The 50th anniversary of the flying saucer phenomenon is upon us, and thoughts time-warp back to the case that started it all, Kenneth Arnold's sighting of nine objects speeding by Mount Rainier on a sunny June afternoon. At the time it was a sensation which made the front page of newspapers across the nation. Faster than any airplane of the era, Arnold's objects were a puzzle that eluded quick solution. The pilots of such craft would have claimed victory in the race to break the sound barrier, but none ever came forward. Officials in the American military denied it was anything of ours. Russian spokesmen denied they had anything to do with it. Reports of flying saucers multiplied in the wake of the mystery surrounding Arnold's objects and never entirely stopped.
For those readers who don’t know the Arnold story, here’s how it first appeared from the Associated Press:
PENDELTON, Ore., June 25 (AP) — Nine bright saucer-like objects flying atincredible speedat 10000 feet altitude were reported here today by Kenneth Arnold, a Boise, Idaho, pilot who said he could not hazard a guess as to what they were.
Arnold, a United States Forest Service employee engaged in searching for a missing plane, said he sighted the mysterious objects yesterday at 3 P.M. They were flying between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams, in Washington state, he said, and appeared to weave in and out of formation. Arnold said he clocked and estimated their speed at 1200 miles/h.1As Martin Kottmeyer has related to us in an earlier article ("The Saucer Error," May, 1993, V. 1, #4), the news release actually got it wrong; the objects were not saucer-shaped, but rather Arnold had said the objectsflew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water. He said the objectswere not circular, but the reporter apparently misunderstood and thus arose the term, "flying saucer."
Unusual aerial phenomena, all well acknowledge, long pre-date the Arnold case, but his report set fire to a
controversy which made it a benchmark in the history of the subject. Whether it should be called a classic or a
significant case is a thorny issue dependent mainly on one's perspective. In terms of cultural influence, no case
could be more important. In terms of weight of evidence for an extraordinary phenomenon requiring the belief of
extraterrestrials or some new set of scientific concepts, the Arnold case sinks below a landscape of multiple-witness
cases, physical traces, and photographically documented UFOs. In its initial presentation, the Arnold case was a
single witness case with no corroboration. The pilot of a DC-4 that was 20
miles away reported nothing unusual could be
seen.2"Pilot Says He Saw Big 'Saucers' Fly Over West Coast — Officials Skeptical of Report of 1200 Mile-an-hour Object," St. Louis Post Dispatch, June 26, 1947.
Jacques Vallee termed it
by no means one of the best reports 3Vallee, Jacques & Janine, Challenge to Science, Ace Star, 1966, p. 251..
In a 1965 survey asking UFO groups for the most significant cases, neither APRO or NICAP listed the
Even so, the credibility of that single witness seemed good. Arnold was an experienced pilot. Skeptical journalists were readily convinced of his honesty 4Spencer, John & Evans, Hilary, Phenomenon, Avon, 1988 pp. 26-45.. The report he offered doesn't have the taste of a tall tale in the sense that it is devoid of supernatural trappings. The speed of the objects isn't merely stretching current aviation wonders; it is bizarrely over double what the fastest planes were doing at the time. It is also pointlessly over-complicated, most particularly in the details concerning erratic motions by the objects and an echelon formation that was backward from that practiced by the Air Force. It is almost as if he is going out of his way to be disbelieved when he has nine objects going at these record speeds. Why not simply report a single snazzy-looking jet on a bullet-straight trajectory rushing past the nose of his plane? That alone would have been enough to grab attention if publicity was the intent.
