one I look at, starts with Bruce Maccabee discussing the American White Pelican hypothesis!

Goodness sakes, it was 20 years ago I wrote that FT137 article.

I had no intention of ever revisiting it, however, as this isn't the first time the subject has appeared in an Arnold/UFO history video I have browsed the past couple of days (I had no idea and quite unexpected), I do need to re-establish the context in which this research was first undertaken.

You can't start with the airspeed, because that's back to front.

It's how you arrived at this in the first please.

Set in stone and indisputable are the following facts:

1. There were nine, tail-less, aerial objects which flew in a chain-like fashion, as though linked together. They were highly reflective.

2. They flew in an echelon formation.

3. They also flew together, in that chain-like manner, with an undulating motion, similar to a roller coaster.

4. Another characteristic was that excepting the leading object, they took their cue from the one in front - 'if one dipped, the others did too' and 'whatever the first object did, he said, the others did also. The result, he said, was a weaving flight path..'.

5. They flew with another distinctive feature, "Another characteristic of these craft that made a tremendous impression on me was how they fluttered and sailed..." and "they would flutter like this and sail".

6. The profile most featured, as with Arnold's promoted sketch, is bird-like.

That's the essence of those objects, whatever they might have been.


It has been determined there are no aircraft candidates, let alone nine of them.

If not from outer-space, then what were the other conceivable possibilities.

It was several knowledge subscribers from the 'Pacific North-west birders' forum who echoed the same conclusion.

Every one of the above is a perfect match - indigenous and with altitude (10,000 ft plus) and airspeed (30 mph plus), posing no barriers.

It absolutely may all well be coincidental - we already have an inbuilt example of that, with Arnold's sketch mimicking some flying-wing aircraft of the era.

One thing you can't do though, is rule out the possibility when there is no concensus on which of Kenneth Arnold's many variables and variances from different testimonies, over a lengthy period of time - spanning some 30 years - is the actual, judicious, evidence with regard to his short observation.

Whether unearthly or perfectly terrestrial, those nine enigmatic artefacts were never the archetypal 'flying saucer'.

That also, of course, being Arnold's own confirmation.

Ultimately, perhaps for all who have an opinion on the explanation...

'potest esse certus non eram ibi'.

Can't be sure, I wasn't there...

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Alternatively, if the peak was a ''prominence' on the flank of Mt. Rainier, as Martin Shough suggests, then where precisely is that located? ...

My favorite candidate is Pyramid Peak - a pointed dark prominence on Rainier's southwestern flank. This struck me as the most likely candidate even before I'd seen evidence Pyramid Peak had been identified as the occluding 'peak' back in the Sixties.

As Shough documents it, James McDonald questioned Arnold in 1965 / 1966 on this specific issue and forwarded or employed a topographic map on which Arnold was asked to identify the reference points in his testimony (especially the peak / prominence). Pyramid Peak was circled on the map (by either Arnold or McDonald). (See Figure 6 in Shouh's document.)

McDonald's papers (his notes and a letter) contain a letter to a colleague stating Arnold had indicated Pyramid Peak was the prominence / peak after further discussion:

We went over the question of what "small jagged peak" they went behind. - (I'd mailed him a Xerox of a topographic chart of Mt. Rainier and asked him to locate it.) He thinks the rear two or three objects dipped down in the saddle behind Pyramid Peak.

This is the only evidence I've seen for Arnold specifying where the mystery peak / prominence was located.

It's also important to bear in mind that Arnold (at least when pressed for specificity) didn't claim the entire train of objects disappeared from sight. It was only the rearmost few objects in the generally echelon formation that disappeared from sight, presumably occluded from view.

 

[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 hand-annotated on a second copy supposedly given the FBI later in July?

As noted in my initial reply - post #175 - right at the outset, Arnold expressed his regret about not mentioning this.

Having delved into ye olde archives as intimated, I have rediscovered the following.

