Quote:
Originally Posted by Essay
So do you mean a supporting theory such as the possibility of large methane releases from the Atlantic-Bermuda area?
....An area with known, large deposits of methane hydrates/clathrates.
....Theorizied to cause ships to fall into the bubble(s) or a plane to register a different altitude and/or explode while flying through the methane?
~  |
Yeah. I'd like to see people trying to defend the pseudoscience or at least relating stories about the claims.
An example of the latter is that the first "Flying Saucer," had nothing to do with saucer-shaped objects. I've read a few differing accounts of the event, but the single seminal moment is always described the same way:
Quote:
|
In a memoir of the incident for the First International UFO Congress in 1977 [Kenneth] 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." A look at the drawing he did for his report to the Air Force shortly after the incident confirms the truth of that statement. It is hard to describe in a word or two; beetle- shaped is the best I can come up with. However you describe it, one thing is clear. It is not the elegant alien geometric perfection we have come to know and mystify ourselves over.
|
This version is from "The Saucer Error" by Martin Kottmeyer in "The REALL News," Volume 1, Number 4 -- May 1993.
With apologies to Arnold's family, I've always wondered, if he had used a less tortured analogy, would we today be talking about Flying Stones?
--lemit
