UFO buff curiosity (or lack thereof)
Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
I’m nonplussed at the ennui of ufological curiosity in the
UFO community.
The multiple mysteries that the UFO phenomenon persists in
displaying to humanity often (and usually) are sidestepped by today’s raft of
UFO partisans who would rather debate or notice extraneous asides when a UFO
sighting is presented for scrutiny.
At this blog I get correctives of misused words – which is
what I do myself elsewhere when I see a grammatical or linguistic faux pas
– or hints that someone’s litany or book collection is better than mine.
The misused word thing is corrected easily, so thanks for
noting, but the "I’m better than you" suggestion is just silly.
For instance, a somewhat regular here – a guy who has some
UFO cachet in Europe, more than here in the states – recently commented on my
sharing of Symbol books per my interest in the Socorro insignia.
He offered that, on his book shelves were symbol tomes that
covered symbols of the past whereas my books were devoted more to contemporary
or newer symbols, those of more recent times.
I noted that I had used the internet in my search for
something akin to Lonnie Zamora’s observed/drawn symbol for his 1964 UFO
sighting.
That internet search loaded me up with ancient symbols and
drawings but that was a waste of my interest and time.
As many of you know, I think the Socorro “craft” was a
military prototype that went astray and the symbol on it represented the source
of that prototype, as Nick Redfern understands and commented upon.
Thus, for my purpose(s), the search for the symbol source
wouldn’t be among the slew of books showing alchemical or arcane renderings
but, rather, something nearer to 1964.
That my reader has more books about arcane symbols is fine
but not relevant to the point(s) I have been trying to make.
Instead of concentrating on the significance of the symbol,
he dismissed that in order to write that his book shelf is better and more
complete than mine. Silly boy.
Then I see that some of Kevin Randle’s followers and fans
often go to minutiae that forces Kevin to come back to his posts with answers
to their off-track asides.
He accommodates his readers, the good guy that he is.
I noted here a few days ago about the
discursive debate that has ensued about that alleged Pentagon-released video of
a UFO recorded by a few pilots.
The discussion, effluent at the New York Times web-site and
other venues, devolved into a basket-full of technical jargon and explanations
that got away from the UFO and crowded the debate with material and commentary
about the plane and its technology from which the UFO was spotted and the various technical scenarios that
might account for the UFO imagery.
The inherent odd facets of UFO sightings, over the years,
are often eschewed for ego-gratifying attempts by UFO adherents hoping to gain
a temporary legacy of ingenious thought.
The UFO enigma is rife with opportunities to enhance our
understanding of psychology, consciousness, reality, and other pertinent
aspects of the human condition.
But, no, UFO aficionados continue to strive for personal
acknowledgement (that they are brilliant) as they leave the UFO mystery
closeted in a continuing ambiguous fog.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, January 07, 2018
4 Comments:
"I’m nonplussed at the ennui of ufological curiosity in the UFO community."
So am I.
"When I see that some of Kevin Randle’s followers and fans often go to minutiae that forces Kevin to come back to his posts with answers to their off-track asides."
This from a man who has spent countless hours examining countless images (and years writing blog posts) of red markings that someone said they saw for a few seconds before being scared out of his wits.
One problem with the Ufoite (I include ufo skeptics, including Zoam and CDA) approach is to accept there are "mysteries" such as spaceships and humanoids, and in that light everything else, when that is at the center of interest, is accepted as normal. Take away the thoughts of spaceships, humanoids etc. and the normalness of the principals' behavior vanish. I look at those abnormalities.
Also, the ufoites when having the opportunity to speak to witnesses fail to ask follow-up questions that any freshman high school journalism student learns by the second week of class.
So, I don't read books written by Ufoites, since they present nothing more than new mysteries which turn out to be, well...a Gerry Anderson or a Kaufman, or in later life, write a kind of penance for all that totally obvious crap, and that later work is just what one can get for free from documents, so why waste 20 bucks on what one already knows?
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Sunday, January 07, 2018
The minutiae I enjoy (as do you) pertains to UFOs; it is UFO minutiae that intrigues and should allow forensic-like scrutiny.
The stuff that grinds my gears has nothing to do with UFOs.
It is the technological dreck -- usually irrelevant material -- that your UFOites thrust into discussions.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 07, 2018
If it was terrestrial, and Zamora's description is at least close to what it was, nothing like it is known and probably nothing like it was possible. It was getting on to evening, but there were no running lights and if it was towed by a helicopter, it should at least have had something similar to pennants or flags spaced along the cable at prescribed distances (i.e., the cable ought to have been visible). If it was a lunar prototype, what happened? Did the crew press the wrong button and fire the jets as the helicopter attempted to gain altitude? If it was a hot air balloon why was its flame pointing down when going aloft, then sailing off into the wind? Etc.
Or, if it was an alien spaceship, then it was the Model T of spaceships. It seems like something from Prince Of Space or Radar Men From The Moon.
Since I think Zamora was a capable observer of things in the sky, and we have Lincoln La Paz's opinion for that, then I think a reasonable hypothesis is that Zamora's description has come down to us altered, and is not really what he saw, and that includes the red marking. As to why that may be the case, it might not have been to disguise a classified project, but to create a UFO mystery, and is a shaggy dog.
1964, '74, '84, '94, '04, '14, 2018...a long time to come up with nothing.
I still don't know who was the first air force officer at the the site. Maybe he would know.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Sunday, January 07, 2018
Don:
The Socorro event is a minor mystery that merely causes some of us to try and resolve it, futilely so far.
It doesn't add anything substantial to the UFO phenomenon perhaps yet when UFO buffs say we should deep six any more study of it, I am chagrined.
One shouldn't allow it to usurp much time, effort, or money, but as a minor mystery, it's worth an attempt to get at the truth of what it was that Officer Zamora saw, just to close the door on the thing.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 07, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home