The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, May 06, 2011

The Morpheus/Socorro Lander

This insignia is an evolved symbol, just as the Morpheus Lander is an evolved Lunar Lander, derived from the initial Hughes Aircraft designed lander that accounts for, in our estimation, the Zamora sighting in Socorro in 1964.

Morpehus is on Facebook -- click here


The "official web-site may be found by clicking here

We'll have much more about this upcoming....

13 Comments:

  • Interesting theory. Test article kinda looks like the supposed Socorro UFO. The Morpheus symbol is interesting too. Are you proposing that this vehicle is a time travel device? I saw on Morpheus facebook page, the start date for this was last year (2010).

    While this vehicle kinda fits the facts, it was not active back in the 1960s.

    By Blogger Shanksow, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • Shanksow:

    As noted above, in our post, we think the Morpheus is an evolutionary construct, derived from the 1964 Hughes/CIA lander that Zamora saw and which has been made into a bona fide alien craft (a UFO) by some UFO "experts."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • 'As noted above, in our post, we think the Morpheus is an evolutionary construct, derived from the 1964 Hughes/CIA lander that Zamora saw and which has been made into a bona fide alien craft (a UFO) by some UFO "experts."

    The thinking behind this suggestion is reminiscent of the Corso claims regarding fibre-optics and so forth. Standing in a vacuum of historical context, it could be true.

    If we pan back a little wider, are landers designed with the capability to withstand 1-G gravity and fly away over the horizon? With weight logistics being an overriding consideration, would a vehicle carry so much fuel to make this plausible? Would such a test vehicle be tested without a support infrastructure? Do the CIA favour public back roads above military installations for test craft?

    If any of these questions can be answered affirmatively, maybe the hypothesis is correct.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • Kandinsky:

    The part about Zamora's UFO flying off over the horizon is marred by him having dropped his glasses during the fly-away and thus could not responsibly report exactly what happened.

    As Mrs. Zamora told me when I talked with her a few years back, Lonnie's eyesight was quite bad, and without his glasses he wouldn't be able to make out anything with any accuracy.

    Rudiak, a doctor of optometry, has conveniently ignored or underplayed this aspect of Zamora's reportage.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • I completely agree with Shanksow and kandisky.
    In addition, I would like to pinpoint that your theory (it's just a theory, right?) barely could fit the performances described by Zamora even now in 2011.
    so, imagine how unlikely can be a correct explanation this "advanced prototype", which needs to be operated in a "tethered mode"?
    Ray Stanford please give us your opinion!

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • Although I'm dubious about the Socorro case being as simple as a test project, the eyesight factor is intriguing.

    I wear contacts or glasses for mild short-sight. Without them, any number of airborne critters and craft can be misidentified as 'UFOs.' With that in mind, I've spent time looking into the statistics of 1950/60s prescriptions for glasses and general eyesight.

    Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of independent data to be found. What there is, is biased by the research being funded by organisations behind private optometry. APRO and NICAP field investigators were advised to ask about eyesight.

    I still suspect that many incidents of UFO sightings back then are an outcome of short-sighted observers with a predisposition towards wanting to see 'flying saucers.'

    The notion extends as far back as Chris Colombus seeing mermaids on his travels. The guy had terrible eyesight in his later years.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • Ilfakiro:

    We don't consider Ray Stanford an expert on the Socorro affair.

    (Yes, I know, many would disagree but they don't know what we know and have provided online elsewhere in our blog universe.)

    The Socorro sighting is fraught with misinformation so that trying to fit any explanation -- an alien craft or a Earthian tester -- is problematic.

    But we're hypothesizing, which is okay, isn't it?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • RRR,
    ok, you don't acknowledge Ray as an expert for this case (why?), but he was there, down in the mighty sixties, as you can read in his very intriguing book (I found it on ebay a couple of years ago!).
    He interviewed Zamora, Hynek and he found other witnesses, writing a book on first-hand basis.

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • Ilfakiro:

    Our big beef with Stanford is his withholding of the "real" insignia that Zamora saw and drew, while promoting the popular insignia we're all familiar with.

    That's not scientific or ethical.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 06, 2011  

  • Once again, Rich, you have the facts wrong.

    The record shows, as Stanford stated a year and a half ago, that the idea of creating a symbol (the one that shows a semi-circle above a truncated upward pointing arrow, with a horizontal line underneath, red in color) was created by a U.S. Air Force officer from Project Blue Book to test whether any subsequent reports of UFOs with such a symbol were claimed would thus establish such later reports as bogus.