Firstly, to recap; in his publication, 'The Singular Adventure of Mr Kenneth Arnold', Martin Shough writes:

"The sketch is certainly by Arnold but date and circumstances are uncertain. A History Channel
documentary, "UFO Sightings", implies that this is a sketch made by Arnold immediately on landing at Yakima on June 24 1947. Brad Sparks (personal communication) contends that it was probably done for a journalist in Arnold's hotel room in Pendleton the next day, on June 25 1947.

NOTE: The claim made in the documentary film appears unreliable: a) The preceding still image which purports to zoom in on this sketch being shown by Arnold on June 24 in Yakima is in fact a well-known photo of Arnold joining Capt E.J. Smith in the lobby of the International News Service Building in Seattle on July 5 to view the Coast Guard photo taken by Frank Ryman; b) Arnold said that on landing at Yakima he went to Al Baxter's office and "drew him pictures of what I had seen". Baxter called in some pilots and instructors and they all joined in debate. Then, when in the air on his way back to Pendleton, "I remembered that I had forgotten to mention the fact that one of these craft looked different..." (Coming of the Saucers, p.13).

As already mentioned above, in 1952 Arnold expressed regret and some puzzlement that he hadn't said anything to anyone about a different or crescent-shaped 9th object. But if Arnold had drawn this picture for the press within 2 days of the event then in fact quite a few people would have known about a different-shaped object.
(End)


I have identified there was a United Press newsfeed on 25 June, which I can't see being published anywhere until 27 June and even then, only in a small number of newspapers:

PENDLETON, Ore.. June 25 (UP)- Kenneth Arnold a veteran pilot and fire control engineer, today clung stoutly to his story that he saw nine, shiny crescent-shaped planes or pilotless missiles fly in formation at a speed of at least 1200 miles per hour over the Mt. Rainier plateau.

(...)

When he landed at Pendleton, en route to Boise, Idaho, Arnold told his story and stuck to it.

"Some of the pilots thought it over and said it was possible. Some of them guessed that I had seen some secret guided missiles. People began asking me if I thought they were missiles sent over the North Pole. I don't know what they were. But I know this I saw them."
(End)


'The 'crescent-shaped' profile was a terminology in use next day.

Would this further establish that at least some of the drawings, do indeed originate from Pendleton on the 25th?

 

[EnolaGaia]

... 'The 'crescent-shaped' profile was a terminology in use next day. ...

That's not news. There's no reason to dispute Arnold's claim that he included mention of a second / other shape as early as his visit to Pendleton.

Would this further establish that at least some of the drawings, do indeed originate from Pendleton on the 25th?

No, not at all.

The drawing is not the narrative.

We can be reasonably confident Arnold modified his narrative between Yakima and Pendleton. However, this does nothing to prove the manila envelope drawing itself originated on the 24th or 25th. It's conceivable (cf. my illustrative hypothetical scenario earlier), but it's not conclusively established.

If there were clear signs of revision on the envelope (e.g. striking out a 'plain' shape and entering a crescent one as a clear replacement) it might well make a difference.

There are no clues on the face of the manila envelope to prove when that sketch was created. It can't be proven to have been in the CUFOS files until 1977. The address annotation on it indicates it's older than circa 1970. Beyond that, we don't know.

If anything, it's strange that such an eyewitness illustration would go unmentioned - and never appear or be illustrated - in the many articles and books addressing Arnold's encounter. Neither (to the best of my knowledge) did anyone ever present an illustration clearly derived from this sketch.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It's strange that such an eyewitness illustration would go unmentioned - and never appear or be illustrated - in the many articles and books addressing Arnold's encounter. Neither (to the best of my knowledge) did anyone ever present an illustration clearly derived from this sketch.

Yes, fair point and all other comments both duly noted and appreciated.

I have come across this mention from Brad Sparks, in the UFORL discussions:

"Why didn't he supply a MAP? There has NEVER been a MAP drawn by ANYONE and published or made available (except a worthless sketch in FSR 1984)".

