The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, November 13, 2009

Which Socorro symbol is the accurate one?

socorro13.jpg

insignia13.jpg

 
socorro16.jpg

Which is it?

What is the exact symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw and reported/drew after his encounter with the Socorro craft in April 1964?

Why the discrepancies?

The Socorro event is either a hoax (as Anthony Bragalia has reported), a Hughes Aircraft/Raven Industries prototypical craft (as the RRRGroup has contended), or an ET intrusion that the unexplained-UFO advocates (Ray Stanford, David Rudiak, et al. seem to indicate).

A clarification of the symbol is a must, in our estimation, as it is a major clue as to whom or what promulgated the Socorro event.

N.B. The two symbols at the top of this post appeared at the UFOaliens.info site.

22 Comments:

  • You ask a question which Zamora has answered. His answer is in the drawing he made (and which you reproduce in the text) from the estimated 103 feet distance. His initial drawing and description should be taken as the correct one. There are discrepancies only because he (like the countless Roswell witnesses) has been interviewed and reinterviewed, and possibly 'persuaded' so many times, and asked the same questions over & over again that discrepancies and contradictions are inevitable. Unless there is some overriding & compelling reason to doubt his initial report, this drawing and description is the one we should accept. It is certainly the one I accept. It is signed: "This is the insignia I observed - Lonnie Zamora".

    I thus feel your question is redundant.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • So, Christopher, let me get this right...

    You're saying that Ray Stanford's "corrective" in his Zamora eulogy is inaccurate?

    The Holder desire to obfuscate the symbol doesn't hold water?

    Anthony Bragalia also sees the traditional Zamora drawing as the correct one.

    I'd like to accept that one also, but Mr. Stanford's account of what Zamora was asked to do -- fudge the drawing -- has to be accepted as true, or else we'd have to throw out other aspects of Mr. Stanford's account/research as amenable to emendation and/or corrections.

    I don't think you want to do that, do you?

    (I don't, as all hell would break loose from those who see the Stanford book and account as the verbatim rendition of the Socorro event.)

    Redundant? I don't think so. I just want to find out what symbol Lonnie Zamora saw and reported.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • I have never read Stanford's book. Maybe I should have, but at the time it came out the silly title put me off. I thus know nothing about any attempt (by whom?) to get Zamora to fudge his drawing.
    I do notice that in Quintanilla's account in "UFOs 1947-1997", ed Hilary Evans & Dennis Stacy, he says the insignia was two-and-a-half inches high and two inches wide! Presumably 'inches' is a misprint for 'feet' but it does make you wonder.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • Christopher:

    Go to Frank warren's site -- http://theufochronicles.com -- and scroll down for Ray Stanford's Zamora Eulogy, wherein he discusses how Zamora was asked to fake his drawing of the Socorro symbol to keep copy-catters from using it in their potential UFO sightings.

    That "new" information" intrigues for many reasons, which you, of all persons, might appreciate.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • As somebody who knows a little about art I can tell you there are only so many shapes in the world and logo design sticks to the absolute basics.

    Do a search on "logo" and "apex" and you'll see a great many logos similar to Zamora's account.

    This one is pretty damn close:

    http://www.apex-bioscience.com/images/Apex_logo_150.jpg

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • Frank,

    That Apex logo is interesting. Now if it were only red.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • It's not interesting at all, it's ubiquitous. I just pulled that one from a group of logos for companies with "apex" in their name. It was the closest match, but a great many others are similar and how many more are there that didn't turn up in such a narrow search, that don't have "apex" in their name?

    The logo may be helpful . . . . but I tend to think not.

    At this point, I'd just like to know how the prank was done, I'm not concerned with who. An anonymous recounting, with enough details provided, would be fine with me.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • Frank:

    Whatever, or whomever produced the Socorro sighting is what one should be seeking -- whether hoaxers, or ETs, or a military test.

    I agree with you.

    But the symbol is, to our minds, a major clue.

    No one adapts or creates a symbol on the side of an aircraft just to be artistic.

    (See the aviation history for WWII airplances about that.)

    Markings are meaningful, going all he way back to the drawings in the caves at Lascaux.

    A message is inherent in the Socorro symbol/insignia.

    What is that message?

    Since I'm not expending any energy defending the hoax theory, I have time to ruminate about the symbol.

    Dr. Leon Davidson did the same, god bless him....and he may have been closer to the mark as anyone....it was a CIA marking he thought.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • "A message is inherent in the Socorro symbol/insignia.

    What is that message?"

    Symbols have meanings, they always do. Not infrequently, those meanings run very deep and are also very personal but can be, paradoxically, universal at the same time.

    Having said all that, I'm pretty doubtful it will lead to the identity of the owner of the vehicle Zamora saw.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • Frank:

    When you found that Apex logo, where did it lead you -- or could have?

