UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

What Lonnie Zamora saw in Socorro [1964]?


Winzen had sold plastic balloons to the Navy, the Air Force and several Universities for projects like Moby Dick, Strato-Lab, Skyhook, a secret reconnaissance mission to overfly Russia called Project Genetrix, as well other scientific projects.




  • A Ballon...again!?

    Why not Swampgas?`:D

    By Blogger Michael Mu, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015  

  • Haha MM:

    It's not the balloon but the gondola.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015  

  • Yes, but a gondola cannot fly without a rather large balloon attached to it. A gondola with a balloon attached to it cannot fly away into the distance in a couple of minutes.

    Rich, why not factor the laws of Physics into your conjectures?

    By Blogger Larry, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015  

  • The balloon aspect I've always eschewed Larry, thinking the gondola or, rather, LEM prototype (by Hughes) was what was seen.

    The balloon was used in the 50s, but in the 60s experiments were devoid of the balloon, and gondola-like enclosures were being developed, some self-propelled.

    I've placed pictures online over the years to make my point(s).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015  

  • And let me add Larry, that there was an evolutionary approach to Hughes and others devices for moon landings, satellite launches, and space travel, as you well know.

    Zamora was privy to one experiment, at one moment in time.

    I've posted about this many times, which you can find via Google.

    The "science" involved is pertinent to that moment in time and a general application of knowledge about physics has to be qualified also by that moment.

    One can't be myopic.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015  

  • http://ufoupdateslist.com/2005/feb/m02-008.shtml

    Check out the article by Eastland.

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015  

  • Thanks, Ed...

    I think I've noted this in a previous post, maybe at our RRRGroup blog in 2006 or so.

    And Nick Redfern has done something on it a few times.

    It's a viable speculation despite Rudiak's plaint and Larry's need for science data.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015  

  • Rich wrote: “….there was an evolutionary approach to Hughes and others devices for moon landings, satellite launches, and space travel, as you well know.”

    Yes, I do know that quite well. I have been on every NASA crewed lunar lander study team of the last 30 years. Which is why I also know that the device that Zamora described was not on that evolutionary path. In particular, no lunar lander is ever designed, much less built, in the absence of a mission architecture (i.e., the path) that it is intended to be part of. One of the most critical parts of that path is the launch vehicle that the lander is intended to fly on. In 1964, there was only one such vehicle that would have been pertinent, and that was the Saturn V launch system. A couple of years earlier, in 1962, NASA had frozen the design of the Saturn V that would be used for the Apollo program and had selected the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission architecture. In that architecture, or path, the Lunar Lander is required to burn off about 2 kilometers per second of orbital velocity using its rocket thrusters in order to descend from Lunar orbit. It then takes another 2 kilometers per second to get back up to lunar orbit, when it’s time for the astronauts to leave the moon. The only way this architecture fits in the mass budget is if the mission uses one rocket stage to get from lunar orbit to the surface, leaves that stage on the surface, and then uses another, smaller stage to ascend back from the lunar surface to orbit.

    This result is quite generalizeable; if you’re flying some payload to the lunar surface that you want to get back (like crew, for example) you leave the descent stage on the lunar surface and depart the moon in a smaller ascent vehicle. There are numerous reasons for this other than just the mass consideration, but they all point to the same conclusion—you separate the stages at the lunar surface.

    But that’s not what Zamora says that the object he saw (and which you conjecture was a secret moon lander built by Hughes) did. According to the narrative, the object flew around for a few minutes before landing (scaring a car full of tourists in the process) landed down in the arroyo out of sight, then took off and flew away toward the horizon for minute or two. In the parlance of we rocket scientists, that is a single-stage descent-ascent vehicle. Such a vehicle has no place in real life lunar exploration architectures. There is no way to get it to the moon and get it back with realizeable rockets. The Hughes aerospace engineers were excellent—I know this from other projects I was involved with that used Hughes engineers. They would not have invested any money and effort in an obvious dead end enterprise.

    What you don’t seem to get is that if you pose the conjecture that what Zamora saw was an ET spacecraft, then that is essentially an undecideable proposition. So people can (and have and will) debate that endlessly. If, on the other hand, you conjecture that what Zamora saw was a conventional aerospace vehicle of some sort (balloon, helicopter, rocket, etc.), then that is a decideable proposition. It has a yes-no answer. An ET vehicle is presumably built by ETs using who knows what technology. Balloons, helicopters, and rockets are designed and built by humans using extremely well understood technology and engineering principles. All you have to do is compare what Zamora described with the known characteristics of conventional vehicles of the era and note any discrepancies. There are many. You think this is a matter of opinion, but it's not; it has been studied many, many times by very competent people, and the answer always comes back the same.

    But for some reason, you don’t want a yes-no answer.

    By Blogger Larry, at Thursday, April 02, 2015  

  • I hate yes/no "answers" Larry.

    I have a video on YouTube from an old guy saying it was a LEM-test.

    Was he lying? Maybe.

    But it wrecks the idea that we can have a yes/no answer for Zamora's vehicle.

    It's like the Jesus question? Did He resurrect? Yes or no?

    It can't be answered so succinctly.

    Nor can what Zamora saw be answered succinctly.

    Otherwise the matter would have been shut down years ago.

    You seem unwilling to accept that Hughes Aircraft/Toolco could have experimented with a device that
    was tested near Socorro and seen by Officer Zamora.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 02, 2015  

  • "... Bernard 'Duke' Gildenberg, learned...that on April 24, 1964, there were special tests being conducted at the north end of the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) involving a helicopter used to carry a Lunar Surveyor around for some tests."

    And we know that Bell had been developing lunar landing vehicles for Apollo at White Sands for a few years before 1964.

    The Lunar Surveyor test assembly has date in its favor, but a Bell prototype more closely matches some key aspects (a jet engine) of what Zamora described. It even had a NASA logo with a red "vector."

    The facts of "Socorro" could be just that simple. But for one surprised and frightened man's failure to identify a bit of unfamiliar space technology, a mythical "UFO" report was generated.

    Given that Zamora's account is somewhat scattered, I think a Bell prototype is the most likely identity. That is, until a better match is presented.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, April 02, 2015  

  • I've included a photo of that Bell helicopter in a previous posting about Socorro.

    You should find it via Google.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 02, 2015  

  • I also strongly suspect a terrestrial vehicle in terms of probability but until the declassification process culls through that era, it remains a tantalizing possibility. Unfortunately, if and when any traceable information is released and by way of painstaking research is found, my own view is that confirmation is "on hold" as I know you have examined this case from every angle without a concluding narrative in hand. I also suspect I will be long in my grave when and if information comes to light.... as tens of millions of documents remain to be reclassified by a paltry staff.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, April 03, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home