While there are no grounds to question his sincerity, some ufologists express reservations about the psychology of the man. His unorthodox speculations about UFOs being space animals with the ability to change their density have bothered Frank Salisbury and Ronald Story 5Salisbury, Frank, The Utah UFO Display, Devin-Adair, 1974, p. 218. Story, Ronand D., UFOs and the Limits of Science, William Morrow, 1981, pp. 48-56.. The relevance of this belief to the 1947 sighting has never been articulated however. Others have branded Arnold a "repeater" because of several other UFO sightings he has reported seeing in subsequent years. Particularly notable is a 1952 report of two living transparent UFOs that Arnold felt was aware of him 6Oberg, James, "Repeaters," Omni, August 1980, p. 32. 7Hansen, Kim, "UFO Casebook" in Evans, Hilary & Spencer, John, UFOs: 1947-1987. Fortean Times, 1987. . This sounds suggestive of a delusion of observation and the possible presence of paranoia. A 1981 interview reinforces this supposition with Arnold expressing beliefs about J. Allen Hynek secretly still being in league with the Air Force and the government being fearful that the idea of UFOs would cause their destruction 8Long, Greg, "Kenneth Arnold Revisited," MUFON UFO Journal, #230, June 1987, pp. 3-7.. It is reasonably probable that this paranoid cast of thought was rooted in a knee injury which thwarted Olympic ambitions and blew apart plans he had to use his athletic talent to forward his college education 9Kottmeyer, Martin S. "Ufology Considered as an Evolving System of Paranoia," in Stillings, Dennis, Cyberbiological Studies of the Imaginal Component in the UFO Contact Experience, Archaeus, 1989, pp. 51-60. . It is a common syndrome that has been termed "the athlete's neurosis." 10Little, J. Crawford, "The Athlete's Neurosis - A Deprivation Crisis," Acta Psychiat. Scand., 45, (1969) pp. 187-97. Such an incident could inculcate a habit of emotionally-generated misinterpretation.
On the positive side of the ledger, paranoia is frequently associated with enhanced perception and could be regarded as grounds for trusting the basic validity of the experience 11Fried, Yehuda & Agassi, Joseph, Paranoia: A Study in Diagnosis, D. Reidel, 1976, pp. 4-5.. We may accept he saw something and reported it accurately, but his interpretation of it and the choice of which details are important might be skewed. What he was looking at may not be identical to what he saw. Arnold's initial belief that the objects were secret experimental aircraft is bizarre on the face of it. Besides the impossible speed for the era, you would not expect an experimental craft to be flown in a group of nine and for all of them to display erratic motion. You would expect one craft with perhaps a conventional plane tagging along to keep an eye on it. If it was aiming for new speeds, the introduction of erratic fluttering motions sounds suicidal. It also makes little sense to test a craft near Mount Rainier, a tourist spot and major landmark, if you want it to remain a secret.
The issue of what Arnold was actually looking at has spawned a sizable literature and invites the comment that Arnold's must be the most solved case in ufology. Regrettably, I am not saying it is the case with the most loose ends snipped clean, but that more solutions have been offered for the Arnold case than any other.
ATIC, Blue Book, William K. Hartmann (a co-author of the Condon report) and Ian Ridpath argued Arnold was looking at a group of conventional aircraft that was closer than Arnold thought and possibly seen through a mirage layer to account for the skipping motion that Arnold reported 12Ruppelt, Edward, Report on UFOs, Doubleday, 1956, p. 17. 13Hartmann, William K., "Historical Perspectives: Photos of UFOs" in Sagan, Carl & Page Thornton, UFOs: A Scientific Debate, Cornell, 1972, p. 15. 14Ridpath, Ian, Messages from the Stars, Harper & Row, 1978, p. 218.. The problems with this idea include the fact that the DC-4 pilot didn't notice this group of planes, the fact that none of the pilots came forward to clear things up on learning of the ruckus they caused, the unconventional" formation, and the absence of visible tails.
Donald Menzel suggested the objects were billowing blasts of snow ballooning off mountain ridges 15Maccabee, Bruce S. "Still in Default" MUFON 1986 UFO Symposium Proceedings, pp. 131-60. . Captain Ruppelt of Blue Book rejected this as impossible because you just don't get powder snow low in the mountains in June 16Ruppelt, op. cit. p. 19..
Martin Gardner has twice suggested the objects were balloons 17Gardner, Martin, Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science, Dover, 1957, p. 58. 18Gardner, Martin, The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher, Prometheus, 1988 p. 209. . This ignores the flat side profile drawn by Arnold. Arnold reported the air was very smooth traveling that day, which seems inconsistent with the undulatory motions he described.
