Kenneth Arnold's erroneously reported sighting: The origin of flying saucer reports?

"Flying Saucers?"

Journalist, Bill Bequette, reported to the United Press on June 24th, 1947 that was to coin an importan new phrase. He reported that pilot Kenneth Arnold had sighted, "flying saucers."

The trouble is the report was erroneous. Kenneth didn't report that at all.

In a memoir of the incident for the First International UFO Congress in 1977 Arnold revealed the flying saucer label arose because of a "great deal of misunderstanding" on the part of the reporter who wrote the story up for the United Press. Bill Bequette asked him how the objects flew and Arnold answered that, "Well, they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." The intent of the metaphor was to describe the motion of the objects not their shape. Arnold stated the objects "were not circular."

Source: The Saucer Error By Martin Kottmeyer

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c60ac02e4e80.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/50c3f7cc3ca5.jpg[/atsimg]
Above is Kenneth Arnold, pictured holding an impression of one of the objects that he saw. Clearly the objects were not saucers.

Why does it matter?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9721fd22ee79.jpg[/atsimg]
Well at this point, the world began to look up and expect to see "flying saucers". Have a guess what they saw. Hundreds of reports emerged of flying saucers in the skies.

The implications of this journalistic error are staggering in the extreme. Not only does it unambiguously point to a cultural origin of the whole flying saucer phenomenon, it erects a first-order paradox into any attempt to interpret the phenomenon in extraterrestrial terms: Why would extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to Bequette's error?

Source: Entirely Unpredisposed by Martin Kottmeyer

Well the obvious answer to that question is that extraterrestrials would not redesign their craft to meet our expectations. So if reports of flying saucers did not start to emerge until after the Arnold report, then UFOlogy is confronted with a bit of a mystery.

That sounds like a challenge.

Could ATS members meet this challenge?

Here is the acid test ATSers. Can you produce enough credible reports to convince a skeptic that "flying saucers" have been with us before June, 1947?

I will start you off with stating that I am not really asking for ancient artwork. A lot of it has already been debunked and the few items that remain are difficult for us to put in context so will never be credible to hard-core skeptics. I am looking for more recent examples, possibly with photographs or other corroborating data. Multiple witnesses would be nice.

A few photographic examples might get your juices flowing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5a9c70874685.jpg[/atsimg]
I have a feeling this first one (above) is a hoax.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91f10af0bb2a.gif[/atsimg]
This one from China (above) is zoomed below.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f6f0d560e31.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/88305229a878.jpg[/atsimg]

This picture (above ed. Pim) of George Sutton of St. Paris, Ohio was taken near midday on a summer noon. We can see that it was in 1932 from the license plate on the automobile in the photo that accompanied this shot.

The unidentified flying object in the picture could not have been a street lamp, simply because there were no street lamps at the time. There are no power poles or power lines visible anywhere in this picture. This picture of George Sutton of St. Paris, Ohio, taken near midday shows a vintage automobile with a 1932 license plate on the front bumper. The owner of the photo album says there were no electric street lights along this road in those days. Nobody has been able to account for the dark object seen over Sutton's left shoulder in this photograph.

Source: NICAP website

The object is zoomed below.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f92e1da92bec.jpg[/atsimg]

So guys, let's see what you have. Surely you have something worth posting?

Any information members have on the alleged pre Kenneth Arnold photographs would be appreciated. I should admit in advance, that I am yet to look into where these pictures came from. I expect/hope that some of you guys have.

Hmm, i'm not aware of any photos in existence, but UFO were widely reported during WWII by military pilots, codenamed as Foo Fighters. They were even described in newspapers as new nazi weapons, after war it appeared germans were making same assumption.
Usually they were described though as lighting orbs, not saucers.
I really wonder how much truth is to stories about Haunebu and Vril.

I forgot, if you do bit of graphic enhancement on photo in newspaper after Battle of Los angeles, u can surely make out shape of a saucer.

I took a picture of a UFO in SC
It is shaped like a top hat, not a perfect saucer.
If someone could tell me how to post a picture of it, I will!

reply to post by Htrowklis82


Altho, it isn't before the 70's soooo it might not be relevant to what you want! Apologies!

The "flying saucer" that Kenneth Arnold claimed to have seen in the 1940's looks almost identical in shape to the German Ho 229 of the 1940's:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98efbff8d707.jpg[/atsimg]


So, not a flying saucer. Just a glimpse of something that Arnold hadn't seen before and thus was unexplained at the time.

