Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Nov -> Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:44:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:37:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:04:47 -0500
From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Regarding...

>Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:56:23 -0600
>From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Kenneth Arnold's testimony

Michael wrote:

>>From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net>
>>Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony
>>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500

>>Hi Scott.

>>Yes.  He did describe them as delta shaped, similar to what today we
>>would describe as the B-2.

Arnold's sketch in the Blue Book file shows a semicircular front
half and a sort of protruding V shape at the back

>I have an audio tape of his initial conversation with the reporters
>at the airport.

<MAGNUM SNIP of Arnold interview>

>As a general contribution to discussions -

>It's an important interview in many respects and not having seen this
>for a while, but having just re-read 'Resolving Arnold - Parts 1 & 2',
>by Martin Kottmeyer, I note Arnold's comments, "I, at first, thought
>they were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast
>that I immediately changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of new
>jet planes in formation".

>Kottmeyer writes:

>"Returning to Arnold's report: 'They flew like many times I have
>observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they
>were linked together'. That is what they certainly seem like. Geese
>do fly in chains. A number of nine makes sense. The arrangement of the
>leader being higher than the others, unlike military formations, is
>sensible for geese who take advantage of the downdraft turbulence of
>others in the formation for easier flying. Geese chains do undulate
>like kite tails. They do present a basically flat side profile when
>seen edge-on.

>From above they have a bilateral symmetry like the heel drawn by
>Arnold. In his Congress paper he however emphatically denies this
>idea, '-- but they were not geese!'

>He does not explain the reasoning".

>I wonder if Kottmeyer has ever seen this interview and realises that
>Arnold appears to dismiss the explanation based on his estimation of
>the objects' speed. If Arnold's air-speed calculations were wrong,
>which is of course conceivable and at best they were subjective, there
>are key aspects of Arnold's descriptions which otherwise correlate.

>However, Kottmeyer also notes that 9200 feet is a rather high altitude
>for geese to be flying and is doubtful whether an experienced pilot
>such as Arnold would misidentify a flock of geese.

>Perhaps the most important point is Arnold's initial confirmation
>that the objects, "looked something like a pie plate that was cut in
>half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear".

>Kottmeyer's articles can be read at the following URL's:

>http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n06/resolving-arnold-part-1.html
>http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n07/resolving-arnold-part-2.html

>In the second part, he helpfully reproduces Arnold's original drawing
>for the Air Force files.

>This matches what Arnold describes in the interview.

<SNIP about other Arnold sources of info and geese flying at
12,000 ft>

>It may not therefore be so unlikely that a flock of geese is the
>explanation for Arnold's sighting.

>Maybe it wasn't, but if we can't trust the variance in the evidence,
>how can we trust his overall judgement?

>Kottmeyer and Andersen also note this wasn't to prove the last time
>Kenneth Arnold saw a flock of 'UFOs'.

Several years ago I got into a letter-writing argument with
Kottmeyer over the "goose hypothesis". Kottmeyer argued that the
objects were geese flying high and fast and were a lot closer
than Arnold estimated. Kottmeyer rejected Arnold's claim that the
UFOs flew in and out of the mountain peaks south of Rainier. He
came on strong, until I pointed out that Arnold said he turned
his plane and opened the (left hand side) window. At this time
Arnold was flying south, the same direction as the UFOS. Had they
been geese Arnold would have overtaken and passed them. At any
rate he wouldn't have been puzzled at their "high speed" even if
they could fly as fast as 50 mph, as Kottmeyer suggested.
(Arnold's plane was probably traveling 100 mph or faster but
certainly much faster than 50 mph)