UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Again -- A Socorro Explanation?

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.


A while back I was asked for some supplemental information for our suggestion that Lonnie Zamora's 1964 Socorro sighting was a prosaic (Howard Hughes) test procedure, gone astray.

Hughes was testing moon landers and satellite launchers, under the rubric of the CIA's cover industry. Raven Industries in the 1964 Socorro time-frame.. (There are a number of pieces by me/us about this online here and at our RRRGroup blog.)

There are two patent requests that I couldn't find when asked about this a few months back, but here they are now (from P.E. Yost, for Hughes Toolco/Aircaft):

Our conjecture is merely that, a conjecture, that, for us, is plausible, if one considers that certain aspects of the 1964 mishap (in Socorro), mistaken by Officer Zamora were somewhat different than what is represented here; that is, the Hughes/Raven configuration that ended up on the Socorro desert floor was modified from what the patent drawings here show -- but the essential configuration remains intact.

This is a consideration, not a proof, of course..



  • Certainly he was one of the aggressive pioneers of the military \ industrial entanglement aided and abetted by the CIA. No conspiracy theories required and then there was his "former FBI\CIA " right hand go to man as his Chief of Operations. Certainly, again, any covert testing as a security matter would need a cover. This sort of enormous octopus of resources and players is not that far fetched to consider as possibly pulling the wool over the eyes over a nice sampling of experts and civilians. Recall the "oceanic research" ship Glomar Explorer used to covertly lift an entire Soviet submarine.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, June 12, 2013  

  • Rich, what would it take to falsify, in your mind, this conjecture?

    Is there any appeal to the laws of physics which, if verified would cause you to agree that a balloon--regardless of its source--can be dismissed as a possible explanation for what Zamora saw?

    By Blogger Larry, at Wednesday, June 12, 2013  

  • I've seen your refutation(s) Larry, and they are exemplary.

    However, I maintain that one has to consider that, while Lonnie Zamora was an excellent witness, he may have mistook a (for the time) bizarre prototype test in a number of ways that skewed the observation towards something more exotic that it actually was.

    His timings could be off, his loss of glasses (vision) during the departure could have caused mis-observation data, and we're not proffering a balloon as the craft seen -- that would be ludicrous -- but the craft was the thing tethered.

    Yes, I know, Zamora didn't report a helicopter tugging a carrier basket or crew device, but there are test items that could account for what he saw, and misreported, only because of his excitement during the episode.

    But have at it, again, or point readers here to your views elsewhere if you like,

    They will be edified.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 12, 2013  

  • I happen to think the Zamora sighting remains an authentic mystery, having nothing to do with ET. The attempts to explain it away as a hoax or misperceptions of a military/aerospace testing craft I find unpersuasive. I find it amusing and ironic that so many Roswell believers (who I routinely mock) no longer take the Zamora sighting seriously, even though I do not think it has been adequately debunked at all.

    It's also ironic that I am in agreement with the likes of D Rudiak (whose work here impresses) and other Roswell believers, that this sighting remains an authentic UFO type event (let me stress I don't personally think it was an alien craft).

    It's also ironic that I am in sharp disagreement with some fellow non-ET believers on this sighting. Such is the loopy world of ufology!

    What needs to be taken into consideration re Zamora is that the Zamora sighting needs to be seen in the context of other impressive close encounter UFO sightings, with reliable witnesses over the past decades, many of course with alleged physical traces and effects; and the fact that there are unconscious psychological motives to reject the Zamora sighting, as with all apparently impressive and authentic UFO events.

    That is deep taboos are touched when it comes to the Unknown. This motive has been largely (albeit not entirely) overlooked when it came to the revelation of the Tech students' claim that the whole thing was a prank. I am not going to expand on these unconscious psychological motives here.

    By Blogger Lawrence, at Thursday, June 13, 2013  

  • While we don't pretend our conjecture for Socorro is the explanation, we also do not subscribe to a final ET verdict.

    Although other egg-shaped UFOs were reported in many places -- some close to Socorro (La Madera) and others far flung (see out previous listing here), and indicate real phenomenal events, one can't say those events are ET premised.

    But they do bespeak something intriguing.

    They all can't be hoaxes or prototypical experiments.

    Socorro remains a bell-weather UFO event, as Lawrence intimates.

    However, what can be mined from the witness account that can solve the mystery?

