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 -> Jun -> Here

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:18:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:22:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


Regarding:

>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:29:44 -0300
>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

Don wrote:

>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.

Don,

If I had seen this mentioned before, I certainly wouldn't have
ignored it. Your comments are a helpful insight.

>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.

That's interesting and I don't recall Bruce taking this into
account in his Arnold 'paper'.


>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 haven't see this useful information before.


>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.

Very much appreciated. It doesn't follow that Kenneth Arnold was
an idiot if he made an exited, two minute, error of judgement.


>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 had checked out the altitude probabilities for migrating
American White Pelicans long ago and it seems they're known to
reach 14,000 feet during migration.

One reference featuring airplanes came from Ann Johnson: "When
they come migrating through, there are frequently flocks that
literally disappear from view as they bank and the sun is no
longer reflecting directly on them. Put the binocs on them and
there they are. But being a lousy judge of distance, I have no
idea how high they are. Much higher than the airplanes on
approach and they are still 10 miles out. You can put the
numbers on that".


>Another observation. We'll probably never know what Arnold saw
>that day as is true of many other cases..

Of course, that's exactly what I said in the newsletter.

>.. but I think you are drawing a long bow if you stick with your
>bird theory James.

As I've also said before, it's not really my theory, although I
do think it's a better conceivable explanation than meteors,
'earth lights', mirages, 'billowing snow clouds', etc.

What probably isn't saying much as none of these are tenable.

It's also of course merely an expansion of Martin Kottmeyer's
theory.

The difference is that if birds were the explanation, there are
distinctive similarities between the flight characteristics of
American White Pelicans and what Arnold described, much more so
than with Swans, as Kottmeyer proposed.

He's quite happy with the new suggestion as are many others who
embrace some scepticism. Doubtless the resident 'Roswell/MJ-
12/saucer' zealot is not. ;)

As I wouldn't bother to even read what's a fair bet to be the
usual diatribe, I'm not in the least interested, even if there's
some meaningful material amongst the standard drivel.


Although I hadn't intended to post the following on the UpDates
list, this was an addendum to the last newsletter and contains
some background which hasn't been published here before:

Realising that Arnold's long out-of-print book was crucial
evidence I hadn't seen, I was subsequently able to acquiring a
copy on loan. It was only on reading this, that the full
significance of Arnold's later sighting became apparent.

I also undertook some further research, which isn't mentioned in
the newsletter as it was already lengthier than intended.

What follows are relevant findings and additional background,
some of which is being published here for the first time. It
will hopefully assist in the understanding the rationalisation
behind the premise offered.

Indigenous to Washington state, the American White Pelican
(Pelecan userythrorhynchos) is the largest bird in North America
and amongst the biggest in the world. A predominately white
bird, with black primaries and outer secondaries, it weighs up
to 15 kg, (33 lb) and it's massive wingspan can extend to 3 m
(10 ft) or more.

The clue to possibly identifying the enigmatic objects remains
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.

Don Baccus, an ornithologist, also commented to Michael Price
[see the newsletter for details of Michael's comments]:

"Michael, my first thought when I started reading your analysis
was white pelican. Several years ago, when training a good
birder in the finer details of splitting migrating hawks into
species, age, etc. at long distances at the beginning of the
fall migration season (i.e. training him to run our count), we
saw distant white 'blurps' fading in and out of visibility many
miles north. This was at the Goshutes, i.e. on the Utah/Nevada
border. It was near sunset. It was obvious that the sun was
reflecting on their underwings. They'd disappear momentarily and
then reappear in sequence. They were flying east-to-west and we
first spotted them somewhat to the northeast. I pegged them as
white pelicans almost immediately, as the whole cadence of the
thing matched the way white pelicans will soar in line (in this
case - they'll also 'V' up), and rather than flap all at once,
often will each begin to flap as each reaches the position where
the previous bird began to flap.  Same with turning, etc. Of
course, they'll also do this in more of a synchronized
formation, too, but I'm sure you've all seen white pelicans flap
and glide in the kind of pattern I'm describing.

