UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, September 27, 2014

From A. Hebert (in 2005?): response to a posting at our RRRGroup blog?

I found this missive on a CD archive of UFO material accumulated in the 2005 time-frame.

I don't know if it came to us, in response to a Socorro posting, or I picked it up from elsewhere. (If the latter, I hope the recipient forgives me.)

But I thought the thinking of A. Hebert -- a relative of Tim Hebert? -- was interesting. What do you think?

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but Zamora never actually saw the two beings go into the object before it took off and no one knows what materials the object was made of.

Zamora heard two loud slams, no longer saw the beings and the object took off (according to Ray's book and other accounts). Therefore, no one really knows if the beings were in the object when it took off.

Since we don't know if the beings were actually in the egg-shaped object when it took off, we don't know if their weight was included in the take-off load.  Neither do we know what the object's hull or interior was made of (the word "metallic" is used repeatedly, almost excessively, in references to the object but Zamora only made a visual observation).

If the beings were not in the object when it took off and the object was not made of any kind of metal, perhaps the object itself was some form of balloon/UAV (patents do exist that include these features).  The two loud slams Zamora described hearing could have just as easily been the slamming of two car doors as the "beings" got in a car and drove off beyond Zamora's view and while he was focused on the object as it launched (they may have only appeared small from a distance). Like the LEM, the object may have had small thrusters for maneuverability (going against the wind).

The description of the object emitting flames and a roaring sound while landing and taking off makes it sound more like something man-made - from the '60's - than something from another planet.

A. Hebert

PS: Please excuse this intrusion. I have been studying this case for some time - from the point of view it was man-made and using forms of CC&D. Patents do exist, past and current, with various technologies that resemble what Zamora saw. However, any time I try to reference patents on the Updates list, they never get
posted so I stopped making these references.  They are included in the book I'm writing.

Many of the aerostat patents that utilized thermal and/or gas with thrust from the 60's and 70's were either egg-shaped or saucer-shaped.  Doesn't mean they were actually built.  Only means they were being considered.  Later versions, however, were built and some licensed by the U.S. government or associated agencies.

My hypothesis is the object Zamora saw was an LTA using a sort of jet engine for initial lift with hot air containment and helium reservoirs for sustained buoyancy, thrusters for maneuvering.  May have been manned or unmanned.  No stereos or boomboxes, too heavy. [Grin]


  • In my last comments I used the strange coincidence of the Airship Mystery having occurred during the same time period as the development of the Zeppelin during the 1893-1897 time frame.
    While that craft had utility as a passenger carrying vehicle, the object of this subject seems to have no similar utility. It could easily be shot down as a military reconnaissance vehicle, there was no space program where this could be a candidate for exploring other planets, it had no practical carrying capacity on a terrestrial basis.
    While the 1945 manned and rocket powered VTOL Bachhem Ba 349 was designed to be an interceptor to combat Allied bombers, if I speculate on any practical purpose this craft would have ( in the spirit of pure speculation) what else was occurring then on a possible parallel path? What of high altitude balloons that were launched into near space for atmospheric studies that were difficult to recover? You could theoretically recover an instrument package easily if this vehicle was successful. Or, could it have been used to monitor Soviet nuclear testing programs? Again, this is pure speculative thinking based on the critical assumption that this was a actual craft.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 28, 2014  

  • Rich, I believe you posted a piece from Amy Hebert, as far as I know, not related.

    Amy wrote extensively on UFOs back in the early 2000s. I believe she contributed to some extent to UFO Updates.

    She, per your post, throws and interesting mix into the Socorro story.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, September 28, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home