UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, May 01, 2011

A Socorro Confusion (that flummoxes researchers)

This symbol is ostensibly the “insignia” that Lonnie Zamora saw and drew (for the public) which was on the UFO craft he reportedly observed in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964:


This is the “actual” symbol seen by Zamora, according to Allen Hynek, Ray Sanford, and Air Force files – it has been duplicated by an observer of a later UFO sighting, as outlined below the image (here):


We’ve added the horizontal lines, to approximate what officer Zamora saw and drew, but which was kept secret, supposedly to prevent hoaxers from using it for mischief.

The symbol/insignia that Zamora provided, and seen in 1973 by Gary Chopic on a triangular UFO, was an insignia used to identify a U.S. military prototype we believe, and confirms, for us, that Zamora’s UFO was a test vehicle of Earth manufacture in 1964.

Keeping Zamora’s original, true drawing sub rosa has prevented UFO researchers from reaching the same conclusion, and has allowed the false assumption by UFO mavens (Jerry Clark, for example) that Socorro is one of the best UFO sightings on record.

This subterfuge is part and parcel of the UFO story: persons and agencies holding back information and details that could clarify and even explain, perhaps, what UFO are.

Why does the government becloud UFO sightings and information? One can guess.

Why do UFO researchers becloud UFO material? To adopt a façade of illuminated secrecy and alchemical-like mystery. But that practice has only made the study of UFOs more daunting and difficult for those who would like to use scientific-like methodology and/or forensics to get at the UFO enigma.

For us this means that older, classic UFO sightings have to be re-examined or scrapped, and new sightings pursued without all the convoluted clutter and devious detritus that has accreted to UFO sightings of the past (by flawed “ufologists”).

We hope you agree….


  • I believe there are researchers/'mavens' who aren't convinced about the Socorro sighting's alleged extraterrestrial nature. The rocket-style take-off and slow progress does suggest something we would construct.

    On the other hand, being neutral, would we be testing anything out at Socorro? If so, where were the support crew, medevac teams or controllers?

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Sunday, May 01, 2011  

  • Whatever anyone might think the actual explanation is, I think it should be obvious that Zamora did a pretty good job of witnessing especially under the circumstances.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Sunday, May 01, 2011  

  • Not necessarily Frank....

    He was shaken, and when I talked with his wife a few years ago, she said he thought someone has played a great joke on him.

    There are also the few moments when he was without his corrective glassses as the UFO departed, which Rudiak uses as evidence for a speed factor that is iffy.

    Zamora may have been a good guy, although Anthony Bragalia has material to indicate otherwise, but as a witness he was not without blemish.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 01, 2011  

  • Why do UFO researchers becloud UFO material?

    Or... why do you guys keep nattering on about Socorro and Roswell? You must have a real fascination for New Mexico - but the best parts are in the north!

    Honestly, you ragged on me for mentioning the RB47 case from time to time at my blog (search it there - far fewer mentions than you suggest), or when asked about in interviews, but you have this ongoing fascination with two far lesser cases, that don't tell us anything at all about the nature of the UFO phenomenon (yes, that's right - I am convinced Socorro was terrestrial in nature as well as Roswell).

    I can only surmise that you are paid agents of the disinformation Cosmic Watergate people! ;-)


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, May 01, 2011  

  • It's that damn insignia which fascinates me.

    I'm not sure why exactly, but there it is....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 01, 2011  

  • @Paul Kimball

    I looked at your blog and I see a lot of references to the RB-47 sighting.

    What about that episode makes you say that it's the best UFO case ever?

    Provide the details that convince you it's the best.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 02, 2011  

  • Ray Stanford announced shortly after the death of Lonny Zamora that the symbol allegedly seen on the side of the white ovoid object in the Socorro incident was actually an inverted "V" with three equal length horizontal lines through the upside down "V"--check your prior blog posts on this issue and related comments, both here and on Frank Warren's website.

