Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:44:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:47:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


EASTON MAKES GRAB FOR PUBLICITY
BECOMES THE LATEST TO BE STUCK TO THE
ARNOLD-EXPLANATION-TARBABY

James Easton has gone public with his pelican theory.

>N E W S  R E L E A S E

>Is the 'Flying Saucer' Mystery Finally Solved


>On 24 June, 1947, just before 3:00 p.m., private pilot Kenneth
>Arnold was flying over the Cascade mountain range in Washington
>state, when something caught his eye. To his left and in the
>distance was a formation of nine unusual objects which "fluttered
>and sailed", their wings occasionally reflecting light from the
>afternoon sun.

>Arnold noticed that the formation flew like a flock of geese,
>however, as it seemed they were too fast for birds, he presumed
>these must be a new type of military jet. Arnold reckoned the
>aircraft were travelling in excess of 1,000 miles an hour and
>later told a fascinated media how the objects flew "like speed
>boats on rough water or similar to the tail of a Chinese kite
>that I once saw blowing in the wind".>

>More significantly, he recalled in his subsequent book, 'The
>Coming of the Saucers', "As I put it to newsmen in Pendleton,
>Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across
>the water". First reported as 'saucer-like', they quickly became
>known as 'flying saucers' and hysteria followed fears of a new
>Soviet weapon or 'men from Mars'.

>Yet Arnold never claimed to have seen anything saucer-shaped at
>all! The objects were actually 'bat-like' and "flew like many
>times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-
>like line as if they were linked together - they were flying
>diagonally in echelon formation".>


>1. Photograph of Kenneth Arnold with a sketch depicting one of
>the 'bat-like' objects he observed:

>http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/arnold.jpg

COMMENT:
This shows a drawing of what Arnold said was ONE of the nine,
the only one with a double crescent rear end.  Apparently it
stood out in Arnold's mind because it was unique.

Arnold's drawing in the Air Force report shows semicircular
objects with convex rear coming to a dull point. (Image in Trent
photo 1 has a similar characteristic shape.)

>It was these distinctive flight descriptions and others which led
>Scottish researcher and writer James Easton to take up the reins
>of the 50 year-old mystery.>


>Realising the similarity with a formation of birds, yet
>unfamiliar with any species which could explain all of these
>features, Easton wrote to an Internet based discussion forum for
>Pacific North-west 'birders'. He explains, "The clue to possibly
>identifying the enigmatic objects was in Arnold's description of
>their flight characteristics. Often, birds have a distinctive
>signature, the 'jizz' as it's known, and from this a bird's
>probable identity can be determined, even if the sighting was
>inconclusive".>

>Easton's hunch proved correct and Arnold's long forgotten details
>were recognised by the American birders. And it was no ordinary
>bird they proposed. It was a formation of American White
>Pelicans.>

<snip>

>Arnold believed the objects were many miles distant, however,
>previous attempts to solve the 'flying saucer' riddle have
>deduced that Arnold could have misjudged the perspective against
>a background of snow-covered hills. Easton states, "It has been
>proven that Arnold was mistaken about his estimated height of
>nearby peaks and he used them to judge relative distances between
>himself, the 'objects' and consequently their size and speed. We
>must keep in mind that Arnold's account is his subjective
>interpretation of a 'brief encounter' with no corroborative
>witnesses and nobody ever again saw the type of 'craft' which
>Arnold reported".

It has been "proven that Arnold was mistaken about his estimated
height of neaby peaks..."?  He said they were going "in and out
of" the chain of mountain peaks south of Rainier. An observation
such as this does not require a knowledge of th actual altitudes
of the peaks. No corroborative witnesses? Obviously Fred Johnson
(prospector near Mt. Adams) did not see pelicans... but he did
think he saw Arnold's UFOs.

But, anyway, since Easton has now placed his head publicly on
the chopping block.....so let's see where it falls... I
challenge him to provide a pelican based explanation which makes
sense by demonstrating, with maps for clarity, where these
pelicans were relative to Arnold every 15 seconds during the
sighting.

MACCABEE'S FIRST LAW OF UFO EXPLANATION:

"Any explanation based on a known  phenomenon should obey the
laws of physics and the particular phenomenon."

Therefore, it should be possible for Easton to devise at least
ONE combination of pelican and Arnold flight tracks which
explains Arnold's descriptions.

Naturally this "scenario" must include an assumed speed of the
pelicans, an assumed speed for Arnold, the track Arnold was
following when he first saw them, the track the pelicans were
following (basically southward or nearly perpendicular to
Arnold's track), an initial pelican location (or a set of
possible initial locations), an initial Arnold location (or set
of locations), a demonstration that the assumed pelicans could
have appeared to Arnold as if they traveled from some location
NORTH of the direction (from Arnold's intial position) of Mt.
Rainier, past Rainier and southward past Mt. Adams (as viewed
from Arnold's ending position).

This scenario must also include the implications of Arnold's
claim that he turned his plane "sideways" and rolled down his
window to be certain that there was no reflection from glass
between himself and the objects.   Considering that Arnold was
on the left side of the plane  he would have rolled down the
left-side window.

Based on this one may conclude that Arnold was traveling for a
period of time in the same direction as the objects.  Hence the
pelican hypothesis must explain why Arnold would not have
realized he was gaining on the pelicans.  (No, the assumption
that Arnold was traveling at only 50 mph is not acceptable.
This has been discussed with Easton before.)

As an aide to the understanding of this scenario I would suggest
that Mr. Easton use 15 second time marks along the trajectories
and plot them on a grid so that any supporters of the
pelican  hypothesis can, for themselves, prove that pelicans
can appear as shiny semicircular objects with convex rear ends
that travel in and out of mountain peaks 20 miles away and
seem to be moving at supersonic speeds.