UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, September 29, 2014

Why the Socorro UFO could NOT be an ET craft

The red symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw on the egg-shaped craft was (it seems) to be a painted symbol.
The problem for ET believers is that is Zamora’s UFO had traveled from outer space to Earth, the (painted) symbol would have deteriorated or been damaged, as paint is affected by space travel, as noted by Wikipedia and The Space Academy:

Impacts of these particles cause erosive damage, similar to sandblasting (Wikipedia)


Particles impact paint and cause small craters in walls and windows.

Elon Musk’s Space X is coping with how to maintain business or corporate logos on reusable space vehicles, affected by the deleterious affects of space travel.
And the First Star Trek movie addressed the matter when it coped with a rampaging entity – V’ger – which was the “Voyager” spacecraft, the name on the craft having been altered by its travels in space.
If Lonnie Zamora’s UFO had traveled from space regions to Earth, it seems that the (painted) insignia would have been altered by that travel: loss of part of the symbol and/or discoloring by the vicissitudes of space travel.



  • One additional tidbit of speculation popped out at me when viewing that insignia again. Yesterday, when I was ruminating what purpose such a terrestrial craft could serve, and came up with the near space, high altitude research craft, in looking at that insignia..
    1. The curved upper portion could represent the curved edge of the earth's upper atmosphere.
    2. The upward pointing arrow's meaning would be obvious if (3) represented a ground based launch.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Hmm. You have no idea of the putative technologies involved in transportation and shielding the unknown machinery and yet attempt to 'prove' the craft can't be 'alien' with this kind of logic?
    To compare any supposedly advanced non-terrestrial technology with rocketry is unfortunately rather laughable. That includes the paint.
    There may be reasons to assume this is secret human technology, but this isn't one of them.
    I appreciate your dogged sleuthing, but these cold cases are VERY cold. There are plenty of contemporary ones.

    By Blogger new illuminati, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • New...

    It's a conjecture.

    And the contemporary UFO sightings don't have the cachet of the "cold cases."

    Socorro thrives because it has a good witness and details that can be studied, still....as redundant or boring as that it for some.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • I recall seeing photos of Apollo capsules looking the worse for wear after re-entry. If we review past photos of alleged UFOs, the "craft" tends to be in pristine condition unmarred by the environs of space travel or our entry into our atmosphere.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • And in the case of the Socorro UFO, Tim, we have a witness who indicated a rather pristine craft.

    The vicissitudes of space travel seems not to have affected the supposed Socorro machine.

    That makes us think it was more Earthian than alien.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Looking at the Trent photos, can anyone really conceive of such an simple object transporting humanoid beings across light years of space?

    The same can be said about the Socorro object, except that in this case we only have one man's description, and no photos to work with.

    But wait! Either of these could well be merely a 'scout craft' or remotely controlled craft, carried within the far larger mother ship that was the real interplanetary or interstellar vehicle. So your argument is, alas, destroyed.

    And the same could apply to the Roswell craft too. Think of that!

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Ah but, CDA, Tim notes how the Apollo crafts were battered in their small sojourn back from the ionosphere.

    Even a craft emanating from a "mother ship" would be met by havoc to its surface.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • You can't compare the highly advanced technologies (centuries ahead of us) of visiting scout craft with our pathetic Apollo craft!

    Again, your argument falls flat.

    Get with it, man. These space guys who visit us are light years ahead of us. They don't bother with such things as paint either.

    Personally, I cannot see why they bother visiting us dumb jerks here on this planet at all. But that is another topic.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • They could be, CDA, alien psychiatrists or anthropologists studying the bizarre fauna.

    Lots of material for that.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Let's throw something else in the mix that would tilt towards Rich's hypothesis, but minus the ravages of space travel.

    There is an impact crater in the vicinity of Flagstaff, AZ that I had visited a couple of years ago. Back in the early 1960s, NASA trained it's astronauts on the floor of the crater with the assumption that the floor would be consistent with that of the surfaces of the moon. I don't recall if any actual or mock up LEM was used.

    So with that bit of info, we can state in confidence that NASA and it's contractors utilized the environs of AZ and possibly New Mexico as a test bed for lunar surface simulations...in real time.


    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • That seems to have been Hughes' modus, Tim.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Rich,

    Here's what I don't understand about your decision to switch the name (and therefore presumably the theme) of your blog to "UFO Conjectures":

    What do you expect to happen after you've laid a conjecture on the table? Are we all supposed to nod our heads in silent agreement? Are we supposed to subject the conjecture to intelligent scrutiny? Are we supposed to add our own free-associations? You often rail against the generally low level of intellectual discourse on this subject; what would you take as evidence of a high level of discourse?

    As a scientist, I have the strong bias that conjecture is only useful to the extent that it can generate hypotheses that can in some way be tested against reality or logic. The human mind can make up any number of "just so" stories about reality; only a fraction of them can actually be true.

    By Blogger Larry, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Larry...

    The point of the blog is to provide imaginative rumination not scientific scrutiny.

    Science thought -- as noted in the astrophysics theorizing about quantum and/or string theory (m theory) -- is often, as I see it, more bogus than ufological attempts at thought.

    I would hope for intellectual (intellgence alone doesn't work for me) discourse, but readers here (CDA, Kurt Peters, et al.) like to get loopy and I allow their input, pretending (by me) to be fearful of instigating censorship.

    Your offerings could (and often do) clarify the issues.

    So comments by you cleanse the palate, as it were.

    Provide edification at will.

    Don't let the loopiness turn you off.