    Whatever "symbology" Gary Cedric is alleged to have seen on a UFO in 1973 is definitely not the same as what Stanford said was the actual symbol. Do a little googling next time. How soon you guys forget, and not for the first time.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Monday, May 02, 2011  

  • Steve:

    The 1973 sighting is without orientation and we didn't want to (or couldn't) change the symbol to an inverted state, without affecting the text below it.

    By the way, you might check the spelling of the chap who saw the triangular UFO in 1973.

    My point was, primarily, that we have two differing insigniae, which dosn't help us determine who or what may have been responsible for the Zamora UFO, or the 1973 UFO (which we think is man-made).

    You're missing the forest for the trees I think.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 02, 2011  

  • Hi Sammy,

    You have an interesting definition of "a lot" - I view it within the context of the total number of posts. Still, not a point worth arguing over, as people's perceptions are always different.

    If you've checked out the blog, however, then surely you must know why I consider it a great case. As Rich is often fond of saying (and here I paraphrase): I'm not going to do your research for you. ;-)

    My views are well known, but it shouldn't be about what I think. Follow the links to the original case reports by Jim McDonald, and follow-up work by Brad Sparks, and see for yourself.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, May 02, 2011  

  • "My point was, primarily, that we have two differing insigniae, which dosn't help us determine who or what may have been responsible for the Zamora UFO, or the 1973 UFO (which we think is man-made).

    You're missing the forest for the trees I think."

    Well, now I'm more confused than ever. Either the insigniae are the same —as stated in the initial posting ("The symbol/insignia that Zamora provided, and seen in 1973 by Gary Chopic on a triangular UFO"[...]), or they are different.

    IMO they are distinctly different, even if you add 2 or 3 horizontal lines intersecting them —Chopic's symbol is a large V with several little V's in offset; Zamora talks about one inverted V.

    The question I have is, which one of the two different witnesses had more time and was closer to the UFO in order to observe the symbol more accurately?

    You cannot change a symbol and rotate it in order to force the facts to fit into a given theory. You can't say that a witness that observed the letter 'M' in reality was observing a 'W'.

    By Blogger Red Pill Junkie, at Tuesday, May 03, 2011  

  • RPJ:

    Yes, it is confusing, but let me try to clarify.

    Zamora's popular insignia is different that what he acually saw.

    The popular symbol, drawn for the Air Force at their behest -- to prevent hoaxers from using the actual, real insignia for concocted sightings. -- is a fake.

    The Air Force thought the real insignia/symbol was significant, as do we.

    The 1973 insignia is close to what Zamora actually saw.

    There is no orientation for the 1973 drawing, so we don't know if what Chopic saw and drew was upside down or sideways or anything else.

    How it was located on the triangular craft is not offered.

    But that is neither here nor there.

    My point, in the posting, was that there was a symbol seen by Zamora that was substituted by the Air Force -- the popular symbol that we've all come to identify with the UFO that Zamora encountered.

    By substituting the real symbol for the allegedly bogus symbol has led investigators to seek an explanation that was guaranteed to lead nowhere, as researchers would be and have been looking for the originator and meaning of a contrived symbol -- one that wasn't on Zamora's UFO.

    This red-herring has led UFO mavens astray.

    And we think, and have always thought, that the insignia is significant, very much so.

    It tells us who or what was responsible for Zamora's craft.

    Was the symbol part of a prank, as Tony Bragalia thinks, a graffito pointing to the pranksters?

    Or was it an insignia derived form the Hughes/CIA group that was testing a moon lander, which is what we believe? (And the 1973 symbol is part of that ongoing scenario.)

    Or is the real symbol something that is indigenous to an alien race that landed in Socorro in 1964which is a possibility (for us) also?

    That the Air Force intervened with a subterfuge goes to the heart of our confusion about Socorro, and may be endemic of other disinformation tactics going all the way back to Roswell, and ongoing to this day perhaps.

    That's the point of my posting.

    UFO cavils aside, that's what we're trying to bring to light.

