tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post135858398001925079..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Cedar Rapids Engineer Sees Disks - Beats Arnold by a Day?KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21310857686235566712013-03-21T07:44:56.505-07:002013-03-21T07:44:56.505-07:00I've read through Martin Shough's excellen...I've read through Martin Shough's excellent book-length article The Singular Adventure of Mr Kenneth Arnold (which can be found on the NICAP website, I think). There is a short version published in Darklore 4 or 5. I highly recommend them.<br /><br />By way of criticism, there are a few things Shough backgrounds that I think should be in the foreground. He presents Arnold as "no meek hanger-on"..."with a healthy opinion of his own worth" so that he would not be easily swayed by the opinions of others, including his peers. This is true, but Shough misses the 'band of brothers' aspect of Arnold's personality.<br /><br />Shough may tread too close to the either/or of did he see a disk or a crescent? It is more complicated than that.<br /><br />I did catch one error: Shough writes he hasn't seen the first issue of Fate, but according to his source, Palmer did not publish a drawing of the wraith crescent Arnold said was drawn by Davidson. "I don't believe he did". He did so on page 42, Fate Magazine, Spring 1948. My guess is the Fate issue was completed in the winter of 1947.<br /><br />For anyone interested in Arnold pre-Maury Island, Shough's is the best I've read.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59042819211819185392013-03-20T17:22:44.564-07:002013-03-20T17:22:44.564-07:00CDA: "Don writes: "That's why I call...CDA: "Don writes: "That's why I call ufo skeptics energy vampires. They live off the sweat of the living."<br /><br /> What on earth does this mean?"<br /><br />Your reply is an example. In what you are replying to, I answered the question you are asking.<br /><br />That's what I mean.<br /><br />Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13531804663247094402013-03-20T16:14:33.608-07:002013-03-20T16:14:33.608-07:00Don writes: "That's why I call ufo skepti...Don writes: "That's why I call ufo skeptics energy vampires. They live off the sweat of the living."<br /><br />What on earth does this mean?<br /><br />Is he saying that UFO skeptics don't do any work? I suggest it is mainly the ET proponents who don't bother to work on, or analyse, a big sighting. Some cases just don't yield easily. They require days or weeks of research to get at the answer. Sometimes the skeptics solve the case, but only after hard work. <br /><br />Some cases yield easily, others do not. Some never do. These are called 'unknowns'. Sometimes these 'unknowns' later become 'knowns' because vital facts are not discovered until months or years afterwards. <br /><br />In the Arnold case, I assume it will remain unidentified forever. But it is still remotely possible that someone has overlooked a vital fact relating to the case that will change it into an IFO. The pelicans idea fell flat. So what? Has the 'visitors from outer space' idea done any better? It is just a default 'solution' because nobody can find an acceptable earthly solution. <br /><br />But do not let anyone kid us that "skeptics live off the sweat of the living". Let's face it, the great majority of sightings are vague night lights not 'flying discs'. The term was a total misnomer from the start, and I am NOT attaching blame to anyone in particular.<br /><br />Would anyone now pay any attention to a report of nine vaguely circular objects reported seen from a distance of 25 miles? And this from someone who a month later changes his account to the effect that one of these nine was of a different shape to the other eight? <br /><br />For all we know ALL the objects had different shapes. We cannot say.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53352464434681282962013-03-20T15:04:01.887-07:002013-03-20T15:04:01.887-07:00David: "The press may have invented “flying d...David: "The press may have invented “flying disc” and “flying saucer but not the basic disc or saucer shape.That came from the beginning from Kenneth Arnold, which even he in his own words at the time NEVER applied to describing motion of like skipping on water."<br /><br />Well, Ok. As predicted, it took more effort to correct Kottmeyer for the skeptic than it took Kottmeyer to produce his article. The skeptic could have gotten the truth with a minute of googling, but instead wanted others to do the work. That's why I call ufo skeptics energy vampires. They live off the sweat of the living.<br /><br />By repurposing 'saucer' as a description of motion, Arnold did not do so to deny they were disc-like shapes, otherwise he would have said so. He would have denied he said anything at all about disc-like shapes, and blamed the press for misunderstanding him on shape altogether, not merely on the word 'saucer'.<br /><br />It is the word 'saucer' he wanted to be rid of because of the crockery mockery, which I'd guess was psychologically excruciating, and angered him. He wanted to make his use of 'saucer' into just another metaphor for motion. I can't see any other explanation.<br /><br />I think I understand Arnold's reasoning that led to the wraith-like shape in the 1950s. I'll post a comment on foreshadower about it in a day or so.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47904586629428478972013-03-20T12:36:20.446-07:002013-03-20T12:36:20.446-07:00(Part 3)
