Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
misty55

Did Kenneth Arnold see secret german plane?

48 posts in this topic

Could he have just seen a test of this stolen German technology in 1947?

karnld1.gifArnoldUFO.jpgarticle-1198112-05A00E88000005DC-913_634x424.jpgf36d576ded86c31L.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could he have just seen a test of this stolen German technology in 1947?

karnld1.gifArnoldUFO.jpgarticle-1198112-05A00E88000005DC-913_634x424.jpgf36d576ded86c31L.jpg

Yeah, there is a growing consensus that this is precisely what occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany did build 2 or 3 prototypes of these planes and test them, so I am assuming that in 47 the USA managed to get some made.

German technology was also used in the development of the B2 spy plane.

B-2_Spirit_original.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm of the opinion that it is plausible. I was convinced at one point, but I'm not so certain anymore. The general shape seems to match up and when you consider that an artists rendering produced from a verbal description provided by an eye witness is undoubtedly going to have some inconsistencies with the original, it seems like a viable explanation.

The biggest red flag for me is that he reported seeing 9 of them in formation. This is an uncommonly large number for reported test aircraft. The second red flag is the location of the sighting is a fair distance from where most test flying was done in the day. Third, Project 1947 which was undertaken as a response to the notorious UFO flap in 1947 and although flying wing craft are listed as possible sources for some of the sightings of that year, nothing was confirmed and they out and out stated at the time that it wasn't a Horten Wing responsible for Kenneth Arnold's sighting.

I still think it is possible, but there would be a lot of questions that need answering to arrive at this as a final and accurate conclusion. IMHO of course.

ETA:

By the way, as I was looking into this possibility before another member (Czero 101 if I recall correctly) had mentioned a special that had run on NatGeo about the Horten. I tracked it down on YouTube and really enjoyed it.

One of Four:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ap2xXdOzg

Two

The rest can be found from the second link or even in the embedded player.

Cheers. :tu:

Edited by booNyzarC
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe but would they have they test flew all three together like that ? I tend to think he saw something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Good post Misty. It seems very plausible. As for him seeing 9 perhaps it was only 2 or 3 accompanied by conventional planes and he was too freaked out to notice or maybe he embellished a bit.

Edited by sinewave
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Arnold saw nine of these craft during that sighting event. If we had nine of these craft built by 1947, what happened to them? If nine of these craft were flying together that would actually mean we had more than those nine.

Edited by IamsSon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnold saw nine of these craft during that sighting event. If we had nine of these craft built by 1947, what happened to them? If nine of these craft were flying together that would actually mean we had more than those nine.

He said nine that does not mean there were actually nine. As for what happened to them if there were nine, I am sure lots of aircraft were built that we don't know about and cannot be accounted for these days.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look what we did to all our Flying Wings !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look what we did to all our Flying Wings !

Exactly! What happened to our flying wings? They were all flops until the B-2. If these nine (and potentially more) craft were ours, that means we would have been at least 6 of them since the Germans purportedly only had 3 prototypes. So, before 1947 we built these craft and then forgot how to make flying wings that actually flew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Exactly! What happened to our flying wings? They were all flops until the B-2. If these nine (and potentially more) craft were ours, that means we would have been at least 6 of them since the Germans purportedly only had 3 prototypes. So, before 1947 we built these craft and then forgot how to make flying wings that actually flew?

It is not quite that simple. The YB-49 was independently developed by Northrup (Jack himself leading the charge) and was not based on the captured German design. There was no "forgetting" involved. The Northrup design was similar but not the same. It was much larger and designed to carry a heavy bomb load. Yes, it was a difficult design to fly but the project was killed not because of failures but because Jack refused to merge Northrup with Convair. The Air Force believed in the design and was willing to fund it provided Northrup would agree to become part of Convair. Jack refused and development stopped. The B-2 borrows heavily from the original YB design.

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Kenneth Arnold calculated the speed of the formation at about 1200mph. The top speed of the Horton Ho 229 - Nazi stealth fighter - was a little over 600mph. So I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't use any real sophisticated means to calculate speed, plus there could have been some exaggeration. The margin for error would have been reasonably high.

It's a real possibility that what he saw was a secret design and it is only really after the press coined the phrase "Flying Saucer" that everybody began seeing them. It might be that we have never been visited at all and the whole phenomena was started by a simple sighting of top secret aircraft. I don't know why, but that is a little depressing to me - I like attempting to explain every new sighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Kenneth Arnold see a secret aircraft? I don't think so, as stated earlier, it seems like a large number for experimental craft. Secondly, I find it amusing that to support this theory, one must first discount the only witness. I find statements that perhaps he miscounted or exagerrated to be amusing.The only information is based on Arnolds description,if we throw that away,all we are doing telling stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Kenneth Arnold calculated the speed of the formation at about 1200mph. The top speed of the Horton Ho 229 - Nazi stealth fighter - was a little over 600mph. So I'm not so sure.

