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: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:35:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:32:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:52:03 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes

>Try whipping your cowling tool out of your pocket (while in
>flight) and making two comparisons with two distant objects in
>two different directions while manually rolling down your left
>window and turning your "trimmed" plane south, and then tell me
>if you can do all the above in a 1947 airplane within two
>minutes' time or less. I don't think so.

There are a number of unwarranted assumptions in this.

1) That the cowling tool was difficult to access. But it is not
a pipe wrench. It is more a thing the size of a pen and was
probably carried in his shirt pocket. Thus it is easy to access
within a fraction of a second. The comparison, likewise, would
probably take under two seconds between the objects and the DC4.
Try it at home.

2) That the window was "rolled down". However, the photo of
Arnold by his aircraft indicates that the window slides back.
This would drastically reduce difficulty in opening the window,
and would reduce the time needed to under a second.

3) That making the turn would prevent other activities. While
this is true for a car, it is not true for aircraft. Indeed,
since Arnold was flying trimmed, he could turn with just the
rudder, using his feet. Such a method, by the way, would
probably cause the nose to drop slightly, while avoiding any
important wing raise, thus reducing the low wing's interference
with sight of the objects while the turn was underway. Arnold
probably lost some altitude, but not much, during such a turn.

When people continue to present arguments against a sighting
without doing basic homework to validate their hypotheses, it is
difficult to take them seriously. All they end up doing is
taking up bandwidth. Please, do what's needed before making
claims.

The key to doing a good sighting analysis is, first, to expose
any assumptions one is making, and to validate them against
reality. There is no point in attempting any analysis until that
step is complete. In the above, the assumptions were:

a) Flying an airplane is like driving a car. Turning is hard,
requires lots of concentration, and use of hands.

b) Arnold had to roll down the window to open it.

c) The cowling tool is large, clumsy and inaccessible.

d) Size comparisons of two objects against a reference
are difficult and time consuming.

None of these seem justified in the light of the evidence.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------