According to Shough, Arnold would also l...(Part 3)<br /><br />According to Shough, Arnold would also later claim that in 1947 he described the motion “like speed boats on rough water”. Elsewhere it is claimed Arnold also compared the shape to that of flat rocks and said they moved like flat rocks skipping on water, which at least makes more sense as analogies. As Shough (and I) have commented, who has ever heard of someone skipping “saucers” on water?<br /><br />[Footnote 336]: Arnold's 1952 book recalls that he used this last simile "at the time" in 1947: "They flew in a definite formation, but erratically. As I described them at the time, their flight was like speed boats on rough water . . . .." (The Coming of<br />the Saucers p.11) The earliest published source I have so far been able to identify for the speed-boat simile is the April 1950 interview with broadcaster Ed Murrow, but it may occur in an early press story unknown to me.”<br /><br />[Footnote 342] According to historian Loren Gross (UFOs: A History), Arnold told Nolan Skiff that the "the 'missiles' travelled like a flat rock bounced across the surface of water, a rising and falling motion." This would be the natural form of such a simile intended only to illustrate motion. It is a commonplace. Everyone has skipped stones, whereas "skipping saucers" is on the face of it a strange and unlikely activity, so Gross's account appears plausible. It is called in question because Gross adds that Bequette used this simile to invent the term ‘flying saucers’ for his AP wire story. He did not. On the other hand, the same expression was attributed to Arnold by Lagrange after having interviewed Bequette: "they look like pebbles [flat stones] or plates: flat, rounded at the front, triangular at the rear."<br /><br />So there you have it. Arnold’s claims about “saucers skipping on water” came years later and never mentioned by Arnold in 1947 in a recorded interview and written letter to the AAF. Instead, in his own words, he spoke of their level flight with NO up or down motion. The skipping saucers or rocks or speed boats also were never brought up directly by Arnold or quoted in other interviews. <br /><br />Arnold DID mention originally they flew erratically, hence they seemed to flip and flash in the sun, In fact, their motion was so extreme, this was one reason he was already considering non-earthly origins, according to the interview he did for the Chicago Times on July 7, 1947. “He said discs were making turns so abruptly in rounding peaks that it would have been impossible for human pilots inside to have survived the pressure. [But again note no mention of up or down motion, only extreme “turns”] So, he too thinks they are controlled from elsewhere, regardless of whether it’s from Mars, Venus, or our own planet.”<br /><br />And in 1947, he made numerous mentions of their disc-like or saucer-like SHAPE, including that they were very flat and thin, appeared round when they flashed brightly, but were imperfectly round when outlined against the backdrop snow of Mt. Rainier, being rounded in front but coming to a convex point in the back. Originally this disc-like description he applied to all nine objects, only adding the ONE crescent-shaped object over a month later in Tacoma when he met the AAF intelligence officers while investigating Maury Island. The press may have invented “flying disc” and “flying saucer” but not the basic disc or saucer shape. That came from the beginning from Kenneth Arnold, which even he in his own words at the time NEVER applied to describing motion of like skipping on water.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70910298738825829242013-03-20T12:30:51.924-07:002013-03-20T12:30:51.924-07:00(Part 2)
So after claiming quotes at the time tha...(Part 2)<br /><br />So after claiming quotes at the time that Arnold didn’t actually make until years later, Lance tries to recover by quoting an interview with newsman Bequette from 40 YEARS LATER! And all Bequette says is that he is quite sure that he didn't invent the term "flying saucer" (correct since NONE of his articles from 1947 used it, instead using “saucer-like”) and instead says, "I DON'T REMEMBER whether or not Arnold used the words 'saucer-shaped craft'", and instead was willing to give Arnold's LATER claims the benefit of the doubt, even though this is 40 YEARS LATER and he DOESN'T REMEMBER clearly.<br /><br />This Lance spins into "All of the principals agree that it probably happened." By "all the principals" I presume he means only Arnold and Bequette.<br /><br />I’ve written extensively on what Arnold REALLY said back in 1947 NUMEROUS TIMES, which the skeptics like the clueless Martin Kottmeyer are constantly trying to alter to try to “prove” that Arnold never described anything like a “saucer”-shaped craft. Another person to write on this in detail is Martin Shough in his lengthy monograph on the Arnold sighting: <br /><br />http://www.nicap.org/reports/arnold_analysis_shough.pdf<br /><br />Shough mentions the 1988 Lagrange interview with Bequette, but also notes that four year later (1992), Bequette was again interviewed by Ron Story, and this time said that Arnold DID use the “saucer” SHAPE description when he interviewed him. Shough comments: ”Cognizant that Lagrange had recorded a less explicit answer, Story remarked: ‘I can only repeat what he confirmed to me: that [use of ‘saucer’ to describe shape] was based on Arnold’s description."