The UFO explanation is right there in front of you

Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.

I’m almost sorry to be redundant, but the explanation of UFOs lies in the sightings themselves, in the reports or witness accounts.

UFO enthusiasts don’t have to resort to Jacques Derrida’s faltering “deconstruction” methodology or any other analytic methodology to find what explains UFOs in reports of them.

I’m thrilled to read Albert Rosales’ litany of UFO humanoid encounters in his series of books often touted here.

But those are often emended accounts, sensationalized by those giving them to Mr. Rosales or amended/edited by him.

But in those instances when we have a “verbatim” rendition from a UFO witness, we have a source (a copy) of an evidentiary event, such as the Lonnie Zamora account of his 1964 observation.

And there are Kenneth Arnold’s initial “flying saucer” account, and Frank Mannor’s reportage of his 1966 “swamp gas” sighting, supported by the Hillsdale co-ed accounts a day after his.

If UFO buffs can get their hands on the “pristine” first accounts of a UFO event or sighting – accounts not muddled by after-the-fact tyros (as was the case with Ray Stanford’s intrusion into the Socorro observation) – those UFO buffs will find, can find, substantial clues as to what UFOs may be or are.

As Derrida indicated early, if one wants to find the “truth” of a event or story, it would be better to find a verbal or auditory account.

But that isn’t always possible, and certainly impossible in the cases of material from antiquity or even much that is recorded only on paper into the modern era.

One must then, Derrida suggests, go to the first or earliest written account of a matter to escape accretions from those evaluating or commenting on that matter.

In UFO lore, one should seek out what George Gorman said, first off, about his 1948 dogfight with a UFO or Major Larry Coyne’s 1973 encounter of a UFO during his and his crew’s helicopter flight.

That first, initial report by Coyne et al. may be read here:

http://www.nicap.org/docs/coynefoiadoc1.jpg

And in it resides clues that, when added to other clues from first-hand reports, will provide a possible explanation for what UFOs are.

The scrutiny of the minor details that points to what was seen or witnessed by a UFO witness is daunting, but the revelations in what was seen should explain what was experienced thus giving unbiased UFO investigators the answer to the UFO enigma.

Again, the problem is that UFO “researchers” have almost always relied on second-hand accounts of UFO sightings or glossed over first-hand accounts, salivating over tidbits that favor their ET or paranormal predilections.

But an objective reviewer of first-hand UFO reports, from or by literate, reliable persons should provide a UFO explanation.

RR