posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Interesting! What's the actual origin of this photo?
By Nick Redfern, at Thursday, May 05, 2011
Nice. Do we have any background info on it, like who made it?
By Matt G. (NYC), at Thursday, May 05, 2011
Nice. Any background info on it, like date of manufacture and what company the logo stands for?If it's self-propelled, it could very well be similar to what Zamora saw.Good find!
Nick:Jeff Ritzmann provided this link:http://morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov/(We're following up, of course.)RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 05, 2011
Matt:Use that link from Ritzmann.It will fill in some of the information -- some.The text with his original e-mail link (with the picture) is very interesting also.Go to boingboing.net and scroll down to the lander picture and read the accompanying text.RR
In the comments section of boingboing.net regarding the pic:"I wonder how many people appreciate the fact that NASA has purchased this from a garage operation, and use a testing method pioneered by that very same garage operation. I think it's great, but I'm really leery that NASA is not giving credit where credit is due. Congrats to the Alt Space Pioneers at Armadillo Aerospace."Anyone with the inclination could contact Armadillo and see what the story is with this thing - age/tests etc.JR
By JR, at Thursday, May 05, 2011
"The Socorro Lander/UFO?"No. Completely different.Wrong shape, color, configuration, among numerous other details.Logos rather obviously dissimilar. Irrelevant, especially if you study the case files as to what Zamora actually reported.
By steve sawyer, at Friday, May 06, 2011
We're saying Steve that the Morpheus lander is an evolved device....stemming from the initial Hughes Aircraft/CIA designed lander that Zamora saw in 1964.See the more recent posting, above this one.RR
By RRRGroup, at Friday, May 06, 2011
Steve- Yes, the logos are dissimilar, however:-What are the odds of them being even remotely similar? Think about it.-Knowing design as I do, people often recall logos differently than they appear even in calm situations. This is why branding exists: to put the logo and the company/event/whatever firmly in the mind through repeated consistency and exposure. Memory *alone* can alter the configuration of the logo...now add in the situation, and the emotional component, and I can fully see how such an error in recall could happen resulting in his "symbol", if it is indeed derived from the Morpheus. I think it's more than a reasonable lead to follow.
By JR, at Friday, May 06, 2011
"...the initial Hughes Aircraft/CIA designed lander that Zamora saw in 1964."That statement suggests this is a fact, when there is no evidence for such a statement. What is the factual, documented basis for such an assumption or claim?Based on Zamora's documented statements and his drawing of the craft, the object he observed was quite different from what you state it was. How do you square that discrepancy? And what would a Hughes/CIA developed lander prototype be doing allegedly landing in and then taking off from a gully outside of Socorro? This claim just does not hold up when compared to the known facts of the Socorro incident. How did you come to your conclusion?
By steve sawyer, at Saturday, May 07, 2011
Steve, you're expert at Googling.Find our previous postings and material online, from this blog, and others.I don't wish to re-post all that stuff, again, for the umpteenth time.The Zamora story is flawed and incomplete, or else we wouldn't still be having debates about it.We have online here, at this blog, a clip from a aerospace technician, via the History Channel, who corroborates our view.You can discount his statement just as we discount some of the statements from Zamora, Stanford, et al.But you do the work. Find our previous postings and then get back to us/me.RR
By RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 07, 2011
