High Strangeness: PICKLES OF THE WRECK

Wednesday, November 4, 2015


I got an interesting comment yesterday in response to myrecent post about the “Ramey memo,” and I wanted to thank the anonymous reader who posted this. I am always happy when my blog provokes a heartfelt response, because UFOlogy is only made better by healthy debate and discussion.

So here’s my healthy response to your comments, anonymous:

"I often find you have a pretty superficial knowledge of various UFO-related issues, and an overly dismissive, jokey attitude, Mark."

The “overly dismissive, jokey attitude” is kind of the whole point of my blog, so thank you for noticing. When I started thinking about writing a UFO blog over 4 years ago, I knew that there were already dozens of dreary, deadly-serious UFO bloggers out there, and I didn’t see any point in being another one. Why write a blog if I’m going to sound just like everyone else?

I decided to approach the phenomenon from a different angle: I would treat the subject seriously (because I do take it seriously), but I would reserve the right to be jokey and dismissive of the UFO phenomenon, and of the field of UFOlogy, and even of myself, when it was warranted. Either you get it or you don’t, and you clearly don’t. No big deal to me.

As for my “superficial knowledge of various UFO-related issues,” I have just turned that knowledge into a substantial book deal with a prominent publisher, so maybe it's more substantial than you think.

Then there's this:

"The point of the new scanning and use of more modern deciphering software on these somewhat higher resolution scans of the original negatives is to try and discern more clearly what parts of the Ramey memo might actually say.

"If it can be reasonably confirmed the memo says, in one part "victims of the wreck," and "disc," that would strongly suggest the invalid claims for Mogul flight #4 are thus discredited, the USAF lied in their 1994 and 1997 "case closed" whitewashes, and the term victims suggests there may be more to the case for Roswell than you seem capable of even understanding or accepting."

I think you give yourself away here. You portray the effort to read the Ramey memo as a quest for truth, yet in virtually the same breath you cite “the invalid claims for Mogul flight #4.” If you don’t yet know what the Ramey memo says, on what grounds do you assert that the Mogul claims are “invalid.”

Are you going to make me drag this guy out again? I think you are!
See, anonymous, it’s things like this that trigger my overly dismissive, jokey attitude: you pretend to be an open-minded truth-seeker, but you’ve already ruled the Mogul explanation “invalid,” based on evidence that you’re not even sure exists! Instead of trying to find out what the Ramey memo says, you and your ilk are trying to prove that it says what you want to believe it says. You see “VICTIMS”; I see “PICKLES.” Why wouldn’t I poke fun of that?

As to whether I am capable of understanding or accepting "the Roswell case," I have to ask, "What is there to understand and accept?"  I understand and accept that Jessie Marcel may have genuinely believed that Mac Brazel had recovered debris from a crashed flying saucer, but that's where it ends. What else of any substance have you actually got?

What confuses and bothers you about my blog, I think, is not that I "don't understand" but that I refuse to accept conventional thinking when it is not borne out by the facts and evidence. I'm far less concerned with your use of "modern deciphering software" than I am with the context in which this is playing out... That's what I look at, and what I think you should look at: the CONTEXT. A mere six months after the last Roswell "Smoking Gun" went down in flames, the world is suddenly presented with another potential Roswell "Smoking Gun" by the same people, and you don't detect even the slightest whiff of desperation and cynicism?

Then there’s this:

"Using Rich Reynold's site and related postings for your initial source for info on this controversy simply confirms that, since he despises Randle. You therefore discredit yourself by such ignorance and bias." 

Anonymous, I don’t agree with a lot of what Rich Reynolds says in his blog, but I read it fairly regularly and I respect him because he raises a lot of interesting, difficult questions, because he doesn’t put up with any UFOlogy BS, and because he’s a very entertaining writer. I think we need more of that, not less.

Anyway, please tell me: Who should I be reading?
Post a Comment