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: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:29:44 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:48:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:47:44 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 04:19:27 +0100

>>Regarding:

>>>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Bruce wrote:

>>>>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>>Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the
>>>subject of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold
>>>was "absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks
>>>there was such an assumption does not understand the nature of
>>.>the analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could
>>>have been in error in some places.

>>Bruce,

>>Surely it's not debatable whether Kenneth Arnold "could" have
>>been in error in "some" places, that fact is acknowledged and
>>highlighted in your paper - 'The Complete Sighting Report of
>>Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis'.>

>>>But, let's get down to the crux of the matter: which Arnold
>>>statements would you like to reject or modify?>


<snip>

>>Arnold then decided to take this opportunity to 'clock' the
>>airspeed of the 'planes'.

>>It's perhaps crucial to appreciate that Arnold only decided to
>>carry out this exercise because, as he says in the radio
>>interview, "I just thought I'd see how fast they were going,
>>since among pilots we argue about speed so much".

>Crucial? Only? He thought they were jets.  Probably
>wondered just how fast the military aircraft could go

>>It wasn't a result of Arnold believing the airplanes were
>>travelling at an incredible speed. He only concluded that after
>>first carrying out a timing between two prominent landmarks and
>>then later calculating how far apart those landmarks were in
>>conjunction with the 'stop watch' reading.
>Wrong. He assumed from the first that they were jets.

>>As he timed the objects' - believed to be airplanes - what then
>>surprised him was a realisation that they didn't have any
>>'tails'.

>>However, as Arnold related, he didn't give either this or the
>>apparently fast airspeed too much thought at the time.>

>It didn't bother him too much while he was flying, even after he
>found a time of only 102 seconds from Rainier to adams \
>because, as he wrote to the AF, h knew that th army and air
>forces had fast aircraft.

>>Consequently, he worked out that the distance between the two
>>fixed points was some 50 miles and that if the objects had
>>travelled that distance, as he thought, in the 1 minute and
>>forty seconds recorded, they must have been travelling at an
>>unprecedented speed.
>This was after he landed.

>>If, as you explained in the detailed analysis, Arnold's estimate
>>of the objects' altitude was grossly mistaken and that when he
>>apparently turned his plane around during this timing exercise,
>>we don't know if he changed direction by 90, or 180 degrees, or
>>something else, then consequently, there can be surely be no
>>confidence in his overall perceptions.

>As described above his incorrect estmate of the altitude is
>understandable.   This has no bearing on the accuracy of his
>recall in turning the plane.   As for the turn itself, if he
>turned to the right he would open the left window near him and
>look ou while flying parallel t the objects.   Had he turned to
>the right he would have flown away from them.

>No point in turning 180 degrees or 360.

>Makes sense for him to turn t the right, whether unknowns or
>birds.   However, if brds he woudl have realized immediately
>that he was going faster

>>Obviously the closer these 'fluttering' objects actually were,
>>the faster they would appear to travel between two distant fixed
>>points.

>Yes, when flying a "crossing" pattern.   And, if Arnold
>initially saw them toward a direction north of Rainier, then by
>the time they got right in front of him (and below) they would
>have been closer.

>>When logic kicks in and we consider that the observation was
>>wholly subjective, has proven misconceptions and that Kenneth
>>Arnold reported a subsequent sighting with similar
>>characteristics and which was almost certainly of birds... at
>>what point does this remotely become sustainable evidence of
>>'alien spacecraft'?

>When logic kicks in and one attempts to formulate  a reasonable
>reconstruction based on Arnold (traveling 100 mph or faster at
>9,200 ft) and birds (traveling 50 m,ph or slower at 5,000 ft)
>one finds it just doesn't work.   Arnold would have gotten close
>enough to recognize birds by their shapes and by their lower
>speed and lower altitude.

>Sorry.... this pelican has its bellyful.