Pilots don't have magical abilities to estimate speed. This is especially difficult when distance and size are not known. I contend he was guessing or embellishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Kenneth Arnold see a secret aircraft? I don't think so, as stated earlier, it seems like a large number for experimental craft. Secondly, I find it amusing that to support this theory, one must first discount the only witness. I find statements that perhaps he miscounted or exagerrated to be amusing.The only information is based on Arnolds description,if we throw that away,all we are doing telling stories.

Yes, one witness is indeed a problem. Do you really think that all UFO reports are truthful and accurate? Five witnesses to a car accident can and usually do tell five different stories. The truth is in there somewhere. When the sample size is reduced to one and there is no corroborating evidence , you are pretty much screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one witness is indeed a problem. Do you really think that all UFO reports are truthful and accurate? Five witnesses to a car accident can and usually do tell five different stories. The truth is in there somewhere. When the sample size is reduced to one and there is no corroborating evidence , you are pretty much screwed.

The overall lesson: Never fly alone. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall lesson: Never fly alone. :rofl:

The Flap had been ongoing for months before Arnold's sighting. The main contribution of the Arnold sighting is that it broke the story of the Flap wide open in the Press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilots don't have magical abilities to estimate speed. This is especially difficult when distance and size are not known. I contend he was guessing or embellishing.

So your theory is he was lying or a moron basically ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your theory is he was lying or a moron basically ?

Yeah, that's what I said. :rolleyes: I think something in between would be more accurate. How could he estimate the speed of unknown aircraft at an unknown distance? Do you understand the math here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify a bit and add to sinewave's points... it wasn't just an unknown craft at an unknown distance, it was an unknown craft of an unknown size at an unknown distance with reflected sunlight glinting in his eyes.

I, personally, don't question the voracity or honesty of Mr. Arnold. Everything I've heard about Kenneth Arnold and every interview I've heard him give, lead me to the conclusion that he was an honorable, trustworthy, and intelligent man. But the conditions of his sighting were not conducive to accuracy despite the fact that it was a fairly clear day (and even partially because it was so clear). The speed estimate is only that, an estimate, and derived from other estimated data (size and distance) under less than ideal conditions (reflected sunlight from the craft which he himself described as blinding on at least one occasion).

The jury is still out on what he actually saw that day. Could it have been a flying wing? Sure, his description fits that of a flying wing very well. Was it actually a flying wing? We simply don't know. I suspect that it likely was, but there are a great deal of questions that would need to be answered to make this conclusive. And unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever have the answers to those questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify a bit and add to sinewave's points... it wasn't just an unknown craft at an unknown distance, it was an unknown craft of an unknown size at an unknown distance with reflected sunlight glinting in his eyes.

I, personally, don't question the voracity or honesty of Mr. Arnold. Everything I've heard about Kenneth Arnold and every interview I've heard him give, lead me to the conclusion that he was an honorable, trustworthy, and intelligent man. But the conditions of his sighting were not conducive to accuracy despite the fact that it was a fairly clear day (and even partially because it was so clear). The speed estimate is only that, an estimate, and derived from other estimated data (size and distance) under less than ideal conditions (reflected sunlight from the craft which he himself described as blinding on at least one occasion).

The jury is still out on what he actually saw that day. Could it have been a flying wing? Sure, his description fits that of a flying wing very well. Was it actually a flying wing? We simply don't know. I suspect that it likely was, but there are a great deal of questions that would need to be answered to make this conclusive. And unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever have the answers to those questions.

Exactly Boony. I included unknown size when I said unknown aircraft but the way you put it makes that aspect more clear. I had forgotten about the sunlight effect. Thanks for 5the tip in. :)

It is natural for people to embellish when they see something out of the ordinary. It can be quite unintentional and should be expected. Ask any police officer who had to question multiple witnesses on a scene. People tend to not see or perhaps remember things as they actually happened. That is not a swipe at the man just a a reasonable question considering the magnitude of the implications of his story. When reasonable questions are taken as an attack someone needs to step back and review their own thought processes. Why is it SO important that every detail of the report be correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what I said. :rolleyes: I think something in between would be more accurate. How could he estimate the speed of unknown aircraft at an unknown distance? Do you understand the math here?

He had 9,000 total flying hours, you accept his description of the craft because it fits your theory of but, everything else he was embellishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had 9,000 total flying hours, you accept his description of the craft because it fits your theory of but, everything else he was embellishing.

So. That does not qualify him for anything but flying his plane. It certainly does not make him an expert on all things in the air. I have far more hours than that behind the wheel but that does not qualify me to judge the speed of another vehicle on an adjacent and oblique roadway while I am moving I would only be guessing as did he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. That does not qualify him for anything but flying his plane. It certainly does not make him an expert on all things in the air. I have far more hours than that behind the wheel but that does not qualify me to judge the speed of another vehicle on an adjacent and oblique roadway while I am moving I would only be guessing as did he.

But He could of Seen what HE said He saw ! Hard to Ask Him anything Now Aint It ? :sleepy:

post-68971-0-13244600-1303961522_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.