I'd love to have a picture to show but I have definitely read witness accounts of WW2 bomber crews seeing disc-shaped craft over Europe prior to '47.

I'll try to find some sources.

Good challenge, S+F.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


It may look like what Arnold saw, but you should research his report and read the description he gives of the flight characteristics, speed, and size of the objects, no conventional aircraft moves like what he said he saw.

There are no power poles or power lines visible anywhere in this picture.

I see a pole in the background on the right, but it's hard to tell what the pole is holding up.

The unidentified flying object in the picture could not have been a street lamp, simply because there were no street lamps at the time.

This is completely false. They started using gas street lamps in 1880, and by the early 20th century, they started using electric street lamps.

The following image is different street lamp designs of the 1930's:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/23747e449096.jpg[/atsimg]


As you look at the above image, the bottom design resembles almost exactly the last "UFO" in the OP. That's two "UFO"s in the OP that are not really UFO's.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
It may look like what Arnold saw, but you should research his report and read the description he gives of the flight characteristics, speed, and size of the objects, no conventional aircraft moves like what he said he saw.

And descriptions like that can be exaggerated. He could've been tired and "thought" he saw those flight characteristics.

Are you to have us believe that some alien visitors visited our planet and just happened to be flying in a space craft design that looks almost exactly like a German plane of the 1940's? Really? Do you have any idea of how astronomically coincidental that is?

It might be believable that aliens visited us with that design and then the Germans designed their own plane after the alien design, but the time frame doesn't really allow that possibility.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Don't mean to be raggin on ya man

The shape of the object in the old picture is a classic UFO shape. Fair play to you for digging up the picture of the street lamps, but it does not prove the original photo is a lamp, it might be a lamp, it might not. The caption says there were no street lamps there at that time, yeah I see what looks like a pole in the distance, but where are the rest of the street lamps? The picture you posted shows lamps that look like flying saucers, that's all.

Great job Bonez.

Now what I would suggest is - the Nazis uncovered technology. Be it ancient technology, or simply brilliant minds and low morals to discover or create advanced air/space crafts. This could have come from meeting those who rode in Vimanas - aka the true "E.T", considered by many as The Custodians - They could have attempted to replicate what they had seen, thus giving us the flying saucer.

Reports on extremely flat light ships have always been my favorite, as it seems that no pilot could have fit inside.

As a big UFO junkie for several years now, I'm utterly convinced that most of the UFOs people witness are secret military craft.

The mystery of Area 51 was created alongside of Roswell, as well as Hollywood and many great propoganda books to get the public associating "Craft I have never seen before" as "Extraterrestrial". The beauty of this is that the root definition of ALIEN or EXTRATERRESTRIAL does not actually mean INTELLIGENT LIFE FROM ANOTHER PLANET. It is the SUGGESTIONS made by Governments and Charlatans who have aided in obscuring the way folks examine UFOs.

And at this moment I "believe" that Kenneth Arnold was a victim of these "suggestions" as well. If not a tool for this cause.


There's a 30 year gap of technology between military and main stream. On many levels. The reason for secrecy is because by releasing these technologies it would completely change the way civilization "functions". From cures for cancer, to free energy, all the way down to free-fast-and easy visits to the moon.

3 cents.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The "flying saucer" that Kenneth Arnold claimed to have seen in the 1940's looks almost identical in shape to the German Ho 229 of the 1940's:

That is absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the info.

You may be right about the lamp, but I think it looks too small to be positioned there if it was a lamp. Could be though.

It hasn't helped with the challenge in my OP though. I am looking for specifically flying saucer reports of a reasonable quality. It is thought to be the Arnold report of flying saucers in 1947 that lead to the modern reports of specifically flying saucers. This is especially relevant to abduction reports, which nearly all mention the classic saucer or similar if a craft is involved - implying a cultural influence on the nature of the reports.

Guys, for the purposes of what we are looking at here it isn't that important what Arnold saw. If there were pre-Arnold Saucers then an important argument put forward by skeptics is in question. Lets see what members can come up with and not drag this off topic please.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
The caption says there were no street lamps there at that time

And a simple Google search easily proved that wrong, hence where I came up with the image of the 1930's street lamp designs. That means whoever posted the caption was very unresearched.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
The picture you posted shows lamps that look like flying saucers, that's all.