Part 1 of 2:"We're saying Steve that the Morpheus lander is an evolved device....stemming from the initial Hughes Aircraft/CIA designed lander that Zamora saw in 1964.""Find our previous postings and material online, from this blog, and others."I don't wish to re-post all that stuff, again, for the umpteenth time.""But you do the work. Find our previous postings and then get back to us/me."It's fascinating to see how often you elide from answering direct questions, Rich. The questions are simple enough--why can't you provide credible, documented answers? You are simply making wild, bogus claims without substantiation, it appears. It seems it is you who needs to do some research to support your belief in a prosaic, man-made craft as the source of Zamora's sighting. You might consider adding links, cites, and footnotes to references to bolster your contentions, if they have a basis in fact, but you most often do not. Why is that? What is the basis for your claim that the Hughes Aircraft designed lunar lander was co-developed or created in association with the CIA, for example? When has or why would the CIA ever have had anything to do with lunar landers? The fact is they don't, and haven't--that was always the purview of JPL and NASA, for your edification. I find no evidence for your contention, and yes, I've looked. In reviewing your prior blog posts, you simply assert a connection between Hughes Aircraft, Raven Industries, the CIA, and some mysterious, unknown, self-propelled prototype lunar lander, but cite no references or independent sources of data to bolster your claim. Simply proclaiming such a connection without evidence or documentation is an obvious red herring. Again, what is the factual basis for your claims? Perhaps you can provide some citation about this other than to essentially say you can't be bothered to do so--it's your claim, so where's the evidence or documentation? Is there any? Should I do your homework for you? No, I don't think so. Logically, trying to disprove a negative is a waste of time and effort. Hughes Aircraft designed the Surveyor series of early lunar landers, but none were operational at the time of the Socorro incident in April of 1964. Surveyor 1 was not even launched until May 30, 1966, well over two years after Zamora's sighting. See: http://tinyurl.com/2gwafk for the wiki article, and a photo of the Surveyor--it looks completely different from what Zamora reported. It has three legs, not four. It has a configuration that Zamora could not possibly have mistaken for what he described and drew a picture of. It was only a lander, and could not take off.Major Hector Quintanilla, head of Project Blue Book at the time, personally spent several weeks inquiring of all aerospace contractors, including Hughes, to see if any of them might have been involved in any off-range, accidental landings of prototype lunar landers, in his assiduous efforts to attempt to prove the Socorro incident might have involved such a prosaic, operational prototype craft. He came up completely empty-handed, despite his strenuous efforts, as none existed at that time.
By steve sawyer, at Sunday, May 08, 2011
Part 2 of 2:In April of 1964, a non-functional test version of the Surveyor was test "flown" (twice) at the White Sands missile range, not under its own power, but simply suspended by harness from a Bell helicopter to test landing gear stamina, and not on the date of Zamora's sighting. The Surveyor was designed to land on the Moon, not Earth, and the 1-G gravity of Earth would have been too much for any Surveyor or similar prototype to be able to land without serious damage. The Surveyor had no launch engines, only retro rockets for a planned soft landing on the Moon, so it couldn't even take off from the surface of either the Moon or Earth, as none of the seven Surveyors launched by rocket had a propulsion system to do so. The Morpheus lander is a current prototype lunar lander developed by Armadillo Aerospace being tested for potential future Moon landings. It has yet to fly independently under its own power, and has only so far been able to lift up about 20 feet above the ground while suspended in a control harness from a crane. [And so, also, JR, your speculation that the logo on the Morpheus has any bearing on the symbol seen by Zamora in 1964 is without any basis in fact or logic, as the Morpheus logo was created well over 50 years after the Socorro incident, and is a completely different logo design or symbol.] So, in conclusion, there is absolutely no evidence I can find that Hughes Aircraft had any association with the CIA in developing any lunar lander, there is no correlation of the Socorro logo (again, an inverted "V" with three horizontal lines through it) to the prototype Morpheus lander, the Hughes Surveyor could not even lift off as it had no propulsion system to do so, and there is absolutely no evidence that supports your claim that Zamora allegedly saw, as in your interpretation (or rather, unfounded belief), a man-made lunar lander, made by Hughes or any other aerospace company. NONE. Perhaps that is why you cannot supply documented, credible answers or references to respond to these questions and facts--you have none. Prove me wrong, if you can.
