Reflections on the Seemingly Obvious

As events such as the conversation between Ron and Chris are presented to us for review, we have a choice to make.

We can believe what is being presented without question, or we can apply AT LEAST SOME of the principles of the scientific method to try to derive at the TRUTH.

In attempting to do the latter some investigation HAS to take place.

We are trying to decide where we should place our faith. Do we believe that each account is an unbiased and accurate presentation of what happened? Do we have any reason not to?

The first account from Chris seemed to contain some opinion and the use of editorial license on his part. He is certainly entitled to do that. But obviously it carries great risk. As has been pointed out a recording or witness would have been useful. Failing that, perhaps a verbatim report would have been even better.

Post-event Ron corrects several things that he finds inaccurate with the account given by Chris. The accusations begin to fly. The atmosphere becomes acrimonious. Chris is accused of shoddy reporting, incompetence and even fabrication. Ron contributes to the confusion by compiling two slightly different versions of events. One in his private letter to Chris and another one he labels for the "more general audience". Immediately his motives come under question.

One camp says the differences are so small that he is saying the same thing. He said what he said. He's discrediting Dan, his blog, the Los Alamos trips by "ocelot", etc. The other camp says only a fool would analyze Ron's comments for "the general audience" to be the real deal. In other words, as Serp says, "Do NOT Pay Attention To The Intelligence Officer Behind The Curtain".

Another respected "insider" chimes in and also says "when Ron says something for public consumption, don't run to the bank with it".

We have a quandary don't we? How do we better assure ourselves that we are making a wise decision in putting our faith and trust where it belongs?

Well, one way is to do some digging. To try to come up with something to help us with our decision. What Mr. Dan in his blog refers to as: ""All they wish to do is to nit pick and take pot shots every step of the way. They have no desire to look beneath the surface of the verbal exchanges, as if they were Philadelphia Lawyers, ""

Some of us call it looking for inconsistencies while trying to decide what to believe.

Subsequently, Dan writes:

""The very biggest obstacle to understanding is the overwhelming desire for most people to avoid the appearance of being made a fool of in public. It would be like having to wear the dunce hat in class. On the other hand, it is an essential aspect, especially of the Christian persuasion, to be willing to be one of God's fools. Some folks might rather be crucified, it would seem""

In other words, be willing to wear the dunce cap, with it will come understanding. Or would you rather be crucified?

Is this a distraction? Is it taking us away from the real questions that need answers in order to understand? What are those?

Paraphrasing Serpentine:

Why did Ron agree to speak to Chris to begin with? He's in the higher levels of National Intelligence. What is he doing talking to what Dan refers to as a UFO weenie? Ron was fully aware of who Chris was and what the purpose of the conversation was to be. Now he says he was surprised Chris went as public as he did with it? That defies credulity. Also, as a highly placed intelligence officer, are we to believe that he didn't understand that Chris, a true believer, was going to interpret things said in a certain way?

Ron also says this:

Ron said that his current role is focused on the foreign intelligence community. He invited me to pass on to him any information I might come across during our research and investigations which we think could be of interest to him in this role. He reiterated this invitation/request twice more during the conversation.

He further clarifies:

I clarified with Chris several areas where he may have misinterpreted. It was probably my fault for trying to be sensitive regarding discussion of ... For the more general audience I offer the following bullets:

• Dan’s Blog and messiah stories are false.
• Dan’s references to me providing him information are false.
• Bob’s book is nonsense.
• Stories of meetings at Los Alamos that involved aliens or discussions of aliens are false, originating with Rick Doty or one of his avian cronies.

So, back to Dan's exhortations that we believe what Ron says. But not ALL of what Ron says. Certainly not what Ron put out for the more "general audience". But ALSO, not what Ron says in his private letter to Chris! We are to believe that just by agreeing to talk to Chris that is a validation of Dan's theories, Dan's mental health, the "ocelot" trips, etc, etc.

Put on our dunce caps or be crucified.

Really??