Rabbits and Such

The games continue.

Lost in the noise of accusations and counter accusations is the locale of the main rabbit hole. That is, the one that will eventually lead us to the rabbit with the least amount of "detours".

Apparently, the folks at OM are still stuck in the mud defending Chris. Understandable, but if anything you read is misconstrued as an attack on Chris, the mud is going to cover up that rabbit hole pretty quickly.

Main players here are in anything but short supply. It sort of reminds one of the way old Cecil B. DeMille's productions used to be described: "a cast of thousands!". Well, maybe-maybe not, a cast of thousands in this case, but certainly enough hands to keep passing the peanut around to make it a very interesting shell-game.

Of the players we know, one name keeps popping up. Rumored now to be moving upwards and being placed in the office of the Director of National Security as MASINT chief. Just a rumor....or???

Is this oft shadowy figure ("'I will cut and run the first instant I get a whiff that some list ... or whomever gets interested in me.'" ") now standing by the real rabbit hole waving a red flag to help us figure out which one it is? Doubts loom large.

And what of our favorite resident philosopher, Aquarium ambassador-at-large and main protagonist of future unfoldings, chicken-little?? Is he knee-deep in lucky rabbit's feet or rabbit droppings? Right hole? Wrong hole?

Follow the money?? Follow the egos?? Follow the intelligence officer?? Follow history and the historical record?? Follow logic??

You can't photoshop logic.





P.S. To "jeddyhi"

Thank you for your comment and your participation. In answer to your concerns, this humble blogger believes that when Dan refers to Ray as a ufo weenie it is only indicative of the way he refers to ALL of us as a group that embrace skepticism. To reinforce that in my mind, he goes on with his references to "you little water babies", "little ufonauts", "my little ones", etc. It is simply the way he characterizes those that don't totally align themselves with what he is proposing. Including Chris? Similarly, the true believer label is bandied about to include most anyone that is not a committed debunker. If you ask questions, if you ask for verification of an event you are familiar with in order to get behind the curtain, or if you write glowing reviews of a UFO-field related book for Amazon.com you are a believer. Otherwise why would you be there in the first place? I give 10 t0 1 odds that that is EXACTLY the way Ron looks at ALL of us. Would Ron's responses have been different if he had been addressing a well known debunker?
Of course, the truth of the definitions lie somewhere between the two extremes and no disparagement was intended toward Chris. He has, previously, been so advised.