The Accuracy of UFO Reports
The Accuracy of UFO Reports
Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.
PurrlGurrl and Kurt Peters observe that we UFO buffs only
have UFO accounts/reports, not UFOs themselves, with which to deal or strive to
explain; all we have are the reports.
That is basically true (unless one believes that
Wright-Patterson Air Base in Dayton, Ohio houses UFO artifacts and remains, the
thesis of the Carey/Schmitt book, The Real AREA 51, castigated by me in a
review, you might recall).
But are UFO reports to be treated so dismissively?
I don’t think so, and here’s why…
A person who observes a UFO and reports it is subject to an
intervention by a UFO organization, police report, or media member.
The report, the initial observation, will, generally, be
succinct, pithy to the point of frustration by anyone who wants a precise,
thorough accounting, but it will contain a gist of what was seen or
experienced, with the salient details.
People aren’t devoid of descriptive talent, and usually
accurate as to what was the essence of their observation, even though the
consensus is that witness accounts are flawed by the observer’s errant sensory
input or biased mind-set.
The gist, no matter what, is usually accurate, however; that
is, the basic observation, stripped of errant accretions, is not far from the
reality.
The problem with UFO reports is that those taking down the
accounts often have a livid bias, one way or another – an ET tendency (MUFON)
or an atheistic tendency (the cops).
That bias will end up, subliminally and often overtly, in
UFO reports.
(I’ve included examples prior to this posted insert, and you
are familiar with many elaborate UFO tales that are marred by falsehoods,
erroneous additions, and errors of various kinds.)
But if one can get back to original accounts, by the
witnesses themselves – sooner than later – one will have a substantive
narrative worthy of exegesis.
(The problem with Roswell, as our skeptical friends continue
to tell us, is that witness accounts at his late stage of the story, and even
in 1978, are marred by the vicissitudes of memory, age, mental disfigurements
of many kinds, and even purposeful confabulations.)
But what if we have pristine renderings, some found in the
Vallee/Aubeck book, Wonders in the Sky, or in cave art and ancient clay tablet
indentations?
Or what about this:
… I heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to the southwest
some distance away … Flame was bluish and sort of orange, too … Sort of motionless
flame. Slowly descending. … it was a
narrow type of flame. It was like a “streamed down” -- funnel type – narrower at the top than at
bottom. Flame possibly three degrees or so in width – not wide …
Flame was about twice as wide at bottom than top and about
four times as high as top was wide. Did not notice any object at top, did not
notice if top of flame was level. Sun was west … Could not see bottom of flame
because it was behind the hill.
No smoke noted.
Noise was a roar, not a blast. Not like a jet …
Suddenly noted a shiny type object … Saw two people in white
coveralls very close to object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look
straight at my car and seemed startled – seemed to quickly jump somewhat.
…Objects [sic] were like aluminum – was whitish against the
mesa background, not chrome. Seemed like oval in shape …
… Those persons appeared normal in shape – but possibly they
were small adults or large kids .
Object was oval in shape. It was smooth – no windows or
doors … noted red lettering of some type. Insignia about two and a half feet
wide, guess. Was in middle of object like drawing. Object still like aluminum –
white.
…I heard about two or three loud thumps, like someone
hammering or shutting a door hard …
… I saw the object going way from me in a southwest
direction …
The object seemed to lift up slowly and to get small in the
distance very fast …It disappeared as it went over the mountains. It had no
flame whatsoever …
I got my pencil and drew a picture of the insignia …
Excerpts of Lonnie Zamora’s Socorro report [1964] from Pages
214-218 in The Hynek UFO Report [Barnes & Noble Books, NY, 1997]
Could there be, is there, a finer UFO report extant? I don’t
think so.
This is a pure, credible UFO report.
What it betokens is up for grabs, and has been since 1964,
but as a report, it is without equal and a superb piece of “evidence” for the
UFO researcher.
UFO not needed. The report is ample enough, and complete
enough to allow conjecture and investigatory query.
If all we have are reports like this, or only this one, then
Peters’ and PG’s plaint falls on deaf ears. A UFO at hand, while desired
perhaps, is not necessary to see that something odd happened in Socorro in
1964. And that something appears (and has appeared) to be of such a queer
nature that anyone with an inquisitive mind would see an explanation or, at
least, offer a reasoned conjecture or hypothesis as to what Police Officer
Zamora saw and reported.
And it is a report, after all….not a UFO, but a description
of one that allows a sensible person to conclude that, in 1964, a thing was
seen that provides objective mystery.
If we had other UFO reports, not unlike the Zamora report –
and we do actually -- then one can make assumptions and statements about the
reports and that which appears in them.
To pretend one can’t do so is obstinacy of an intransigent
kind, something that belies scientific or scientific-like inquiry.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, August 16, 2013
|
3 comments