I presently can't locate an online copy of 'Flying Saucer Review', from 1984, however, there is a 1987 issue, which possibly contains the map Brad is thinking of:

KENNETH ARNOLD AND THE F.B.I.
(From documents obtained by Peter Gersten and CAUS}
With Comments by John A. Keel, FSR Consultant
FSR, Volume 32, No. 5, 1987

I have not read any of this, as yet and a copy has been uploaded to:

www.forteanmedia.com/1987_5_32_FSR.pdf

Hopefully, the map is not still useless!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I have had a very brief look now and....

"Read his report carefully, and the report of the prospector, and you will see that the objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter. They were weaving among the mountains at a speed in excess of 1 ,200 miles per hour! And they were twenty miles from Arnold's position. So Arnold was observing small (30 feet) objects travelling at supersonic speed twenty miles in front of him!

Something is wrong here. If all his calculations were correct he would not be able to see those things at all. They were too small ... they were too far away ... and they were moving too fast to be visible to the naked eye!". (John Keel)

Wow...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

A worthwhile read, when you see it all set out so clearly as this - FSR's print (and paper) quality was always first class.

Keel's full summation is priceless!

I presume the map has been added to original documentation and I find it actually really useful.

Arnold's depicted flight path is also, coincidentally, close to my understanding.

Would there be any major disagreement on this?

 

[EnolaGaia]

I presently can't locate an online copy of 'Flying Saucer Review', from 1984, however, there is a 1987 issue, which possibly contains the map Brad is thinking of:
KENNETH ARNOLD AND THE F.B.I.
(From documents obtained by Peter Gersten and CAUS}
With Comments by John A. Keel, FSR Consultant
FSR, Volume 32, No. 5, 1987
www.forteanmedia.com/1987_5_32_FSR.pdf

For archival / reference purposes, here is the map from p. 7 in the document.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I presently can't locate an online copy of 'Flying Saucer Review', from 1984 ...

The relevant article would seem to be "Kenneth Arnold", by John A. Keel.

Flying Saucer Review
Vol. 30, N. 1: October 1984
p. 26

That issue's table of contents can be viewed at:

https://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucer-Review-Vol-October-ebook/dp/B072DSBMY6

 

[EnolaGaia]

Does anyone here know what became of the missing marine ship that kenneth Arnold was searching for back in June 47?

This would be a good time to dispense with this pesky side-story once and for all ...

The Marine transport plane crashed on 10 December 1946, fighting bad weather and blown off course. It was suspected from the beginning it had crashed into Mt. Rainier or the mountain's surrounding terrain.

After analyzing the evidence, Navy officials concluded the missing plane, traveling at approximately 180 m.p.h., crashed into the side of Mount Rainier. Major Reilly was flying an IFR course, corrected for a southeast wind. However south of Portland, the wind changed direction, blowing from the west at 70 m.p.h. This wind shift, unknown to the pilot, pushed the plane approximately 25 degrees to the east, directly on a path into Mount Rainier. Their analysis was bolstered by reports from persons on the ground along the supposed line of flight where the Curtis R5C disappeared, who reported hearing a plane flying overhead. They believed the wreckage, if it could be located, would be scattered on one of the glaciers on the south or southwest side of the mountain.

Relentless winter weather hampered search efforts in December, and the search was eventually suspended pending the change of seasons.

The plane's wreckage wasn't discovered until July 1947.

On Monday, July 21, 1947, Assistant Chief Ranger Bill Butler, 38, was hiking up Success Cleaver on his day off, monitoring snow levels and climbing conditions, when he spotted some aircraft wreckage, including a bucket seat, high on South Tahoma Glacier. The following day, Butler flew over the area in a Navy reconnaissance plane to assist photographing the area where he saw the debris. The wreckage couldn’t be seen from the air, but Butler was able to pinpoint the location without difficulty.