Richard J. Reed suggested orographic clouds 19Reed, Richard J., "Flying Saucers over Mount Rainier,"Weatherwise, April 1958, pp. 43-5, 65-6.. Since these tend to stay motionless, the large a angular distance traveled by the objects is hard to account for. So, too, the angular velocity cannot be explained. These objections also apply to notions involving wave clouds and detached mountain top mirages 20Maccabee, ibid..
Menzel tried again in his last book with the idea that Arnold might have been tricked by water droplets on the airplane window 21Menzel, Donald & Taves, Ernest, The UFO Enigma, Doubleday, 1977, pp. 5-6.. This overlooks the fact that Arnold explicitly states he rolled down the window to get a better look at the objects 22Maccabee, op. cit. p. 141..
Otto Billig proposes that Arnold was suffering a regression suggestive of reduced personality cause the undulations of the objects indicate the surfacing of serpent imagery like that common to religions 23Billig, Otto, Flying Saucers: Magic in the Skies, Schenkman, 1982, pp. 128-31.. Such an analysis is contradicted by Billig's own mythography which says undulations signify benevolence. Arnold explicitly felt the objects to be a threat, a bother, and disturbing.
Paul Devereux proposed Arnold saw earth lights 24Devereux, Paul & McCarthy, Paul & Robins, Don, "Bringing UFOs Down to Earth," New Scientist, September 1, 1983, p. 629. . This would mean the objects would be emitting light. This is inconsistent with Arnold's description of the objects as forming a "black-thin line" when silhouetted against snowy mountain ridges. He also indicated that he saw the sun reflected off the objects from time to time. It is also difficult to imagine how earthlights could maintain an unconventional formation for over a minute without scattering or merging due to electrical charges.
Stuart Campbell has proposed an exotic scheme involving mirages of distant mountains. Easily the funniest detail is the necessity for Arnold to confuse Mount Rainier and Mount Adams with Pinnacle Peak and Lookout of the Tatoosh Range even knowing they are roughly half as big 25Kottmeyer, Martin, "Mirage Sale," MUFON UFO Journal, #327 July 1995, pp. 16-18..
Extraterrestrials begin to look pretty good at this point. They at least could potentially account for the exotic speed which otherwise seems impossible for the era. The undulations which Arnold warned would have killed a human pilot might be acceptable to an alien biology. Gerald Heard, for example, proposed the notion of some super-bee evolved in the hostile environment of Mars 26Heard, Gerard, Is Another World Watching? Bantam, 1953, ch. 11 & 12.. One might question if insect physiology truly would be more resilient in high gee maneuvers, but the more attractive point could be that insects might be psychologically pre-disposed to fly in erratic ways and this could undermine presumptions that no intelligent being would fly in such a bizarre fashion. One could perhaps even point out that, though it took close to two decades before close encounters with them began showing up, some people have reported insectoid beings in UFOs 27Kottmeyer, Martin, "Space Bug a Boo Boo," Talking Pictures, #15, September 1996, pp. 10-14.. A preference for traveling in groups could also be attributable to bug psychology, albeit the echelon formation seems problematic. Is this, then, a good resolution to the paradoxes of the Arnold report?
One problem that stands out in any attempt to make the Arnold case a True-UFO is the drawing in the Air Force files. The shape of the object in the top view is roughly similar to a shoe heel. Not only is it not round as all good flying saucers ought to be, it is for most practical purposes unique. Only one or two other cases even come close — the 1947 Rhodes photo and perhaps the 1993 backdated recollections of Frank Kaufman concerning Roswell. The distinctiveness calls into question whether it should be considered part of the UFO phenomenon at all.
J. Allen Hynek also offered an argument which should be addressed here since it is repeated by both critics and proponents of the case unaware it is partially erroneous. Hynek asserts that the eye cannot resolve objects that subtend an angle appreciably less than 3 minutes of arc. If we accept that Arnold was right in saying the objects were 25 miles away and that each object's length was 20 times its width, then a bit of trigonometry would put their size as 2000 feet in length. This being between a third and a half mile, it is simply too bloody huge to believe. Such a titan-size fleet would blot out the sun and a fair portion of sky to people beneath its flight path. How could only one person 25 miles away see this and everybody closer in miss it?
