It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kennet Arnold debunked?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I know I will probably step on some toes with this but I really find this something to look into

the 1947 sighting looks a lot like the German ww2 jetplane Horten Ho 229.

Just look at the pics.

(found this site and linked it because it has biggest pictures, has nothing to do with MY debunking)


The Kenneth Arnold 1947 UFO

www.debunker.com...

And the Horten 229

en.wikipedia.org...

and notice this;



During the final stages of the war, the US military initiated Operation Paperclip which was an effort by the various intelligence agencies to capture advanced German weapons research, and to deny that research to advancing Soviet troops. A Horten glider and the Ho 229 V3, which was undergoing final assembly, were secured and sent to Northrop Corporation in the United States for evaluation.


So could he just have witnessed some testflights?

I am curious what you all have to say.


Grey Magic




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
lol one flag and no comments.

So no one on this whole board can give me an opinion on my opinion?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I think its very valid to ask the question. If all that is correct (and it is wikipedia remember) then I could see that could potentially be the case.
Thank you for posting this anyway, I appreciate it.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
thanks for the comment.


here is a another site that shows the northrop/operation paperclip connection.

www.nationmaster.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
As you may have seen in the other thread,I agree.

I don't know if you have seen it but there was an earlier Horten design, called the parabola, and that looked even more like the Arnold sighting with its curved leading edge.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Grey Magic
 


just one minor problem :

zero evidence that the US brought any airwaorthy hortens back to the USA

yes they retretieved several airframes - in various stats of repair / completion

but not one peice of documetation relating to a test flight anywahere

before anyone starts on the ` it was secret / superiour nazi tech ` claims

first it wasant actually superiour to any airfrae that northrop had already built / tested with prop engines , the german jet engines [ jumo / bmw ] were actually inferior to current allied efforts

and as for secrecy - why ? v2 and other missile tech was openly used , as was hypothermia data from concentrayion camp victims - the post war allies gladly looted the nazi archives and used what was useable

the horten was interesting - but offered nothing radical or earthshattereing - thats why the " best example " in the us is in a diabolical state of disrepair having been neglected for decades



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
even though i'm a skeptic i find it incredibly hard to believe that a trained pilot doesn't recognize a flock of pelicans.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Grey Magic,

Even if you are right and this is what Arnold saw, it in no way "debunks" his sighting. Arnold made no claims about the nature or the origin of the craft he saw, he presented a matter-of-fact statement of his experience with no speculation. There was nothing to debunk.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by errorist
 


pelicans ???????????????

i am as skeptical as the next munkie - but i find the claim of ` it was pelicans ` ludicrous



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The Northrop YB-35 first flight was in june 1946. There is no evidence of Northrop making a version with jet engines. So they got this superior technology from Germany, and never tried to replicate it? I find it hard to believe.

It seems more likely to me that a US flying wing similar to the german Ho 229 was seen as one of the UFOs, the one next to last, that was darker and different from the others 8 and looked very similar to a flying wing.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Also my personal theory about Kenneth Arnold's sighting is that it was a psychological operation designed to mislead the Russians about the direction research was taking at a time when (future) supersonic jets were designed and tested. Some of the UFOs could have been jet planes, P80 Shootingstar or F-84 Thunderjet both known for their shiny hull (not painted), others could have been flat diskoïd metallic sheets towed by cable. This would explain why they were erratically moving and flashing and why the story remained classified.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey Magic
lol one flag and no comments.

So no one on this whole board can give me an opinion on my opinion?


To much going on right now and 1947 has been done many times here... and as the masked man says "Nothing to debunk"


Only thing I want to know... based on his description of the wings... how did we end up with the term "Flying Saucer" from that event?



Pelicans?
That was a new one... these skeptics are getting desperate






Scary... the Munkie agrees







[edit on 27-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos earlier Horten design, called the parabola, and that looked even more like the Arnold sighting with its curved leading edge.


This one?



Good page on it and other Horton wings here
www.ufologie.net...

Horten Logo



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator


To answer your signature...

Same principal that requires a Klingon Bird of Prey to decloak before firing



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I have to agree. As far as I can recall he provided no evidence other than his eyewitness testimony. I don't know if you can really consider calling it "debunked". Not like some of the other cases (ahem, Billy). Flock of pelicans...probably not.



Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Grey Magic,

Even if you are right and this is what Arnold saw, it in no way "debunks" his sighting. Arnold made no claims about the nature or the origin of the craft he saw, he presented a matter-of-fact statement of his experience with no speculation. There was nothing to debunk.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
He is pointing to a flying wing witnessed by thousands:

Why is it the red dot that suspends these things.
Maybe its a ruby laser.
Red hot coals from a steam engine.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Only thing I want to know... based on his description of the wings... how did we end up with the term "Flying Saucer" from that event?


It comes from Arnold's description of their movement, saying it was like saucers across water.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne


What the heck??? Already removed by user? WTF?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by TeslaandLyne


What the heck??? Already removed by user? WTF?



Too bad and I had that linked in my profile for easy access.
You would have enjoyed.
I have two copies of the series.
Its was part of the unsolved mystery series that are still on
Utube by the hundreds, when it shows up again I u2u.
All my links are down, that will save space in my profile.

Disc 2 episodes 3 and 4 for disc holders.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
ok there might be nothing to prove but we might agree that it just wasn't a UFO Kenneth saw.

I am grateful for the input about the other Horten plane, I didn't know there was another type and indeed it does look almost similar to the description of Kenneth Arnold.

I am sure the US tested these planes, I hope we learn the truth one day.

Thanks for the input everyone.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join