UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, February 19, 2016

The I Ching, The Socorro/Zamora Symbol, and ???

The February 25th, 2016 issue of The New York Review of Books had a piece (by Eliot Weinberger, Page 20 ff.) about the Chinese work of prophecy, ethics – “a philosophical taxonomy of the universe” Weinberger writes: The I Ching: The Book of Change.

In the article, Weinberger gives this, about the origin of the text (which he says is obscure):

“In the mythological version, the culture hero Fu Xi, a dragon or snake with a human face, studied the patterns of nature in the sky and on the earth: the markings on birds, rocks, and animals, the movement of clouds, the arrangement of the stars.” [Page 20]

This led me to see if any I Ching hexagrams resembled the Zamora-drawn symbol he saw on the UFO craft  he witnessed in 1964, in Socorro, New Mexico. 
Nope. No I Ching hexagram comes close.
  
Here are the symbols, reported to be what Police Officer saw and drew:
One is the “popular” one:
The other is said to be the authentic one, suppressed by the Air Force officer to prevent someone from coming forth and claiming to report it as the thing they saw on the craft that they allegedly witnessed:
Mrs. Zamora told me, in a phone conversation [2006] that the symbol with the arc was what her husband saw and presented to the Air Force and Allen Hynek.

(That may have been a subterfuge, on her part, to keep the “real symbol” a secret still. After all, who was I, a stranger calling for a newspaper she didn’t know?)

But let me suggest this.

As many of you know, I’m “convinced” that what Officer Zamora saw/witnessed was a Hughes Aircraft/Toolco prototype of a moon lander.

And I suspect that, perhaps, what Officer Zamora saw, if the inverted V with three lines through it is the real symbol, was a notification on the “UFO” of the craft’s ladder…
as found in this book of universal, engineering (and other) symbols:
The ladder was in red, as such a safety designation would have been, and represents a mundane symbol.

Further, if what Office Zamora drew and was presented as the symbol he saw, then we have a marking composed of  prosaic symbols astute people are familiar with:

The hobo marking (that says “Authorities here are alert”) from page 91 in the Dreyfuss book:
Or are representations of engineering, business computer, or mathematics, by Hughes engineers who, like Mr. Hughes, had a proclivity for obtuse humor in their designs and publicity (from the Dreyfuss book also):
My point is that the Zamora-drawn symbol for the Socorro UFO may have not been a configuration from extraterrestrial visitors, or the CIA, or anything more esoteric than a routine designation, without profound significance of any kind.

RR

2 Comments:

  • The Hughes Tool Company's Aircraft Division was aimed at the production of light helicopters. Aside from that - and I am no supporter of the ETH theory in case of the Socorro sighting - I don't think the technology was available in 1964 for an object to land, take off and fly away to ultimately disappear in the distance, without sound or flame. Did somebody calculate or postulate a trajectory and where it might have flown off to? The object must have gone to a safe haven, base or departure-arrival point.

    And how did this egg-shaped object without fans or side thrusters propel and steer itself to that point? Zamora saw a vertical flame emitted by the object and heard a big roar, but when it flew away it did so silently and without emitting a flame. And it flew fast: "The object seemed to lift up slowly, and to "get small" in the distance very fast. It seemed to just clear the Box Canyon or Six Mile Canyon Mountain. It disappeared as it went over the mountain. It had no flame whatsoever as it was traveling over the ground, and no smoke or noise."

    If one is able to clear up all these points and parse these details with the status quo of 1964 Hughes technology, the secret Hughes aircraft theory might actually be workable.

    Why did it land at Socorro? Why leave in haste at all? What about his description of the size of the two occupants: "These persons appeared normal in shape — but possibly they were small adults or large kids."

    Based on all this (and the scarcity of useful data) I have a feeling that a secret(ive) Hughes prototype is not the answer.

    By Blogger theo paijmans, at Wednesday, February 24, 2016  

  • Theo:

    We've covered the Hughes suggestion many times here (and elsewhere).

    If you Google Hughes and Socorro you will find those postings, which answer (or attempts to) that your comment asks.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 24, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home