UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Amy Hebert's take on Socorro (and Lonnie Zamora's vision), from our archive

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 (patentsdo 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 hewas 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 roaringsound 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 usingforms 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 meansthey 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 ofjet 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]


  • What is not considered is the role of conceptual modeling defined by “a concept is an abstraction or generalization from experience or the result of a transformation of existing concepts. The concept reifies all of its actual or potential instances whether these are things in the real world or other ideas.”
    Being familiar with the varying prototypes of direct landing craft for a moon mission, even up to the present day, they all have the same tripod arrangement as the vehicle sighted. The Soviet moon lander looked somewhat similar to what Zamorra saw. Here is a recent prototype.
    What I see is a parallel pattern to these similarities. In nearly every case we have a formula that whatever appears seems to mimic either early prototypes or just in advance of a working model. Whether it is a lighter than air ship with propulsion,( the airship flap ) an aircraft intercepting rocket ( Foo-Fighter ), a flying wing like the B1, perhaps we can add a moon lander.
    These five examples, however are juxtaposed with what the imagination can construct as to what an otherworldly vehicle could resemble (as we have no conceptual models)...It makes me wonder when the concept of a saucer craft first appeared as an imaginary vehicle. What Arnold saw more closely resembled a Horton | Nazi jet fighter.
    So we have extraterrestrial vehicles mixed with our own prototypes. All of them are conceptual in nature. In the steam powered airship, the weight of a steam boiler coal supplies, the heat of it, water etc and the availability of covert fueling stations makes it implausible but..the concept of the propelled lighter than air vehicle appeared later with the Zeppelin. The same applies to radar and \ or heat seeking missiles in WW2 Foo Fighters that track aircraft..while the technology was not present, the concept was later developed.The moon lander is another that technically was not worked out until much later..but the concept is valid.
    So one one hand we have general concepts without a technical practicality that are based on experience and on the other, models that we have no experience with...more in the realm of imaginative ideas..but both classes are ,in essence, conceptual.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 20, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home