Mining empty UFO troves
Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
My pal Kevin Randle has provided, at his blog
[kevinrandle.blogspot.com] supplementary material (and explanations) about the
1964 Lonnie Zamora/Socorro UFO sighting (about which Kevin has a popular new
book – Encounter in the Desert: The Case for Alien Contact at Socorro),
in response to Anthony Bragalia’s recurring insistence that the iconic sighting
was prompted by a college hoax.
Kevin’s book and his postings have plumbed the depths of the
Socorro sighting, as have others, but not as thoroughly.
The sighting bores many UFO buffs and enchants others, Mr.
Bragalia among them and some fans of Mr. Randle.
But the sighting is kaput, pretty much. It remains enigmatic
and unexplained, even the alleged insignia/symbol that Police Officer Zamora
saw on the craft, my obsession with the sighting.
The 1964 UFO sighting, like the overly cogitated Roswell
incident, is pretty much empty of valuable information, but is still being
mined by derelict UFO prospectors for some reason.
The reason that some UFO events are so mined is that they
have accumulated details that leave open, for some, questions that can be
debated, ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseum.
In the Roswell saga there are the Press Release – Flying
disc captured by military – and the Ramey memo.
Within the Socorro observation is the purported sighting of
two coverall-clad entities and that odd insignia.
But there are a plethora of other UFO reports more
intriguing but ignored by the UFO rabble.
Why? They – the wondrous sightings –
don’t invite debatable issues upon which UFO buffs can maximize their deficient
skepticism or pseudo-knowledge about UFO sightings, in toto.
Many UFO buffs still ponder such sightings as Roswell or Socorro only
because those sightings once provided a treasure trove of wonder or excitement
but now lie mouldering in the sensible UFO community, enlivened only by those
who have accumulated information about them that they don’t want to give up to
the dustbin of should-be-forgotten, overworked, overly-discussed UFO tales that
take us nowhere.
Kevin Randle, and a few others, have offered all the
material that is relevant to such (in)famous UFO tales as Roswell or Socorro,
and that should be it.
But no.
UFO buffs who want fame (even without fortune) still flog
the once-interesting sightings, hoping to gain a foothold in the UFO panoply of
Ufology’s notables.
And why? I don’t know. UFO fame is non-fame actually. UFO
fame is an embarrassment.
Why some seek it baffles. It’s a kind madness, like seeking
for the Fountain of Youth or climbing Mount Everest, which has been conquered
by so many that the feat has become banal.
Yet, many will continue to mine UFO stories for treasures,
treasures that no longer exist.
It’s insane and sad, both.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, December 10, 2017
3 Comments:
> UFO fame is non-fame actually.
Is "infamy" the word you're looking for?
(I blame the influence of the orange man and his artless rhetoric.)
By
Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, December 12, 2017
No, it's not infamy but non-fame.
There's a difference, and not even a subtle one, Terry. (You should know.)
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Terry's comment is actually rather interesting...and goes to the Latin from which the term comes...
``infamy (n.)
early 15c., "public disgrace, dishonor, evil fame," from Old French infamie "dishonor, infamous person" (14c.) and directly from Latin infamia "ill fame, bad repute, dishonor," from infamis "disreputable, notorious, of ill fame," from in- "not, without" (see in- (1)) + fama "reputation" (from PIE root *bha- (2) "to speak, tell, say"). Meaning "quality of being shamefully vile" is from 1510s. ``
It LITERALLY means, from the Latin, "non famous" or "without fame". The more recent definition that RR is using is only from the 15th century onward... I suppose if one wanted the Latin meaning, one would simply use infamis.
By
Parakletos, at Friday, December 15, 2017
Post a Comment
<< Home