Talk:Kenneth Arnold

Untitled

What means the word "orgin" that appears in this page ? Is it a synonim for "origin" ?

New Evidence Section at Bottom

The Horten Ho 229 matches his sketch more closely. One could say its an exact match. I provided the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Hmmm, I belive that he has seen more than 3 disk, he even drawn a picture (This picture is in the Bluebook). Please, someone, resolve this issue. Dobrowsky | Talk 07:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First sighting?

Kenneth Arnold's June 24, 1947 sighting is considered to be the first flying saucer sighting....but the Maury Island incident predates it by three days (June 21). Why isn't Harold Dahl's sighting considered the first? Kingturtle 08:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

There were many sightings before Arnold's, but Arnold's sighting was the first widely reported one. Arnold also came off as a sincere, "straight-arrow" who seemed to have seen something that genuinely puzzled him. User:Dr Fil 5:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the article say "first widely reported one" instead of "generally considered the first major"? demo 08:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

AAF?

Four times this article mentions the AAF. I have no idea what the AAF is. Can someone elaborate? Kingturtle 00:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Done. In two places I've added that "AAF" stands for "Army Air Force." User:Dr Fil 02:00, 21 May 2005

Coincidence?

Is it just me, or is there a coincidence noticeable here? I mean, in the last line of the article, it is stated that Arnold was friends with Raymond A. Palmer. This couldn't have been a publicity stunt, That's just gotten out of hand over the years, Could it?

That would leave an awful lot of us SCI FI and Fantasy Geeks disappointed... Michael 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arnold didn't meet Palmer until after his UFO sighting had been reported and widely publicized by the "mainstream" press. I don't believe he had ever met Palmer before his sighting.

But you dpn't know!

Meteors and meteoroids

The article mentions a "comet" while Maccabee who is cited, does not; rather he uses the word "meteor" and the phrase "meteor train." 208.110.144.118 12:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttals to skepticism

There were a number of unsourced and unverifiable "rebuttals" to the skeptical explanations offered. I removed them. By the way, Maccabee is not a reliable source and should not be used. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maccabee is a PhD physicist. Who are you to claim the man isn't a "reliable source"? Oh right, it's so just because you say so.

I see you are right back to your usual pattern of article vandalism--claim the source isn't "reliable" or "valid", then delete it. If you really wanted other or "better" sources, why didn't you bother to ask for them first like a proper Wikipedian? No, "Science"Apologist, you just immediately delete.

In all cases, you always deliberately delete information counter to your personal anti-UFO POV and leave the debunking arguments basically unopposed. Why is it what a debunker says always represents a "proper source", but a PhD physicist like Maccabee does not?

What's funny about this is six different, mutually exclusive skeptical "explanations" are presented. How could all of them be correct? As usual, you claim to represent "science", but don't know the first thing about proper scientific debate, where rebutals to theories are made and ideas are thrashed out. In this case, with six differnt "explanations", it just begs for such rebuttals.

Over and over, "Science"Apologist you prove that you are nothing but a vandal with absolutely no interest in working with others or writing balanced articles. I'm going to write you up and try to get your editing privileges revoked. Dr Fil (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho-229

Any chance it was a Horthen Ho-229 prototype captured in the Operation Paperclip that was being evaluated in the US? The UFO drawn by Arnold resembles the aircraft's shape (minus curved wing edges). Does anyone know where was the aircraft evaluated and did it involve flying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.147 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

What?

It says start class while the rest will say b class —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.141.108 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Middle name?

So what was his middle name? What does the "A." stand for, and why is he referred to as Kenneth Luis Arnold in some places? JMK (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"See image"? What image?

When the article mentions the description of the object he saw, it says, and I quote: "ater Arnold would add that one of the objects actually resembled a crescent or flying wing (see image)."

What image? There are no images in the article! Devil Master (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody considered WP:BIO1E?

WP:BIO1E covers the notability of people who are notable for only one event. If a person is notable only "in the context of" that event, that might mean the event is what's notable, not the person. The event article, Kenneth Arnold UFO sighting, is a nice and pretty comprehensive (B-class) article, and this personal article doesn't seem to add anything meaningful. The event clearly has historical significance (and IMO notability), but was Arnold notable in any other way? Was the event significant enough (remember most people aren't really into ufology) that the main player in the event merits a separate article, especially if it only seems to summarize what's on the event page?

WP:BIO1E offers this guidance:

Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.

Outside the small but hard working group of ufologists (meaning, among the population as a whole), was this event notable enough that, by virtue of being the key player in this event, there should be a separate article for Kenneth Arnold the person? I personally don't think so. I don't feel strongly about it, and I'm certainly not going to do anything myself, but I think this should be discussed. Dcs002 (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Either that or he died in Bellevue like his bio says"

THIS is the standard for research? No one bothered to corroborate the details of his death either way? 68.107.234.124 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A google doodle.

If Google wasn't going to do one--in honor of Anne Frank's diary first getting published 75 years ago today--for their home page, why couldn't they at least honor Kenneth Arnold's sightings of those nine UFO's during the same time frame? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.132.132 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)