Hynek then takes a different tack. Accept the 25 miles for distance and accept Arnold's 45-50 estimate of length and the subtended angle is about <time class="duration">80 secondes</time> (1 minute, 20 seconds) of arc and that is below the third minute resolution limit. Hynek understood that to be impossible 28 Steiger, Brad, Project Blue Book, Ballantine, 1976, pp. 34-6. . That judgment was too severe. Texts I have consulted generally put the limit of visual acuity at around 1 minute of arc. With increases of luminosity even that limit lowers 29Geldard, Frank A., The Human Senses, John Wiley, 1966 pp. 83-7. Woodworth, Robert S. & Schlosberg, Harold, Experimental Psychology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965, pp. 382-6.. Since Arnold's sighting happened in full daylight and the objects were highly reflective by his own account, the conditions for resolution were optimal. It is perhaps worth adding that there are different types of visual acuity which can make it possible for the eye to detect wires as fine as 1/100 minute of arc. Deciding which form of acuity is applicable in this real-world situation isn't automatic. The detail of the report involving Arnold seeing the objects silhouetted against a snow suggests a practical analogy to the question of the limits of acuity in sunspot watching. In that situation, science shows the average person can detect sunspots as small as <time class="duration">27 secondes</time> (roughly ½ minute), of arc. Hynek's calculation of <time class="duration">80 secondes</time> thus would not be sufficient grounds for rejection of Arnold's report.
It seems only fair to add that Arnold offered another measure of the objects, sizes worth pondering. He compared the angular size to the span between the engines of that passing DC-4 noted earlier which Arnold estimated as 15 miles distant. This gives a visual span of 2' 40", which is still better in terms of resolution plausibility while still being in the ballpark of being consistent with the other set of figures. They are still both tiny images, but not impossibly tiny. While this strengthens the credibility of Arnold as an observer and allows a more believable size to the objects to be assumed if the 25 feet distance is accepted, the paradox of the single observer status of the case stays relatively intact. We are still dealing with a five mile long chain of objects swooping past a national landmark in broad daylight at speeds in excess of 1200 miles/h. People closer in had to have taken notice of such a spectacle. If nothing else, the cascade of sonic booms generated by supersonic craft would be impossible to ignore even if everyone's attention was riveted elsewhere. Before we bestow the label of True-UFO to Arnold's objects, a serious search for an alternative must be done.
The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the event was much more localized than Arnold surmised. A critical look at the distance estimate is both warranted and necessary. One must almost certainly accept the objects passed in front of Mount Rainier's snow field as Arnold claimed. The angular velocity of the objects indicated by Arnold's clocking of the objects between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams is .8 degrees per second. At that speed it would take nine seconds to cross the face of Mount Rainier at the 9200 feet level indicated by Arnold's report. This is too long for a spurious observation related the fleetingness of the phenomenon. This would rule out explanations based on distant sky phenomena like a train of meteors, Campbellian mirages, or density-shifting space animals.
What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects
swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks. This would seem to put a lower limit to the distance if
one could first determine which peaks they swung around and if they were broad enough to have a transit time to
regard the observation as secure. Arnold was slightly more specific in later recountings of the event. In The Coming
of the Saucers he said they momentarily disappeared
behind a jagged peak that juts out from Mount Rainier
proper. 30Arnold, Kenneth, The Coming of the Saucers, Amherst, 1952.
In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress he says,
When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to
me they were very thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a projection on Mount Rainier in the
snowfield. 31Arnold, Kenneth, "How It All Began" in Fuller, Curtis G., Proceedings of the First International UFO Congress, Warner, 1980, pp. 17-29.
These are not exactly the same thing, but they give a fair indication of what to look for on the geological
Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9200 feet plus or minus 1000 feet. The task at hand is thus to locate some feature extending above the 8200 feet level. This yields a neat little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak which stands only 6937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's base. There is a sharp little projection called Little Tacoma which sticks out around the 10000 feet level, but it is on the wrong side of the mountain to be seen from Arnold's flight path. It would be badly stretching things to suggest he got either his position or altitude that far wrong.
