UFO Conjectures

Friday, August 10, 2012

The Socorro "hoax" by Anthony Bragalia


Anthony Bragalia has provided what he says is the denouement of the iconic 1964 Socorro sighting of police officer Lonnie Zamora.

Click HERE for access to The Bragalia Files where Mr. Bragalia's "exegesis" appears.

N.B. While the RRRGroup appreciates Mr. Bragalia's dogged pursuit of his hoax hypothesis, we have some trepidation in accepting it as the final word, although Mr. Bragalia assures us that it is his final word on the sighting.

For us, and probably a few others (David Rudiak and Ray Stanford, among them), the hoax interpretation doesn't quite nail down all the vicissitudes of the sighting.

But Mr. Bragalia's work provides a somewhat [sic] sensible account of what happened in Socorro in 1964.

It is for readers here to accept his work and view as final...or not.



  • Our colleague Jose Caravaca presents his (and our) views on the Socorro hoax hypothesis...

    As you say, the work of Tony Bragalia does not explain all the mysteries of the Socorro incident.

    In my report of December 2009 (http://caravaca.blogspot.com.es/2009/12/caso-socorro-cierre-en-falso.html), I stated that, if it was a joke, at least 6 people were participating.

    I appreciate of Colgate's comments but, they lack any real evidence...

    1. You'd think that if so many people participated, over time the authors of the great joke would
    proclaim their role in a case so important.

    2. How could a balloon fly 1.5 km in a line parallel to the ground, then fly up to sky?

    3. About the cardboard, Dr. Hynek in a letter to Dr. Menzel that it was simply a cardboard box found in the area.

    4. Without knowing the details of the Socorro Incident, the press published the measurements obtained in La Madera: the four landing legs that match those obtained in Socorro, and both the rectangular and wedge marks...

    LA MADERA ; Length: 30 cm width: 20 cm Depth: 10cm

    SOCORRO: Length: 30/40 cm width: 10/15 cm Depth: 10/15cm

    There remains much to clarify in the Socorro landing...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, August 10, 2012  

  • Jose-
    1) Why do you think that they should publicly release their names and admit to a hoax from 45+ years ago. They are aging men. I have covered why they did not come forward at the time. I might add that they did not wish to be expelled from college. They went on to become men of achieved science. Why should they satisfy you only to hugely disrupt their lives and their families? Who are you to tell them what to do? Would you tell your children about the women you slept with at 18, or how wasted you got it college? I think not! People do not bring up shameful things of their youth.

    2) Look up videos of very large sky lanterns, go to You Tube and enter SupermegaKube Sky Lantern to answer your question (and to view another amazing Candle Balloon video like the one posted in the article.

    3) Cardboard (burnt) was found. Hynek did not have it professionally analyzed and was only guessing about its supposed age. May I suggest that you take cardboard and put it out in a hot dry dusty area for a few days, maybe with some spotty rain? Then tell me with any authority the age of said cardboard.

    4) La Madera was a hoax too. By a drunk. NICAP, in a little known report that I was going to include in this blog but did not due to space limitations- the guy who made the sighting was reported to have had "the odor of alcohol" about him by official investigators. Rich Reynolds has seen the original report as I emailed it to him. And the guy reported the "UFO" in an area where town works were known to burn trees!


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, August 10, 2012  

  • Anthony...

    Socorro Incident:

    1. "People do not bring up shameful things of their youth..."

    It is something to make a magnificent hoax that deceives the USAF, the police, and all the experts. Unlike you, I believe that human vanity replaces silence in this type of act.

    (However, there are many ways to make information known without revealing identities.)

    2. So far, none of the information offered by Mr. Colgate clarifies or provides some novelty about ​​the joke or prank.

    3. Do you think that neither the police nor the military nor the FBI agent failed to recognize the existence of a prank in the remains of fireworks??

    No investigator mentioned the smell of gunpowder...

    La Madera Incident:

    1. A teletype, dated April 27, 1964states that an FBI agent interviewed Gallegos and Orlando who seemed be serious witnesses, frightened by what they witnessed that night.

    2. The officer told reporter Marvin Romero (27/4/64) that two men, unnamed, said they saw, on Saturday, a strange flying object about 10:30 pm, which would have been about two hours before Gallego's sighting in La Madera.

    3. "And the guy reported the "UFO" in an area where town works were known to burn trees!"

    The press said literally;
    "Ubaldo Gallegos, commissioner of Rio Arriba County and a resident of LA MADERA, said on Friday that some men were burning bushes as they were cleaning the irrigation water supply, but that was about one-eighth mile from the sighting."

    Although I do not share your opinion, I think it is a good job of looking for the truth about Socorro, helping all to some day coming to know that Lonnie Zamora saw ...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, August 10, 2012  

  • Hi Tony,

    This is the best work you have done on this case and I am impressed. But I think you are still a long way from proving anything.

    Your technique for quoting text is troubling...too many short disconnected thoughts run together by you. I would love to see a transcript of the actual conversation.

    How do you account for the wind problem mentioned by Dr. Rudiak?

    Again, on the face of it, not an implausible partial solution but where is the actual evidence of it?

