UFO Conjectures

Saturday, June 01, 2019

I like to think people are honest, but …

Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.

How is it that almost every UFO sighting/event ends up with a problematic element?

In my favorite UFO “case – the 1964 Socorro sighting – we have the question of exactly what symbol Zamora supposedly saw on the side of the egg-shaped craft.

The question provoked by the hem-hawing of Ray Stanford, which still resonates today.

As for Roswell; what cannot be said about all the prevarication that researchers, like Kevin Randle, uncovered, to his dismay and ours too.

Then there are the alternating stories inside the Betty/Barney Hill misadventure: namely the original description of the alleged entities who nabbed the Hills or the idea that the Hills captors had a book that Betty almost absconded with. A book? Something a UFO wag questioned as highly unlikely to be an artifact that a space-traveling species would have in their possession, books being a human creation without much technological cachet.

There seems to be a fly in every UFO ointment. And now the Elizondo mischaracterization of his access and part in the Pentagon study of recent UFO encounters by Navy pilots.

Such questionable details, small as some are, go to the heart of the skeptical scrutiny of pals of mine: Zoam Chomsky, Lance Moody, and French researcher, Gilles Fernandez.

These fellows look askance at all UFO stories and reports because of these niggling bits and pieces, throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water.

But can you blame them, their obstinate stance, when we who are enthused by the idea of strange things flying about (and sometimes landing) above us (or near us) are taken in by on-the-face-of-it crazy story-telling?

Are the prevaricators sociopaths or just people who are either overly imaginative or sometimes susceptible to a desire for “fame” or ill-gotten goods (money).

Almost every human endeavor has scoundrels, but ufology seems to attract more than its nefarious share.

With the Navy pilot reports – all legitimate as I read them – one finds substance for the idea that something phenomenally valid is flying about the skies.

That a few unscrupulous people seem to have become part of the admixture of wonder and non-wonder is depressing, for me anyway.

The UFO enigma intrigues all by itself, That we have to contend with by-products of unethical persons mixing it up with their shenanigans would almost be heart-breaking, if UFOs were more than a minor part of the human condition.

RR

Luis Elizondo's credentials questioned

Paul Kimball was kind enough to provide this link in a comment (previous posting) about the History Channel's UNIDENTIFIED show:

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/?fbclid=IwAR3HEpCZpAcAcZ5op4pXfT0-1BCubkDfxgnF2WKoIaTXi0PvT49XXE6fH-A

And skeptic Zoam Chomsky also offered the Elizondo "expose" link in a comment for my History Channel UNIDENTIFIED "review."

Since I saw Luis Elizondo as a credible spokesperson and honest participant in the current Pentagon UFO mixture, the information in the piece Paul provides is disappointing, and gives skeptics of things ufological something to gnaw on.

We'll see how this shakes out.

Again, it goes to show that Paul Kimball remains a key source for UFO sense and information.

I'd like to see him in full batters outfit once more when it comes to anything UFO oriented.

And Zoam Chomsky, no matter what one thinks about his rabid anti-UFO tirades, remains a cautious voice we should listen to when it comes to things ufological.

RR

The History Channel’s UNIDENTIFIED…

Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.

Inside America’s UFO Investigation

As many of you, I’m sure, who watched the premiere airing of The History Channel’s new UFO show…:
…I was delighted to see a show that was presented sensibly and thoroughly, hosted by a man, Luis Elizondo, who offers an image of honesty and true concern for what appear to be UFO encounters, the first episode dealing with the 2004 Nimitz confrontations that we’ve all covered or talked about the past few months.
For me, persons who’ve really served in the armed forces represent the best of humanity and when they tell you something, you can take it to the bank.

The two pilots who engaged the Tic-Tac UFO – a woman wingman and her flight leader -- both came off as two “tell it like it is” witnesses giving the sighting and the show a credibility that it lacked in the vomit-inducing Project Blue Book series.
For UFO skeptics, the show (airing the encounters and videos with other details) has got to be deflating; their skepticism seeming to be foolish postering that, on the face of it, appears maddeningly illogical.

If you are a Facebook member – and who isn’t nowadays – seek out the History Channel page for its presentation of the show. (If you are connected to a programming provider, you’ll be able to watch a video of the show.)

I’m actually looking forward to the next installment.

RR