    To the Apex company.

    The Socorro symbol will lead researchers to the hoaxers (if you will), or to Hughes Aircraft/Toolco, or to an alien (or extraterrestrial) culture.

    Don't discount the Socorro insignia. It's a major clue in the explanation of the event.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • I've seen the Hughes logo and am impressed with its' similarity to Zamora's drawing.

    I'm a big Hughes fan and fondly remember the Glomar Explorer story. Socorro sounds like something he might have been involved with.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Jennifer

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • Oh, his company, Frank, was involved alright, in Socorro and environs, with many classified tests of aircraft, satellites, and balloons.

    That UFO researchers don't dig deeper into the Hughes/CIA connection and his companies' [sic] secret aircraft designs is baffling.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • "That UFO researchers don't dig deeper into the Hughes/CIA connection and his companies' [sic] secret aircraft designs is baffling."

    What's stoppin ya'? :O)

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, November 13, 2009  

  • Mornin' Rich,

    You wrote:

    "The Socorro event is either a hoax (as Anthony Bragalia has reported), a Hughes Aircraft/Raven Industries prototypical craft (as the RRRGroup has contended), or an ET intrusion that the unexplained-UFO advocates (Ray Stanford, David Rudiak, Frank Warren, et al. seem to indicate)."


    Since the "student prank myth" was resurrected, (this time by Tony), the thesis of my argument has been "what the object is not," i.e., a student prank; at the same time, I have attempted to illuminate the fact that after thorough investigations by both military and civilian factions, no "conventional explanation" can be applied to date; henceforth, it remains a UFO i.e., "U.nidentified F.lying O.bject!

    A plane, a bird, or an "ET craft," are all "IDENTIFIED Flying Objects."

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Saturday, November 14, 2009  

  • Frank Warren:

    What's your best guess?

    After all these years and the extensive research by Stanford, Hynek, Rudiak, and others, there must be some guesstimation as what the Socorro craft was.

    Yes, you have always maintained a judicious stance about Socorro: it's an unidentified craft/event.

    But what do you think Zamora saw.

    The implication by many UFO mavens is that it is an ET craft.

    If it's not a hoax, or a secret (military) craft test, or a extraterrestrial intrusion, what could it have been?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 14, 2009  

  • And Frank W:

    I've deleted your name from the ET-inferred sentence in the post above, just to make sure the record is correct.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 14, 2009  

  • Frank Warren says that ET craft are IDENTIFIED flying objects. Not so, since no such thing as an ET craft is known to science. Therefore an ET craft remainds firmly an UNidentified flying object. You cannot identify anything with an ET craft until and unless you have a known ET craft to compare it with. To date we have nothing at all. And if
    anyone doubts this, let him be the first to produce one for examination by scientists.

    I exclude of course extraterrestrial craft that we earthlings have launched.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, November 14, 2009  

  • Chris,

    You wrote:

    "Frank Warren says that ET craft are IDENTIFIED flying objects. Not so, since no such thing as an ET craft is known to science."

    You missed my point: to be clear my thesis is "IF the object is "known" or "identified" it can't be a UFO!

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Saturday, November 14, 2009  

  • Rich,

    You wrote:

    What's your best guest?"

    Sorry for the slow response, as I didn't see your post.

    The evidence on the table says more about what the craft "was not" opposed to what it is, i.e., "not a conventional craft" of our manufacture; henceforth "I lean" towards an "ET origin," being cognizant that although the evidence negates conventional contrivances, "it doesn't" prove conclusively it was in fact ET.

    Until, and or "if" such proof or evidence surfaces--it will remain a UFO in my book.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Monday, November 16, 2009  

  • Zarkon 2:

    We didn't post your comment with your blog listing (because we couldn't edit out the blog address, and thought your blog didn't address the insignia question, which is the point of the posting here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 21, 2009  

  • Captain Richard T. Holder, U.S. Army, 095052, Up-Range Commander at the White Sands Stallion Site advised Zamora not to reveal the true design of the
    insignia Zamora had seen on the side of the UFO to anyone except official investigators. Zamora agreed that putting out the fake symbol instead of the real one would
    help to identify copy-cat hoaxers, so the real design was kept confidential as long as possible. The real one is the Lambda with three horizontal lines through it,
    commonly referred to as the Hynek version.

    By Blogger Ufology, at Thursday, November 26, 2009  

  • Sorry Ufology...

    We're not so sure that Zamora fudged his symbol as Mr. Stanford has indicated.

    Some seriosu UFO researchers think the the original drawing is the symbol that Zamora saw.

    Mr. Stanford can clear up the mystery by putting forth his alleged note from Zamora about the so-called Holder request and fake symbol.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 26, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home