UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Symbolism: Socorro and Otherwise

I have dozens of books on symbolism. This is one, from which this comes [Prefix ix]:

Quoting Manfred Lurker, “The meaning of the symbol does not lie in the symbol itself but points to something else outside of it … The symbol is at once concealment and revelation.”

In the Socorro incident, Lonnie Zamora’s observation was compromised by some military machinations. Why?

The reason – to uncover possible hoaxers – lies fallow.

What was being covered-up or obfuscated?

Here are some alchemical symbols that resemble the popular symbol, which I happen to think is the actual symbol or insignia Officer Zamora saw: 
One can imagine that whomever in the Army or Air Force concocted the bogus symbol, which I think is the inverted V, they got their idea from their military insignia:
The reason I continue to ramble on about the Socorro symbol is that I think it is the vital clue that explains the Zamora sighting.

If it can be proven that the symbol Officer Zamora saw was Earth-derived, it would indicate that the craft he saw was a secret prototype (my preference) or maybe a “shout out” from the NMIT students in Anthony Bragalia’s hoax thesis.

If it seems to be too odd or strange to be accounted as Earth-produced, that would support David Rudiak’s extraterrestrial inclination for the Socorro event.

Either way, the symbol is important. To dismiss it is to shrug of a forensic item that tells us what was seen by Officer Lonnie Zamora in 1964.

(Other observed lettering or symbols on credible UFO sightings, such as the Chopic 1973 account, can be corroborative.)



  • Finding similarities with some other simbols will not settle the case. There maybe thousands or millions of different graphical symbols within the human culture and society and if you start looking for a specific pattern you will certainly find some similarities between the one you are looking, compared to other simbols. You will always find triangles, squares, circles, parallel lines, perpendicular lines, etc. These are universal geometrical figures closely related to the understanding of the technology and the nature, so you could find them in any civilization, in this, or other planet.

    The important fact in the case of Socorro, is that we have a considerably fast flying vehicle, not a balloon, with a strange propulsion system. If I remember well it was noisy at the departure but very silent later. Bring on the human technology capable of that.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Wednesday, June 18, 2014  

  • When investigated by the AF and Army in 1964, nobody could come up with any sort of project, secret or otherwise, that could account for what Zamora saw and the physical evidence left behind. Nobody has come up with a single iota of evidence since then of any sort of terrestrial aircraft that could account for the event. Nitpicking what the actual symbol was is going to get you nowhere.

    We didn't have egg-shaped, wingless VTOL aircraft then or now that could fly off at high speed in total silence. If we did have any such advanced craft, why is there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence for it, including the obvious fact that it was never deployed to replace obsolete jet and rocket propulsion?

    The only possible exception I can think of would be if this was an experimental, back-engineered craft based on alien technology (the silent propulsion and wingless nature are key here), which I very, very seriously doubt to be the case. The origins of such a project you might want to still keep secret.

    If this was an experimental craft then I want to see some actual evidence of that, even if it is nothing more than some BS story from some 80-year-old engineer who claims to have worked on such a project.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Haha, David...

    So you've seen that engineer (at my YouTube videos?)

    You discount the symbol as important but it's like a bullet at a murder scene.

    It's forensic.

