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: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:32:26 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:46:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:44:30 EDT
>Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:58:54 -0400
>Re: Arnold Saw Pelicans

>The bird theory runs into the following fundamental problems,
>among others:

>(1) ARC-LIGHT OR SUNLIKE BRIGHTNESS.

<snip>

>(2) MORE THAN 100-DEGREE FLIGHT PATH.

<snip>

>(3) ARNOLD'S PLANE WOULD HAVE OVERTAKEN BIRDS.

<snip>

>(4) ALTITUDE TOO HIGH FOR SPEED.

<snip>

To this list add:

(5) THE OBJECTS WERE TOO FAR APART TO BE FLOCKING BIRDS. Arnold
said they were flying in a linear formation, strung out over 5
miles at a distance of approximately 25 miles (the 5 miles was a
distinct plateau which Arnold said he later flew over and
measured). Arnold was thus describing the formation covering an
angle of 5/25 = ~.2 radians, or about 11 degrees. Even if Arnold
were grossly in error about the actual distance to the objects,
this still would have no effect on the observed angular size of
the formation. All one needs to do is rescale to any given
distance to get the length of the formation.

E.g., if the "pelicans" were 5 miles away instead of 25, their
linear formation would be one mile in length instead of five.
Each of the nine "birds" would be separated from the next by
over 600 feet. But in the real world, birds have to be only a
few feet apart to flock and play follow-the-leader with the bird
in front. Even if you reduce the distance to an absurdly close
1000 feet, the birds would still be in a formation 200 feet long
and separated from each other by 25 feet, again too far apart
for proper flocking.

>Notice I'm carefully refraining from getting into heated
>arguments over the SHAPES, FLIGHT PATTERNS and ANGULAR SIZE.
>These could be argued endlessly so I don't think it fruitful
>to pursue.

Very wise, since Easton is still engaged in his equally absurd
line of argumentation that the saucer shape was created by the
media and never described by Arnold. In fact there are number of
quotes from Arnold immediately after the sighting in which
Arnold described the basic shape as saucer-like, disk-like, like
a pie plate, etc. His drawing to the Air Force two weeks later
was again of thin objects rounded in front and coming to a
rounded point in back, just like his verbal descriptions. Easton
is well aware of these quotes, but simply ignores them like they
never existed.

LATER, Arnold added that the lead object was somewhat different
from the rest, having the double-crescent rear edge, giving it a
flying wing type appearance. There is a picture which Easton
obsesses on, where Arnold is holding a drawing of this
_singular_ object. To Easton, that's ALL Arnold ever described,
conveniently ignoring all of Arnold's earlier descriptions that
the other 8 objects were saucer-like in appearance. The
double-crescent was a pelican, and pay no attention to the rest.

>I posted the following on James Easton's UFO Research List and
>on the Project 1947 List where he also posts, but as far as I
>know there has been no response.

Easton will never respond properly to these devestating
criticisms of his pelican theory, because he is incapable of
doing so. He seemingly can't comprehend even the simplest
scientific objections and then respond in kind with
well-formulated logical counter-arguments. He is a wordsmith,
not a scientist. Obfuscation through judicious editing and
semantic quibbling are his tools of debate. The Arnold case is
certainly not the first time I've seen him deliberately ignore
evidence that strongly contradicts his opinions.

Unable to respond to his critics, he and his flock of admirers
take another tack. The critics of his theories have no valid
points that merit response. They are simply "true believers" who
can't bear to have their pet sightings explained.

Not so. I for one don't mind reasonable explanations that do a
good job of explaining most of the details (the mark of a good
theory). What we so-called "true believers" can't stand are the
utterly idiotic "explanations" put forward by people seeming to
lack all common sense and/or intellectual integrity.

David Rudiak