Not seeing the forest for the trees
Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
My UFO pals drive me crazy!
Bryan Sentes is agog with Kevin Randle’s finding of Skyhook
launch deviations pertaining to the 1948 Mantell disaster.
CDA is persistent in his effort to convince the imbeciles
who frequent Kevin’s blog whenever Kevin posts a Roswell snicker that an ET
cover-up could not be kept for 70 years.
And so on.
Let me say this -- relative to my previous posting that the
UFO explanation lies in the sightings themselves, the original reports, not the
follow-ups or interpretations but the original report(s) – all the UFO
meanderings after a UFO report is proffered by a witness is piffle.
It’s the pure, unaltered or non-emended UFO accounts that matter
and in which the UFO explanation lies.
Currently, Canadians, of which my buddy Bryan is a member,
are pushing the notion that Canada is rife with UFO sightings lately, a boast
that is iffy rather than worthwhile, but there it is.
Whether reported UFOs are real, misperceptions,
hallucinations, contrivances of a master computer entity, or anything else is
irrelevant.
The point is that people keep saying they are seeing UFOs,
some (Canadians) thinking this is an enlightened proclamation.
If UFOs are being spotted all over the place, then that is a
reality that some of us find interesting, for a number of reasons.
If Lonnie Zamora saw an apparent UFO in Socorro or Frank
Mannor saw one on his Dexter, Michigan farm, or Captain Mantell chased one to
his death, that information is interesting, not that Blue Book’s Captain
Ruppelt got Skyhook data mixed up, or J, Allen Hynek proposed Mr. Mannor
misperceived “swamp gas,” or Lonnie Zamora mistook a military test for an
object from outer space.
The reports, alone, are what count.
Bryan’s “wow” at Kevin’s findings are the reaction of a
fanboy, not a serious or rational response to the diddly-squat of information
that Kevin dug up, which has nothing to do with Mantell’s sighting, as we know
it.
There is an enigma afoot in the skies of Earth. That’s all
we know.
We should gather the accounts/reports and insert them in a
computer program to see what one or two ingredients keep showing up.
The miscellaneous detritus that keeps flowing from UFO
enthusiasts, me among them, is sh*t hitting a fan.
Let’s look at the forest, not the trees.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
9 Comments:
(Rich--that "wow" was inspired by my _poetic_ interest in the Mantell case: the pilot's name, that of Godman AFB, the date of the incident, Orthodox Xmas or Catholic Epiphany (I'm pretty sure), and the manner of his death, which opens a big poetic door; I was excited the case came up. And I found the parsimony of Randsall's findings and their presentation refreshing.)
As to ALL commentary subsequent to the initial sighting report being piffle, I'd argue you make too strong a statement. _Some_ addenda is harmful; some illuminating. I've given examples of the latter on the previous post.
Your position would disallow that addendum that actually and demonstrably explains a sighting. Or do I misunderstand you?
"Fanboy"--sheesh!
By
Bryan Sentes, at Wednesday, July 18, 2018
The proof is in the pudding, Bryan, buddy boy...
No addendum or addenda has yet explained UFOs, none, obviously. So what does that tell us?
(And I'm a fanboy of Kevin's as I've often noted. I just don't write "wow" when I see piffle -- the Ruppelt data mistakes for example.)
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 18, 2018
No addenda to a sighting report is intended to "explain UFOs" in toto, but only that particular sighting, or to determine what was definitely _not_ sighted. So, the answer to your question is that sighting reports because of their provocative mystery or insolubility prompt further investigation (addenda, supplements) whose proliferation attests to the insolubility of the mystery, for various reasons, not that all these subsequent efforts are in principle futile and obfuscatory.
Aren't some of the subsequent investigations merely analogous to what happens in criminal forensic contexts? I.e., the investigating officers rarely end their investigation with their interviews of the primary witness or victim.
And, are you of the opinion that no sighting report has been definitively debunked? And if any have, then how does the effectiveness of the debunking addenda square with your thesis all addenda are piffle?
In the end, my argument is very humble, at a certain level: some subsequent investigations are illuminating; some are not. A more profound difference of opinion, and more knotty philosophical matter is the status of that initial sighting report....
(And, I have already explained my "wow", nor was it response to Ruppelt's errors, but, in part, to the elegance of _Randall's_ data and its presentation.)
By
Bryan Sentes, at Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Lying here in heat of southern France, composing a rip-roaring dismantling of the very idea of a pristine, initial sighting report, it occurred to me our disagreement may very well be based on a misunderstanding.
Aren't you really taking issue with returns-to, rehashings, reviews of famous cases? Neither Keyhoe, nor Ruppelt, nor Randall count as initial investigators, however much Keyhoe was the first to make the Mantell case widely public (I think). Their examinations of the case are therefore not investigations-in-the-first-instance (whatever that might finally be), but, as I try to name above, secondary, tertiary, or otherwise belated returnings-to-the-scene of the crime.
Is it just such rehashing then that raise your ire?
By
Bryan Sentes, at Wednesday, July 18, 2018
I think you have it Bryan.
And you resorting in France as I sit here in the sweltering Midwest bummed out by my media cohorts on FB makes me hate you, but only poetically.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 18, 2018
As history has shown, if you invent the Flying Saucer, people will start reporting seeing it, like it happened with the Loch Ness monster from 1933 on. Gareth Williams's 2015 'A Monstrous Commotion: The Mysteries of Loch Ness' provides an interesting examination of the creation of a modern myth.
By
Yvan Defoy, at Thursday, July 19, 2018
Kevin Randle has no reason to thank me for anything, but I do think we should spell his name correctly. Bryan Sentes has misspelt it three times in two different ways.
By
cda, at Sunday, July 22, 2018
Bryan is a little dippy lately....
On an anniversary outing with the love of his life and drinking wine like crazy I bet. plus some German beer, even though he's in France last time I looked.
also, I think he likes loco weed or whatever it's called (cannabis) so anything is possible when it comes to comments here (and elsewhere).
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 22, 2018
cda: thanks for helping me spell Kevin Randle's name correctly. At to RR's speculations for the snafu, I'm neither drunk nor high, just pressed for time with all that holidaying I gotta get in, and the heat in the south of France was mindboggling, 36 Celsius often...
By
Bryan Sentes, at Monday, July 23, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home