UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Ufology’s “smoking guns” – the Socorro insignia (this time)

Over at our friend Kevin Randle’s blog is a posting about the 1964 Socorro event, witnessed by Police Officer Lonnia Zamora, one of the exemplary witnesses in all of UFO lore.

Kevin presents the episode in his meticulous way, as usual, and then the UFO crazies are allowed their say in his commentary section.

Comments by UFO buffs is where the whole topic of UFOs falls apart. Those who have an opinion lack logic, common sense, and realistic loquacity.

Kevin believes in democracy and lets stand such obvious idiocies.

But it’s infuriating to us who try to be as intelligent as possible when it comes to examining UFO stories, old and new.

In the case of Socorro, the smoking gun, as I keep nagging, is that insignia that Zamora saw and drew.

The problem is that the symbol or insignia has two interpretations and no one knows for sure which one is the authentic insignia:
Ray Stanford insists it’s the inverted V with three lines through it. Others, including me, think it’s the haloed arrow.

The search for the source of that insignia has been grueling and long, once linked to a story of a balloon expedition by a paper company that allegedly landed in Socorro on the date of the Zamora-witnessed UFO.

Whether it’s the inverted V or the haloed arrow, the point is that the symbol connects us to the source of the thing seen by Officer Zamora, whether Earthly or not.

A fellow once gave us an interpretation based upon the logo used by Howard Hughes’s Toolco and/or aircraft company.

But that turns out not to be conclusive. (See responses to Zoam Chomsky’s ideas put forth at Kevin Blogs. Zoam, and others, seems unfamiliar with our long-ago dissertations of the Hughes’ efforts hat might explain the Socorro incident.)

At any rate, like the Ramey memo, if one can decipher the Socorro symbol, they will have solved the sighting, just as they might solve other classic UFO episodes by seeking the “smoking guns.”



  • Hello,

    I like this case (as UFO-Skeptic) because ufologists themselves explain us what are "the qualitative criteria" for a very good case. Ok...

    The common factors and in general, the one appearing as first listed, is Multiple witnesses .

    Ufologist may tune their guitars, no?

    Well, that's ufology, after all.

    Best regards,


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Sunday, July 24, 2016  

  • Rich, Buddy;

    Just mentioned it today:

    "Maybe it was another project, a Hughes project has been suggested, much being made of the logo. And for the same reason, and Lonnie's description of the object going away, some have suggested it was the Weyerhaeuser balloon. And on seeing Lonnie, the two men in white coveralls got into the gondola and flew away. But there's too much of his description that's unlike a balloon."

    I remember the Hughes angle on Socorro, but it would be great to get a refresher. Kevin, to his credit and plain good sense, begins his Socorro post with:

    >> As he approached an arroyo, he saw what he first thought was an overturned car. He stopped his patrol car and saw, near the object, “two people in white coveralls…”<<

    I could be mistaken but I think he's telegraphing his judgment, if not hard conclusion, on this case. As you and I agreed previously, "people in white coveralls" aren't very likely to be in possession of a "flying saucer," a spacecraft from another world. So however strange the machine appeared to Lonnie, and given that the location was adjacent to White Sands testing range, it was almost certainly a device of earthly origin.

    Of course the hardcore ETHers are not having any of that, their greatest fear is the possibility of a plausible identification that might finally destroy the Socorro case, one of the foundations of their belief in the "UFO" myth. So, as you say, they must reject it and good sense along with it to cling to the "unknown" as if that's some kind of determination, and which for them is synonymous with "extraterrestrial." But that's believer "logic," as irrational as their protestations are, it's any excuse to reject a mundane explanation for Socorro or any other case.

