From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:48:07 -0000
Archived: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:50:45 -0500
Subject: Re: The Arnold Case - Solved?


>From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:44:59 +0000
>Subject: The Arnold Case - Solved?

>Any comments on this? It does come from a pilot, and so,
>according to Don Ledger, speaks with extra authority!

>http://tinyurl.com/2pep7c

And according to John Rimmer is on that account no more immune
from misinterpretations than anyone else. I think in this case
John's point of view wins out.

The story of a "formation" of mass-produced (!) prototype B-47s
flying on 24 June 1947 doesn't add up.

According to

http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Boeing_B-47_Part1.html

and

http://www.b-47.com/history/ch01/b-47ch01.html

the first prototype of the B-47, the XB-47, didn';t roll out of
the Seattle factory until September 12 1947 and had its first 55
minute test flight on December 17 1947, timed to coincide with
the 44th Wright Bros anniversary. And the Air Force ordered only
two prototypes, the second having its first flight on July 21
1948. There still weren't enough for a "formation" even then.

The Boeing company image library at

http://www.boeingimages.com/boeingCSharpSite/

is very comprehensive and allows you to search by type, date,
location, aspect, weather, events, manufacturing milstones etc
etc, and checking all XB-47 photos including publicity events
and first flights produces no photograph matching the one
described on any date.

However, the B-50 Superfortress had its first test flight on
June 25, 1947. The wrong aircraft, but only a day away, a near
miss for this blogger then? But again there was no chance of a
"formation" of B-50As and the wings of this 4-engine prop bomber
were not swept at all, but straight.

Aside from the inaccurate account of Arnold's sighting (the
objects did not disappear in the NW for example but in the
opposite direction) I find this a very unconvincing and
inconsistent claim, and I'm sure John would agree that in the
absence of physical evidence - i.e. at least a copy of the
original printed photo with its caption, then preferably some
test of the probity of that information and an explanation of
the historical anachronism - no good sceptic will take this
seriously.


Martin Shough



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/