<br /><br />See Appendix 4, p. 113, where Shough goes into the controversy in detail, analyzing what Arnold was repeatedly quoted as saying in June/July 1947 vs. his later claims about saucers skipping on water, which Shough says he first made in an interview with Edward R. Murrow THREE YEARS LATER”<br /><br />“. . . when I described how they flew, I said that they flew like they take a saucer and throw it across the water. Most of the newspapers misunderstood and misquoted that too. They said that I said that they were saucer-like; I said that they flew in a saucer-like fashion.”<br /><br /><br />Shough properly comments: “If ‘most’ newspapers misquoted him then there should be at least one that didn't. But apparently ALL of the papers misquoted him. The ‘misunderstanding’ was widespread in the media within a few days and Arnold's story was sought by phone and in person by countless reporters who ‘came out of the woodwork’, so one must assume that he had opportunities to supply clarification.” INDEED! My point exactly.<br /><br />The first Arnold sighting article was written and published by Nolan Skiff of the Pendleton East Oregonian on June 25 who described the SHAPE as “saucer-like aircraft.” When the story got on the newswires and there was a huge demand for the story, Bequette then interviewed Arnold for TWO HOURS. But nowhere is there a “correction” to Skiffs “saucer-like aircraft” description. Instead Bequette wrote, ” He also described the objects as ‘saucer-like’ and their motion "like a fish flipping in the sun,” clearly distinguishing between shape and motion. Also: [He] “clung to his story of shiny, flat objects racing over the Cascade mountains with a peculiar weaving motion ‘like the tail of a Chinese kite. Also, ” Mostly, he said, he was surprised at the way they twisted just above the higher peaks, almost appearing to be threading<br />their way along the mountain ridge line.” Again the side-to-side weaving motion he described numerous times elsewhere, but nothing about an up-and-down “skipping” motion. Maybe they did skip, but Arnold seemingly made no effort to put that into the public record back in 1947.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86688174587657471952013-03-20T12:28:26.260-07:002013-03-20T12:28:26.260-07:00(Part 1) Lance wrote:
What about Bequette himself...(Part 1) Lance wrote:<br /><br /><i>What about Bequette himself? I wondered if he ever commented on this. Also from the Maccabee report: “Bequette does not believe that he invented the term ‘flying saucer.’ He told Lagrange, "I don't remember whether or not Arnold used the words 'saucer-shaped craft.' I am inclined to credit his version (that he only spoke of objects moving like a saucer if you skipped it across the water), knowing the tendency of journalists to rephrase. I'm sure I didn't coin 'Flying Saucers.' "<br /><br />So why do we HAVE to reject the saucers skipping on water thing? Just because? All of the principals agree that it probably happened.</i><br /><br />First of all, this latest argument from Lance is ironic, hypocritcal, and funny when you consider Lance's hard-nosed "skepticism" is always nastily mocking Roswell testimony from decades later as unreliable because human memory is so fallible, and demanding we look at only the news stories from 1947. But then he turns around and does the same thing with the Arnold sighting, using a statement from a Bequette interview 40 YEARS LATER. <br /><br />It is also a good example of spin from Lance. Two seconds before he was gloating that he had proven that Arnold was using the “like saucers skipping over water” phrase in July 1947 in his written report to AAF intelligence-- except he DIDN’T. I doubt Lance ever bothered to read Arnold's actual letter, which also included a drawing by him which exactly matched with his verbal, quoted press shape descriptions of a very thin and flat, convex "aircraft", rounded in front but coming to something like a point in the back. Also Arnold describing the shape in that letter as "saucer-like" (3 times) and a "saucer-like disk". <br /><br />Arnold also commented: "Of course, when the sun reflected from one or two or three of these units, they appeared to be completely round; but, I am making a drawing to the best of my ability, which I am including, as to the shape I observed these objects to be as they passed the snow covered ridges as well as Mt. Rainier."<br /><br />So even to Arnold they often seemed to be "ROUND" when brightly reflecting sunlight, but not perfectly round when outlined against the white snowy backdrop of Mt. Rainier, when he thought they came to more of a point in the back. (He also made this point in an earlier letter to Wright Field on July 8, 1947.)<br /><br />As to motion, Arnold never mentioned anything like skipping on water. In fact, he says virtually the opposite: "These objects were holding an almost constant elevation; they did not seem to be going up or coming down, such as would be the case of rockets or artillery shells." So much for "skipping" or some sort of sharp, undulating or UP and DOWN motion.<br /><br />He again uses MOTION descriptions of them swerving in a line formation and flipping and flashing: "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 seemed to hold a definite direction but rather swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks... What kept bothering me as I watched them flip and flash in the sun right along their path..."<br /><br />As I commented before, Arnold had the perfect opportunity to correct those newspaper “misquotes” he would LATER claim happened. Not only was the AAF letter in his own words, so was the radio interview he had on June 26 where he again failed to mention anything like skipping on water. Instead he again said, “These were flying in more or less a level, constant altitude. They weren't going up and they weren't going down.” Nor in any interview from that time period (and Arnold was interviewed MANY times) does Arnold correct the record, but instead keeps repeating his basic disc- or saucer-like SHAPE descriptions, consistently, over and over again. (Such as his radio interview: “They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex on the rear. ... they looked like a big flat disk.”)