UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, October 01, 2016

Forever unsolved [UFO] mysteries?

This is Page 6 of the Edward R. Hamilton Bookseller’s Catalog of Bargain Books.

The orange highlights are books about JFK’s assassination. There are three other pages of JFK assassination themed book, Pages 5, 7, and 8, altogether listing about 50 JFK books, (give or take).

Some are the first books about the assassination by JFK assassination researchers, such as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Vincent Bugliosi, Bill O’Reilly, et al.

The murder of President Kennedy has been, since 1963, scrutinized in minute detail by persons hoping to solve that major incident, but to no avail, and not for trying.

Some of the writers spent their whole lives, and a few are still at it, hoping to uncover what really happened in November 1963.

This kind of obsession is akin to the 1947 Roswell incident, or Socorro, currently reduxed by Kevin Randle at his blog, and other classic UFO cases, again to no avail.

While the JFK writers exerted and still exert diligent and exhaustive investigation into JFK’s assassination and its aftermath, UFO investigators are not, generally as astute or thorough as the JFK researchers.

We come away with a few observations about this:

Secrets can be kept and due diligence will not expose secrets, unless there is a “smoking gun” and, more importantly, investigation is daunting and UFO “researchers” are loath to exert real, meaningful effort to pursue UFO elements that might explain the phenomenon.

This goes to Kevin’s current post about the Socorro insignia, drawn by Police Officer Lonnie Zamora, because the symbol has been compromised as he notes in his post which you can read at kevinrandle.blogspot.com

The authentic symbol was mucked up and continues to be mucked up by UFO tyros and those who didn’t follow research protocols back in 1964: Ray Stanford, Allen Hynek, and others.

Kevin has thrown up his hands in the matter it seems, just as his plea for a deciphering of the Roswell/Ramey memo has been sidelined because it seems too difficult to clarify, even though there are technologies able to do so, many of them suggested by me awhile back, from articles about methods used to decipher artist signatures, encrusted or hidden by overlays of paint and other methodologies that are used to decipher muddled script, like The Dead Sea Scrolls.

The actual Socorro symbol seen and drawn by Officer Zamora can be discovered if one sets aside the nonsense of biased and amateur “ufologists,” past and present.

And the Ramey memo can be deciphered if money is applied to acquire a professional organization to do the work, money well spent on a significant mystery rather than used to prop up a destitute UFO panhandler or applied to get junk and bad books at UFO conferences.

Of course, like the JFK “conspiracy,” UFO cases [Roswell, the Trent photos, Socorro, the 1966 “swamp gas” sighting, et cetera] may be as seemingly impossible to explain (forever?), but it would be better to fail by making real attempts to solve such UFO mysteries than to push them in the background by folly and fallacious or superficial investigations.

RR

10 Comments:

  • I read Kevin Randle's post over the weekend. If the stickler surrounds the insignia and we can't get past that obstacle, the one strategy to employ is to remove the "offending" insignia from the conversation (for the time being). Research the case using the other components of the story...and there are a lot of components to this story.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • Mmmm...In my opinion, does the too hard basket,really matter that much? I've heard so many bead-time stories, that I've gone to sleep on some, but got the general gist of the story told! For myself, there is no need to believe or disbelieve in the stories we read or hear about, for me, it is just: "compelling stories" of what is going on out there. For example, we once thought the earth to be flat! NOW, we KNOW, it is round:) and just to throw a spanner in the works, I think its round, and its flat!!
    This depends on your prospective view, of where you're looking from!
    How round can flat be? Enormous of cause!...

    What IS, important to understand, is that sightings of UFO are a given! That is, people around the world see them all the time, "countless times" but where do they come from? That, should be the main question.It does not matter if some get it wrong,it's a mixed bag of questions,were some of it,ends up in the too hard basket.

    We put our trust & respect, in people, in control of: "nuclear weapons" that could be the beginning of blowing the world up, and yet, we question their authority on UFO engagements, on the very weapons they're in charge of. Can someone tell me, whom you might trust,if not those who are charged with the responsible positions, in defense of their country? It make you think.........................?

    By Blogger Daniel Yang-Clark, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • Daniel:

    The problem (or a problem) is that there are some ethical, moral human beings (in charge of nuclear weapons) and then there are some dysfunctional, immoral, unethical humans who, while not in charge of nuclear weapons, I hope, like to think they are special because they are privy to "secrets" and secretive information.

    And for the latter, that's all they've got. So they hang on to their perceived "treasure(s)" unto death (sometimes), and society is deprived of truths that might despoil reality as we know it.

    And it's not where UFOs come from. Rather it's what are they. It doesn't matter where they come from, although that's an important ingredient needed to understand the things.

    (A strange thing in your bedroom needs to be identified first, then where it comes from might be something to be answered.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • OK! Your points are well taken!...But mine are: (UFO) are just that! Unidentified!!!
    BUT! even when identified, for what is seen...lets say, a disk or what ever, the term UFO is still used, and we all say it!:)My point is, there are many "identified craft" seen around the world, so this being established, where did they come from? First question to be asked for an (identified craft, as a flying-saucer) for example.

    It would be strange, to say, what is that? when you can see what it is, so where do they come from? is my point......................

    By Blogger Daniel Yang-Clark, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • Daniel...

    I love your thinking.

