Arnold Sighting - Mistaken Identification????

[RadarRyder]

Thank you all for your responses. They are all very well written and very informative. Burnt State......I couldn't agree with you more sir about various individual sources, often more than not, inserting their own "crap" when retelling a story. Constance.......thank you for pointing out the fact that these objects observed by Arnold were shiny and reflecting light. I thought, perhaps for a fleeting moment, about the possibility that maybe they were factory fresh metal remakes of the original 229 (original was made of wood). But for the AAF/USAF to remake nine of them in two years time, and for what purpose. I think it more practical for the government to make possibly two prototypes to be tested. The Horton was indeed brought back to the United States as documented by "Operation Seahorse" along with numerous other German airframes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Horse

The list of aircraft posted in the link above is pretty impressive. Makes one wonder what, if any, may have been intentionally left off of the list. I came across this video while watching the video posted by Ufology.....thank you....it was fun to watch. This video tells how just recently Northrup-Grumman made a replica of the 229 and then subjected it to radar cross section testing and were amazed by the results. A little lengthy but well worth the watch. I too was amazed.........

 

[boomerang]

I've mentioned this before, but not all the flying wings were as unstable as we have generally been led to believe. There is one original that has been restored and you can see it flying ( without any "skipping motion" ) in the video below:

And in this video featuring original USAF footage of the YB-49 we can see for ourselves that it flew just fine, and the commentator even makes mention of how well it handled:

http://youtu.be/WPIZMJv09DY?t=18m55s

NOTE: If the video doesn't start at the right time, skip ahead to 18:55. The rest of the video has less relevance to the point of the discussion but is still may be of some interest if you want to get a dumbed down explanation 1950s style of how the plane was made.

I'm going to hang out on a limb here and state that the flying wing design inherently suffers from a lack of dynamic stability in the yaw axis. Yes--they have and did fly before the advent of computerized fly-by-wire. But there are certain designs--flying wing and others--that may be flyable but very unforgiving of the slightest pilot error or a convergence of specific events. Many aircraft currently in our military inventory fall into this category and are made possible by virtue of modern computer and control technology.

IMO, this is why we have only seen operational aircraft based on the flying wing design in wide use since "fly-by-wire". As for the estimated speed of Arnold's flying objects, I see that as one of those unconnected dots.

I'm not saying that some Horton variant is necessarily what Arnold saw. Just one possibility.

 

[Randall]

I'm going to hang out on a limb here and state that the flying wing design inherently suffers from a lack of dynamic stability in the yaw axis. Yes--they have and did fly before the advent of computerized fly-by-wire. But there are certain designs--flying wing and others--that may be flyable but very unforgiving of the slightest pilot error or a convergence of specific events. Many aircraft currently in our military inventory fall into this category and are made possible by virtue of modern computer and control technology.

IMO, this is why we have only seen operational aircraft based on the flying wing design in wide use since "fly-by-wire". As for the estimated speed of Arnold's flying objects, I see that as one of those unconnected dots.

I'm not saying that some Horton variant is necessarily what Arnold saw. Just one possibility.

It's not that you're incorrect with the respect to the challenge of creating a stable flying wing, and that some projects ( e.g. B2 Spirit ) had trouble dealing with that challenge, it's that contrary to the general impression we've been given that earlier models didn't fly very well, some ( like the YB-49 ) flew very well indeed; perhaps not perfect in all tests, but no airplane flies equally well under all circumstances. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses. To quote from the stock footage regarding the YB-49:

"Ease of operation together with low noise and vibration levels make long distance operation almost a pleasure." ​

I seriously doubt that film footage is fake, and that's what opened up my eyes. The aircraft appears to fly smoothly and gracefully. It simply doesn't look like it flies like a "rock skipping across water" ( as in Arnold's description ). Plus much of the terrain seen in the film is mountainous, so it's an excellent real life comparison using actual technology of the day. It's evidence you can see for yourself, and it doesn't get much better than that.

 

[manxman]

And if flying experimental secret craft, i would think flying them somewhere remote is a must, but not only that, ease of retrieval is also a must, experimental mean's just that.

I wouldnt call a mountain range an easy retrieval, of a downed plane.