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65157511140228426612013-03-20T09:23:56.996-07:002013-03-20T09:23:56.996-07:00While on the Arnold sighting I wonder if the prosp...While on the Arnold sighting I wonder if the prospector Fred Johnson's sighting on the same day, involving 6 'saucers' in the same general locality, is relevant. <br /><br />Johnson was interviewed by the FBI who regarded his report as seeming "very reliable". <br /><br />Problem is that he didn't report it to anyone until 2 months afterwards, after reading about Arnold's sighting. He said he had a telescope with him; he also said his compass was affected. [letter to Lt. Col Donald L.Springer as quoted in "PROJECT 1947", Jan L.Aldrich, p.67].cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59405027597791358422013-03-20T07:42:52.715-07:002013-03-20T07:42:52.715-07:00Steve:
Thank you for the systematic, logical, and...Steve:<br /><br />Thank you for the systematic, logical, and well-reasoned exposition of the “physical-real” hypothesis (as opposed to the “psycho-social”) hypothesis as the explanation for the beginning of the modern era of UFO reports beginning in 1947. <br /><br />It is an excellent example of how the discourse on the topic can be advanced if everyone uses complete sentences, links complex ideas together in a causal order, and refrains from ad hominem arguments. <br /><br />As a scientist, I especially concur with your call for a serious, open treatment of the subject by the best and brightest intellects. It boggles my mind that, 65+ years on, we are still having debates over whether there is or is not an externally real phenomenon to be studied. As a society, we probably have more serious people studying the mating habits of South American tree frogs, than we do studying the meaning of UFO reports.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36958251261881610142013-03-20T06:46:02.942-07:002013-03-20T06:46:02.942-07:00Steve,
If the source quoted by Shough is accurate...Steve,<br /><br />If the source quoted by Shough is accurate (quoted above), then Arnold was part of the effort to shake something loose along* with Bequette and his editor. So, I would not hasten to blame the press and exonerate Arnold for the publicity.<br /><br /><br />*The first, but not the last time, ufo truthseekers would do so to the AF. It doesn't work and will have unintended consequences.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Don<br /><br /><br />Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36966244348921897432013-03-20T05:19:24.457-07:002013-03-20T05:19:24.457-07:00Steve, I do not think it is disputable that Arnold...Steve, I do not think it is disputable that Arnold did originally describe a discoidal shape. I believe what made the objects 'disc-like' was their extreme flatness, not their perfect roundness. Arnold disowned 'saucer' but never the other discoidal descriptors he is quoted using. So, it seems his objection was limited not to shape, really, but a word.<br /><br />It wasn't the <i>shape</i>. It was the <i>word</i> saucer, he denied, as it was used in 'flying saucer'. Yet, in the July 11 interview by INS, he is quoted ""I remember the <b>saucers</b> were about 23 miles away", he said", demonstrating that 'saucer' had become a category: the unidentified object in the sky, rather than a description of the shape of the object.<br /><br />Do you know of any 1947 Wave incidents where the saucer is described as having a big dome on top, like Scully's, or Adamski's, or as in the movies? I don't. The Snake River sighting may be, and I did find one mention of a 'dome' but without indication of size, so it might have referred to a cockpit or canopy, which were sometimes reported, most famously, by Rhodes.<br /><br />The 50's domed saucers, derived I believe from Scully's "Dr. Gee", are a requirement for the common form of the ETH which assumes a recognizably humanoid alien, whether greys or little men from Venus. Otherwise in a 25 foot diameter disk, for example, they'd have to scuttle around like bugs, given the flatness of the saucers.<br /><br />By grandfathering the 1950s saucer into 1947, one also grandfathers in a requirement of the 1950s alien visitor, whether nordics or little men.<br /><br />This not an objection to the ETH, just that the flat disks of the common sizes don't really fit little men from Venus, greys, or nordics. If the saucers were ET, then they were either remotely operated, or ET, at least in 1947, was not like what we have imagined since.<br /><br />I think it is obvious, once one reviews the period, that there is a significant gap between 1947 and afterwards. On the other side of the gap is the ufology we know. If anything was 'immediate' or 'instant', in the 1947 Wave, it was being forgotten to such a degree that by autumn it was referred to as having seemingly occurred in the long ago, almost beyond memory.<br /><br />It wasn't just Roswell that got mislaid.<br /><br />Arnold crossed the gap, because he was the first witness, but also because he was persistent, and in a small way, Rhodes (who might get a call from a ufologist once or twice a decade), thanks to Ray Palmer. But who else among the sighters of the 1947 Wave crossed the gap? <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81116248068265804562013-03-20T04:45:44.866-07:002013-03-20T04:45:44.866-07:00Steve:
Your last comment is noted. And I'll be...Steve:<br />Your last comment is noted. And I'll bet that Kevin, when he initiated this discussion, never imagined for a moment that it would lead to such deep and profound thoughts as you and others have promulgated in the most recent postings.<br /><br />Neither did he expect the number of such postings to reach 100. Did you Kevin?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51380120443451828082013-03-20T01:47:06.292-07:002013-03-20T01:47:06.292-07:00And, hey, CDA, this time I got to note comment # 1...And, hey, CDA, this time I got to note comment # 100! So there! Heh! 8^}}Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8726969124193294742013-03-20T01:44:02.124-07:002013-03-20T01:44:02.124-07:00Part 4:
8. Which means there is an actual phenome...Part 4:<br /><br />8. Which means there is an actual phenomenon, of greatly varying nature, shape, and <b>behavior,</b> sometimes even reactive and/or interactive to attempts to observe and pursue, and which cannot be currently explained by any known prosaic or theorized phenomena when you examine the data very closely and thoroughly, on a longitudinal basis. <br /><br />What is suggested, instead, by the best, multiple-witness, and sensor-detected cases, is some possible form of non-human control or intelligence being involved, but then that too is just another form of speculation, although I’d argue it makes more sense than prosaic natural phenomena, mis-identification, or psycho-social speculation or hypothesis. <br /><br />We simply do not have sufficient evidence, or rather <i><b>proof,</b></i> as yet, any way you look at the question of just what the best UFO cases originate or derive from, or connote as to what they truly are. <br /><br />9. Finally, I should also add, since I'm not an advocate of the ETH, and am a "ufo agnostic" instead, despite two very close encounter experiences of my own 35 years apart, one being also a multiple-witness case, with some kind of bizarre aerial phenomena, that while I do think there is some evidential basis for a hypothesis of some form of advanced non-human intelligence [ANHI] being possibly involved, I certainly do not believe or think that Lance's repeated and dismissive "saucers = ETH" coda is any more valid, necessarily, than the belief system also inherent in the psycho-social hypothesis. Both are speculative theories, based in inadequate data, research, and speculative belief at present.<br /><br />We can't help, being human, being bound by anthopocentric ideation and opinion, but that's all it is, not truly objective, proven or substantiated reality. We may be dealing, as Vallee has said, with a phenomenon far more complex and esoteric, than we can even conceive of or understand currently, but that should not preclude deeper investigation. That's what the scientific method is all about, isn't it? <br /><br />But there <i><b>is something there</b></i> that at the very least deserves much better scientific and objective consideration. And that is my point: an unknown phenomenon, regardless of its actual nature, origin, or possible "intent," represents an aspect of the universe and cosmology which should require a concerted, multi-phasic and multi-disciplinary response to advance our understanding of our relationship to and place in the universe, if possible. <br /><br />Otherwise, we will most probably never know exactly what we're dealing with, and that would be quite tragic, and a failure of the best human principles and ideals of science, a denial and irrational response to something, whatever it is, that needs to be explored further, as an aspect of some form and element of reality, and if rejected as the "great taboo" (as Billy Cox has characterizes it), that most of our best and brightest seemingly would prefer to ignore or ridicule, it is and would be a terrible mistake in judgement and our obligation as a sentient species to attempt, at least, to better empirically investigate, and hopefully one day begin to understand the nature and origins of than we can or are today. My secular humanist sermon is now over. Blessings be upon you. 8^}Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72934655777934955302013-03-20T01:06:04.758-07:002013-03-20T01:06:04.758-07:00Part 3:
6. Even in the early 1950’s, when the pro...Part 3:<br /><br />6. Even in the early 1950’s, when the prototypical “flying saucer” or flattened and/or domed disc-like shape became for awhile more common than before (but by no means standard or universal), if you look at the details and descriptive drawings used in the Battelle Memorial Institute’s sub-project 10073 assistance to Project Blue Book under Project Stork, and later Project White Stork, and that was eventually declassified in 1955 and eventually became known as Project Blue Book Special Report # 14, BMI scientists complained that the plethora and great variety of shapes actually reported and sketched by witnesses was so variegated that <i><b>no common model or morphology could be objectively or scientifically derived.</b></i> This was also the case with later, mid-60's computer analyses done and reported by Jacques Vallee, and later studies. <br /><br />PBB SR#14 was the most thorough and broad analysis ever attempted, and even though not as objective or fully scientific as one might have preferred (which BMI itself noted in the infamous "Pentacle Memo" to ATIC, due to the mainly anecdotal and inadequately documented data files they were provided by the USAF), it's one of the very few, primarily statistical, analytical studies of patterns of activity, shapes, and longitudinal breadth of the body of the 3000+ government-recorded UFO reports from 1947 through 1952.