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: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:47:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:25:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's Sighting [was: Re: Voyager


Regarding:

>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:10:18 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

[I've changed the heading to something more meaningful]

Bruce wrote:

>Let's forget the claim of going in and out of the mountains for
>the moment and simply concentrate on the directions to the
>objects (a) when first seen, (b) when passing Mt. Rainier, (c)
>when in the direction of >Mt. Adams.


Bruce,

That's ideal and thank you for the overall assessment.

Before going further with this, there are a few questions I
would like to have resolved.

In your 'Complete Sighting...' report, you refer to the
following extract from Arnold's letter to the Air Force:

"There was a DC-4 to the left and to the rear of me
approximately fifteen miles distance, and I should judge, at
14,000 ft. elevation".

"I knew they [the objects] must be very large to observe their
shape at that distance, even on as clear a day as it was that
Tuesday. In fact I compared a zeus fastener or cowling tool I
had in my pocket - holding it up on them and holding it up on
the DC- 4 - that I could observe at quite a distance to my left,
and they seemed smaller than the DC-4; but I should judge their
span would have been as wide as the furtherest engines on each
side of the DC-4".

You then comment:

"Arnold provided an estimate of size in an indirect way: he
stated that they appeared to be comparable to the spacing of the
engines on a DC-4 (4 engine propeller driven, 117 ft wingspan, 94
ft length, 27 ft height) which he had seen at a distance which he
estimated as 15 miles. He estimated the engine spacing to be 45 -
50 ft, although 60 ft would have been a better estimate. By this
means he was essentially providing an angular size for the
objects: the equivalent of about 60 ft at 15 miles. He reported
the size of the objects as 45 - 50 ft by comparison with the
airplane as if the plane had been at the same distance as the
objects. However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a
correction for the distance difference is necessary.

It is possible to make an estimate of the size of the objects
assuming his estimate of the distance to the DC-4, 15 miles, was
(approximately) correct. (Here comes some math and geometry, so
if you are squeamish about such subjects, skip over the next four
sentences.) Using the outer engine spacing as 60 ft, the angular
size at his estimated distance is 60/(15 x 5280) = 0.00076
radians or about 2.6 minutes of arc (1 degree = 60 minutes =
0.0174 radians). Projecting this angle to 20 miles, the rough
distance of the objects, would yield a size of about (20 x 5280 x
0.00075 = ) 80 ft. Had he overestimated the distance to the DC-4
(if it had been less than 15 miles away) the calculated angular
size, and hence the calculated object size would increase. If he
underestimated the distance to the DC-4, then the calculated size
would decrease. My own suspicion is that he overestimated the
distance and that therefore the objects were larger than 80 ft in
length. Unfortunately no investigator pursued this size estimate
at the time and with Arnold's death many years ago it is no
longer possible to improve the size estimate".


In your paper, 'Still in Default' - 'Originally Published in the
Proceedings of the 1986 MUFON International Symposium. Updates
to 1998 in square parentheses', you wrote:

[Note: a very complete analysis of Arnold's sighting has been
published in the  Proceedings of the International Conference of
the Mutual UFO Network, 1997. In that much longer paper I point
out that Arnold compared the apparent size of the UFO to the
spacing between engines on DC-4 aircraft - 117ft wingspan, 94 ft
long, 23 ft fuselage height - which he thought was about 15 miles
away.

The point is that since Arnold could see the engines on the
aircraft at 15 miles - or even if it was only at 10 miles - then
he had better than average visual acuity.

Since the engines were about 60 ft apart and since the UFOs were
farther away than the airplane the estimated size of the UFOs
would be 80 - 120 feet.)]
[End]


When considering all the probabilities, should your above point
be taken into account?

Is it being accepted that Arnold claims to have seen the DC-4s
engines at 15 miles, i.e., sufficiently that he could use this
observation in a rough calculation?

If the DC-4 was 15 miles distant as Arnold claimed, how do we
quantify "better than average visual acuity" then; would it be
above average, exceptional or incredible?


In his letter to the Air Force, Arnold also wrote:

"I observed the chain of these objects passing another snow-
covered ridge in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams, and as the
first one was passing the south crest of this ridge the last
object was entering the northern crest of the ridge. As I was
flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it
and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely
assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least
five miles long".

You have referenced this 'five mile' chain in the 'Complete
Sighting...' paper, i.e., "Since the length of the 'chain' of
objects was about 5 miles (paragraph H [as] above), the leading
object was about 5 miles south of Mt. Adams when the last object
passed Mt. Adams".

What Arnold doesn't explain here is that he DID NOT measure this
ridge at the time.

At least according to the details in his book, when he writes,
"Between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams there is a very high
plateau with quite definite north and south edges. Part of this
chain-like formation traveled above this plateau towards Mount
Adams, while part of the formation actually dipped below the
near edge. As the first unit of these craft cleared the
southernmost edge of this background, the last of the formation
was just entering the northern ridge.

I later flew over this plateau in my plane and came to a close
approximation that this whole formation of craft, whatever they
were, formed a chain in the neighbourhood of five miles long".