    We think, and keep writing, that it is the insignia or symbol on the craft that Officer Zamora drew.

    Now if we only knew which if the two proffered is the one he actually saw.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 13, 2013  

  • You also have to take into account the fact that Hynek, the AF and Quintanilla, spent a lot of time on this case. It is very hard to accept that the AF would not, in their investigation, have come across things like prototype testing of lunar landing craft, Hughes aircraft or balloon borne craft of some kind.

    The AF had access to all sorts of info as to what was going on and where in this line. They drew a complete blank. Why? Did they omit something in their inquiries?

    Also, as soon as the sighting got publicity, surely those responsible (i.e. the two humans supposedly seen) would have come forward and identified themselves, and the mystery would thus be solved. Or if not, surely they would have stepped forward after, say, a few years and said "it was us". The date, time and exact location were known. Yet nothing of this kind has ever happened.

    It is this that caused Quantanilla to speculate that the event was likely in Zamora's mind and that he had fabricated most, if not all, of it, for reasons unknown.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, June 13, 2013  

  • CDA:

    I love your chutzpah!

    Hughes was operating within the darkest, deepest CIA cover at the time (1963), even collaborating with The Russkies about lunar landers.

    The Air Force and, certainly, Hynek, had no idea or reason to seek out Hughes' enterprises.

    (We've provided ample documentation about this at this blog and the RRRGroup blog over the past few years.)

    As for Officer Zamora hallucinating the event, which left tangible traces, the suggestion is ludicrous.

    Moreover, en event at La Madera very much north of Socorro, a day or so afterwards, was similar in descriptive witness and Air Force accounts.

    AS mentioned, there were also, in the time-frame, a slew of egg-shaped craft sightings around the world (also listed here in earlier postings).

    Our friend Tony Bragalia says Socorro was a hoaxed event, putting upon Officer Zamora who was said to have a beer now and then.

    Mr. Brgaglia also finds alcohol in the La Madera episode.

    We have discounted those observations, and cite the many other egg-shaped UFO sightings of the period.

    Lonnie Zamora's witness account, although botched by Ray Sanford and others, is one of the best on the UFO record.

    What he saw may not have been an ET event or a mis-perceived prototype test, but it was something intriguing. even to this day.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 13, 2013  

  • For the moment, Rich, at least imho and to be frank, your RAVEN/CIA/Hugues (or call it as you prefer), is "weak". No?

    Dave Thomas have, at least, a log this day, for his "Surveyor hypothesis" (even if I'm not convinced by his hypothesis, as "I" developped in our French forum examing the work made in Reality Uncovered forum, discussion already pointed).

    Tony Bragalia have some clues too (same, I have difficulties with the prank hypothesis for several reasons).

    The balloon hypothesis made by Larry Robinson (http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/howisoco.htm) is interresting, but, "same".

    I believe it is maybe more "simple".

    Dunno you know (you or others) who used "the deposit of dynamite"? A mining compagny or? Just curious...


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, June 13, 2013  

  • The key piece in all of this is, IMO, is that Zamora didn't have his glasses on during his sighting of whatever it was. The real questions here are was he farsighted, nearsighted, astigmatic? How bad was his vision without glasses (meaning how strong were the corrective lenses that he needed to be wearing in order to "see" the object sharply at the distances he saw it)?

    This is at the very heart of the Zamora sighting and yet so many want to just dismiss it. Whether it was a hoaxed balloon, Hughes lander, or craft from Alpha Centauri, how sure can we be that he saw what he believed he saw without some facts about his visual acuity at the time?

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Friday, June 14, 2013  

  • PG:

    When I talked with Mrs. Zamora (again) in 2005, she told me that her husband needed glasses to see anything.

    They were necessary to his vision.

    She didn't say what his vision problems were, but David Rudiak, a doctor of Optometry I think, addressed this issue at UFO UpDates and elsewhere after the brouhaha I created by noting that no one at the time or after had looked into the eyeglass mishap -- Lonnie losing them as the craft departed.

    This doesn't affect his initial description of what he saw: the craft, the two beings, the insignia, just the departure and fly-away.

    So any debate about vision has to center on that part of his sighting,

    He has to have visual acuity to be a police officer and as Dr. Rudiak points out, his vision for most of the episode can be taken as solid.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 15, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home