 

[boomerang]

The context of the Kenneth Arnold story is made more interesting by what we know about he work of the talented engineer, John Frost. His association with exotic aircraft design is firmly ensconced in the annals of UFOlogy. It's conceivable that the work of Frost's group was in Kenneth Arnold's "backyard".

John Carver Meadows Frost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frost is known to have been funded by both the Canadian and U.S. governments to work on saucer or modified saucer-like designs in for Avro in Canada. These officially failed, and the virtually infamous and almost humorous footage of the Avro VZ-9-AV Avrocar flying badly three feet off the ground is regarded by some as clever dis-info. I don't think we can know for sure. But spectacular failures following large investments of time and money were numerous in the early days of high performance aviation. Especially before the advent of computer modeling etc.

As far as what constitutes a viable design, don't be too taken by promotional footage of a particular aircraft appearing to fly smoothly through a carefree sky. Cemeteries are filled with the graves of test pilots who died putting high performance aircraft through their paces in search of finding the design's one or two bad habits, and succeeding. Even some operational designs were slim tradeoffs between performance and safety. The venerable F-104 was a fantastic piece of work, but absolutely unforgiving in certain situations. It was flown by foreign air services as recently as 2004, earning the nickname "The Widowmaker" after disposing of otherwise competent pilots not familiar with its unique demands. I'm not saying the Northrop design flew like a stone skipping across water. But the flying wing concept was really pretty iffy before computer stabilization.

 

[Burnt State]

That 'Jack' Frost was an interesting character and his Project Y does look a little more like the spade shaped craft Arnold initially described, but who tests a series of craft together in formation? This one didn't even get off the ground - just the mock-up was made.

 

[Sentry]

I made a mistake about Kenneth Arnold only reporting the bat-like UFO several years later.
He did indeed report it shortly afterwards, but it was a singular object among others of a different type.
The FBI file linked below has a copy of a letter written by Arnold written in July 1947.
"...one object looked like this..."
Unfortunately, the page crops the forward edge of the drawing.

The Arnold letter can be found at page 58 of this file, the drawing is on page 67.
FBI — UFO Part 4 of 16

 

[boomerang]

I made a mistake about Kenneth Arnold only reporting the bat-like UFO several years later.
He did indeed report it shortly afterwards, but it was a singular object among others of a different type.
The FBI file linked below has a copy of a letter written by Arnold written in July 1947.
"...one object looked like this..."
Unfortunately, the page crops the forward edge of the drawing.

The Arnold letter can be found at page 58 of this file, the drawing is on page 67.
FBI — UFO Part 4 of 16

Sentry, Thanks yet again for doing such detailed and well documented research. Very interesting indeed !

 

[Burnt State]

I made a mistake about Kenneth Arnold only reporting the bat-like UFO several years later.
He did indeed report it shortly afterwards, but it was a singular object among others of a different type.
The FBI file linked below has a copy of a letter written by Arnold written in July 1947.
"...one object looked like this..."
Unfortunately, the page crops the forward edge of the drawing.

Too bad about the cropping but thanks for the link - lots of good reading there. I was entirely unaware of the lone odd shaped ship. Especially liked the letters from Ray Palmer to Arnold that preceded his own descriptive report. I got the feeling that Palmer was a real manipator (no surprise) and that Arnold really was just a good guy and slightly gullible or even more than slightly. The death of those two pilots really shook him up and the whole Maury Island thing really spun him around.

This ended up leading me to reading more about their interactions (Palmer and Arnold) through SaturdayNightUforia. Do you know who is the author of this material? Two Roads - who s/he?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I knew Palmer slightly in the 1960s and 1970s. I met him once, and talked to him on the phone several times, including arranging for a couple of radio interviews. He was likable, but kept a lot to himself. He also had a clear grasp of the impact of his statements, both written and verbal. With Maury Island, RAP was out for a story and to sell books and magazines. Arnold simply got sucked in.

 

[Burnt State]

I knew Palmer slightly in the 1960s and 1970s. I met him once, and talked to him on the phone several times, including arranging for a couple of radio interviews. He was likable, but kept a lot to himself. He also had a clear grasp of the impact of his statements, both written and verbal. With Maury Island, RAP was out for a story and to sell books and magazines. Arnold simply got sucked in.