    And one crazy thing about credulous believer "logic" is their zealous repetition of the believer "facts" culled from sensationalist books on Socorro that will somehow prove it was extraterrestrial. No, really. (vbg) As if Lonnie's report can't tell us all we need to know. "...he saw what he first thought was an overturned car. He stopped his patrol car and saw, near the object, 'two people in white coveralls.'" That seems pretty straightforward and unambiguous to me. But for believers, somehow the extraordinary "truth" always lies in the involuted gyre of details to which one must be privy to understand and know the mystery firsthand. [Wait, I'm having a George Noory moment. (YIKES!) That was spooky.]

    If Socorro had occurred a year later in April of 1965, would the lander hypothesis be more palatable to believers? Of course not! Bell had already built the two-man demonstrator in 1963. The LLRV timeline, its appearance and performance are irrelevant to the demonstrator, but they're using it to dismiss the idea anyway.

    And what if the machine had not flown away, and Lonnie had got to talk to the “two people in white coveralls?" There never would have been a Socorro "UFO" report.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, July 24, 2016  

  • For me, Gilles and Zoam....

    That insignia/symbol has to be Earthly.

    I've done several posts here about writing, in its evolutionary form: pictograms, ideographics, mnemonic symbols, and all the rest, indicating as I see it that an alien species (extraterrestrial culture) would not (could not) even come close in symbology like ours (humans).

    The drawn image of Zamora is not unearthly enough, for me.

    That's why it's the "smoking gun" for this tale. (The two human-like forms he says he saw also bespeak an Earthly origin.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 24, 2016  

  • Again, this is one of my favorite cases mainly because of the witness -- Officer Zamora. And yes, I suppose he might be wrong about some of the things he described, but in the end the entire episode reeks of a terrestrial explanation. There's nothing here to suggest an extraterrestrial visit.

    As I did on Kevin's blog, I will state again if anyone has ever walked the actual site I can tell you that almost immediately you can deduce the landscape is not in the very least conducive to a hoax. We are talking about shallow arroyos not canyons or cliffs. I walked the entire site and can say for certain there's no place for student hoaxers to hide. Zamora would have seen them plain as day and even their supposed "balloon".

    As for a balloon flown by pilots of International Paper Company, it's possible but again are we to assume Zamora didn't know what a hot air balloon was in that he became scared by its propane tanks igniting? I doubt it. The same is true of a vehicle hanging from a helicopter. Zamora didn't know what a helicopter was? I doubt it.

    There are problems with the paper company explanation as shown here at Larry Robinson's website. Note the lack of any confirming evidence and the logo not coming into play till much later.


    As for the student hoax theory, just look at how complex Frank Stalter's theory is. In order to accomplish their task he proposes the students used wooden stilts as pole vaults to create the landing gear imprints. Really? That's far fetched and ridiculous.

    Despite these theories, I still claim it was a terrestrial craft of some design. I've done a little work on this and have a theory which I will provide more info when I get a chance.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Monday, July 25, 2016  

  • Way back when, we (the RRRGroup) did an extensive and grueling search for the magazine article that IU's Robinson thought he read where the balloon expedition was recounted. Nada.

    We couldn't find any magazine article Brian, and believe me we really looked.

    Stalter is a Bragalia-groupie and can be discounted readily by serious UFO buffs.

    Zamora's account is exemplary and I've posted my views about his refined report many times here and elsewhere.

    (I have a personal connection to the Socorro story, which has appeared in several newspapers stories.)

    I'm looking forward to your "theory." (You've been there.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 25, 2016  

  • Here's a James Easton post to UFO Updates that summarizes his findings. Paper companies' balloons weren't flying yet. Most important is the CIA/Maven Industries "sport" balloon contract. But the balloon idea was far-fetched from the start, I think, it really doesn't match Zamora's story in most aspects.


    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, July 28, 2016  

  • PART 1.

    Finally had some time to write this up. I'll post it here first and then on Kevin's blog to see what people think. I'm sure the die hard ETers will despise it.

    First, this is just a theory that includes some speculation on my part, although there are real facts behind this theory that haven't come to light for a very long time.

