My mind glazed over...
Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
My Anomalist pal, Bill Murphy placed, online today
[12/29], this link about the Pentagon video(s) that allegedly evidenced a UFO.
The chained commentary about the video and Pentagon UFO
study story (that has been the talk of UFO community lately) shows exactly how
a UFO “sighting” should be mangled, er discussed, by skeptics and ufologists.
But near the end of the bountiful “exegeses” of the
purported UFO video(s), my brain went into a funk, just as it did when I came
across my buddy Kevin Randle’s forensic delineation of fused sand supposedly
found (or not) at the 1964 Socorro UFO landing.
It’s not the NYT’s fault or Kevin’s that my brain is too
feeble to hold on to lengthy back-and-forths about UFO minutiae.
(I have the same trouble when reading Kant or Hegel or even
Tolstoy.)
I’m a Will Durant kind of guy. (Durant was the popularizer
of history in his monumental, many volume series, The Story of Civilization.)
Lambasting me with multiplicity of detail that is beyond
topic point but relevant makes me lugubrious, even though I know that those
trying to prove a point need, they think, to overwhelm “opponents.”
But get to the conclusion, in as few words as possible to
maintain sense and logic, as William Strunk advised.
The machinations that Bill Murphy’s link offered and Kevin’s
research displayed sent me to a mental Island of Dr. Moreau.
Again, not their fault….mine and mine alone. But there it
is.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, December 29, 2017
8 Comments:
Rich,
Simply put, we have a letter from McDonald to Hall which appears to be about Mayes talking about the Zamora sighting, although there is no mention of UFOs or Zamora, nothing at all, attributed to her.
Kevin is treating the letter as if it were written by Mayes, as if it were a Roswell affidavit. I am treating the letter as if it was written by McDonald, which it is actually. That's all.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Saturday, December 30, 2017
Don....
I've been following the colloquy between you and the guys at Kevin's blog.
As usual, I find you moderate and sensible and my pal Lance a bit heavy with his skeptical stance.
Kevin also seems a little overly sensitive about what he sees as the Mayes' non-appearance (or seeming confabulation if she was involved at all).
The fused sand aspect of the sighting is a forensic item, worthy of scrutiny, but not intrinsic to the more blatant totality of the whole event.
I'm surprised at the attention that Kevin and others (you, too) have given the sand minutia, while that insignia (symbol Zamora saw/drew) is the key to the thing he saw.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 30, 2017
Rich,
I wrote that I think the elements of the letter's content are likely true, for example, fused sand, but I never said it was true that there was fused sand at the Zamora site.
About the insignia, in Stanford's peculiar "euology" to Zamora he describes another insignia and in Spanish quoting Zamora. This insignia is an inverted V with 3 lines underneath it. Further on he says it had 3 line through it. So, that's two and the one Zamora apparently hoaxed PBB and APRO with (or however the stories go)>
Actually, the one with the lines beneath the inverted V I've seen in some NASA logos, except the 3 lines come before the N but rotate it and you can see an inverted V with 3 lines underneath. I doubt that helps, but there you are.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Saturday, December 30, 2017
The fused sand debate, Don, beclouds the "event" even though if there was fused sand and it was evaluated, it would go to the argument: did Zamora actually see what he proclaimed to see and what caused the sand to be fused.
It's not a detail to be dismissed lightly but to overlay the incident with as much foofaraw as Kevin's forensic post generated, causes most UFO buffs to flee the discussion.
As for the symbol, Kevin covers that aspect rather thoroughly, while it remains unexplained, sadly.
The Socorro sighting, which I believe to be as accurate as Zamora's account has it -- even with all the Stanton mishmash -- is a good one, either confirming a massive mis-perception of a military experiment (my preference) or an actual ET encounter.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 30, 2017
Rich,
The only person in the McDonald letter who thinks subject is the Zamora sighting is McDonald, even though he begins
"One last point: Have you ever heard of any reports that there was a patch of “fused sand” near the site of the Socorro landing?"
The rest of the things Mayes is supposed to have said are generic to the desert and her 9 to 5. The letter is not good evidence for anything about the Zamora sighting. And the Zamora site, is not necessarily the "Socorro site" she may have mentioned to these guys.
In any event, it appears since 197something "ufo buffs", have just glossed that "near".
I've fled the conversation, but am considering writing it up on Foreshadower. As Kevin wrote, there is no match to the letter and the Zamora site, and I agree. He may just not like why I agree, as he seems to be blackwashing Mayes for a counter.
All I can say about the symbol is, if its appearance was deliberately obscured in the reportage, then those who knew what it was did not want others, who would recognize it, to see it. Sometimes I wonder, if we could get and review all the responses received in response to the query: is it one of yours, we might see something in the wording of a response that sounded a bit cleverish and pursue that one. I really can't think of anything else.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Saturday, December 30, 2017
Don:
The fused sand conjectures is a dead pony.
And the insignia/symbol also, I'm afraid, and sad to say.
Kevin has covered Socorro as thoroughly as seems possible even squelching Bragalia's hoax/prank scenario.
Zamora's observation takes us nowhere, even if it turned out to be an ET event.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 30, 2017
Rich,
Socorro is the only case I've looked at in which I prefer what the witness recounted decades afterwards, rather than the statements he supposedly made immediately afterwards.
I recommend reading with care that 3 pager from Holder, for starters.
Recall here years ago, we had a bit of a dispute about the different meaning of flying saucer and flying disc. I was very confused about it until I realized you meant between a flying anything and UFO. Recall when Hynek returned to Socorro he writes that Zamora was really agitated that the press was writing he reported a flying saucer when in fact he had reported a UFO? I believe the Chieftan actually published a story about the distinction for Zamora's sake (he really was upset).
Who do you think informed him of that distinction, causing his distress? Was it commonplace saucer-chat among folks in general back then in Socorro? Were there AP/UP stories discussing the distinction in all the papers?
Did anyone interview Zamora in April, 1964 who hadn't first had a chat with Chavez? When Chavez turned up in the McDonald letter, I reached for my revolver, and I am done with the ufologists. Is this what happened: Moore asked Chavez about it and he said that Senn said...?
Even the 2nd Insignia, I recall, first came from Chavez (Chavez said that Zamora said). I bet he beat Stanford to it.
Socorro is no dead pony. It ain't even broke yet.
"I believe that questioning is the major pathway to the realization of meaningful results and standards by which we ourselves become involved and committed, and therefore act and move through the years." Mary G. White
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Sunday, December 31, 2017
Don:
Socorro is my favorite UFO event. (The Detroit NEWS and Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. both, made note of that in articles about me.)
But, in the great scheme of UFO lore, Socorro sits, like so many others, in a kind of vacuum.
It only reared its head because of Kevin's juicy book about it.
Kevin's note today, 12/31/17, about DeLong and the Flying saucer/UFO history, shows that the Pentagon admittance of UFO study recently, brings UFOs to the forefront again, thankfully.
But no UFO newbie -- those who come to the phenomenon because of DeLong's activity and that Pentagon study -- cares a fig about Socorro, (maybe Roswell, but not Socorro).
The problem with Socorro is that it has many possible explanations that aren't ET oriented: Municipal hoax, military prototype, Cop's misperception, balloon excursion, Bragalia's college prank, and ???
I'd not invest too much more time on it. Like Roswell or Arnold's bevy of "saucers," Socorro has become mildewed, even moldy for most UFO buffs, and is not sensational enough for the millennial crowd.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, December 31, 2017
Post a Comment
<< Home