<br /><br />And which, again, also seems to belie the psycho-social hypothesis’inherent presumptions about shape, origins, and nature of the observed UFO phenomenon in the best cases, where over 25% of those cases BMI segregated out could not be ascribed to any known prosaic phenomena, natural or purely psychological, by any means they attempted, and still remain unknown. <br /><br />7. So, in conclusion, I think that the skeptical psycho-social hypothesis, while it may have some validity in a minority of reported cases, cannot be viewed as a valid or substantiated theory to cover the overall mass of the UFO phenomenon, especially the best and most thoroughly documented cases, nor does it explain the wild variety of shapes reported over time by witnesses, and thus the “flying saucer” term did not inspire or cause the greatest proportion of witness descriptions of UFO shape to be based in confabulation initiated by the Arnold sighting, or media reports thereof. <br /><br />It simply does not work, given the known facts, overall history, and scientific analyses done, rarely, of the modern, post-WWII UFO phenomenon.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35222539846292356532013-03-20T00:17:11.639-07:002013-03-20T00:17:11.639-07:00Part 2:
4. Therefore, based on a review of the ab...Part 2:<br /><br />4. Therefore, based on a review of the above comments, and a reexamination of a number of the source documents cited above, it seems to me that the psycho-social argument that early witness reports describing post-Arnold sightings, where the UFO observed was actually described in terms of shape, were derived from news reporters’ misinterpretation of the early reports about Arnold's initial statements about his observation.<br /><br />Thus, the psycho-social hypothesis that Kottmeyer ascribes to, and Lance seems to support, does not have an objective basis derived from actual early witness descriptions of shapes observed, but rather misinterpreted media reports which were themselves inaccurate as to the predominant shapes when detailed by early witnesses.<br /><br />Lance noted "The point is that the saucer became the predominate shape" -- and I wonder if that's actually true, as far as actual witness descriptions as to morphology, and the source basis for that comment. <br /><br />I think it may have been more true in the early 1950's, but then again that raises the same question regarding the psycho-social hypothesis: why wasn't that the case in the years 1944 to early mid-1947, and why did the circular, domed-shaped archetype have a resurgence for a few years in the early 1950's, but less and less so from the mid-1950's onward, if the psycho-social hypothesis has actual validity? <br /><br />Seems contradicted by the great variation in shapes reported over time since WWII to the present. I also thought the spherical, self-illuminated "ball of light" or "BOL" shape was the most commonly reported shape, not disc-like shapes -- can anyone here point us to an analysis or study of the overall patterns and predominant morphology of reported UFOs over the past 65+ years that may be online so that this question may be better founded on statistical investigation rather than personal opinion or impressions?<br /><br />5. If anything, the "flying saucer" meme, as to supposed <b>shape,</b> and as opposed to Arnold's actual early statements regarding the <b>motion</b> being a "saucer-like" skipping movement, like a flat stone tossed parallel to a surface of water, skipping in quick jumps, derives primarily from somewhat superficial and inadequate newspaper reporting, which hyped the phenomenon, with some help from the speculations of early USAAF and USAF personnel involved with initial investigation of these reports, both before and during the Project Sign era, and thus transmuted and distorted in the public mind what Arnold described as "saucer-like," which was the motion, not the shape.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31314475488546960532013-03-20T00:09:32.178-07:002013-03-20T00:09:32.178-07:00Part 1
After reading the above 95+ comments, it s...Part 1<br /><br />After reading the above 95+ comments, it seems fairly clear to me that:<br /><br />1. Arnold's initial description of the objects he observed were not like the archetypal circular or ovoid "flying saucers" that later became a kind of shorthand for "saucer = ET," and which seems most often to have been originated by media outlets, particularly various newspapers, not from the actual early witness statements from the 1947 wave. <br /><br />2. Kevin Randle's primary point, which became somewhat lost in shuffle of comments above, that there is no original or primary source reports for any sightings similar to Arnold's before the initial reports in the newspapers following Arnold's report seems well-founded. <br /><br />Remember, almost all preceding serious reports of UFOs prior to the aftermath and distortions of Arnold's sighting were the WWII-era "foo fighters," and post-war 1946 Scandinavian "ghost rockets" sightings reported in the media before the Arnold sighting created a media sensation. <br /><br />If the skeptic's theory of sightings of various UFO shapes led to a psycho-social confabulation of "flying saucer" shapes seen in the sky after and due to Arnold's sighting, then why didn't such earlier, pre-1947 sightings