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 -> 1999 -> Jun -> Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:01:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:13:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


In the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian, of 26 June, 1947, it's
reported of Kenneth Arnold that, "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".

Perhaps we can still clarify further whether it could have
"blocked his view", or, if it's more likely that he simply lost
sight of the objects against this intermediate 'peak'.
 It's important if his perception that the objects 'vanished'
behind a distant peak, was a main reason Arnold believed they
were some 25 miles distant.

In 'Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again', Martin Kottmeyer
wrote:

"The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses
near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the
event was much more localized than Arnold surmised. A critical
look at the distance estimate is both warranted and necessary.
One must almost certainly accept the objects passed in front of
Mount Rainier's snow field as Arnold claimed. The angular
velocity of the objects indicated by Arnold's clocking of the
objects between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams is .8 degrees per
second. At that speed it would take nine seconds to cross the
face of Mount Rainier at the 9,200 foot level indicated by
Arnold's report. This is too long for a spurious observation
related the fleetingness of the phenomenon. This would rule out
explanations based on distant sky phenomena like a train of
meteors, Campbellian mirages, or density-shifting space animals.

What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has
been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects having
"swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks." This would seem
to put a lower limit to the distance if one could first
determine which peaks they swung around and if they were broad
enough to have a transit time to regard the observation as
secure. Arnold was slightly more specific in later recountings
of the event. In The Coming of the Saucers he said they
momentarily disappeared "behind a jagged peak that juts out from
Mount Rainier proper."

In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress he says,
"When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to me they were very
thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a
projection on Mount Rainier in the snowfield." These are not
exactly the same thing, but they give a fair indication of what
to look for on the geological survey maps.

Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet
plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some
feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat
little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier
and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak
which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's
base"."


This seems to concur with Bruce Maccabee's assessment:

"These statements about how they flew with respect to the
mountain peaks are very important because they provide
information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain
peaks lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from
Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east
of Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the
altitude of the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be
approximately at his altitude because they seemed to be "pretty
much on the horizon to me." Since he was flying at 9,200 ft,
this implies that they were close to that altitude. (Arnold
actually stated his letter that they were at 9,500 ft.) However,
the mountain peaks south of Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000
ft high, with the higher ones being farther away (more to the
east) from Arnold. Hence his statement that there were higher
peaks on the far side of the pathway indicates that the objects
were definitely lower than about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he
stated that they went behind some (or at least one) of the
lower, closer peaks. Geological survey maps show that mountain
peaks which the objects could have disappeared behind have
altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it appears that they were
lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold overestimated their
altitude".


In the early, detailed radio interview, Arnold states, "I could
see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier and against
the snow on Mt. Adams as they were flashing, and against a high
ridge that happens to lay in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams".

If the objects were seen against the snow of Mt. Rainier, Mt.
Adams and a high ridge that was between the mountains, what
'peaks' could they have gone behind?


In a related point, the 'Chicago Daily Tribune', of 25 June,
quoted Arnold as saying, "I counted nine of them as they
disappeared behind the peak of Mount Rainier".

Could the objects have gone behind the mountain, when they were
also supposed to be travelling across its slopes, e.g., "low
over the slopes of Mt. Rainier" and "not more than 500 feet over
the plateau", according to statements attributed to Arnold in
the 'Oregon Journal' of 27 June?

Aside from this earliest 'Chicago Daily Tribune' report, did
Arnold ever claim the objects "disappeared behind the peak of
Mount Rainier"?


Also in that radio interview, Arnold states, "due to the fact
that I had Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams to clock them by, I
just thought I'd see just how fast they were going".

Did Arnold ever mention again that he used Mt. Saint Helens as a
reference point, or was this probably an error and he meant Mt.
Rainier?


In his letter to the Air Force, he claimed, "I watched these
objects with great interest as I had never before observed
airplanes flying so close to the mountain tops, flying directly
south to southeast down the hog's back of a mountain range. I
would estimate their elevation could have varied a thousand feet
one way or the other up or down, but they were pretty much on
the horizon to me which would indicate that they were near the
same elevation as me. They flew like many times I have observed
geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they
were linked together. They seemed to hold a definite direction
but rather swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks. I
could quite accurately determine their pathway due to the fact
that there were several high peaks a little this side of them as
well as higher peaks on the other side of their pathway".

This is a much clearer explanation.

There were mountain peaks between Arnold and the nine objects
and further, higher, peaks beyond. The objects flew in-between
this range of high peaks and ridges.

However, it seems these features weren't nearly so high as
Arnold thought and the objects were flying much lower than he
perceived, something that Arnold never checked.

In which case, is it agreed Arnold had no idea, not then, not
ever, that he was observing from what seems to have been some
4,000, maybe 5,000 feet above the objects?

If it's argued that this *couldn't* have directly affected his
subsequent judgement of distances between himslef and the
objects, plus where they were flying in relation to the peaks,
what is the basis of that argument?


The Pendleton newspaper article also states, "The Boise flyer
said they flew on the west sides of Rainier and Adams, adding
that he believed this would make it more difficult for them to
be seen from the ground".

Is this 'west side story' of any relevance in understanding the
overall perspective?


James.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.co.uk