Normally one prefers early accounts to later ones, but the Congress memoir may provide the clue to what happened here. When the object turned flatwise, the optical thickness likely dropped below the ½ minute resolution limit and briefly dropped from sight. The rough surface of the mountain provided opportunities for an illusory correlation of the disappearance to some feature of the mountain. The disappearance seemed to be caused by an intervening feature where none in fact existed. With no firm lower distance estimate, the way is opened for the objects being closer to Arnold than he had surmised.
Return to Arnold's report:
They flew like many times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal
chain-like line as if they were linked together. That is what they certainly seem like. Geese do fly in chains.
A number of nine makes sense. The arrangement of the leader being higher than the others, unlike military
formations, is sensible for geese who take advantage of the downdraft turbulence of others in the formation for
easier flying. Geese chains do undulate like kite tails. They do present a basically flat side profile when seen
From above they have a bilateral symmetry like the heel drawn by Arnold. In his Congress paper he however
emphatically denies this idea,
— but they were not geese!
He does not explain the reasoning. If the 25 feet distance estimate is the root of it, we could simply shake it off. Other objections do suggest themselves however. 9200 feet is a bit high for geese to be flying. As an experienced pilot, Arnold surely saw geese too often to be puzzled by their appearance. He speaks of the brilliant flashes of light reflected on the objects just before that quoted denial; maybe they were unusual in some way. The pulsation rate perhaps was subliminally felt to be wrong. Perhaps he felt he should have been able to see the necks and couldn't. They aren't on the drawing.
Perhaps it was a different type of waterfowl. Swans would clear up most these objections. They normally migrate at
night and birders complain
details of their flights are seldom observed. 32Aymar, Gordon C., Bird Flight, Dodd, Mead, 1936 p. 51.
When flying, it is known they travel exceptionally as high as 10000
feet to take advantage of calmer air at that altitude
and Arnold commented on the smoothness of the air he was travelling in at the time. Birds generally travel higher
than their normal textbook rates in mountainous regions. The geometry of the encounter involves a shallow viewing
angle and a flight path running parallel to the path of the objects — he turned the plane to get a better look out
the side window — thus making identification optimally unlikely. An intersecting path or a higher viewing angle and
the flapping wings would have cleared things up. Swans would be more reflective than geese. They
fast 33Heintzelman, Donald S., North American Ducks, Geese, & Swans, Winchester Press, 1978, p. 2. Kortright, Francis E., The Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America, Stackpole, 1967, p. 42.
The neck would be slenderer and harder to resolve than geese as the image approaches acuity limits.
Will swans fit the established angular sizes and velocities? Arnold's clocking of the objects have them passing through an angle of roughly 80 degrees in <time class="duration">102 secondes</time>. The plane was traveling at about 100 m.p.h., according to Arnold’s Congress memoir. Swans travel roughly 50 feet. Since they were traveling on parallel paths the relative velocity had to be 50 feet or 150 feet. In the first situation, the angular velocity means the swans had to be close to a mile away. At that distance, the torso of swans (about 2-feet long) would subtend an angle of roughly <time class="duration">100 secondes</time> (1 minute, 40 seconds) which fits in the ballpark of the observed figures calculated earlier. The situation of the 150 feet relative velocity would put the swans 3 times farther away and an angular image down around <time class="duration">30 secondes</time> and thus doubtful. We can thus say a plausible case can be made for a fit in at least the first eventuality.
Given the smaller size and velocity, the single witness status of the event falls into place. The DC-4 pilot wouldn't have a prayer of seeing a flock of swans 14 feet away. Ground observers would likely miss swans two miles up. The few that might notice them might never make the connection they had anything to do with Arnold's "saucers." If somebody did make the connection, would he overcome the reticence of saying the guy was that far wrong?
That heel shape that Arnold drew could still be a source of sane objection. Even granting swans and heels are both bilaterally symmetrical, it is a stretch to call the match compelling. I suspect there is a different explanation for the heel shape. There was a plane of the era called a Flying Flapjack, which has a significant resemblance to Arnold's drawing. It was the fastest naval aircraft of its time. We can safely say Arnold was not looking at a Flying Flapjack in reality. There weren't nine of them around. They didn't fly quite so erratically. The relevant officials denied they were in the right place at the right time. But, they weren't secret.