of foo fighter and ghost rocket morphology become the predominant shape reported? <br /><br />3. The origins and use of the term "flying saucer" seems to have originated not from any of the early 1947-wave witness reports, but rather, again, from newspaper reporters who apparently were struck by and then used the term "flying saucer" as a kind of generic shorthand for reports of UFOs, regardless of what the early witnesses, like Arnold and beyond, actually described as to observed shape. <br /><br />So, it seems to me, at least, that the "flying saucer" terminology became a kind of memetic media coda for UFOs that generally were not described as such by the earliest witnesses in June and July of 1947. That occurred later, as witnesses, as a result of the early, common media <i><b>usage</b></i> of that term in the earlier radio and newspaper reports they were exposed to beforehand, in a kind of "positive feedback loop," only _then_ began on occasion to adopt and increasingly use that term in their descriptions to reporters what they observed, not the other way around. <br /><br />Even when the term "flying saucer" was used by witnesses, often the actual shapes described, when that was (rarely) included in media reports of actual witness statements, most often did not connote or suggest an actual "stereotypical" circular or saucer-shaped object. <br /><br />It was only much later, that this self-reinforcing terminology became more common, and witnesses also began using "flying saucer" as a convenient, generic term, in the early 1950's, even when the shape of what they described often did not look literally like a circular "flying saucer," <i>per se.</i> The term seems more figurative than actually literal, in both use and actual witness description, most often.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41183740947091965142013-03-19T19:25:03.539-07:002013-03-19T19:25:03.539-07:00Wade: "I don't know if people are still c...Wade: "I don't know if people are still collecting these newpaper accounts."<br /><br />Sure are. I think what would be most valuable from the 47 Wave are non-wire service news stories, especially stories that did not make it on to the wires, or an original local version if what we only have in a wire summary account.<br /><br />If anyone knows there were sightings in their locale, checking the local papers for 1947 at the library might turn up such accounts especially in small towns or more remote places.<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17176648441072277602013-03-19T19:00:56.252-07:002013-03-19T19:00:56.252-07:00I'd read Shough's Arnold article that was ...I'd read Shough's Arnold article that was published in Darklore awhile back, but hadn't read a much longer article he wrote, as well, but am reading it now.<br /><br />This is of interest:<br /><br />"Bequette had suggested to Arnold that a wire story might shake loose some information about the strange objects which both he and Arnold assumed were some sort of Army Air Force planes or rockets." The cite is to another reporter's account of the moment, I guess.<br /><br />(Whenever I hear a 'shake something loose', I reach for my revolver)<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88992145368973932412013-03-19T18:11:42.863-07:002013-03-19T18:11:42.863-07:00@David
Just a personal comment first. Full disclo...@David<br /><br />Just a personal comment first. Full disclosure. If I find ET or ET-like references in 1947, I send them on to David (although not the occultists and Forteans), and I am familiar with the list he has assembled.<br /><br />David is a seriously good researcher, and defer to him on these matters, which is an easy thing to do because he doesn't 'assert' or 'claim' but provides his sources, thus they can be verified.<br /><br />And now I've learned something about the saucer skipping, too.<br /><br />David has mentioned some of the ET related items from the Wave:<br /><br />'Buck Rogers'. It is more correctly a reference to futuristic technology which easily could include ET spaceships, but not necessarily.<br /><br />'Spaceship' alone cannot be considered a reference to ET without at least something like 'Martian' or 'interplanetary' modifying it when Made in the USA -- or Russia -- spaceships were expected. The 'domestic or foreign origin'.<br /><br />'Martian' and 'Men from Mars' may explicitly refer to such beings, but they are also terms of art, referring to things unusual or unidentifiable. For example, early in WWII I can show you newspaper headlines referring to some German soldiers as "men from Mars" in appearance. And after the war, probably in 1947, a group of visiting Japanese educators studying the US public school system were referred to as like "men from Mars" because their educational system was so alien from ours. <br /><br />Air Force policy under another Arnold, General H. H. Hap Arnold, is responsible for promoting in public the AF agenda as it cut the umbilical cord, and became a branch of service, defining its domain as aerospace. A hi-tech and thouroughly modernized military.<br /><br />So, the public had a few years of a looksee into the future a la the AF: satellites, push button warfare, recon and weapons orbital platforms, guided missiles, atomic airplanes, and to quote General Arnold, "true spaceships", by which he meant, the ones that travel beyond earth orbit.<br /><br />One can find stories in the press in which the AF attempts to cool the anticipation on the part of the public, telling us, it won't happen now, but maybe ten, twenty years from now.<br /><br />I have not found one statement from the Wave in which the observer said 'I saw a flying saucer from outer space' -- Forteans, Shaverites, and occultists excluded. Actually, I don't exclude them for myself, but that history is off-topic here.<br /><br />As for the AAF dalliance with interplanetary origins? First, I'd want to know the ideological and religious sentiments of senior commanders before I'd offer a guess. Accurately documented and in chronological order.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91984697996257647402013-03-19T17:35:42.776-07:002013-03-19T17:35:42.776-07:00David,
