That line above comes from “Albert Guitar” in a comment at Kevin Randle’s blog which is in a torrent of responses about electromagnetic effects and UFOs.
And “Guitar’s” comment sums up the ongoing and ever accurate state of affairs when it came to or comes to flying saucers and UFOs: all the huffing and puffing online and off has not brought an iota of explanation of what the elusive phenomenon is (or was).
Regurgitating the old cases, as we do here and others do at their UFO venues, might elicit an explanation for sightings and reports, such as Roswell, Socorro, the Trent or Helflin photos, Arnold’s iconic sightings, the Hill episode, et cetera, but none of that UFO lore gets anywhere close to determining what UFOs are or what flying saucers were.
In the old days, we seem to have been dealing with material craft; today we’re dealing with evanescent sightings that are insubstantial and almost unworthy of cogitation.
Either way, no one, no matter how glib or wordy (David Rudiak comes to mind), has a clue as to what UFOs are or were.
And what’s truly disturbing is how lax the UFO commentators are when it comes to pursuing UFO sightings or events.
In the Randle “debate” not one UFO sighting or flying saucer event seemingly affected by EM transmissions or something more esoteric is examined specifically or in depth; that is, no sighting is forensically approached by those in the midst of their “elaborate” discussion.
As usual, the participants are looking to display their knowledge of electromagnetism and similar physical emissions without actually any of their knowledge to a specific case.
That’s what spurred Mr. “Guitar” to write what he wrote. He understands the nonsense of the Randle but can’t help participating.
This has been and continues to be the problem with “ufology” that pseudo-science which underpins the whole of the UFO enigma, and which has sunk the phenomenon to where no one with any true academic or scientific acumen will join in the swim.
Mr. Randle is reminiscing about UFOs and certain aspects of the folly, just as I do here. But my excuse is that I’m intrigued by odd elements in old sightings, such as the Socorro insignia or the appearance of a “spaceman” in the Solway photo. Those quirks are fascinating to me, just as the electromagnetic discussion at Mr. Randle’s blog is fascinating to his readers.
The difference is that they pontificate to show off, and I (and readers here) just note some unusual UFO quirks that won’t explain UFOs surely but do provide grist for the minutiae within the UFO mythos.
Note the tendentious responses of Larry or Rudiak and others at Mr. Randle’s blog. And note the nature of those responses. Where so they take readers? Not very close to a UFO explanation. But they do help provide a patina of expertise to those who wish to appear erudite and intellectual.
I give them that, but, like Mr. Guitar, I see nothing that comes close to resolving the UFO mystery, then or now.
RR
