UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, October 15, 2011

A Socorro-like UFO episode in Spain [circa 1930] by Jose Antonio Caravaca

Jose Caravaca







The Story

Rocio Gonzalez, 54 years old, is one of the few people alive, who knows about this event aloud. A story he heard from a very young age and never, by its strangeness, has been able to erase from his mind.

Roció rebuilds the story, with a relative, José Maria Peláez.

(There are some logical gaps in the case - José Maria tells us it happened in the decade of the 1930s, so there are some things that are almost impossible to pinpoint, for example, the exact year in which it occurred, not to mention the month and day.)

To give you a brief idea about the protagonist of the event:

Raimundo, Roció's great uncle, was an introvert, and not talkative or a storyteller.

He spent his days in the Torcal de Antequera (Málaga), fond of solitude and nature, accompanied only by his dog, who always went with him. He was devoted, entirely, to his collection of plants, both medicinal and ornamental or edible which sold in town to buy food.

torcal15.jpg

Raimundo had a family, wife and two children. His wife was well-off economically, as they had a farm and land. But to him, this was not the kind of life he liked, preferring the freedom and the total lack of responsibility.

For years he lived in the field, sleeping in the open, exchanging medicinal plants for food.

Every two weeks or so, he went back to town to sell his plants and visit his family on the way. I lived with my grandmother, María Jesús R., sister of Raimundo. During those visits, that gentleman told my grandmother a story that stuck with me, although I was very young when he told it.

It must have happened in the thirties during one of his usual rounds in Torcal accompanied by only his sheepdog.

Sitting along the roads on a flat mole was an object about two or three meters high, oval in shape, like an egg, white or clear, resting on the floor without any means of support to keep it erect, no feet or landing gear, or anything like that; the egg seemed to float in the air.

Next to the object were several beings of small stature with ovoid heads, gathering plants and other soil samples surrounding the device.

torcal.jpg

These beings became aware of the presence of Raimundo. Then his whole body was paralyzed, and that of his dog, and also other animals found in the area, such as goats and grazing animals.

This phenomenon lasted as long as these things did their task of collecting samples. The paralysis subsided after they [and their object] rose out of sight.

THE SOCORRO INCIDENT

socorrojc.jpg

The UFO Landing in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964, besides being one of the most documented, reliable incidents in the UFO catelog, offers researchers the possibility of evaluating a myriad of technical details of a UFO observed by police officer, Lonnie Zamora .

Detailed analysis of the testimony Officer Zamora, as well as footprints and marks left on the ground, allow us to extract much information from the alleged engineering and mechanics used in the manufacture of the mysterious aircraft Officer Zamora says he witnessed.

Although it may seem otherwise, due to the multitude of cases collected throughout the world, few incidents provide accurate and useful information on the technical characteristics of UFOs.

In the Socorro, landing investigators have enough evidence and factual data to develop a battery of interesting and fascinating technological concepts related to the vision of an unidentified aircraft.

Do not forget that the U.S. authorities failed to determine the source of the object that landed a few meters from Zamora, so that all assumptions including an alien(extraterrestrial) encounter, remained open.

Here are the main technical findings obtained from the study and the story of Zamora Lonnie.

FUSELAGE (camouflage system):

The brilliant "burnishing" which covered the UFO, and possibly the round shape, acted as a "mirror" making the object nearly invisible when it was in the air. Zamora was able to see a blue flame in the sky produced by the ”jet" of the object.

LANDING SYSTEM:

The UFO had 4 landing struts that sought to balance the aircraft, regardless of the terrain. The footprints left on the desert floor left no doubt on this question. The struts left imprints that were geometrically arranged to form a cross of right angles.

According to theoretical calculations, three extensible legs had approximate measures of 3'50 meters, 3'10 meters, and 3 meters, the rear being the smallest with a length of 1.20 meters. What is revealed is the effectiveness of the spreading, unequal length, angle and landing gear. Just as the footprints left by the alleged stairs, two pairs of round marks in the sand, indicate that it was deployed by an automatic device that chose the most comfortable and safest way to facilitate the descent of the crew.

JET-GYROSCOPE (AUXILIARY PROPULSION SYSTEM FORTAKEOFF AND LANDING PHASE):

In the bottom of the UFO, Lonnie Zamora noted a jet diameter of 1 meter, rotating on its axis and producing a great noise in their "start up".

The noise resembled an explosion that was heard by the witness on two occasions. During landing and takeoff of aircraft.

The exhaust flame acted as a blowtorch, indicated by the burnt bushes at the landing spot. The burns,according to witnesses, were produced as a "fire knife" as if it was some kind of jet that made the flame reach high temperatures.

PROPULSION UNKNOWN (main propulsion system):

Officer Zamora could not see any outside elements such as turbines nor jet vapor trail, steam or smoke.

