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: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 19:38:05 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:06:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:17:16 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:48:06 -0400
>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


Dennis,


>No, logic such as this simply means that when you're dealing
>with an anecdotal account the only fact you have is the anecdote
>itself. Which anecdote may or may not be true in particular, or
>may reflect varying degrees of subjectivity and misperception in
>general.

>The only evidence we have for Arnold's sighting is Arnold's
>account of same.

Not true.  There's also the Fred M. Johnson's corroborating
sighting.

C'mon, Dennis.  If I didn't know any better, I'd think we were
dealing here with Phil Klass, desperate to demolish the case
(or, failing that, Arnold himself), in the hope that once if
this hated case (or, failing that, witness) gets killed off, the
entire UFO phenomenon will follow.  I know you don't like it
when people complain of what looks like a pretty consistent
anti-UFO bias, but jeez, you sure do quack like one....

>Less than five weeks after his first sighting, he was reporting a second
>encounter with an even larger flock (no pun intended) of flying saucers. A
>few years later he claimed to have filmed two flying saucers over Mt.
>Lassen, one of which was transparent. I'm not sure how many sightings he
>claimed in all, but it would appear to be another three or four.

So what?  Arnold was often in the air, in an area rich with UFO
sightings, and in the early years he was actively looking for
UFOs. No shred of evidence exists that he was a fruitcake, and I
am surprised and disappointed -- and, let's add, sickened --
that we're having to deal, in 1999, with a tired, wretched slur
like this one. Isn't there a statute of limitations on the
trashing of witnesses?

>And please note that in discussing Arnold I haven't mentioned Maury Island
>once.



How kind of you.  In fact, Maury Island tells us just how
honest a guy Arnold was.  To those of us who look back at it, it
seems transparently obvious that Crisman and Dahl were lying
through their respective chops.  Arnold was such a straight
arrow that it never occurred to him his "witnesses" might not be
the same.  Sadly, years of ridicule and harassment led him to a
considerably darker view of his fellow humans. I guess we can be
happy that he is not around to read this new round of
Arnold-bashing.

Unlike you, I knew Arnold, who was all he was cracked up to be:
sharp, honest, shrewd, conservative, and unimaginative.  Not, in
short, a fruitcake by any definition except, I gather, yours.
His interest in UFOs as such was long past, but he did take the
trouble to answer my questions about various claims attributed
to him. One, which first surfaced in a Harold T. Wilkins book,
was a supposed quote asserting that Arnold had observed evidence
of invisible entities in his home.  He said the story was a
flat-out fabrication. He had no idea where it came from.

As I have already pointed out, evidently to zero effect, Arnold
is not the only observer to witness an aerial phenomenon which
resembled some sort of organic entity.  One famous case -- more
fantastic than any Arnold ever reported -- involved Philadelphia
police officers who on September 26, 1950, saw an unidentified
object fall from the sky and come down in a field.  It turned
out to be a gelatinous mass which dissolved half an hour later.
Oh yeah, excuse me.  I forgot.  Fruitcakes. Never mind.

Jerry Clark