It was at about the 9,500-foot level on a huge snow-field rife with deep crevasses and sheer ice precipices, below an almost perpendicular 3,000-foot rock wall. The terrain was so treacherous that none of the park rangers or mountain climbing guides recalled anyone ever traversing the glacier’s face. As gravity drags the glacial ice down the mountainside, at an approximate rate of 10 inches per day, fissures open and close, causing avalanches and rock slides and collapsing snow bridges over crevasses.

Contrary to sensationalized reports the 32 men aboard the transport had mysteriously vanished, the military and Park Service personnel persisted in their risky visits to the debris site, discovered 25 bodies, and concluded the remaining 7 were somewhere there as well. It was judged too risky to attempt recovery and removal of the bodies, and they were left to be entombed in the glacier.

... Finally, at 9 a.m. on Thursday, July 24, 1947, the search party started the arduous three-and-a-half mile climb toward South Tahoma Glacier. ...

That afternoon, the first fragments of an aircraft were found at the 9,500-foot level, strewn over a quarter-mile-wide area and partially embedded in the ice. Initial efforts to free pieces of the wreckage with ice axes proved unsuccessful. Although no bodies were located, searchers found a Marine Corps health record, a piece of a uniform, a seat belt, a temperature control panel and fragments of an aircraft’s fuselage. ... Navy officials positively identified the health record as belonging to a marine aboard the missing Curtis R5C transport.

On Friday, July 25, 1947, the mountaineers returned to South Tahoma Glacier to search for signs of the 32 missing men, but the weather had deteriorated ... They recovered additional evidence identifying the wreckage, including a knapsack containing Marine Corps health and service records, and saw considerably more that could not be extricated from the ice. But no bodies were found although searchers dug several feet down into the ice at various locations to inspect debris.

On Saturday, July 26, 1947, Navy officials announced that, due to the extremely difficult and dangerous conditions on the glacier, the search for the missing men had been suspended. ...

On Monday, August 18, 1947, Assistant Chief Ranger Bill Butler was on a scouting trip around the South Tahoma Glacier with two park rangers when he spotted a large piece of wreckage at the 10,500-foot level. The rangers investigated and found the crushed nose section of the Curtis R5C, which had been buried under several feet of snow since winter. The sun had melted the snow down to the glacial ice, revealing the nose section with the bodies of 11 men tangled inside. ...

On Friday, August 22, 1947, 17 climbers, led by Butler, returned to the glacier to survey the new site and search for more bodies. In addition to the 11 men found in the crushed nose section, 14 more bodies, most encased in ice, and a considerable amount of the broken plane, were discovered wedged in a crevasse. A heavy volume of rocks and boulders falling from the glacier’s headwall forced the search party to withdraw, but they brought out wallets, rings, watches, and personal papers of many of the men who died. The Naval Public Information Office in Seattle announced that all 32 Marine bodies had been located; 25 had been seen and there was no doubt the other seven were there also. ...

On Monday, August 25, 1947, 13 climbers, led again by Butler, returned to South Tahoma Glacier to assess the feasibility of removing the bodies for burial without undue hazard. Included in the survey party were nine experts in mountain and winter warfare from the Army’s Mountain Division. The following day, officials from the Army, Navy, and National Park Service met at Fort Lewis to discuss the recovery problems. After careful consideration, all the experts agreed to abandon the mission because it would endanger the lives of the recovery parties. Clinching the decision was a letter written after the memorial service by parents of six of the Marines aboard the ill-fated plane, stating that sufficient effort had been made to recover their sons' remains ...

FULL STORY: https://www.historylink.org/File/7820

 

[EnolaGaia]

"Read his report carefully, and the report of the prospector, and you will see that the objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter. They were weaving among the mountains at a speed in excess of 1 ,200 miles per hour! And they were twenty miles from Arnold's position. So Arnold was observing small (30 feet) objects travelling at supersonic speed twenty miles in front of him!