After Kevin posted this I started searchi...David, <br /><br />After Kevin posted this I started searching online newspaper archives, and did not find anything in June in the Iowa papers I looked at, except the Arnold sighting. I did find two different local Iowa sightings for July, 8th, reported on July 10th. <br /><br />Neither appears in the NICAP link of early sightings you posted above. In case they aren't in another database:<br /><br />The Alton, Iowa Democrat on July 10th, 1947. Single person sighting by Bill Karssen, staying with a sick brother in Alton on Tuesday night, July 8th. It has"Flying Saucer" in the headline.<br /><br />http://siouxcounty.newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewer.aspx?img=160954641&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=3&currentPage=0<br /><br />Adams County Free Press July 10th, 1947, daylight sighting by couple traveling on country highway in car on July 8th.<br /><br />http://adamscountyia.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=106776942<br /><br />I don't know if people are still collecting these newpaper accounts.<br />Wadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06589945219232109929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69817734616831693962013-03-19T16:30:38.939-07:002013-03-19T16:30:38.939-07:00I'll read the above in a moment
"Lance: ...I'll read the above in a moment<br /><br />"Lance: "Indeed, in his July 1947 letter to the Army Air force, Arnold reiterates the saucer reference:<br /><br />"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. As I put it to newsmen in Pendleton, Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water."<br /><br />So here we have what Don says he doesn't think Arnold would say being said by Arnold a few weeks later."<br /><br />"A few weeks later" In July, which is when Arnold was disassociating himself from Wave, except for Smith, which I have just commented on, and which I referred you to day's ago.<br /><br />I wrote: "If you have a quote from June 1947 from Arnold in which he describes skipping a saucer across water, I'll change my mind."<br /><br />I realize you want to nail me hard. I assume David, above, has something reasonable in critique, which will be a relief from a point-scorer forum ronin, like you.<br /><br />Adios,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12826660907648694292013-03-19T16:30:35.786-07:002013-03-19T16:30:35.786-07:00What about Bequette himself? I wondered if he ever...What about Bequette himself? I wondered if he ever commented on this.<br /><br />Also from the Maccabee report:<br /><br />Bequette does not believe that he invented the term "flying saucer." He told Lagrange, "I <br />don't remember whether or not Arnold used the words 'saucer-shaped craft.' I am inclined to <br />credit his version (that he only spoke of objects moving like a saucer if you skipped it across <br />the water), knowing the tendency of journalists to rephrase. I'm sure I didn't coin 'Flying <br />Saucers.' " <br /><br />So why do we HAVE to reject the saucers skipping on water thing? Just because? All of the principals agree that it probably happened.<br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64751786787849270302013-03-19T16:25:13.605-07:002013-03-19T16:25:13.605-07:00Actually I was just (mis)quoting from Bruce Maccab...Actually I was just (mis)quoting from Bruce Maccabee's report as presented here:<br /><br />http://www.brumac.8k.com/KARNOLD/KARNOLD.html<br /><br />I agree that I got it wrong (the presentation was somewhat confusing).<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58968420293779070622013-03-19T16:15:50.683-07:002013-03-19T16:15:50.683-07:00Lance wrote in response to Don:
Indeed, in his Ju...Lance wrote in response to Don:<br /><br /><i>Indeed, in his July 1947 letter to the Army Air force, Arnold reiterates the saucer reference:<br /><br />"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. As I put it to newsmen in Pendleton, Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you<br />skipped it across the water."<br /><br />So here we have what Don says he doesn't think Arnold would say being said by Arnold a few weeks later.</i><br /><br />Also in response to me:<br /><br /><i>Just wondering if you saw my question above. Arnold CLEARLY is saying "like a saucer would if you<br />skipped it across the water" in July 1947.<br /><br />How does this jibe with your statement: "No saucers skipping on <br />water--anywhere"?</i><br /><br />Well Lance, you just badly shot yourself in the foot. Here is the REAL text of Arnold's letter to AAF intelligence July 12, 1947:<br /><br />http://www.project1947.com/fig/ka.htm<br /><br />Perhaps you can point out to us raving, inaccurate, unscientific, saucer fanatics the quote you claim is there about saucers skipping on water? We're waiting.<br /><br />(Lance's quotes REALLY come from "The Coming of the Saucers" and not published by Arnold with Ray Palmer until 1952. OOPS!!!!)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.com