    That you discount it is disturbing, since you usually apply such "minutiae" in your research, like the Ramey memo.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • This event has all the chief features, provocations and dead ends that are composed of stereotypical, predictable associations placed in unpredictable and chaotic contexts. One hand washes the other as the normal is malformed into the abnormal.
    I suspect the symbol follows this pattern. This use of what appears to be rocket propulsion to initially lifting the “object” only to have it develop a extremely high velocity without the use of any discernable propulsion is far from being a one time event. This seems to be a caricature of our own normal use of rockets allowing a escape velocity at a much higher altitude. Back then , it was common to have what were thought to be “mechanics” running around the periphery of the craft, even several described as having “Nazi” like uniforms instead of space suits.
    This pattern of retrofuturism was seen in Airships, guided missiles, and now forms than mimic the now common use of what were once called flying wings. The size of a B1 bomber has turned into the caricature of one the size of a football field as described by several pilots. Why didn’t we see this shape during WW2 instead of the futurism of guided “foo fighter” missiles?
    This pattern might suggest to some a long range series of vectoring tests that creates both psychological confusion and pragmatic false “ghost” targets as a tactic within a Trojan Horse scenario. Cheaper and more advanced than actual hard craft. The blinking in and out of visual contact, the game of similarities tied to the incommensurable, if a strategy has worked in a cat and mouse game of confusion. Confusion among civilians and the military all in one tactic of vectoring projections. Theories are a dime a dozen, but these illusions do follow a discernible pattern of making the familiar unpredictable that follows a strict protocol of mimicking the evolution of aircraft in the modern era. Both holography and quantum technology are in their infancy. Has someone already mastered combining the two? If so, it is not ourselves.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • From APRO Bulletin, May 1964: The Lorenzens arrived in Socorro early Sunday morning, the 27th, and interviewed Zamora that afternoon. He wouldn't discuss the symbol for the same reason he gave Strode, and the Lorenzens responded as did Strode. In their interview, Zamora said Holder had asked him not to discuss the symbol. They spoke with Holder who confirmed Zamora's story about it. Holder thought it best to keep the symbol secret to discourage copycats.

    Note, there is nothing from either Zamora or Holder about publicizing a phony symbol. Zamora, in this and the Strode interview, simply refused to discuss it, as he had been requested not to.

    Like Strode, the Lorenzens didn't push the matter, but they "had already gotten a description of the markings". They don't, of course, describe it or illustrate it. Why do something easy and reasonable?

    However, they write: "The markings -- in red -- appear to be the opening to the craft. They certainly look like the outline of double doors". And that is the PBB symbol, not the inverted V.

    The Lorenzen's wrote Zamora said, the FBI had asked him to not mention the two figures he had seen, and the white coveralls story was his attempt to comply, but gave it up since the two figures story was so well known.

    So, both the army and the FBI pressure Zamora, and then the USAF shows up and probably invented the inverted V story. I can see why Zamora was not happy camper.

    David has a good point. the non-ETH opinion has had 50 years to identify the object or even just the symbol. No one has. I think everyone, skeptics included, have dropped the balloon theory -- except for Tony and Frank...they've got 'sticktoitivness', I grant them that.

    Beside the army patches Rich posted, a 'flying A' is a dead common "marking" in the aviation industry.



    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • I think this is stuck in a either \ or straight jacket. Either it's an extraterrestrial craft or a terrestrial craft. I suspect the medium is the message. A visual language from elsewhere that takes the input of current aviation and its evolution one step up without too much exaggeration as a response.
    What form would a SETI program take a thousand years from now?
    Is the language of vision a universal one?
    Is this the proverbial monolith in our midst? Is this phenomenon awaiting us to evolve technology to the point of recognizing and achieving a response?
    Is there an acknowledgement of something observing our activities? Is the use of visual symbols as projections not recognized as a language?
    Is the message both an acknowledgement and a response?
    I think the inability to think outside of the box makes this exercise a redundant series of two dead ends.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • I haven't read Stanford's book. I don't read ufologists about a case until I've got myself oriented to the time and place of a case from the earliest documents, especially developing news stories (the story as it happens, on the hoof, so to speak).

    Reading his comments on the UFO Chronicles' website, I just don't understand why he doesn't see that his 'proof' (basically, what David posted here from his website) doesn't prove the inverted V was the real symbol that was kept secret, while the other one was phony and to be publicized, since it is his supposed real symbol that was publized throughout the world by the AP -- and that according to the evidence he quotes in support.

    Either I am missing something obvious, or there is a real cognitive dissonance on display in his comments on the Chronicle website.



    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Don...

    You see it as I do.