So, now you'd have us believe that aliens are flying around in ships that look like 1940's German planes, and flying saucers that look like 1930's street lamps? You're really reaching there.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
It may look like what Arnold saw, but you should research his report and read the description he gives of the flight characteristics, speed, and size of the objects, no conventional aircraft moves like what he said he saw.

And descriptions like that can be exaggerated. He could've been tired and "thought" he saw those flight characteristics.

Are you to have us believe that some alien visitors visited our planet and just happened to be flying in a space craft design that looks almost exactly like a German plane of the 1940's? Really? Do you have any idea of how astronomically coincidental that is?

It might be believable that aliens visited us with that design and then the Germans designed their own plane after the alien design, but the time frame doesn't really allow that possibility.

I'm just going on the story that Arnold told. I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to believe anything. Have you read his report?

I often hear this argument repeated by skeptics, but if you check the NARCAP catalog by Weinstein (covers good sightings starting in 1916), there are sightings of disks going back way before 1947 (first one in '25). They did not call them 'saucers' prior to the journalists remark, but instead used 'disk' to describe them.

www.narcap.org...

I have recently come to believe that the entire UFO phenomenon was a result of the media latching on to flying saucers. Science fiction was born, and just pushed the event to continue. The Arnold sighting could have very well been a flying wing, as there were experiments going on at that time in the US, as well as Germany.

Some believe, and this is very possible, that the aircraft Arnold saw were actually captured German Horten 229's. The time frame is correct, and Germany had started mass-producing these types of airplanes at the end of the war. It is highly likely this is what he saw, whether German or American.

This is what really launched the nation into a UFO frenzy, that instead of slowing down has only gained speed over the years. This is due to magazines, books, movies, etc...Aliens are a part of our culture now. If people only knew how many things are in the sky that could be mistaken for UFO's, you would be surprised. For instance, airplanes traveling toward or away from you will seem to be hovering, etc, etc...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


No, I'm not reaching, I'm just posting alternate takes on your posts, I'm not trying to prove anything or have you believe anything here, playing devils advocate really.

...So?

What if every single word he uttered about what he claims he saw was a bald-faced lie? Suppose he actually saw nothing out of the usual? Taken to the extreme, suppose he saw a flight of super-scret craft that the US air corps had developed, perhaps from Nazi designs?

Does any of those possible explanations totally disallow any of the literally millions of UFO reported in that time since? Can every single one of those sightings be explained as domestice craft or or aero or astronomical henomena?

What about the reported abductions, and other evidence for actual alien interactions. ...All false?

No! You cannot destroy the whole concept and ignore the evidence of genuine UFOs by trying to destroy one case. Such a tactic makes no sense.

There seems to be a revisionist activity at work here. First, it was the supposed revelation of the faked image of the 1989 Belgium triangle--as an attempt to deny the whole complex case and now this.

The only way to fight the revision of UFO history, folks, is for you to visit used book stores and gather any of the old UFO books written by any writer from the beginning of the UFO saga until the present. You don't need to read them, simply buy them and put them away. The day will come when they are worth an incredible amount of more money than you paid for them. With the completion of the electronic age wiping out books, new and old, as a medium, the shadows of Orwell's 1984 are creeping over all printed libraries, those official and even your shelves at home.

In this instance, the electron is not your friend, but a tool used against you and it comes from every side. If nothings else, read the book 1984 and understand just how helpless you are.

1. Nicholas Roerich's travel diary mentions that his travelling party encountered a metallic silver disc hovering above the Himalayas.

-wikipedia.com

2. The Maury Island sighting

-en.wikipedia.org...
-www.youtube.com... (UFO Hunters episode)

3. Battle of Los Angeles (I think you could call that disk shaped?)

geektyrant.com...

4. Hopeh Incident (you already have a pic of that)

5. Miracle of the Sun
I don't know if you can call it a UFO or not, but it was reported to be disk-shaped.

6. Washington DC. 1942 UFO

ufosightings.tv...

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Fair enough. But I'd be more apt to believe that what Arnold saw was a Ho 229 (or variation thereof) and the bottom image is of a street lamp with the top part invisible due to the over-exposure of the photograph.

I have a hard time believing that aliens were flying around in the 1930's and 1940's with ships that looked just like 1930's and 1940's human technology.