It had been featured on the cover of Mechanix Illustrated a month before Arnold's experience. As a pilot, Arnold likely heard of the craft and it influenced his depiction of the objects on some level of mind. Just as people nowadays "fill in" perceptions of stars, ad planes, and the like with their knowledge of what saucers should look like, Arnold may have filled in his perception of waterfowl with knowledge of what fast planes were then looking like. We know from the Project Blue Book files that the 1947 Rhodes photo, which, as noted earlier, was one of only two similarly-shaped UFOs in saucer history, involved a photographer/model-builder who knew of the Mechanix Illustrated cover and suggested the involvement of Flying Flapjacks in the ongoing mystery 34Project Blue Book microfilm roll #1, National Archives..
The likelihood of ornithological misinterpretation may be enhanced by an incident that happened a month after the
big event. While en route to Tacoma to investigate the Maury Island mystery, Kenneth Arnold encountered a cluster of
twenty-five brass-colored objects that looked like ducks, but displayed a terrific rate of speed.
I was a little
bit shocked and excited when I realized they had the same flight characteristics of the large objects I had
observed on June 24, he wrote. They also appeared round to him. He turned his plane to follow them, but they
disappeared to the east at a speed far in excess of his airplane. He concluded,
I know they were not ducks
because ducks don't fly that fast. Maybe so, but he later learned that several farmers in the vicinity
what they though was a peculiar cluster of birds that morning. Ted Bloecher, a historian of the 1947 saucer
flap dryly commented,
Understandably, Arnold did not report this sighting to the newspapers, nor to the Air
Force. 35Bloecher, Ted, Report on the Ufo Wave of 1947, 1967 p. III-14
It might be pleaded that this second incident is less relevant than it strikes at first blush. It may less indicate a proneness to make a certain class of errors than the fact that Arnold could have been overwrought and desperate to find more proof of what happened to him in the midst of harsh media and public opinion. Such conditions did not exist during the first sighting. Yet, the fact remains we do have a troubling repetition under conditions where independent witnesses exist who put a rather mundane slant on stimuli Arnold hypes as extraordinary.
One last issue begs to be brought up. Arnold was an experienced pilot and it could be pointed out that the average pilot would have ignored sufficiently geese-like phenomena once he was satisfied they did pose a collision threat. If they were the tiny image, so close to the limits of acuity, that calculations indicate they were, why did Arnold so over-react? One feature of the case invites notice as a possible psychogenic factor. Arnold wasn't in the vicinity of Mount Rainier by accident that day. He was searching the area to locate a large marine transport, a C-46, which had gone down and crashed a month and a half earlier. The families of the victims had put up a $5,000 cash reward for anyone who could locate the crash site so the bodies could be recovered. This involvement of a mass death suggests certain possibilities.
One is that the feat predictably exists that if death visited this place once, it might well do so again. If Arnold was of a paranoid cast of mind to begin with, such a consideration could make him keyed up to over-react to the slightest stimulus — a variant of a haunted house situation. A second possibility is that Arnold was jazzed up by the prospect of getting that money, but on another level of mind his superego was aware of the ghoulish nature of his search. His conscience might have induced twinges of self-loathing which manifested in fears of supernatural punishment — the fear of collision initially, but also manifest in concern the objects were secret weapons. Still later, after the encounter and the publicity, he feared they could be used to carry atomic bombs and threaten life on earth 36Project Blue Book microfilm roll #1, ibid.. Here the psychology of paranoia colors the emotionality of the event and pushes what was fundamentally trivial into a higher level of significance. The undercurrent of Cold War tensions modeled on the surprise of the secret superweapon sprung on Hiroshima a couple years earlier would find in Arnold's paranoia a seed to grow a new fear for the culture to embrace.
I am hopeful it is not personal conceit that lets me think prior skeptics were wrong in their solutions and that
this is, finally, the correct one. It is simple logic that we can't all be right and that is assuredly disconcerting
if one hopes that skepticism should lead to a conclusion that reasonable men can consider reliable and consensual.
