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, 28 Jul 1999 00:03:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:33:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs


 >From: David Rudiak DRudiak@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:04:48 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>(You would have to read my report on
 >>Arnold to get the details.)  Hence Hynek decided that the
 >>objects probably were about 50 ft long, fast fighter aircraft ,
 >>in which case they were not 20 miles away but only 6 miles away,
 >>and traveling not 1,200 or 1,700 mph, but about 400 mph.  Hence
 >>there was a big contradiction between Arnold's size estimate and
 >>Hynek's size "estimate" (really a "preferred size") and so the
 >>Air Force took this as indication that Arnold's report was so
 >>full of contradictions and errors that it didn't merit further
 >>attention.  Incidently, the official AF explanation has nothing
 >>to do with  Hynek's analysis.  According to Project Blue Book
 >>files Arnold saw a "mirage!" Now there's a rock-solid bit of
 >>logic for you.

 >Actually what was full of holes was Hynek's analysis, not
 >Arnold's report.  Hynek was an astronomer, which may have made
 >him an expert on the optics of telescopes and their resolution.
 >But he obviously knew nothing about measurement of human visual
 >acuity.

<snip>

Thanks for your typically erudite comments on the Arnold case.
It was, of course, Hynek;s analysis that was as solid as a swiss
cheese.

The analysis of eyesight capabilities, etc., which you have
presented is contained in each of the two papers I have written
on Arnold: "The Arnold Phenomenon" in the January.February,
March/April and May/June issues of the International UFO
Reporter (IUR) of th Center for UFO Studies and also in The 1997
Proceeding of the International MUFON Symposium.

You can also request a text version (with lousy illustrations)
from:  brumac@compuserve.com.