I couldn't think of any bird that would show such a cadence and
literally twinkle white while switching from soaring to
flapping".


Investigating this suggestion further, there are notable
correlations with Arnold's observations.

Arnold claimed, "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 numbered nine. They were flying diagonally in echelon
formation..."

In 'Birds of the World', by Oliver L. Austin Jr. p 42, he
states:

"Pelicans fly in long lines, sometimes in a V formation,
sometimes abreast, sometimes in single file directly behind one
another. Most often they form a wide echelon, each bird slightly
behind and to one side of the next".

Arnold also mentions, "They were flying diagonally in echelon
formation with a larger gap in their echelon between the first
four and last five". Discussing this with Michael, he agreed
with my assessment that this is standard behaviour in a flock
and wrote, "all line-abreast, diagonal and astern flocking birds
develop gaps and fill them in randomly".

A further, distinctive connection, is Arnold's claim, "They
didn't fly like any aircraft I had ever seen before. In the
first place their echelon formation was backward from that
practiced by our Air Force. The elevation of the first craft was
greater than that of the last".

This is a typical feature of American White Pelicans flying in
formation.


Consider also his statements that:

"I observed the objects' outlines plainly as they flipped and
flashed against the snow and also against the sky".

"They fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and
emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their
surfaces".

In 'The Birds', by Roger T. Peterson (Time-Life International),
he writes:

"Much the simplest form of flight, certainly much less
complicated than flapping or hovering, is gliding flight".

"Swallows employ gliding flight, - several strong wing strokes
and a glide. So do pelicans travelling in formation...".

"Gliding saves energy, but gravity and air conditions determine
how far a bird can skim before it must flap again".

The parallel between Arnold's objects in echelon which "flipped
and flashed", "fluttered and sailed", and a formation of
pelicans in echelon "beating and gliding", as 'Birds of the
World' describes their flight, seems evident.

As Don Baccus remarked, "I couldn't think of any bird that would
show such a cadence and literally twinkle white while switching
from soaring to flapping".

Michael Price also confirmed, "Assuming he was looking at birds,
the flipflop appearance of these birds would be visible whether
higher, same altitude, or lower as the sun might be reflecting
strongly and directly off white upper and/or underwing
surfaces".


Kenneth Arnold was perhaps after all on the right track when he
stated:

"They flew in a definite formation but erratically. As I
described them at the time their flight was like speed boats on
rough water or similar to the tail of a Chinese kite that I once
saw blowing in the wind. Or maybe it would be best to describe
their flight characteristics as very similar to a formation of
geese, in a rather diagonal chain-like line, as if they were
linked together".

Very similar to a formation of geese, but based on the above
evidence, remarkably like a formation of American White Pelicans.

It would have been an uncommon, if not rare, sighting, especially
with the birds flying south and a possibility which Arnold is
most unlikely to have examined.

If that should be the answer and Arnold mistakenly concluded the
objects must be distant airplanes, it plays havoc with his
estimated calculations.


It's these estimates of speed and distance which are open to
dispute and Arnold's 'second coming of the saucers' encounter
must surely be considered critical evidence that he was capable
of mistaking the distance and airspeed of birds.

American researcher and writer Martin Kottmeyer had previously
reached a similar conclusion and more details can be found at:

Resolving Arnold - Part 1, by Martin Kottmeyer
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n06/resolving-arnold-part-
1.html

Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again, by Martin Kottmeyer
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n07/resolving-arnold-part-
2.html

Kottmeyer thought that Arnold may have been deceived by a flight
of swans.


British researcher and author, Peter Brookesmith, asked for an
opinion on the results of my investigations and Kottmeyer wrote:

"James Easton's thought that pelicans might be a better guess
than swans sounds plausible to me at first blush and no
objections come to mind. I guessed swans primarily on the points
that I knew they flew high enough and were larger, whiter,
faster, and rarer than geese. If pelicans match the flight
characteristics better as claimed - cool, I like it.

