UFO Conjectures

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?

RR
----------------------------------
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]

Howard Hughes, UFOs, and Socorro

Most of you know that I’ve long advocated a conjecture that Howard Hughes [Aircraft/Toolco] was responsible, inadvertently, for Lonnie Zamora’s Socorro sighting (or event) of 1964.


As usual there is no “smoking gun” but circumstantial material helps support the conjecture and UFO researchers have ignored that material in their haste to accept the notion that police officer Zamora saw a bona fide alien craft or was the subject of an elaborate hoax by New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology students.

(Note Hughes' logo on his card above. Hughes and his employees liked to display such graphics on their enterprises -- airplanes, factories, business cards, letterheads, et cetera.)

The excerpts from the paper cited below indicate to me that Hughes has been in the aerospace mix (deeply involved with the U.S. military) since before Roswell. And his forays in the southwest desert (New Mexico) were many in the 1945-1965 time-frame, encompassing the Roswell and Socorro events.

This proves nothing, I understand that, but it does provide grist for investigation if one really wants to get to the bottom of what happened near Roswell and particularly what happened in Socorro, April 1964.

Billion Dollar Technology: A Short Historical Overview of the Origins of Communications Satellite Technology, 1945-1965

by David J. Whalen 

While some communications satellite technology flows from one manufacturer to another, much is protected by patents, and even more is protected by the difficulty of learning new technology. Technology transfer, even when facilitated by cooperation, is often difficult. Many early geosynchronous satellites used techniques pioneered by Hughes on Syncom in 1963. The Hughes-Williams patent was the subject of litigation for years, but it proved to be quite valuable to Hughes. Eventually, most other manufacturers and the U.S. government had to pay royalties to Hughes. Perhaps more important, Hughes has dominated the manufacture of communications satellites since the first Syncom in 1963. The risk of competitors appropriating technology is greatly overstated. 

The Hughes Aircraft Company Task Force on Commercial Satellite Communication25 met for the first time a few weeks later on 12 October 1959. 

Hughes alone (successfully) had attempted to design a cheap lightweight spacecraft.

AT&T paid for the development of Telstar and reimbursed NASA for the launch services. Hughes paid the development costs of the protoflight Syncom satellite, although NASA underwrote the construction of the actual flight models.

Murphy outlined the work conducted at Hughes from 1959 to 1961 on satellite design and testing, all with company funds. As a result, Hughes could launch its first Syncom only 17 months after signing a contract. 

The year 1964 had begun with a contract for two geosynchronous satellites (model HS-303, the Early Bird) for Comsat. In March, NASA had awarded Hughes a contract for five Applications Technology Satellites, and in August, Syncom 3 was launched into geostationary orbit.

9. Project RAND, Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship, Report No. SM-11827 (Santa Monica, CA: Project RAND, May 1946).

117. It should be pointed out that future Hughes systems depended on the "gyrostat" principle developed at Hughes by Anthony Iorillo and demonstrated on the Army TACSAT.
------------------------
N.B. This paper is online at our private UFO site and I'd normally provide it here, but since it seems that only CDA is reading my provided finds, uploading such papers for edification here seems superfluous, futile.

RR