    That's, as Gilles Fernandez often tells us, ufology.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • I'm with Larry. I see no point to conjectures that can't be tested against facts. The search should not be for (new) conjectures but, instead, for new facts that have not previously surfased. The hunt for (new) facts concerning the alleged vehicle seen at Socarro is legitimate (thanks Rich) but conjectures without some testable hypothesis is a waste of all of our time.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • My libral arts bent, Dominick, tells me that fiction often contains truths that other disciplines eschew or miss.

    If I thought UFO buffs were capable of pursuing sightings with scientific acumen (or even logic), I'd head in that direction.

    But, sorry, ufologists are not able to do that and haven't.

    (Larry is an exception. Michael Swords also).

    But for the run-of-the-mill UFO buff, conjecture is all they are able to cope with.

    That they won't go into scientific methodology or research of a real kind is a given.

    So, I'm presenting views that are meant to be viewed as spurs to imaginative rumination from which truth may come.

    Larry's approach appeals to the serious minded, of which this blog has a dearth.

    Also, when one reads Larry's comments here or at Randle's blog, I'm sorry to say, the mind glazes over.

    It's too much knowledge compressed into a comment about a topic that doesn't deserve such extensive thought.

    These are UFOs, after all, and not meaningful in the great scheme of things.

    See, read, hear the news, and you'll know that UFOs are a joke in the context of humanities woes.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • I understand where Larry and Dominick are coming from...I initially came from the scientific school of thought...my undergraduate majors being biology and chemistry with a moderate amount of physics to keep me honest...yes, I trained for the scientific "priesthood." :)

    But, I appreciate the value of conjecture. It allows the flow of imagination regardless of being skeptic or not. Very few of us are publishing credible research papers on the topic as it stands anyway.

    Let's have a little fun with it. I like CDA's devil's advocate...his tongue and cheek, as you will.

    My real job tends to be depressing at times and this allows some degree of entertainment.

    Therefore, let us go forth and conject!

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Thank you Tim.

    Those of us who've long been enamored of flying saucers or UFOs know that the topic has a patina of foolishness.

    To take it (overly) serious seems a bit silly to me.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • I find quite a few of the comments to be entertaining inasmuch as nothing demonstrable or to be tested
    as a theory has ever been revealed about the subject at hand other than debunking this or that.
    The ability to stretch our legs in conjecture with impunity is refreshing in light of the turgid and often personality based religions, belief systems what have you that have solidified around what cannot be proven one way or another.
    The only thing in the many decades I have read on the subject is to utilize it to "think in other categories" which most are incapable of.
    In every truth there is fiction and in every fiction there's some modicum of truth..and Ufologists have been practicing creative writing for decades. The idea that the subject was a basis for competitive point scoring was always laughable. We know less than anyone admits, and ultimately, none of this has accomplished anything but conjecture. Anyone who thinks otherwise as they say, has other "issues".

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • OK, first a quibble and then a substantive remark:

    Most of the deleterious effects of space travel that you mention are due to space travel in low Earth orbit (where the SpaceX capsules spend their lives). When a capsule is whizzing around in Earth orbit, it is just marginally above the sensible atmosphere at a place where the Oxygen molecules are split apart into individual atoms by the ultraviolet component of sunlight. So it is constantly being hit by atomic Oxygen going at speeds near 8 kilometers per second. This acts like a very low density cutting torch, slowly oxidizing any organic material it hits, such as wire insulation, plastic components, and paint. The Earth's gravity well also concentrates the density of micrometeorites in this region--hence the sandblasting effect you refer to. The point is that this only occurs if you spend a lot of time in orbit around a planet that is large enough to gravitationally trap Oxygen gas and interplanetary dust. When we send probes to other planets, they can spend years or decades in deep space with no detectable (on a large scale, at least) damage. So, the absence of these effects observed on the surface of a craft does not mean that that craft did not spend time in space.

    However, atmospheric entry is another story. as Tim Hebert alluded to. It is in the nature of things that when objects travel between the planets using only Newtonian mechanics, they encounter those planets at cosmic velocities (6 kilometers per second, or higher). When a blunt body (which the Zamora object certainly was) enters an atmosphere at those speeds, it creates a strong shock front standing just a little ways in front of the nose of the object. The compression in the shock front raises the air temperature to 5000 degrees, C, or more. No known material can withstand a ball of gas as hot as the surface of the Sun standing a foot or less away, without being evaporated.

    So, the fact that there were no scorch marks, charring, or other indications of exposure to high temperatures is indicative that the object--as observed--did not undergo a conventional high speed atmospheric entry in a Newtonian flow field.

    Broadly, this leads to two choices. Either the object was a hoaxed or perhaps misinterpreted, conventional object (as Paul Hill used the word) or it was an unconventional object--i.e., one operating on a more advanced set of physical principles. General Relativity is the obvious choice and is a suggestion not original to me. As I have pointed out endlessly, there is more than one line of evidence in the Zamora case that the object was unconventional.

    And let me also point out that this explanation allows, but does not require that such unconventional objects are ET (in any possible interpretation of that description). General Relativity craft are not just space ships; they are intrinsically space/time ships.

    By Blogger Larry, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Larry...

    Nice, very nice.

    Now, wasn't that fun? And edifying for us commoners?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 29, 2014  

  • Larry
    If this were a terrestrial vehicle, I suspect ( imagine ) that the egg shape represented a lighter than air envelope attached to a steerable thrust package for near space or upper atmosphere research to make it more recoverable. That would explain the lack of cosmetic damage. Was anything like this or a variation ever attempted? BTW..I saw the report that the ISS was discovered to have plankton or algae on it's skin..which was thought to have been carried up there. Have you heard any explanation for this wild card?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, September 30, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home