The people asking we take Arnold's testimony of the distances at
face value naughtily ignore the reasons I gave why we can't. If
real, the objects had to be huge and visible to scores of
people. They also had to be supersonic and generating sonic
booms that thousands should have heard. The guys arguing about
the trigonometry keep putting the birds and the planes on
perpendicular paths, but overlook that Arnold explicitly turned
the plane to get a better look out the side window. The paths
were parallel. Once you put that straight, the angular sizes and
velocity implicit in Arnold's report can fit coherently those of
a swan. I'm not sure if the speed or size of pelicans would
materially change the math, but if the flight characteristics
are a valid signature I wouldn't sweat such details.

Give Easton my appreciation for offering the alternative".


Any proposition that the American White Pelican was responsible
for Arnold's reported sighting, must be able to substantiate
that these birds are known to fly relatively fast and at high
altitude.

The ideal person to offer an informed opinion would be a pilot
who has encountered pelicans in flight and Mike Havener is a
glider pilot who wrote an article on his experiences.

He told me, "The birds I was soaring with were at about 3000 -
4000 feet MSL. We were flying in a continuous band of lift, so
we were continually climbing. I have seen pelicans at higher
altitudes when the lift is really good (maybe 6000 feet MSL)".

"The glider I was flying has a 38 mph stall speed... as a matter
of fact, I was flying at 52 mph between thermals, and these
birds were staying with me".

So, it seems whilst still not quite supersonic, pelicans are no
slouches and under ideal flying conditions, could show a
surprising turn of wing.

Mike added, "Since writing the article, I have received several
letters from other glider pilots who have shared the same
experience. Though none of them mentioned their flight profiles,
these reports have come from various locations around the
world". [End]


There's more evidence than this, however, that covers the gist
of it.

Don't forget, these are no ordinary birds, they have a massive,
up to 10ft wingspan, all white, except for the black wing tips.


We could put it this way; supposing that any pilot encountered a
small formation of migrating AWPs at high altitude, had never
seen this unusual sight before and as such, didn't recognise
these as birds at all.

What would he be likely to observe in perfect conditions?

Say..a formation of reflective, bright objects, flying in a
diagonal echelon, with maybe some of the 'objects' slightly
ahead of the others. They would occasionally 'flutter' and
'sail' as they flapped and then glided. From distance, it would
look something like a 'kite's tail' (he might even describe
their motion in flight as 'bobbing', skimming, or looking
something like a stone skipping across water :) ).

If this was also in a post-war era of aviation development,
especially military and when it would be no real surprise to see
new airplanes, especially ones which were still 'secret', would
the pilot ever realise, or would anyone suggest, that he had
seen a formation of AWPs?


If this did apply to Kenneth Arnold, how could he not realise
these were birds and believe the 'objects' were much further
distant and considerably faster than they truly were.

It would have to be that there was evidence these could not have
been birds, or his overall perception was somehow in error.

Although that's another matter and this is already too long, one
question which needs to be resolved is how far, maximum, could
any bright, reflective object of approx. 10ft by 5ft, be visible
from the air?


Peter Kingsmill is a naturalist and Director General of The
Redberry Pelican Project (Canada) Foundation. I had also asked
Peter for his assessment and he replied, "Everything in Arnold's
description that you quoted points to the strong possibility he
saw a flock of AWPs... the formation, the allusion to the tail
of a Chinese kite, etc".

"I have also been baffled by optical illusions of distance when
these birds are against a backdrop (hills)".


Kathleen Andersen, who lives in the Mt Rainier area and has
written about the Arnold case, recently asked some good
questions about the factual existence of any AWPs in that area,
as she had never known of this.

Peter was one of the relevant experts I contacted and he
confirms, "In general, American White Pelicans breed in the mid-
west USA and prairie and northern Canada (as far north as Fort
Smith, NWT). So indeed, they could be around Washington state,
where, incidentally, they also nest in small quantities".

I'm hopeful of shortly receiving some further substantiation
about this and details going back to the 1940s.

All irrelevant of course if the answer lies elsewhere!


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