    It is almost apparent that the inverted V is the bogus insignia, if one follows the media accounts and Stanford's rendering(s).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Ray Stanford on the Paracast forums shows the letter from Hynek to Quintanilla and Blue Book dated Sept. 7, 1964 (recently uncovered by him and James Fox at the National Archives) with Hynek's version of the inverted V symbol (with two lines through it and one above it), which Hynek is treating as the real symbol and seems to be assuming Q. & B.B. are as well.


    The substance of the letter is Hynek trying to match the inverted V to that of a company called Astropower, though it seems Astropower was still a start-up company and only manufactured solar cells. Hynek and B.B. were still trying to find alleged terrestrial source of the craft Zamora saw.

    Several points arise here:
    1) There is no point trying to match a phony symbol to a real one. Hynek had to have still believed the inverted V was the real one 4 months later, just as quoted by AP and recorded in an interview with Walter Shrode 5 days after the event (or the day after Hynek arrived and first interviewed Zamora).

    2) Hynek and B.B. were clearly of the belief 4+ months later that Zamora had sighted a real aircraft. (No point in trying to find a terrestrial source if you don't believe that.)

    3) Blue Book only showed the other symbol (arch with arrow and line below) in their official documents.

    So you have to ask yourself why Hynek/B.B. weren't trying to match the arch symbol, the one they obviously knew about, the one that eventually became the well-known public one? They were instead trying to match the inverted V.

    This corroborates Stanford's case that ALL the Socorro police he talked to (in other words, the first responders like Chavez who probably all talked to Zamora BEFORE Cpt. Holder became involved), told him that the inverted V with 3 lines was the symbol Zamora told them he had seen. KFRC's Walter Shrode probably spoke with many of the same sources as Stanford, and likewise raised the inverted V symbol with him (with Zamora refusing to comment).

    And this was the same one being searched for by Hynek/B.B. 4+ months later. At the very least, I think this disproves Don's thesis that B.B. had Zamora alter the symbol to the inverted V instead of Holder.

    Also I seriously doubt Holder had the moxie to get all the Socorro police on board with a phony symbol or would have withheld the real symbol from B.B. and sent them on a wild goose chase for the wrong symbol.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • But you can see, David, that the matter is still an open question.

    You aren't overly concerned because the symbol is not that significant for your evaluation.

    But it is important, forensically so.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • David: "And this was the same one being searched for by Hynek/B.B. 4+ months later. At the very least, I think this disproves Don's thesis that B.B. had Zamora alter the symbol to the inverted V instead of Holder."

    I don't think I said my thesis is that PBB invented the inverted V, but that the USAF did.

    Connors was from Kirtland and Moody from "back East". I recall that "intelligence officers" were early on the scene -- as well as the FBI (who according to the AP, I think, referred all inquiries about the event to Holder).

    So, maybe project saucer didn't have a need to know (I've seen this before).

    Best Regards,


    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • I will keep this brief and non-technical to avoid the eyes –glazing-over that always seems to occur whenever I try to use quantitative reasoning in these blogs. But, since Bruce brought up the rocket-like blue flame that Zamora described and I am the resident rocket scientist, I thought I should mention something that would be obvious to any experienced rocket scientist: the blue “flame” was NOT a rocket exhaust as conventionally defined.

    There are several details of Zamora’s observation that are inconsistent with conventional rockets. First, Zamora was quite clear and went to some length to describe the blue “flame” as being a truncated cone of light, where the apex of the cone appeared to be up, inside the center of the object (he even gave the relative angular size of the cone, in arc minutes). For very good fluid dynamics reasons, a well-designed rocket exhaust jet exits the nozzle with substantially parallel sides. A conically diverging fluid flow field can be shown mathematically to not be stable. On the other hand, a conically diverging field IS consistent with an energetic phenomenon whose intensity diminishes with the square of the distance from the source—i.e., radiation.

