All talk and no action?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

UFO buffs want to talk about UFOs, especially the old cases (sightings).

No one wants to really investigate anything, even new sightings that have cachet.

Debates about Roswell, Rendlesham, and other convoluted UFO events that involve lots of people (alleged witnesses, investigators, and wannabes) are grist for ongoing, interminable discussion.

And we all know that once a gaggle of people enter into an event, rightfully or wrongfully, the odds for finding the truth are diminished by factors of ten or more, much more.

Now I know that investigating older cases is daunting, for a number of obvious reasons.

Yet, a few UFO people do it admirably: Spanish researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca (who’s had a Roswell book recently published and has done exemplary work to support his Distortion Theory), French Skeptics Gilles Fernandez (whose exegesis of old and new UFO cases often drops them into an irrelevant bracket), Nick Redfern (who applies journalistic techniques to ferret out subliminal information latent in iconic UFO events), and others.

Me? I’ve gone slumming in a few cases, the 1964 Socorro episode for one.

I grabbed a slew of symbol books (pictured) to see if there was a source for the insignia (symbol) that Police Officer Zamora saw on the craft he encountered.

But after a tedious perusal of symbols, I was reminded that Ray Stanford had proffered that the symbol Officer Zamora drew for public consumption was a ruse, not the actual insignia he saw.

The Air Force officer involved in the initial investigation had Officer Zamora replace his observed symbol with another to, ostensibly, throw off hoaxers who might come forward with a purported symbol on a craft they allegedly saw.

That meant I had to go through all the books (and symbols online) again to see if the “new” Zamora symbol was replicated somewhere in human society.

Tiring and an effort that many UFO buffs saw as non-important. (I disagree, but further effort seems useless from a practical standpoint.)

Then, I got a request for more on the Nedelcovic offering that the 1957 Vilas-Boas “abduction” said, by CIA operative, Nedelcovic, to be a military psy-operation.

Gathering the material I had once posted online at the RRRGroup blog, and re-inserting it, the person requesting more info never checked back in, my effort(s) for naught.

Another visitor here asked for more details and a better scan of a few items I had inserted. That person never checked back in either to see the additional material I added for him.

So, I see that working to provide more information about a UFO event or sighting often goes into an abyss of ennui by those who pretend to be interested.

Thus, UFO buffs stick to ongoing discussions about UFO cases, mostly from the past, when they gathered a few snippets of information and want to share it now so their efforts were not wasted.

Yet, such activity (mine included) is without value. UFO sightings, old and new, need fresh, invigorated, imaginative investigative effort(s), not just rehashed colloquies by persons often strutting the pretense that they have an intellectual demeanor, which is blatantly obvious as skeptics like CDA, Lance Moody, Gilles Fernandexz, and Zoam Chomsky make clear by rebuttal.

Yes, lots of talk, and little or no (important) action, as Monsieur Fernandez implies with his genial meme: “That’s ufology.”

RR