UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, September 06, 2014

Brit UFO Writer James Easton on Socorro [from UFO UpDates, 2001]

James Easton wrote about the Socorro event, in answer to Don Ledger -- the Shag Harbor advocate -- at UFO Updates in 2001.

Mr. Easton addresses Raven Industries and its balloon prototypes.

Ravin Industries was the CIA front used by Howard Hughes for his lunar lander prototype tests.

Click HERE to read the Easton hypothesis.

RR

1 Comments:

  • It seems that this hot-air balloon nonsense will not die, but here is a quick summary why a hot-air balloon CANNOT POSSIBLY explain Socorro:

    1. The winds were in a completely wrong direction to account for how Zamora reported the object speeding away. (How many times does this have to be repeated? Balloons can't fly against the wind?)

    2. Hot air balloonists only fly in calm weather (unless they have a death wish). At the time of Socorro, a strong low pressure storm system was moving through the state kicking up dust everywhere, including Socorro.

    3. Likewise, balloonists could not maintain a hot air balloon in one place on the ground in gusty winds. Rather, it would have been dragged all over the place.

    4. The object Zamora saw up close (about the size of a car) was much too small to have been a hot-air balloon capable of lifting even two small men, plus platform, rigging, balloon envelope, gas heater, etc. That is why REAL hot-air balloons are the size of apartment buildings, not cars.

    5. The landing impressions left on the ground are not remotely like any hot-air balloon, being much too far apart, rectangular and wedge shaped, also that of an object weighing tons, not a lighter than air craft.

    6. The flames of a hot-air balloon go UP, into the the balloon envelope, not down onto the ground, burning the ground and brush (including slicing a hard-to-ignite greasewood plant cleanly in half.

    There are even more reasons why it couldn't possibly have been a hot-air balloon.

    But aside from it being basically impossible, it's a great explanation, very fitting of James Easton's inability to think critically in a scientifically trained way. He didn't get the name of "the pelicanist" for nothing (from his equally impossible pelican explanation for the Kenneth Arnold sighting).

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home