    While we are on that topic, Zamora also gave a clear and consistent description of the interface between the blue light and the ground. He described the light as appearing to penetrate the solid surface of the ground (like radiation would—although he did not use that word). That’s not what rocket exhaust plumes do. NASA (and I’m sure other Space Agencies as well) have studied this phenomenon at some length because it is critically important when you plan to land a rocket propelled vehicle on the unprepared surface of another planet (e.g., Mars). What rocket exhaust plumes actually do is excavate the surface immediately underneath the point of contact. The supersonic jet of exhaust gas is actually quite efficient at this and was even investigated by DARPA at one point as a method for digging into and defeating (i.e., blowing up) buried underground bunkers. I’ve personally watched NASA videos of tests of this sort; they hurl excavated material to substantial distances and leave a large crater underneath and a massive plume of dust that lingers in the sky for several minutes. None of these characteristic signatures were observed either by Zamora or any of the witnesses who arrived shortly after the takeoff.

    I could go on, but I will mention only one more phenomenon: the vitrified sand and “bubbly” rocks reported right at the point where the blue light touched the ground. Any one familiar with the effects of nuclear weapons will recognize these as tell-tale products of high power deposition of radiant energy into the sand and rock (“Trinitite”). In a different forum, I presented data from Samuel Glasstone’s classic book, “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons” to show that the level of radiant energy necessary to create Trinitite at the point of contact between the blue light and the ground was about the same level needed to create prompt singeing and burning of the green foliage of the desert bushes AND the immediate heat that Zamora felt on his face while standing perhaps 30 feet away. I could give another lecture—but won’t—on why all these phenomena CAN be produced by relatively high power radiant energy but CANNOT be produced by a rocket plume or a blow torch (I will just say that the physics of the two processes are completely different).

    In summary, at least two of the essential characteristics of rocket plumes (parallel fluid flow and excavation of surface material) were entirely absent and at least 3 essential characteristics of a radiant energy field (one-over-R-squared diminution of power with distance, finite optical extinction depth in surface material, and creation of Trinitite) were present.

    Taking all these multiple lines of evidence together, a suitably qualified expert would conclude that it was not a rocket ship that was flying around in the skies of Socorro, it was a high-energy physics experiment.

    By Blogger Larry, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Is anyone familiar with the work of Dr. Mario Pazzaglini? His book sounds very interesting.

    By Blogger Clayton Robertson, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • @Larry so something like a particle beam then? THe problem is that I've never heard of any kind of test vehicle like that, let alone something so compact for the time frame. :/

    Plus there would be activation of the sintered sand and what not...

    By Blogger Clayton Robertson, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Clayton and Larry...

    Interesting points but off topic.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Quoting Zamora from PBB, describing the take-off:

    "Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color."

    And on first seeing it:

    "Flame was bluish and sort of orange too."

    Sounds just like an everyday flame, like a stove or a match, and implies a temperature gradient.



    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Don:

    Off topic.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • O.K. so let's bring the discussion back on topic. Larry suggests convincingly that this may have been some sort of a "high energy physics experiment" and almost everyone else suggests that Zamora saw some sort of a red insignia on the vehicle. (Let's also not forget that he also said that he saw two small figures near the vehicle). The question then is: Is there any evedence, any at all, that the U.S.(or any private contractor) has EVER tested a high energy physics experiment with a red insignia, either before 1964 or after? And if the answer to that question is "no evidence whatever" then what conclusion, however improbable, are we left with?

    By Blogger Dominick, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Dominick:

    That's the very question and core query that should have been investigated thoroughly long ago; not the facile search for test prototypes that UFO researchers and some agencies said they did.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • RR -

    ...some thoughts:

    Starting with it's first incarnation as the Continental Army, the oldest US military arm is the Army; so they would likely have the oldest and most extensive collection of US Govt applied/used 'symbols'.

    The Army post-WW2 set Von Braun's V-2 kids (Paperclip) up at White Sands, NM to develop the US rocket/missile programs.

    In 1947 the 509th at Roswell was part of the Army.