    Regarding Zamora, it's important to note that he stated very clearly he didn't believe in flying saucers from outer space. He never changed his mind. This almost assuredly means he didn't hoax it and he wasn't pushing an ET explanation for what he witnessed. That also means he thought the object of terrestrial origin.

    My theory begins with Romanian born inventor Henri Coanda who discovered the "Coanda Effect" decades before Zamora's sighting. Coanda stumbled upon a principle of fluid dynamics when he became the first pilot to fly a jet aircraft near Paris in 1910! The principle he discovered allows for accelerated lift using an aerodyne that directs the flow of air over a curved surface as show in the wind tunnel demo below:


    In the 1930's Coanda patented disk aircraft designs (in France) using this principle. Patents were submitted in 1932, 1935, 1938, and 1940 (the "aerodyne flying disk"). He also submitted patents after WW2 in the 1950's and 60's. Isn't it funny that we've never seen a full scale version of these disks fly, or have we? The designs do work as shown in these small scale present day mock-ups:



    Notice the "wobble" so commonly described by UFO witnesses back in the 1950-60's.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, July 28, 2016  

  • PART 2.

    In December 1964 a Houston, TX start-up company named "Astro Kinetics" publicly announced the manufacture of a flying disk built on the Coanda principle which was intended for retail sales and military use with a keen eye on the USAF. Two versions were built and a flight demonstration was held in San Antonio (a very large hub for the USAF). The Navy and Army also attended.

    Note in the photo below the men flying the craft are wearing "white coveralls" as Zamora claimed. Also note the landing struts and pod-like feet identical to Zamora's claims and the markings left in the sand.




    It should also be noted that when operating these disks there is a "loud roaring noise" produced by the aerodyne. The silver version is very much "elliptical" and saucer like as Zamora heard and claimed.

    Now here's the weird part.

    1) I attempted to track down the company records from 1964 and they don't exist anymore. Either destroyed or hidden. This confirmed by another researcher who discovered the same. Those records should exist but were taken out of the public domain in 1964.

    2) The president of the company, Fremont Burger, age 49, mysteriously died one week (that's right) after the demo flight in San Antonio. Very odd.....

    3) The company literally "disappeared" after his death and no other company has ever built one of these craft since 1964, as far as I can tell, despite some coverage in the July 1963 Popular Science magazine.

    4) A researcher I am corresponding with tracked down all former Astro Kinetics employees and found only one still alive - the receptionist. She said only one thing...quote, "If you know what's good for you you'll drop this right away"...hung up...and refused to discuss it further.

    Now Astro Kinetics was building this saucer craft when Avro was building its failed Avro car. This one worked the other didn't.

    Interestingly a search of Canadian business records revealed Astro Kinetics is now located in Ottawa. What do they make? Secret VTOL UAV's for the Canadian Defense Ministry. In other words, it's the same company. Access to their website is denied to the public without proper clearances.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, July 28, 2016  

  • PART 3.

    Now about the logo Zamora saw, if the Houston based Astro Kinetics had a logo it can't be found because the company records aren't available or have been classified.

    But isn't it funny that the first logo with the line underneath and arrow pointing upward to a curved arch resembles EXACTLY the Astro Kinetics silver saucer below? Line for ground, arrow for lift, dome for saucer?

    Craft: http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/Astro-V-Dynafan/Astro_Kinetics-July-1963-Popular_Science.jpg


    Interestingly I have searched for a similar logo in vintage 1960's logo registries. Surprisingly I found one logo that is a very close match but turned on its side. While published the logo is marked "Identity of logo misplaced during publication". How odd....

    In conclusion what I theorize is that Houston based Astro Kinetics developed and demonstrated a flying saucer to the military, who in turn "acquired" the company after the president and founder "died" one week later, then tested improved versions (two man vehicles etc) and quite literally collaborated with Avro or the Canadian government in its development following the Avro car failure.

    There's too many coincidences here for me.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, July 28, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home