    It's like arguing "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

    If Zoam Chomsky were milling around, I suspect he'd "attack" us both for even using UFO in our discussion.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • Well Rich, Angels dancing on the head of a pin, is something I could picture: (artistically:) but Zoam Chomsky would hold the point on UFO; and he wouldn't be the only one! I've heard this discussion around the grapevine as it were, but you know, I think the term UFO is something we've all become accustomed to,and is here to stay, just not its true meaning or definition as it were..Ha! It now means... (Unidentified & the identified:).........

    By Blogger Daniel Yang-Clark, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • No, Rich; I don't object to the acronym "UFO" for the ambiguous and neutral unidentified flying object as the subject of reports. I object to the false assumption that those reports of failure to identify are of anything truly unknown to the world--a REAL or true "UFO." So far there are no REAL "UFOs."

    What's a REAL "UFO?" No one can say. If they could then it wouldn't be a "UFO."

    People can claim to see anything: metal saucers; glowing orbs; black triangles; or "spaceships" but those reports generally cannot be taken a face value because the human perceptual system is very fallible under unusual circumstances. The system is entirely predisposed to perceptual errors of "connect the dots, "cause and effect" and culturally ingrained conceptualizations and mis-interpretation in narrative creation instead of ideally objective reporting. What he thought was an extraordinary "flying saucer," really wasn't; and there's no way to prove it was.

    All these extraordinary reports are mere expressions of the latent "UFO" social delusion: the demonstrably false belief--a popular, media manufactured myth--that there are REAL "UFOs" haunting Earth's sky and nearspace.

    It's a complete and utter fantasy. There are no REAL "UFOs" of any kind and there never were. There is no "UFO" phenomenon. It's the very IDEA "UFO" and that it is somehow significant--when it's an inconsequential abstract--that is the delusion. It's not its acronym that is the problem.

    Those entralled by belief in the myth are religious new-agers; and those searching for evidence to justify a wishful belief in the myth are science-fictioneers, generally reasonable people who practice pseudoscience journalism.

    But "serious ufxxlogy" was rank pseudoscience, the idea that it would ever be more than that was naive. The dream of that sort of ufxxlogy is history.

    And all that's left is the mythology. New-agers can believe, science-fictioneers can debate the arcana, minutiae and personalities of "UFO" history forever. Let's just not pretend any longer that there's any reality to it.

    That long debate is finally over: ufxxlogy is history, a history administered by champions of the Null hypothesis and Psychosocial theorists.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • Zoam....

    Your position is so belabored.

    Let's take the "words" mom or pop or the acronym USA; none get at the essence of one's mother or father or what The United States of America is, in toto.

    But they simplify discussion and allow those discussing to proceed with an aura of meaning -- meaning that is variable, depending upon what one understands as mom or pop or USA, based upon their experience(s), encrusted as those experiences may be by flawed or delusional memory.

    But using mom or pop or USA gives a chance of discussion without being sidetracked by the personal meaning that underlies one use of the words or acronym.

    That's how it is with UFO.

    Using that sobriquet lets us take the discussion forward, admittedly enveloped by the flying saucer/UFO meme.

    We are, if rational, able to work around the insane vicissitudes of ufology, and approach the phenomenon as an item worthy of topical debate/discussion.

    But you have an inordinate dislike (hate?) of the mantra, UFO.

    Your view confounds the reasonable among us, few as they may be.

    I dislike the concept of the "null hypothesis." It bores me, and smacks of a pseudo-alternative to statistical realities, my field of psychological methodologies.

    But I go along with it to further discussion, as insane as a discussion may be when the "null hypothesis is introduced.

    I'm being considerate and a nice guy....yep.

    You should try being the same when you read or hear the UFO epithet intoned.

    Your perpetual buddy,

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 03, 2016  

  • I see what you mean Rich, Its apparent to me, that Zoam would not believe, even if he saw a "REAL UFO" as he puts it.He still would need proof!! lol It seems to me, that he is so inthralled in his own belief, that there are no UFOs ever..."period!"...then why is he here at all? Is it to convince us that he is right, and everyone else is wrong!
    How could he know,if he has not seen for himself, as others have!? This is what its really about,sad really!!...............

    By Blogger Daniel Yang-Clark, at Tuesday, October 04, 2016  

  • What's really sad, Daniel, is that you don't--and most probably cannot--understand why it really doesn't matter what people claim to see because it's the facts of the world that are all important. Anybody can claim anything; they can be mistaken and honestly believe that they've witnessed something extraordinary, but that doesn't make it so.

    Rational people are rightly doubtful of extraordinary claims--like "UFO" stories of any kind--because they known how the world actually is, and it doesn't contain extraordinary unknown flying objects of any significance.

    Over a century of "UFO" reports of all kinds (airships, phantom balloons, mystery zeppelins, ghost rockets, flying saucers, glowing orbs, and black triangles) has produced not one shred of evidence that these things ever existed. Thousands of "UFO" reports wholly and utterly without consequence in the world.

    I think that says quite a lot about the "UFO" subject, over a century of reports has produced absolutely nothing.

    Nothing but a myth and social delusion, silly season chatter, filler on slow news days, Internet static, a virtual punching bag for skeptics as logicians to sharpen their skills.

    You think otherwise? Produce convincing evidence.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, October 15, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home