So, the 'five miles' estimate wasn't in fact made until later,
quite different from the impression given in his Air force
letter.

Would you agree that seems to be correct?


Although it maybe doesn't matter, I'm puzzled by his references
to using a watch and then confirming that he didn't. i.e.:

Chicago Daily Tribune, June 25 - "Their speed was apparently so
great I decided to clock them. I took out my watch and checked
off one minutes and 42 seconds from the time they passed Mount
Rainier until they reached the peak of Mount Adams. All told the
objects remained in view slightly less than two minutes from the
time I first noticed them."

Radio interview - "Well, uh, I uh, it was about one minute to
three when I started clocking them on my sweep second hand
clock".

"But when I observed the tail end of the last one passing Mt.
Adams, and I was at an angle near Mt. Rainier from it, but I
looked at my watch and it showed one minute and 42 seconds".

Norman, Oklahoma Transcript, June 26 - "I figure they were
moving about 1,200 miles per hour"..."because I clocked them
with a stop watch during the time it took them to fly from Mount
Rainer to Mount Adams".

'The Coming of the Saucers' - "I remember distinctly that my
sweep second hand on my eight day clock, which is located on the
instrument panel, read one minute to 3 PM as the first object of
this formation passed the southern edge of Mt. Rainier".

"Now, clocking speeds by only your sweep second hand cannot be
entirely accurate because several seconds could be lost in
breaking your gaze to observe your clock".

"I never thought of checking this with my wristwatch".
[End]


Anyway, a most striking discrepancy is the following.

>From your 'Complete Sighting...' paper:

"According to Mr. Arnold, at 2:00 PM, June 24, 1947 he took off
from Chehalis, in the state of Washington, in his small plane
after completing a business trip (he sold and installed fire
fighting equipment). He planned to spend about an hour searching
for a lost C-46 Marine transport plane that had crashed in the
mountains west-southwest of Mt. Rainier. (There was a $5,000
reward for finding the plane.) After searching for about an hour
and not finding anything he turned east toward his next
destination, Yakima, Washington. He was near Mineral,
Washington, about 22 miles west-southwest of Mt. Rainier and
Yakima was about 80 miles ahead of him along a flight path that
would take him just about 12 miles south of peak of Mt. Rainier.
He leveled out onto his new flight path he was at approximately
a 9,200 ft altitude. His sighting began within a minute or two
of the turn".

Therefore:

a) Arnold had spent 'about an hour' searching for the C-46
   Marine transport plane
b) he gave up and turned east towards Yakima
c) his sighting began a couple of minutes later when he was
   flying due east.


Yet, according to Arnold's account in his book:

a) "It was during this search and while making a turn of 180
degrees over Mineral, Washington", that he first noticed the
objects. It wasn't when he was flying due east towards Yakima.

b) After the sighting, he claims, "I tried to focus my mind on a
continued search for the downed C-46 which had crashed some
months earlier". It was only then he decided to abandon the
search and instead head for Yakima.


This is substantiated by his detailed radio interview, in which
he states:

"Well, about 2:15 I took off from Chehalis, Washington, en route
to Yakima, and, of course, every time that any of us fly over the
country near Mt. Rainier, we spend an hour or two in search of
the Marine plane that's never been found that they believe is in
the snow someplace southwest of that particular area. That area
is located at about, it's elevation is about 10,000 foot, and I
had made one sweep in close to Mt. Rainier and down one of the
canyons and was dragging it for any types of objects that might
prove to be the Marine ship, uh, and as I come out of the canyon
there, was about 15 minutes, I was approximately 25 to 28 miles
from Mt. Rainier, I climbed back up to 9200 feet and I noticed to
the left of me a chain which looked to me like the tail of a
Chinese kite, kind of weaving and going at a terrific speed
across the face of Mt. Rainier".

According to this, he had spent some 15 minutes searching for
the C-46?

If he left Chehalis about 2:15, not 2:00 as you noted, how long
would it have approx. taken him to reach Mt Rainier and begin
his search?


How do you equate the account given in that radio interview with
the story told in the Air force letter, i.e.:

"The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
flying and, as most pilots do, when the air is smooth and they
are flying at a higher altitude, I trimmed out my airplane in
the direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
terrain. There was a DC-4 to the left and to the rear of me
approximately fifteen miles distance, and I should judge, at
14,000 ft. elevation".

"The sky and air was as clear as crystal. I hadn't flown more
than two or three minutes on my course when a bright flash light
reflected on my airplane. It startled me as I thought I was too
close to some other aircraft".


No longer did Arnold's observation originate when he was coming
up from the canyon (does he mention the C-46 search at all in
that letter?), now, he was coasting along at a steady pace, with
not a care in the world.

I trust you will accept there are significant anomalies
highlighted here and they have to be addressed first, before
looking at any theoretical maths.


I note that Arnold says in his book, "I was flying a specially
designed mountain airplane".

Do we know what the modifications were?

If I recall, it was a three (maybe four) seater plane. If there
were two seats in the front, which window, left or right, would
be nearest to the pilot?


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