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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
how we got the name flying saucer well maybee this article could help solve this one have gander at this zorgon
findarticles.com...
Hope it helps


if i did this wrong sorry




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Kevin Randle wrote an article about this case for the anniversary:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

It is quite an interesting read, and there is a corroborating witness to the sightings.

The wings that were designed by Nazi Germany were very unstable to be able to fly. The wing design had to wait for the avionic computer systems to evolve in the 1970s for it to work.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by terrylm
Hope it helps


Yuppers that helps
Its funny how I missed that... I need to spend more time going back over old cases for new info. One tends to move on

!945


www.thejinn.net...

He then quit Amazing Stories because of flak over the Shaver incident..

Found the full text of that here

I Remember Lemuria and The return of Sathanas
by Richard S. Shaver
www.sacred-texts.com...

Then he started Fate Magazine and the first issue broke the Kenneth Arnold story



greyfalcon.us...

How about that I LOVE the shape in the drawing on the cover, looks like the Dropa stones


Thank you most helpful indeed








[edit on 29-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
The corroborating witness is strong evidence of Arnold's description being accurate.

In addition there is the fighter plane gun camera footage of a clear, detailed crescent shaped UFO supposedly from 1947 that provides additional evidence.

Sorry, I know I should provide a link, if anyone's interested I'll dig it out.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Your second image looks a bit like the STS-75 Tether object(s).



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Be prepared, a TV series not meant for Theaters as this
would be too shocking:



The Arnold wing, red dot and all.
Floating... just floating around.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 

While a flying wing design is inherently unstable it is possible, by adjusting CG, sweep and washout, to overcome the instability in pitch (divergence). I happen to fly one myself (hang glider). Going on 36 years now and I hardly ever plummet anymore. No FBW involved.

The Horten brothers did manage to come up with some very good and fairly stable designs but I'm not sure how they would have responded to the extreme requirements and unusual attitudes required in air combat. Pretty good bomber design though.




www.twitt.org...

[edit on 6/29/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by KEMIK
Your second image looks a bit like the STS-75 Tether object(s).


Hadn't noticed...




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The problem with the Horten Brothers theory is a simple one. No-one in the USA took their designs really seriously and they were consigned to the museums and on public display. It wasn't until the 1960s that anyone took the slightest bit of notice of them and then, it was when they were looking to build *stealth* planes..

So, rather than any great secret surrounding the craft, they were in fact, on public view and ignored by the American military at the time of Arnold's sighting



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:42 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?


Oh, come now. You know perfectly well that the term "flying saucer" was not based on his description of the wings, but his description of the way they were flying, "like a saucer skipping on water." The newspapers took that and ran with it.

One thing I'm not sure of is why he's often seen holding that drawing of the very Horten-like flying object, when he essentially describes the things he saw as much more of a circular or heel shape, with relatively notches cut out of the back end.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
One thing I'm not sure of is why he's often seen holding that drawing of the very Horten-like flying object, when he essentially describes the things he saw as much more of a circular or heel shape, with relatively notches cut out of the back end.


From here


Two or three photos of a similar, solitary object were taken by William Rhodes over Phoenix, Arizona on July 7, 1947, and appeared in a local Phoenix newspaper and some other newspapers. The object was rounded in front with a crescent back. These photos also seem to show something resembling a hole in the middle, though Rhodes thought it was a canopy. [3] Rhode's negatives and prints were later confiscated by the FBI and military. However, the photos show up in later Air Force intelligence reports. [4]

Arnold was soon shown the Rhode's photos when he met with two AAF intelligence officers. He commented, "It was a disk almost identical to the one peculiar flying saucer that had been worrying me since my original observation—the one that looked different from the rest and that I had never mentioned to anyone." As a result, Arnold felt that the Rhode's photos were genuine.


en.wikipedia.org...




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join