Steve:I like you and I like your dogged attempts to get me (and others) to flesh out our hypotheses or "ravings."Several people -- some who've commented here -- see the possible evolutionary aspect of the Morpheus device, and can connect it to what Zamora saw, rightly or wrongly.You believe, I guess, that Zamora saw an alien craft, or as Frank Warren is careful to point out, a "UFO" -- something unidentified that flew.We've mustered must more material than you seem to have found.But I'll be damned if I'm going to provide citations again, and again.I've done that with other topics here, and UFO mavens just ignore them or do not check them out.So, getting me to help you understand our, according to you, goofy conjecture, is not gonna happen.Zamora's account, and all the other material about Socorro is suspect or botched.That's it.Sorry, chum, but I'm not going to accomodate you, just as I've never accomodated UFO UpDaters who tried to get me to give them material over and over again, because they couldn't think their way through my conjectures, which are contrary to their hard-core and often stupid belief systems.RR
By RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 08, 2011
Precisely the kind of non-response I fully expected you to make, Rich. Fact-free and without merit or any substantiation of any kind.This is becoming ridiculous and pointless. Once again you avoid providing any real data, proof, documentation, citations, or independent references of any kind, now and previously, to establish the legitmacy of your claims. Now you characterize them as "hypotheses" or "ravings," the latter term of which I would agree with. Simply making the additional claim you have previously published the basis for your contentions is in fact not true--I checked, as you suggested, and there is nothing in your prior published posts on this subject that provides such data. I did my homework, but you have not, despite asserting you have. Need I remind you of what I just told you: "I find no evidence for your contention, and yes, I've looked. In reviewing your prior blog posts, you simply assert a connection...but cite no references or independent sources of data to bolster your claim. Simply proclaiming such a connection without evidence or documentation is an obvious red herring." And yet, you do so once again. Endlessly. Perpetually. As Stan Friedman has said many times, "to do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation" is the pseudo-skeptic's game, or the behavior of an agent provocateur attempting to disrupt and divert the dialogue from objective research and fact-finding. Why can't you just admit that there is no evidence for your claims that you can cite? You continue to avoid a cogent or coherent reply or explanation. As I pointed out, despite your claims that you have provided such data before, you in fact have not. Cite the blog post. Note the data. Provide even just one reference or citation that supports your assumptions. You cannot."We've mustered must more material than you seem to have found."But I'll be damned if I'm going to provide citations again, and again."I've done that with other topics here, and UFO mavens just ignore them or do not check them out."Oh, really? So where is this material? Is it a secret? Don't make claims for which you refuse to provide a basis or foundation for, is my advice. To do so just makes you look foolish, and in some kind of rigid denial or inability to admit when you are wrong."...I'm not going to accomodate you, just as I've never accomodated UFO UpDaters who tried to get me to give them material over and over again, because they couldn't think their way through my conjectures, which are contrary to their hard-core and often stupid belief systems."When have you ever once given me any material to support your claims on this subject? I'll tell you--never. As for "hard-core and often stupid belief systems," I think you are expressing one yourself. If you are just making a "conjecture," or simply speculating, say so. But you aren't--you've made very specific claims and assertions for which I've done the research, checked your prior blog posts, and guess what? There is no substantiation, prior citations, or data you have ever provided to support your assertions. So, who really here is the one in both denial and making false claims? BTW, I'm not asking you to "get[ting] me to help you understand" or "flesh out" your claims, I'm asking what are your contentions based upon, factually.If you can't do that, then I think it's self-evident, at least to me and others reading this exchange, that you have nothing to back up your statements, even if you cannot either see or admit that, as you stridently claim you have. I challenge other readers here to review this blog for such data, and cite it with links if you can. Where's the beef, Rich?