The use of lower jets (after detonation in its implementation), seen and heard by Lonnie Zamora in both landing and take-off of the device, may indicate that the main propulsion system of the aircraft was inoperative or inefficient at low altitude, hence, resorting to a more"primitive" and "elementary" propulsion system for the descent and ascent.

The blast produced by the start of the jet, on two occasions, clearly indicated that this source of propulsion and limited alternative was not used when traveling at higher altitudes.

The technical details guarantee Lonnie Zamora’s sighting was real as it is difficult to conceive that the witness could develop as many ideas and technical concepts to invent a simple UFO sighting, in addition to forging a series of tracks, and burn marks on the ground to support such conjecture.

And remember that Officer Zamora saw two smallish beings outside the landed craft he witnessed; two entities dressed in what looked like white coveralls.

Nota Bene: Rich Reynolds edited the material above. Any mistakes therein can be ascribed to him.

JC/RR

Friday, October 14, 2011

The Socorro/Rendlesham UFO symbols deciphered?

Copyright 2011, InterAmerica, Inc.

The United States Air Force and Ray Stanford tried to corrupt Lonnie Zamora’s Socorro sighting of 1964 by interposing the idea that Officer Zamora’s original description and drawing of the symbol he spotted on the egg-shaped craft was a substitution for the real symbol – to snooker any other alleged UFO observer who might try to report that he or she saw a similar symbol.

That is, the Air Force is said to have created the (well-known) Zamora symbol here:

socorro1.jpg
Stylized

As a substitute for the real symbol here:

socorro2a.jpg

However, in the earliest reports of the Socorro incident, Officer Zamora described and drew the well-known and highly publicized symbol thusly:

zamora13a.jpg"
This from the Hynek/Blue Book notes

lonnie13.jpg
This from the 1967 LOOK account

We believe the Air Force suggestion, abetted by Ray Stanford, was a diversionary effort – or disinformation tactic as ufologists like to say – to prevent interested parties from discovering the real source of the Zamora craft. (See Hughes reference below.)

Anthony Bragalia insists that the Socorro incident was a prank, created and carried out by students at the New Mexico Institute of Technology, and he’s mustered considerable circumstantial evidence for his hypothesis.

Part of his conjecture states that Zamora’s UFO was a construct, partially composed of paper, used at NMIT, from The International Paper Company, whose logo is this:

zamora13.jpg

An Indiana University engineer has related that he read a piece in a still unlocated – we looked for it, seriously – magazine [circa 1968] about a paper company’s publicity-oriented hot-air balloon trek that descended in Socorro and was mistaken as Lonnie Zamora’s UFO. (The engineer’s contention has been excoriated but not totally refuted by a gaggle of ufologists, mostly residing at UFO UpDates.)

Here’s the logo of a paper company that possibly sponsored a balloon trip across country in 1964:

boise13.jpg

The RRRGroup has contended that Zamora’s UFO was a Hughes Aircraft/ToolCo Moon/Mars lander prototype, manufactured and tested under the auspices of the CIA.

Leon Davidson did a creative reworking of the Zamora drawing, showing how it displayed a convoluted and tricky reworking of the CIA sobriquet. (His paper is online here, via a previous posting.)

Matthew Gilleece did an evaluation for us a while back, and provided a logo from Hughes Toolco that is strikingly similar to Zamora’s drawing:

hughes14.jpg

And during our Hughes interpretations we used Henry Dreyfuss’s Symbol Sourcebook [McGraw Hill Book Company, NY, 1972] to find symbols that look like Zamora’s drawing.

We found these mathematical and computing symbols, which Hughes’ engineers might have used on their prototype design or which can be seen as part of the Air Force instigated design:

in1a.jpg

in2a.jpg

in3a.jpg

in4a.jpg

in5a.jpg

align13.jpg

arrow14.jpg

Then we come to the 1980 Rendlesham incident(s), which provided a symbol, from one of the military witnesses:

trig14.jpg"

We think that the Rendlesham UFO was a military prototype, which also used mathematical symbology as part of its designated creation:

trig14a.jpg
Trigonometrical Point 1st order [Dreyfuss, Pages 95/186]

(The displacement of the black circle has meaning, and a cryptography expert should have at it.)

For us, the determination of the Zamora insignia’s creation or origin and that of the Rendlesham symbol will provide the source of UFOs witnessed, Earthly in our view – or unearthly maybe, as many die-hard ET believers have it.

RR

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

"Roswell" noted in 1967

Copyright 2011, InterAmerica, Inc.