Something is wrong here. If all his calculations were correct he would not be able to see those things at all. They were too small ... they were too far away ... and they were moving too fast to be visible to the naked eye!". (John Keel) ...

Keel - 40 years after the Arnold sighting - was continuing longstanding mistaken interpretations of Arnold's extemporaneous attempts to assess facts during the sighting.

Arnold repeatedly claimed he'd estimated the breadth of the mystery objects as being on the order of 100 feet. As Shouh summarizes in his section 8 (regarding Arnold's size estimations):

Arnold believed his range from the unknown objects was about 23 miles, at which distance an object subtending an angle of 3 arcmin would be about 100ft long. This is consistent with Arnold's own June 1947 estimate. According to the very earliest sources he was, by implication, guessing a figure of about 100ft and he later made this explicit.

On June 26 1947 he was quoted as describing "shiny flat objects each as big as a DC-4," 124 and on June 27 they were "big as DC-4 airplanes, shining like mirrors, and weaving like the tail of a kite". ... As mentioned above, both dimensions of a DC-4 are ~100ft. In a broadcast interview in April 1950 Arnold said they were "at least 100 feet across". ... What appear to be typed notes of an interview with Arnold, initialled by University of Washington meteorologist Dr. Richard J. Reed and dated March 1965, record Arnold as saying that the objects seen at Mt Rainier were "100 ft". ... And twelve years later he was still saying the same thing, telling his 1977 Fate symposium audience: "I judged their size to be, probably, a hundred feet."

The lower figures (most commonly in the range of 40 - 50 feet; this 30-foot figure being the lowest I've ever seen) originated with Hynek's dismissal of the Arnold sighting. As Shouh demonstrates in detail, Hynek (and subsequent Army / Air Force commentators) mistook Arnold's angular measurement for an absolute measurement. Keel even repeats Hynek's erroneously claimed lower bound for visibility to the human eye.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The relevant article would seem to be "Kenneth Arnold", by John A. Keel.

Flying Saucer Review
Vol. 30, N. 1: October 1984
p. 26

Thank you. Managed to get hold of a copy and turns out this is an obituary from Keel. Looks like our 1987 feature is indeed the one Brad Sparks mistakenly recalled dating from 1984.

www.forteanmedia.com/FSR_John_Keel.pdf

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This would be a good time to dispense with this pesky side-story once and for all ...

Thank you kindly for taking the time to explain all of this.

It's a clarification I have never come across anywhere else and thankfully now on record.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Keel - 40 years after the Arnold sighting - was continuing longstanding mistaken interpretations of Arnold's extemporaneous attempts to assess facts during the sighting.

Keel's brief article brought a proverbial 'stinging rebuke', from Timothy Good and others.

www.forteanmedia.com/FSR_Tim_Good.pdf

www.forteanmedia.com/FSR_Jim_Deardorff.pdf

 

[Comfortably Numb]

My favorite candidate is Pyramid Peak - a pointed dark prominence on Rainier's southwestern flank. This struck me as the most likely candidate even before I'd seen evidence Pyramid Peak had been identified as the occluding 'peak' back in the Sixties.

You are addressing something which gives myself a further thought.

If 'Pyrami' Peak', doesn't that necessitate disregarding Arnold's own testimony of the peak being at circa 9,200 feet and 25 miles away?

And effectively replacing it with something else, which seems a better fit to equate with his ultimate speed calculation.

Obviously, the entire point about an American White Pelican (AWP) explanation is the number of flight characteristics which are directly comparable.

Essentially, it's either that or spaceships, the likes of which were never encountered again, by anyone, ever since.

One is infinitely more plausible than the other.

What's to stop taking the same approach there., i.e., let's go with the AWP scenario and simply change the parameters to suit?

[Edit: See further comments on my post #208]

 

[Comfortably Numb]

A current news story.

Similar to Arnold's sighting...?