Some skeptics, I am tempted to warn, were governed by an idee fixe idiosyncratic to each which led them to apply
solutions too repetitively in their work. So far as I can discern, I have no particular obsession with birds. I feel
this solution is painfully banal and devoid of poetry or grandeur. It just seems to me it fits the most facts with
the fewest loose ends. Only the historical importance of the Kenneth Arnold case makes the matter of its solution of
any interest. Reject it and no larger consequences to our understanding of the flying saucer phenomenon seems to
follow. Accept it and advocates will say,
So what? We didn't consider it a classic anyways.
After 50 years though, aren't you glad we made the effort?
Bruce Maccabee challenges the single witness character of the Kenneth Arnold classic in a paper titled "True UFOs: Fantasy or Reality?" He recounts a report by a prospector named Fred Johnson who saw several objects on the same day around the same time of the afternoon. Maccabee is impressed by the fact that Johnson was working on Mt. Adams, which is a reference point in Arnold's report and thus also puts him the same general locale. The objects were traveling on a southeasterly path which is in general agreement with Arnold’s objects' trajectory. The prospector was working at about the 5000 feet foot level and they flew over at an altitude not too far above him. This is vague, but consistent with Arnold's 9200 feet ± 1000 feet estimate. He also spoke of their speed as "greater than anything I ever saw."
There are, however, differences. There seem to be only six or seven objects instead of nine. Arnold emphasizes
he couldn't make out any tail on them in the original Air Force report and in his UFO Congress memoir he
I couldn’t discern any tails on them, and I had never seen an aircraft without a tail!" He adds, I
kept looking for their tails. Johnson apparently found them. He reported
an object in the tail end" that
"looked like a big hand of a clock shifting from side to side. One could ascribe such differences to two or
three objects breaking formation for unknown ends and Johnson possibly being closer to the objects than Arnold.
The corroborative value is however reduced by such assumptions.
Maccabee notes a further feature of Johnson's account that lends it a historical uniqueness — a physical effect. While the objects were in view the needle of his compass waved from side to side. Menzel dismissed this effect as caused by a trembling of the hand engendered by the excitement of the sighting. Maccabee counters an experienced prospector would realize his compass would wobble if he didn’t hold it steady. This sounds fair only out of the context of Menzel's discussion. He discounts this observation because faith in its validity would imply an immense magnetic field, which proponents of the ETH had argued was proof of a magnetic drive operated by extraterrestrials. Menzel believed such a notion was pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Having encountered talk of magnetic drives in my reading of early ufology, I must agree. It is far easier to believe the prospector erred than that such a motive mechanism powers alien aeroforms sightseeing above the earth’s surface. An alternative psychological mechanism incidentally could be at work here. The hand might have been making small movements in synchrony with the swaying clock hand feature being observed by the witness. This happens below the level of awareness and has been known to some psychologists as the phenomenon of rhythmic entrainment. It underlies other phenomena like Ouija board pendulums and subtle body cuing experienced in social interactions.
The number of the objects, as in the Arnold case, would seem to favor an ornithological explanation of Johnson's visual observations. The swaying clock hand at the tail end recalls the swaying motion of the stilt-like legs which trail behind certain waterfowl. In this instance, birds like herons, cranes, storks, or ibis seem plausible. The absence of prominent flapping or erratic motion is an obvious objection, but gliding flight is possible with favorable wind conditions, lifting currents along mountain ridges, or a descending trajectory. Long necks are curled in S-shape in some species which would subvert identification if they are being seen from rearward angles. The impression of speed follows from errors in the assumptions regarding size and distance, which are notoriously fallible.
There is another candidate for corroborative witness in Loren Gross’s, Charles Fort,
The Fortean Society & Unidentified Flying Objects. Details are very scant. A member of the Washington State fire
service was on lookout at Diamond Gap, just south of Mount Rainier. At 3 o'clock, the same time of Arnold’s
sighting, he observed
flashes in the distance quite high up in the east. Like Arnold’s objects they
to be going in a straight line and made a strange noise, higher pitched than most airplanes make. Whistling
swans sing only in flight and the notes are loud, striking, and, though varied, can include a high flageolet note.
This account is perilously lacking any information on which to evaluate any kind of interpretation of it. One
warning must be posted to anyone hoping to argue this buttresses the position that Arnold's objects are True UFOs:
why did this guy report hearing a high pitched noise and not a sonic boom?