LOOK published this special edition, Flying Saucers, in 1967:


On Page 24 is this photo from the series taken in Roswell in 1947:


The blurb (enlarged here) refers to an alleged crash of balloon(s), mistaken for a flying saucer:


While Fort Worth, Texas is given as the site of the "mistaken" crash, rather than Roswell (or Corona) in New Mexico, the photo, shared with LOOK staffers, shows that someone knew about the Roswell incident in 1967, 10+ years earlier than the 1978 resurrection by Stanton Friedman.

Why the mistake in locale? Who provided the photo? Why a reference to the Navy?

Questions that Roswell researchers might follow up on...

RR

Monday, October 10, 2011

Odyssey of the Gods by Erich von Däniken

Erich von Däniken’s newest entry in his ancient astronaut oeuvre deals with Greek myth, and his conjectures are as novel as ever.

He posits that Greek mythology is rife with hints of extraterrestrial visitation, and the Greek gods were, actually (and not surprisingly), aliens from other worlds in the Universe; gods or entities that intervened in Greek history and promulgated the myths and stories that most of us are familiar with.

I have been a von Däniken junkie since his Chariots of the Gods.

chariots10.jpg

A friend of mine, a college professor at Michigan State University, scoffed at my acceptance of von Däniken’s “theories” but he gave Chariots to his English students and found them to be as entranced by von Däniken’s views as I was and am (still).

Sure, I understand that anthropologists, historians, and other scholars think von Däniken’s books and ideas are loony, but I find the von Däniken hypotheses to be intriguingly enlightened, and supported by circumstantial evidence that von Däniken has amassed and presents in his books, including this new one.

Several pages of crisp photographs, included together in the middle of the book, show readers what von Däniken is referring to in the text.

This is de rigueur for the author, and all his books provide clear examples of what he’s describing in his copy.

For Odyssey, which opens with a protracted account of the Jason and the Golden Fleece story, von Däniken compiles the Greek myths from the several sources extant, and presents those myths in a prose style that makes them cogent, although I found some interpretations of the stories to be quite different from the usual acceptable offerings: Larousse, Bulfinch, Edith Hamilton, et al.

edith10.jpg

Von Däniken sees the fingerprints of extraterrestrials everywhere, and I don’t necessarily disagree with his insistence.

But one does have to question why extraterrestrials in the past (millennia ago) dressed like or used equipment like that of the current era(s) – the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Why didn’t ancient astronauts dress in garb of the 1930s or 1940s or earlier – or later, much later, something futuristic as it were?

That aside, von Däniken musters views in the new book that addresses the Atlantis myth, and Plato, accordingly.

And he presents a view about the Trojans and Troy that is interesting: Atlantis was Troy or Troy was Atlantis.

A Mayan connection to the Atlantis myth and Plato’s account is covered extensively [Page 191 ff.] and is uniquely fascinating as is the case with much of von Däniken’s hypothetical offerings.

atlantis10.jpg

The Heinrich Schliemann “discovery” of Troy is thorough, with a note that Schliemann apparently came to believe that he didn’t really discover Troy after all. [Page 130]

hs10.jpg

The panoply of the Greek gods, Zeus, Athene, Hephaestus, Poseidon, among them, get a hearing and their connection to the extraterrestrial hypothesis is ratified in the usual von Däniken way. [Page 61 ff.]

The ancient computer – The Machine of Anticythera – is delineated, along with the many sites and locales revered by the early Greeks.

Page 28 of the book inserts the Babylonian tale of Oannes, which a Babylonian priest, Berossus, described [circa 350 B.C.] a creature with the attributes of a fish, and came from the sea, and taught the people how to build towns, measure lands, establish laws, and attributes of science and writing.

oannes10.jpg

(Similar tales from other cultures – the Phoenicians and Chinese – are provided also.)

A story of Jonah in the whale, that differs from the Hebrew Bible’s version, is cited: Volume III of Die Sagen der Juden (Tales of the Jews from Ancient Times). [Page 28]

Von Däniken is no scholarly slouch; he provides sources for his Greek content, the writers, poets an historians from whom we get the Greek tales: Homer, Pliny, Plutarch, Apollonius, Herodotus, et al.

homer10.jpg

Von Däniken doesn’t just provide Greek mythology. He intersperses supplementary material from The Bible, Egyptian “history,” and accounts from Meso-America, China, and elsewhere to make his point – again, that humankind interacted with and was pushed along by extraterrestrial beings.

The 220 page book, which also includes black and white photos with those color photos noted, is $17.99 and can be bought at Amazon, Powell’s, plus every other bookstore near you I imagine.

It’s a New Page book – New Page is a division of Career Press, Pompton Plains, NJ.

More information can be found at www.newpagebooks.com or www.careerpress.com

Warwick Associates can provide more information about the author and publication:
www.warwickassociates.net

The full title of the book is Odyssey of the Gods: The History of Extraterrestrial Contact in Ancient Greece. The translation from the German is by Matthew Barton and Christian von Arnim.