The July 7, 2013 episodes is one of my favourite Paracast sessions, doing what your show does best, documenting the history of UFO figures and the roles they played.

I've also thoroughly enjoyed the Arnold episode discussions as well, as he certainly is a pivotal figure and their interactions really do seem to launch all the stange hijacks and odd aspects of the UFO phenomenon, especially when investigations, hoaxes, surveillance and disinformation are all underway together. I still don't have a full grasp of what was going on with the Maury Island piece though the Saturday Night Uforia online mag makes the claim that they've printed the truth - lots of reading to do there. Do you know who writes this - they'd definitely make a great guest.

 

[Sentry]

Do you know who is the author of this material? Two Roads - who s/he?

I've emailed him a few times and have his name, but don't know if he wants it public. Seems like a nice guy, but I know nothing beyond what I've seen him write.

 

[Burnt State]

I've emailed him a few times and have his name, but don't know if he wants it public. Seems like a nice guy, but I know nothing beyond what I've seen him write.

Fair enough. Privacy is a right. What do you make of his material (research and conclusions)?

 

[Sentry]

Saturday Night Uforia is a great site, and my only gripe is the seasonal nature of the updates. But really, it's far better than most content you'd pay for!
I'm not sure about his conclusions, but it seemed sensible. In fact I don't recall a lot of editorial input except for the article titles.

Truthfully, I'm drawn to the site mostly for the rare collection of UFO newspaper and magazine articles. I think it's an essential historical resource, no matter what your opinion of UFOs are.

 

[Han]

as I was discussing the German Horten Ho-229 with a friend, and how it was so far advanced of anything that the allies had during WWII,
(End of WWII - 14 and 15 August 1945)
(Arnold sighting - June 24, 194

I don't agree that the Nazis were more advanced than the Allies the Colossus-computer and the Manhattan project are two examples.

However I totally agree that the description of what Mr Arnold saw and the Ho-229 are very similar in appearance:
Horten 229 | The Paracast Community Forums

You may also like this thread:
Exotic Aircraft & Black Projects | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Sentry]

I checked, and the author of Saturday Night Uforia is not secret. It's Daniel Ropkin.
Here's a Billy Cox article on his work at the site: Panning for history's gold

 

[Burnt State]

I checked, and the author of Saturday Night Uforia is not secret. It's Daniel Ropkin.
Here's a Billy Cox article on his work at the site: Panning for history's gold

It looks like he would make a very interesting guest for The Paracast given some of his precise knowledge on key events and his confidence in his conclusions. It would be great for him to go through one specific historical event and map out his theories (real history as he calls it) as gleaned from historical materials. I do appreciate the large volume of facts and unique documents he pulls together. His Maury Island piece is extremely detailed and well rounded.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I checked, and the author of Saturday Night Uforia is not secret. It's Daniel Ropkin.
Here's a Billy Cox article on his work at the site: Panning for history's gold

Cox's article is a tad off on facts (the Roswell controversy actually erupted three decades after the event), but may it's worth pursuing. It never hurts to look back and things when there's a suspicion that the conventional wisdom is wrong.

 

[Burnt State]

Cox's article is a tad off on facts (the Roswell controversy actually erupted three decades after the event), but may it's worth pursuing. It never hurts to look back and things when there's a suspicion that the conventional wisdom is wrong.

Please check out this work on Arnold and see if you think it's worthy of a show. He is a thoroughly researched guy and takes the position of not really favouring one side over another, alien ufo or gov't coverup, but is more focussed on researching the specific events and letting the chips fall where they may. Saturday Night Uforia: The Positively True Story of Kenneth Arnold - Part Ten

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As to Arnold, remember this was still a single witness sighting. Yes, as a trained pilot, he may be an experienced observer and all, but without independent corroboration (another pilot seeing the same thing), it all goes back to depending on his account and subsequent statements. He could have been wrong in some of his recollections, although it does appear that his estimate of the speed, 1,200 miles per hour, was calculated in a reasonable fashion and must be taken seriously.

Or not. The article you link clearly indicates a potential for exaggeration on Arnold's part, which is troubling.