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 1
Rafterman

Were "flying saucers" a media construct?

34 posts in this topic

Interesting read. Was, in fact, the origin of "flying saucers" due more to the media misquoting a witness than anything extraterrestrial?

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/the-man-who-introduced-the-world-to-flying-saucers/372732/

The Man Who Introduced the World to Flying Saucers

Kenneth Arnold saw something, said something, and ushered in the UFO-industrial complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definitely,people started seeing flying saucers whereas the actual craft that Arnold reported seeing pretty much vanished from the skies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hear the description "flying saucer" much any more in recent accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read. Was, in fact, the origin of "flying saucers" due more to the media misquoting a witness than anything extraterrestrial?

http://www.theatlant...saucers/372732/

The Man Who Introduced the World to Flying Saucers

Kenneth Arnold saw something, said something, and ushered in the UFO-industrial complex.

Flying saucers are only one manifestation. We have orbs, cigars, triangles, delta's........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...spheres...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...spheres...

Like the one you saw?

A sphere was seen flying over the USSR nuclear test centre at Semipalatinsk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the one you saw?

A sphere was seen flying over the USSR nuclear test centre at Semipalatinsk.

Steel ball, yes. That one sounds too small and it apparently changed colors.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only UFO I've ever seen(taken as the literal definition of something which just didn't make sense to me) was more V shaped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only UFO I've ever seen(taken as the literal definition of something which just didn't make sense to me) was more V shaped.

Like the Phoenix delta shaped object or the Hudson Valley object?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Phoenix delta shaped object or the Hudson Valley object?

You mean

1 Flares

or

2 - Planes?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth Arnold is often quoted as the "start" of UFOlogy, but I do not believe that is the case at all. Kenneth Arnold never called what he saw spaceships, he never thought they came from another planet, he thought what he saw was ours and wrote to the Government about that. UFOlogy tainted his claims and badgered him to attend conferences, which they paid him handsomely for no doubt, and after being badgered, he started to come on board. It would be like having ten Zosers in your ear for decade, any person on earth would go insane.

Here is the telegram Arnold sent to the Government:

arnold_gram.jpg

He states specifically that he thinks they are ours and asks for more information, This Pilot thought we had Black Ops flying up there, not aliens at all.

As such, UFOlogy appears to have been ready to pounce, no doubt form the rising popularity of the pop culture associated withy that subject.

Where UFOlogy started was way back from that, but the big event that brought the public into the UFO arena was Orson Welles famous War of the Worlds broadcast. That got aliens into the average persons head, and that they are a threat to be cautious about. From then on, aliens became part of our pop culture.

Kenneth Arnold if just a scapegoat to cover up the fact that UFOlogy is very much a man made construct. People want to think UFOlogy has a legitimate beginning, but it does not, not much in UFOlogy is honest to be frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it all started today, they'd be known as TJLs: Tiny Jiggling Lights.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Phoenix delta shaped object or the Hudson Valley object?

No I clearly saw the outline of it. It has absolutely no lights, was fly very low(just above the peak of the low mountains I live by) went from one horizon to over the mountain in less than 2-3 minutes, went right above me and made absolutely no sound at all.

Maybe it was some military aircraft I just don't know about, but it had a very strange design(a rounded V shape almost like a fat boomerang that had no sharp edged with what looked like circular shapes of a different color along the bottom of it). This happened at night btw, which gives you an idea of how low it was flying for me see that much detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was, in fact, the origin of "flying saucers" due more to the media misquoting a witness than anything extraterrestrial?

The main argument has been that Arnold described the movement of the objects like a saucer skipping across water rather than their shape. And to convey how different from a "flying saucer" what Arnold actually saw, we are inevitably shown an artist's fanciful rendition of what he is suppose to have seen. This one:

http://4.bp.blogspot...rnold Photo.jpg

Of course, this crescent-shaped object looks nothing like a "flying saucer". But the question is: How accurate is this artist's rendition ?

If we look at Arnold's own original sketch of the object, it looks much more like a thin disk than a crescent:

http://photos1.blogg... Top & Side.jpg

As I recall, Arnold actually described only two of the objects as being more like crescents.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

not media, I would say Hollywood clichés! Well that is part of media too, I guess..... Flying UFO appeared consequently with the Sci-fi movies from 1950's. Initially they’re reported shape was exactly identical to those from the movies; rogue edges, bulky, chunky, having extensions, antennas, lights, visible landing pads and deck walking bars (not kidding) also windows (not kidding too) ... then sooner the technology is evolving, most recent UFO’s are sharp thin, changing colours, perfectly crafted with no visible extentsions, etc.... all BS ...