If you are not a von Däniken aficionado or fan, you can still find value in this book. His presentations of the Greek myths, alone, will edify.

Any school library would do well to include this book among other Greek works in its shelves.

RR

Sunday, October 09, 2011

UFO at Hamilton Lake, Indiana (again)

UFOs: The Wrong Psychological Aftermath


A sighting of an unusual object or light in the sky provokes, or should, an emotional/psychological reaction that is not too far outside the normal parameters of reactive behavior to a strange event.

But a reaction should be distinctly different from normal reactive states.

And the aftermath of an alleged UFO abduction has to be characterized by behavior that doesn’t belie the inherent elements of a terrifying or totally bizarre episode.

However, UFO sightings or UFO abductions do not evoke reactions, generally, that bespeak a completely unique or affective set of circumstances; that is, sighters and abductees, after their observation or alleged abduction, do not demonstrate behavior that falls within what psychology defines for the aftermath of events like an abduction (UFO related or not) or the observation of something anomalistic.

Seeing something in the sky (or on the ground) that is totally foreign to one’s normal experiences and frames of reference can evoke euphoria (depending upon the mind-set of the observer) or questioning of one’s senses, or provoke an astute querying. Sometimes fear is prominent (again, depending upon the sighter’s mind-set).

An alleged UFO abduction is another matter altogether. Such an episode, which is akin to a criminal kidnapping, should result in psychological and/or social behavior, after the fact, that mimics what is commonly referred to, currently, as post-traumatic stress disorder or post-traumatic stress syndrome.

But I know of no abduction account that provides a litany of behavior that duplicates or even approximates the post-traumatic stress etiologies.

One can find the kind of after-behavior that is missing in UFO encounters in the 9/11 event(s).

A UFO sighting is nearly, in this day and age, a prosaic event for most people; humans on this planet have seen or read about stranger things than an odd light in the night sky or a weird aircraft.

Nonetheless, the observation of either should provoke a response that is something more than ho-hum. Generally, it doesn’t, which tells me that people have become inured to UFO sightings.

Abduction accounts, not so much.

Those professing that they were taken by alien entities -- extraterrestrial or otherworldly beings – end up, afterwards, talking about their experience as if it were just an unusual occurrence during their daily routines.

Under hypnosis, recollection of their alleged sojourn often invites behavior, while “asleep,” that appears to suggest a terrible or horrifying experience.

Hypnosis, long denied as a viable mechanism for finding information from the unconscious (even among psychoanalytics), presents a number of problems which strike at the heart of the material(s) recalled by the person hypnotized; i.e., confluence and juxtaposition of things read, seen, heard, over the life-time of the hypnotic, such as Sci-FI films or stories or radio and television shows in which persons are kidnapped, by humans or alien beings.

In one of my high-school’s assemblies, during the 1950s, an hypnotist mentioned to some students he had onstage, as part of his act, while they were “under,” that they were seeing a flying saucer. Panic ensued, the students getting up from their chairs, and running, helter-skelter around and off the stage. It was a moment of seer pandemonium, which took a while to be quelled. That was a reaction to flying saucers at the outset of the modern era of sightings, and is what one should have expected then, and somewhat now.

That aside, persons who’ve seen a UFO and those who have supposedly been taken against their will by entities of a anomalistic kind, generally resume their day-to-day existence, while some go so far as to try an exploit their experience, without any hint of the vicissitudes that would normally occur after such a traumatic event as that of a kidnapping, especially one involving the particulars included in the retellings, under hypnosis or not, that are proffered.

A UFO sightings should provide a “wow factor” for the sighter. It doesn’t any more.

An abduction experience should cause the abductee to suffer a smattering of traumatic symptoms, lasting long after their alleged experience. That doesn’t happen.

This lack of psychological repercussions is what did in the so-called contactees; none showed indications of trauma – rather they displayed psychopathic delusions that were not related to their alleged contact by beings from other worlds.

Abductees today, resume their lives, as if nothing untoward or totally bizarre afflicted them.

Yes, something happened to some who recount abduction experiences, but if what they say they experienced is true, their after-behavior belies that experience. The human mind can’t repress, forever, an event as traumatizing as that of an alien abduction, as it is remembered by the abductee.

In the psychological or even the psychoanalytic literature, where sexual elements are stressed, one can find the raft of symptoms that a UFO sighter or a UFO abductee should display after their encounter.

That few show such symptoms puts a question mark over their accounts.

(And this lack of a psychological aftermath is what mars such UFO events as Roswell, where for thirty years, the alleged crash of a flying disk lay dormant, until resurrected by ufologists with a penchant for infusing apparent witnesses to the Roswell episode with details and remembrances that were not based in actual circumstances. But that for another time….)

RR