    To miss that point goes to my continuing gripe about how UFO hobbyists get waylaid by minutiae that has little or nothing to do with the overall UFO picture or mystery.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 03, 2011  

  • Ok, so we either have two options for the change in the symbol provided by Lonnie:

    a)Either it was a ploy devised by the Air Force in order to deviate attention from something they didn't want researchers to know —quite possibly an experimental aircraft.


    b)It was a strategy intended to easily pinpoint eventual copycats and hoaxers who might claim to have seen the same symbol, as suggested by Ray Stanford.

    The moon lander theory is interesting, but it would need to recognize that the fuel used for take-off and landing was significantly limited. That's why on the first Lunar landing Armstrong and Aldrin needed to locate and choose a suitable landing site while the clock was ticking, or they would have ended up crashing on a crater.

    Add to that the great difference between the gravity of the Moon and that of the Earth (you need *even more* fuel for a vertical take-off under Earth's gravity) and it gets even more complicated.

    If the Socorro object was a experimental craft, then based on the witness' observations, and the material gathered by Stanford on site, it possessed a significantly different technology than that of the Apollo space platforms.

    By Blogger Red Pill Junkie, at Tuesday, May 03, 2011  

  • RPJ:

    Your two options resonate.

    But I won't go into the anti-hypotheticals you offer, as we've been over this in some detail, here at this blog (early on) and elsewhere.

    Moreover, Paul Kimball doesn't like our fixation on Roswell or Socorro and we don't want to exacerbate his pique with our classic UFO obsessions.

    But the Hughes prototype we use for our belief is different that the Lunar lander that came to be the formatted and engineered model we all know.

    That's all I'll say here, as our view has been delineated in other places, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 03, 2011  

  • Fair enough, though you might want to add a few links to previous postings (or outside sources) related to this matter —it would be great help for future new visitors who are not aware that you've covered this ad nauseam ;)

    By Blogger Red Pill Junkie, at Tuesday, May 03, 2011  

  • RPJ:

    Cognoscenti know how to find such things.

    But we're actually trying to move on, following the suggestions of Kimball, Redfern, et al. that "solving" the classic UFO cases doesn't do a damn thing to explain the UFO mystery as it exists (and has evolved, which we've dealt with here earlier also).

    New thinking, new hypotheses, and a whole new approach is needed and staying in the fetid cases of the past is not going to get at the heart of the UFO enigma, not unless there is some smoking gun that UFO investigators have missed or overlooked -- which, too, is a possibility, but a long shot we think.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 03, 2011  

  • hello guys, my question is: if RRRGroup believe that this case can be fully explained by a Hughes prototype, well focus your attention on Hughes former personnel.
    Can be coincevable that after 47 years no pilot, no technician, no employer of this corporation involved in this affair could be traced?
    it's seems to me very unlikely.....

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Thursday, May 05, 2011  

  • Ilfakiro....

    If you Google or access our earlier posts at this blog, from a few years ago, you can see the material that allows us the Hughes hypothesis.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 05, 2011  

  • These two symbols:
    the first is a device used to orient one craft vs another in space, for docking, etc... You can get yaw, pitch and roll from viewing it, using the right instrument.

    the second is a device used to measure relative velocity, once you're aligned, using the first. The arrows are used in conjunction with a strobe to get timing, and the two horizontal lines give a scale.

    With the right kind of paint, they are easily adaptable to use by early generations of computer vision systems.

    They strongly suggest a terrestrial origin for the craft in question.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, May 29, 2011  

  • We agree, Anonymous, and will take your insights into consideration when we do another conjecture on this soon here.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 29, 2011  

  • I know its hard to belive, but i have dream my entire life with this symbol O_O i even made a tatto in my back of the gentleness mandala and in the center this symbol, searching for USO symbols , cus i feel always admiration of all those extraterrestrial stuff, i found this :O now i feel a bit scare, what does it means? :O

    By Blogger francis, at Thursday, April 18, 2013  

  • Catch up with us currently, Francis.

    You may find an answer in the newer postings here.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 18, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home