    So, for once, I am not going to rag on your work but I encourage you to flesh this out if you can. And if you can't, just admit it. There is no shame in providing pieces of a puzzle. There is shame in pretending you have solved something when you haven't.



    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, August 10, 2012  

  • Thanks Jose for reading the piece and for your comments.

    As the greatest living physicist in the world, Colgate is rather obviously a discerning man. He is highly unlikely to have made such comments about Socorro to both his friend Dr. Linus Pauling and to myself had he not implicitly and without question believed his student sources to be telling the truth. Similarly the eminent Dr. Etscorn is a discerning man. He invented the Patch. In his phone talks with me, he made it abundantly clear that he was not merely "guessing" or "surmising" that it was a hoax- he knew it to be true without doubt. These Men of Science do not say such things unless they have considered the source and weighed the evidence and circumstances fully.

    I cannot get into more detail here, but La Madera involved a witness who drank and who reeked of alcohol when talked to about the incident, period. And I might also add that at that time, La Madera's literacy rate was among the lowest in the United States.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, August 11, 2012  

  • Lance-

    Thanks for your interest and thoughts.

    I agree that the way in which I presented Colgate's responses was a bit "sparse" - but this is only because Colgate seems only to wish to offer very tiny bits at a time and his sentences are rarely more than just a few words long. He is very cryptic with me. All of the bolded text are direct replies from Colgate to a question posed of him. He did not answer all of my questions either.

    Rich Reynolds has the original emails to Colgate from me as well as Colgate's replies to me. I forwarded them directly to Rich after they were composed and received so that an accurate record of the communications is seen and kept by someone independent of me. But yes, Colgate's comments are frustratingly brief and somewhat disjointed.

    I do not see the wind issue as an "issue" for several reasons:

    1) We have only Zamora's account of the direction and path the object took. Zamora's perception was flawed for several reasons given (and some that were not because I do not wish to be sued.)

    2) Wind data is collected to reflect far larger spans of time that the seconds that passed in which Lonnie saw the object aloft. This data (especially then) does not reflect second-to-second changes in wind micro-currents, sudden gusts, etc. I live in Sarasota where we enjoy the Gulf Breeze. A kite on the beach can suddenly and rapidly change direction violently even though the general trend of wind movement may me in a specific direction overall. Wind circulation data is not a valid reason to dismiss the hoax as a hoax for sure...


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, August 11, 2012  

  • Hi Anthony
    I wanted to offer kudos for your dogged determination. The phenomenon, that this event and others represent may or may not be measurable in the past tense from the present, and of course, the clock is ticking. While I do not suspect as you, human tricksters who were alive at the time of the incident, as Lance said, in order to determine if the pieces fit, one has to gather pieces. In this, I am impressed by how far into rational logic and associative thinking you have traveled into the fog put before us. Frankly I think we have been placed into a situation where that is exactly what this phenomenon desires, rather than how we measure our own behaviors and environment. None the less, while a lot of us look elsewhere, it is heartening to know, someone such as yourself is working the lines for the truth for empirical proofs.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, August 11, 2012  

  • Thanks Bruce for the kind words. It has been a long strange journey.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, August 11, 2012  

  • Anthony
    I think this phenomenon is like a two sided coin that is attached to a spacial geometry. That is to say there is a shared space that separates the two sides. One one side in our dimensional space, we predominate and on the other, they do. However the two sided coin that has shared space...this shared space is human consciousness affixed, adapted to this space..and yet it is a problem of language in terms of relationships. If there is an parallel universe with differing spacial characteristics and we access it by leaving the somatic or body behind, then what remains is not human in the way we define a human. We largely define ourselves either unwittingly or willingly and this identity has no purpose or utility in this "parallel" universe. However you could say personality is a mask, and when the mask is removed, it may become a game of "borrowing" masks because you do not have one. Some are deeply attached, identified with having this orientation on our side of the coin and desire to return but this is impossible. So, they seek life as a sort of parasite on this side of this coin but they cannot return, just as we cannot travel to this place they occupy except under rare circumstances. Yet, even when we do, we are not fully there, just as on the inverse for them. I suggest and suspect, they are not individuated as we are, they are analogous to an energetic mass that seeks rooting in a sort of mutation of evolution, that is why I termed it a rebellion. I think we have a simplistic view of what evolution constitutes. This fits the mold of greater complexity but in a perverse manner to our religions, desire for neat outcomes, a sort of denial that we are not very pleasant customers and we can turn on a dime. Perhaps it is an involution..It may be that there is no happy ending of an endless carnival of the mind..no guarantee. We want one in all of our animal drives..survival..and it may be we do not dictate the terms of this survival. I suspect there are no extraterrestrials etc except as masks we provide to this other side of the coin.
    Most researchers ( with all due respect) have played a trick on themselves that feeds this phenomenon. I noted that there is a relationship to the coherence of the mass of shared identities we provide as well as anticipations on the whole ( as a group mind) that triggers seeing the same creature in image more than once, or creates flaps that has more to do with a quantum effect than it does cartography. Atmospheric conditions must be ripe inasmuch I believe this phenomenon is like the keyed cylinders in a lock much like the principle of another area a being investigated that of quantum cryptography. There has to be a match on several levels like the cut of a key
    Best Wishes

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, August 12, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home