Bruce James and Dennis,

I'm not going to go over this point by point but just make a few
observations.

The first is an obvious disregard for one simple fact and that
is the stated Callair altitude that Arnold gave as 9,200 feet.
I've brought this up before with James who seems to want to
ignore it. The fact is Arnold did not know what his true
altitude was because he had no way of verifying it. He looked at
his altimiter and saw 9,200 feet and gave that as his altitude.
That could have been out as much as two or three thousand feet
[don't say it can't happen, it's happened to me] from the
station pressure at take-off in the warm lowlands to the cool
temps a couple of hundred miles away in the mountains. Note Well
that pilots are constantly updating their altimeter settings.

Every time you call a tower or a unicom or some other
uncontrolled airfield where someone is manning a radio and has
the instruments, they give the local pressure called "station
pressure" and the wind speed and direction before they say
anything else and you update your altimeter. Now Arnold was
without radio and in real wilderness in that area so had no way
to update his altimeter. James you can ignore this all you want
but it is a fact of life. The chances are that Arnold's
altimeter was reading high or low because he was a region of
cold heavy air and had come from a warm region where he had
originally set his altimeter to the field elevation.

Observation: If Arnold turned his aircraft to get a better look
he would have turned [banked] his plane to keep the objects on
his side [the left] for better visibility. In this case he would
have turned right about 90 degrees. However he probably would
have lost sight of the objects for the few seconds it took to
accomplish the manouver because his left wing [the Callair is a
low wing] would have come up, obscuring his vision.

I've also tried to impress on others the type of skill that
Arnold would  have had with some 3,000 hours of flying time and
the skills and knowledge required to fly in the mountains
without killing yourself. The winds around mountains can be
vicious and are always unpredictable. You don't just fly through
the area, fat dumb and happy and hope the airport shows up in
your windscreen after a certain amount of time has passed. The
only way you know that you are going to reach your destination
before you run out of fuel is by knowing your ground speed and
how many gallons your a/c burns per hour at cruise. You find out
the former by measuring the distance between two points on your
chart and clocking your time to cover that distance. Knowing
that will give you your ground speed. I'm not going to go into
the other steps such as figuring for the winds/drift and
maintaining an accurate heading, but mention this because I've
said before that I'll bet that Arnold knew right down to a mile
where he was at all times. For him not have known would have
been foolhardy at best and suicidal at worst.

I've been a bit put off by the impression being floated, by
some, that Arnold was some kind of dolt who was frittering
around the mountains with no particular idea of where he was,
didn't know birds from jets, couldn't estimate distances or work
out a speed/time problem, dispite the fact that he would have
done them dozens of times during each flight. The pilots back
then didn't have the luxury of Loran C or GPS and so had to rely
on their piloting and navigation skills.

For your edification it is a lot easier to clock a time over a
measured distance by using a stopwatch than it is by the panel
clock because you can be more precise, but a panel clock
[usually an 8 day windup clock with a sweep second hand] works
almost as well. It was his clock and he was used to it. You must
remember that Arnold relied on his sense of distance and
experience in flying to formulate his estimate of the situation
when he saw the UFOs. Don't blow that off so easily.3,000 hours
of flying at 100 MPH is 300,000 miles of distance flown. You can
pack in a lot of experience in that time frame.

I believe that it was Bruce that wondered if birds could fly at
6,000 or was it 9,000? feet. My Flight Supplement cautions
pilots to watch out for Canada Geese at 32,000 feet when they
are migrating. If I remember correctly a DC-3 struck a bird over
Mount Everest during WW II while flying the "hump" as they
called it.

I don't mean to be snotty but try to remember that Arnold was a
highly skilled pilot and not a fool. He had to be a careful and
skilled pilot to navigate the type of terrain that he did.

Another observation. We'll probably never know what Arnold saw
that day as is true of many other cases, but I think you are
drawing a long bow if you stick with your bird theory James.

Don Ledger