Swarm of Potential UFOs Spotted in Sky Above Chino Hills, CA | TMZ TV

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Kenneth Arnold revisits the location of his sighting.

It's all too brief, unfortunately and not sure it adds anything insightful.

Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World:10, U.F.O.s (September, 1980)

 

[Comfortably Numb]

What's to stop taking the same approach there., i.e., let's go with the AWP scenario and simply change the parameters to suit?

Just going through those copious 'UFORL' discussions and mercifully coming towards an end, when I noticed the following exchange between Brad Sparks and myself.

It's highlighted because it perfectly illustrates the point I was expressing.

I wrote, beginning with quoting Arnold's letter/'formal report':

"A number of news men and experts suggested that I might have been seeing reflections or even a mirage. This I know to be absolutely false, as I observed these objects not only through the glass of my airplane but turned my airplane sideways where I could open my window and observe them with a completely unobstructed view. (Without sun glasses)".
(End)

This seems to be a point which was regrettably never clarified in later years, as were obviously now many others, and we can only deduce what exactly happened.

Judging by his comments from the interview, it sounds like Arnold made that turn just after he began his timing exercise.

Which window - right or left-hand side - would Arnold probably have 'lined up' sideways with the objects? Does that tell us how he most likely turned his airplane and in which direction?

What then - did he return to his original heading?

Unless we quantify this, it's debatable - not factual - what Arnold's perceptions were throughout the incident".


Brad replied:

"This indicates that we really need to know the exact path of Arnold's plane. If he made a left turn to watch them out the right hand window, then the bird hypothesis is dead, as I said before.

But if he made a left, and then a right, then it isn't dead".


In which case, I shall choose left, then right...

And so on...

 

[EnolaGaia]

If 'Pyrami' Peak', doesn't that necessitate disregarding Arnold's own testimony of the peak being at circa 9,200 feet and 25 miles away?
And effectively replacing it with something else, which seems a better fit to equate with his ultimate speed calculation. ...

The only elevation / altitude that's specifically 'known' is Arnold's claimed flight altitude of 9200 feet.

The elevations of various landmarks within his field of view are also known.

Arnold made some simplistic assumptions in setting his effective reference horizon at around 10,000 feet and estimating the altitude of the mystery objects to be roughly equivalent to his own.

There are multiple key characteristics of the object train that AFAIK he never bothered to describe (however approximately), such as:

- The vertical spread of the objects in the train (from frontmost / highest to rearmost / lowest);
- The extent to which this overall vertical spread remained constant;
- The extent to which the inter-object vertical and horizontal spacing remained constant; and ...
- Which relative object position within the train (highest / central / lowest) he assumed to be at his own altitude.

Arnold indicated the object train (or perhaps certain subsets within it) shifted apparent altitude as much as an estimated 1000 feet during his sighting.

As such, there's no firm basis for presuming the "jagged peak" behind which some of the objects were occluded was at, above, or below his own flight altitude.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I would also note that Arnold can only be construed as presuming the transient 'disappearance' of the final / lowest two or three objects in the train resulted from their passing behind a peak or prominence.

This can only be considered a working presumption rather than an obvious fact, because ...

Any prominence / peak visible in the snow field on Mt. Rainier's flank would be darker than the surrounding (snowy) terrain. Arnold described the objects as dark except when they 'flashed' and much thinner (vertically extensive) when seen edge-on.

Who's to say Arnold's presumption of occluded objects has to be true? All we can surmise is that he lost track of the last few as they passed a dark patch on the mountainside. If those two or three objects had shifted into edge-on orientation (from Arnold's vantage) as they crossed a dark patch they could seem to have disappeared.

Why did Arnold cling so tightly to the idea the objects had to have been occluded rather than edge-on and lost amid the dark patch? He had to do this - otherwise he had no basis whatsoever for judging the objects' distance. Without a decent estimate of the objects' distance he had no way to calculate their apparent speed.