A Dick Hall "investigation" and back-and-forth about a 1959 sighting

From Paul Dean:

RR/PD

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