    By the 1960s the Army's Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville AL (and co-located with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, then home to Von Braun and his boys and his Saturn V) was (and is) their center of rocket propulsion development. (Their test facility is this: http://www.smdc.army.mil/kwaj/baseops.html)

    ...so I find it unsurprising that an Army officer would quickly talk to Zamora. And having just passed the 70th of D-Day, just peruse photographically the variety of geometric symbols used by the Army on their amazing array of ground and air vehicles...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • P.S. Von Braun's earlier employers during WW2 were also rather fond of a variety of geometric symbols...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, June 19, 2014  

  • Larry
    I found your analysis intriguing as a couple of years ago, a did a thorough analysis of the Reich physicists employed as managerial technocrats at NASA. I suspect they had dual roles. One was public and the other was hidden for very good reasons. The latest revelation that the Reich's manager of black projects was ferreting into this country by the CIA after they planted the story of his suicide is intriguing.
    Another aspect was the odd postwar vanishing act of prominent physicists who disappeared without a trace and had no war crimes baggage.
    All that is intriguing in terms of where an advanced propulsion system could have originated as the terrestrial explanation.
    However, I think the methodology of making one case the alpha and omega of this mystery is deeply flawed.
    Its a game of A is similar to B but the scope is much larger and complicated. I received a photograph taken in the summer of 2004 here in the U.S that matches multiple witness and video tape evidence in Iraq that occurred simultaneously.It is a unique form never to be seen again.Same for the egg shape described in this case. How do we explain this?
    One case does not an explanation make.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 20, 2014  

  • Also
    I think there is a very strong focus on a single path of explanation that suits all events whereas it seems obvious to me as the lone dissenter that there are concurrent paths as explanations. Concurrent black projects, concurrent CIA meddling, concurrent incommensurable events, concurrent pathological liars etc.
    I think taking one case such as Roswell or this one misses the entire point of a broader look at the scope of evidence.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 20, 2014  

  • Fascinating, Bruce, but really off topic.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 20, 2014  

  • David: "So you have to ask yourself why Hynek/B.B. weren't trying to match the arch symbol, the one they obviously knew about, the one that eventually became the well-known public one? They were instead trying to match the inverted V."

    In order to get a readable view of the letter, I have to be a member of paracast, and I'm not.

    If Hynek and PBB were so interested in the two symbols, why didn't they just ask Zamora about it?

    Here is the issue: if Zamora lied to the USAF about the symbol, then his entire testimony becomes "beclouded" and that kills 'Socorro' right then and there because we really have nothing at all except Zamora's good reputation. Stanford's story, in my opinion, screws with that, whether he knew it or not (probably "not").


    In a previous Socorro discussion here, mention was made of the tendency to casually refer to Capt Holder as an "air force officer".

    Do you think both Zamora and Chavez in 1964 would have made that mistake? What about the FBI?

    David: "(in other words, the first responders like Chavez who probably all talked to Zamora BEFORE Cpt. Holder became involved), told him that the inverted V with 3 lines was the symbol Zamora told them he had seen)."

    "Chavez said Zamora told him the design was an inverted V with three bars crossing it, but that the Air Force had told him not to discuss the markings.”

    Prior to the arrival of Major Conner and T/Sgt Moody, there is no mention at all of any markings. From the beginning the press had Zamora's story rather complete -- except for the symbol. This is why accurately dating the Strode interview is important. Zamora is never directly quoted describing the symbol. When he is asked about it, he replies he was requested not to discuss it, which explains why the early, detailed accounts given to the press did not include a mention of the symbol.

    We are told Zamora described the symbol, but we never find him doing so 'on the hoof', only through attribution.

    The entire collection of "insignia" drawings in the PBB files are under "Tab A", Lt. (sic) Holder's files. Several appear within Zamora's three page statement, others are full size pages with Zamora's signature.

    Holder and Zamora conspired together to dupe the USAF?

    Why believe anything at all, then, re Socorro? Where did the hoax (for that is what it would be) stop? Where there two figures in white, for instance? Did Zamora really drop his eyeglasses? Did the object really quickly disappear into the sunset? Why believe any of it sans Zamora's probity?

    Best Regards,


    By Blogger Don, at Friday, June 20, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home