    It was simply a neat kind of counter-intelligence trick to see if others might come forward after Zamora's report and, if they claimed to have also seen the publicly released symbol on an alleged UFO, it would show that such claims were either a hoax or delusional.

    It was not Stanford's idea, it was the USAF's. So your argument with Stanford about this is misplaced, and if you want to assert it was "...not scientific or ethical," blame the USAF officer and PBB personnel who did it.

    Supposedly, the "real" logo or symbol was publicly "suppressed," although both Hynek and Stanford, plus Zamora, were aware of this ruse, and apparently agreed it was a good idea to test the legitimacy of "copycat" reports. Hynek noted this fact in one of his books.

    Conversely, if anyone had reported a UFO sighting of a similar object with a red inverted "V" with three horizontal lines across it, then that would better substantiate what Zamora claimed to have seen, deductively speaking.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/3jl3cdj
    for the two images concerned: on the first page of results, line 2, the red symbol on the left is the bogus, invented one, while the one on the right is allegedly the actual one Zamora reported.

    Rich, this was all hashed out on your blog, Frank Warren's, and Kevin Randle's in late 2009, after Zamora's death, if you may recall.

    You may wish to review your own blog posts and the associated comment threads from that period to confirm what I'm saying here.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Sunday, May 08, 2011  

  • Mr. Sawyer,

    Do you have a website or blog where we can see what you think Officer Zamora saw?

    Max

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 08, 2011  

  • No, Max, I don't have my own blog or website as yet. I keep thinking about starting one or both, but have not yet done so.

    As for my comments about what Zamora may have seen, review the extensive comments I originally made over time about this subject on Kevin Randle's blog, "A Different Perspective," in the Oct/Nov/Dec 2009 period.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Wednesday, May 11, 2011  

  • I should add that I don't know what Zamora saw---only he would have, and even then...

    I did suggest a fairly strange speculation (or unusual possibility) on Randle's blog, in that perhaps the incident was an intentional "display" with deliberately mixed, contradictory elements (such as the landing and takeoff allegedly employing what seemed to be a prosaic sort of rocket, jet, or other kind of loud, flaming engine versus the silent, very rapid travel of the object away from the scene, which suggests a secondary, unknown propulsion source, and which creates quite a paradoxical conundrum, if true) for plausible deniability and inherent, confusing absurdity added (an extrapolation of a hypothesis of Jacques Vallee's), but that was just an abstracted conjecture on my part, as that would suggest a "hoax" of sorts, but not by human parties. And yes, I realize that is quite a stretch, and to most would be quite farfetched.

    Oddly, it is an explanation which, if Zamora accurately reported what he witnessed, reconciles most of the primary disparate elements of the incident. But who knows--I don't claim to, unlike some others. Yet, something truly bizarre seems to have occurred.

    The Socorro incident is a uniquely singular case in the annals of the UFO phenomenon, as it is the only CE III case that Project Blue Book could only conclude, even after very extensive (if not entirely objective or forensically adequate) investigation, was a true "unknown." It remains so today, IMHO.

    Whatever Zamora saw, or thought he saw, I think he was sincere and honest, but that does not preclude potentially some form of delusion or confabulation due to his fearful or panicked state of mind and consequent potential perceptual distortion and recall, caused by the "high strangeness" and unexpected nature of the incident.

    I imagine, based on the data about his appearance and demeanor (as noted by Chavez, the fellow police officer who showed up within a minute of the departure of the object, and who said Zamora was white-faced, sweating profusely, and appeared to be in an state of fear), that Zamora had suffered some kind of severe ontological or psychological shock.

    Gee, maybe he was drunk, or something else affected his mind. Again, I simply do not know, so whatever I might think would be speculation based on an analysis of the records extant.

    Also, based on pictures of Zamora wearing his eyeglasses, btw, I don't think his vision was very bad--the lenses appear fairly thin, which would indicate minor correction to his natural eyesight, so Rich's claims about Zamora's brief loss of his eyeglasses (for approximately between 20 to 40 seconds) I think is far less significant than he does, although it would be nice to know what Zamora's actual prescription was at the time of the Socorro incident to help settle that particular debate.

    Perhaps a record of his Rx still exists, with either his wife or offspring, or whoever his optometrist may have been at the time, although since that was nearly 50 years ago, it's questionable such a record may still exist. Someone should seriously look into that. In any event, during the majority of the incident's elapsed timeframe, the object was observed by Zamora with his glasses on.

    What is most problematic is that only Zamora saw the alleged object close-up, or as a close encounter, although there were other witnesses to aspects of the incident just before and after Zamora's experience.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/3vpch2x
    ("Other Witnesses" section) and
    http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm for further relevant details

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Wednesday, May 11, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home