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we look at Arnold's own original sketch of the object, it looks much more like a thin disk than a crescent:

http://photos1.blogg... Top & Side.jpg

As I recall, Arnold actually described only two of the objects as being more like crescents"

Looks like a big clay pigeon to me or a discus.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I clearly saw the outline of it. It has absolutely no lights, was fly very low(just above the peak of the low mountains I live by) went from one horizon to over the mountain in less than 2-3 minutes, went right above me and made absolutely no sound at all.

Maybe it was some military aircraft I just don't know about, but it had a very strange design(a rounded V shape almost like a fat boomerang that had no sharp edged with what looked like circular shapes of a different color along the bottom of it). This happened at night btw, which gives you an idea of how low it was flying for me see that much detail.

Hey , where was this at and could you estimate the size or best guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we look at Arnold's own original sketch of the object, it looks much more like a thin disk than a crescent:

http://photos1.blogg... Top & Side.jpg

As I recall, Arnold actually described only two of the objects as being more like crescents"

Looks like a big clay pigeon to me or a discus.

Interesting.

Arnold+Photo.jpg

KA didn't it seems give birth to the flying saucer hype after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be worse, had he been French, we might have had the Flying Croissant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main argument has been that Arnold described the movement of the objects like a saucer skipping across water rather than their shape. And to convey how different from a "flying saucer" what Arnold actually saw, we are inevitably shown an artist's fanciful rendition of what he is suppose to have seen. This one:

http://4.bp.blogspot...rnold Photo.jpg

Of course, this crescent-shaped object looks nothing like a "flying saucer". But the question is: How accurate is this artist's rendition ?

If we look at Arnold's own original sketch of the object, it looks much more like a thin disk than a crescent:

http://photos1.blogg... Top & Side.jpg

As I recall, Arnold actually described only two of the objects as being more like crescents.

How did those two interpretations get so far apart? The Artist impression is like a Ho, but the original one actually looks like the Portage County sketch -

Portage County

portage.jpg

nf525889aa.gif

take the pyramid of light away from the bottom, and we have something much like Arnold described just missing the tail fin.

Kenneth%20Arnold%27s%20Drawing%20Top%20%26%20Side.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey , where was this at and could you estimate the size or best guess?

I was in Lake Elsinore in southern California. There's an airbase nearby(about 3 hours by car), which is why I said it may be some kind of military aircraft, but given how it looked and absolute silence it made at those speeds and altitude I just don't know.

I can't really give a size estimate that would be all that accurate, maybe 3-4 car length from one wing tip to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah to be honest I never really see the term 'flying saucer' used in this context any more, so it isn't really a part of the modern pantheon so to speak even if its origins lie within it. It is more common to hear the more accurate UFO descriptive as so many have been reported as 'cigar' shaped or 'triangular'.

Interesting little foot note nonetheless, although I highly doubt the phenomena will disappear or be somehow weakened by it's revelation lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And, from the FBI, the Roswell UFO was described as a "flying disc" which was hexagonal in shape but that this "flying disc" was suspended "from a ballon by cable." (I'm guessing "ballon" is actually balloon. But they did spell telephonically correct, I suppose.) Anyway, that doesn't sound much like a "recovered" alien spacecraft to me. LOL.

http://vault.fbi.gov...art 1 of 1/view

Edited by SaraT
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a UFO as a pre-teen that was classic saucer shape, lights and all. No wind, no sound (that I remember) and I was with 2 other people at the time.....

I also was living in Orlando, Fl, about 30 miles inland from NASA, so it very well could of been something they were testing....

But it begs the question, Why would they test a craft in a residential neighborhood with witnesses?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Once again Arnold wasn't the first person to use the term saucer, .

This just shows me why ufology can't be taken seriously when they can't even get their facts straight.

As to you who doesn't know who, the first person to used the term saucer was, Look up John Martin and then you will find a news article from 1879 using the term. .

:D

Edited by Scepticus
1 person likes this

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.