Steve:We've made a circumstantial case for our view, and you haven't checked all our blogs or web-sites where all that material is.I know you've done this before with others....you ask them to support their conjectures while never offering any of your own.You just parrot the orthodox UFO line(s).There is much more material than you've found, and I'm surprised that you haven't uncovered it.That said, I've presented a conjecture, and you don't like it.I get that. But you're not going to get me to put in the case one more time.Badgering me is not gonna make that happen.You've said my observation is bogus, so there we are.I accept your critical evaluation and I'll let others seek out the Socorro incident to find that my view is not as crazy as you'd like to have it.Friedman and guys like you hope that regugitating the old UFO stances on UFO events will sink in eventually, and become the truth. I prefer to open thought to other possibilities, no matter how bizarre they appear to you dyed-in-the-wool geezers who can't see beyond your noses.The lander conjecture or hoax conjecture of Bragalia gets your goat and I don't give a damn.I let you write here that my view is unsupported (because you can't find the stuff I've put online earlier, here and elsewhere).You've had your say, and others can accept it or not, just as I do not.Did you find the video clip by the man who confirms my view?Is he a liar or crazy?Come on. Get off your high horse and convince me that Socorro is something you want it to be, whatever that is...We've never gotten your view, or your supporting material, not the AF stuff or Hynek's or Stanford's, but yours and yours alone.Where is it buddy boy?RR
I do feel that had the object been any US experimental device or a test of the lunar lander or indeed anything related to the US space program in the 1964 timeframe, the USAF would have identified the object eventually, and the case would not be an 'unknown'.Quintanilla said as much and we should accept this verdict.Q did also say that he always had his doubts about the case. What he meant by this was that Zamora had made up at least part of the story, or had undergone some hallucination. Have we anything on Zamora's character before the event? Is anything known about him prior to the sighting, his beliefs, his social life, his activities or anything at all that suggests he had superstitions or strange beliefs or habits? Had he ever once spoken on UFOs? Also, what became of him afterwards? Did he stay in the police? If not, why not? I do not know the answer, nor is it realistically likely anyone ever will. Once again, we have absolutely no hardware leftovers to analyse. Once again.....
By cda, at Sunday, May 08, 2011
CDA:Anthony Bragalia, your friend and ours, has found some material about Lonnie Zamora, which I don't think he's shared publically yet.Maybe I can prevail upon him to do so, as it helps elucidate the incident in some ways.I don't believe Lonnie Zamora had any major faults, as I see it, and what he reported was muddled by the Air Force (for reasons not clear) and by investigators who were trying to surround the sighting with details that bolstered their ET belief(s.Steve Sawyer wishes to compound those "mistakes" and malfeasances by promoting the ufological party line, while refusing to tell us what he believes, hding behind Friedman, Hynek, Quintanilla, and Stanford.RR
CDA- Of course much has been learned about the Socorro hoax (and it is now certain to have been one) since the publication of my three articles on the subject and of Frank Stalter’s website with info on the prank. I will say that first-hand testimony has emerged that speaks to things about Mr. Zamora that are not generally known that could greatly impact what we know about his “perception.” More at a later time…AJB
"[And so, also, JR, your speculation that the logo on the Morpheus has any bearing on the symbol seen by Zamora in 1964 is without any basis in fact or logic, as the Morpheus logo was created well over 50 years after the Socorro incident, and is a completely different logo design or symbol."If there's any way you can actively trace back the logo, and it's possible derivatives I'd very much like to see it.The very idea that the symbols, and the craft's overall look are so close to the Socorro sighting I'd say is well worth looking at. You seem quite defensive for even entertaining the idea. This thread of inquiry isn't harming anything and it seems an interesting place with enough tidbits to dig around a little. So, what's the harm.
By JR, at Monday, May 09, 2011
I was curious reading about the sighting as a young man in the midwest. When I moved with my international tech company, to NM in 1965, I drove to the site on the hill just south of Socorro. The city had placed circles of rocks around the four depressions. I took measurements and photos of the pattern. Years later, 'after' information revealed the improved kite shaped footprint of the actual lander, I checked my 1965 measurements..RIGHT ON..
By Blogengeezer, at Monday, June 13, 2011
Blogengeezer:Would you be amenable to doing a piece for posting at this blog about your efforts, with the photos and information you gathered?If so, send me a note -- firstname.lastname@example.orgRich Reynolds
By RRRGroup, at Monday, June 13, 2011
So where does all of this sit today? Did we ever see any information regarding the landers gear dimensions/width? I believe it was an experimental lander.
By Ron S., at Thursday, August 06, 2015
Ron:There are updates somewhere here, in the more current time-frame I think.RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 06, 2015
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile