UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, September 19, 2016

The Socorro Symbol Problem

When it comes to deciphering the symbol seen by Police Officer Lonnie Zamora in 1964, there is a major glitch.

Which insignia represents the actual symbol he saw?
The story, magnified by eccentric UFO buff Ray Stanford, is that the Air Force asked Office Zamora to sign a bogus image, allegedly the arrow with a cupola, to expose hoaxers who might claim they had a sighting of a craft, and used the cupola insignia for witness authenticity. The Air Force anticipated the real symbol, the inverted V with three lines through it, to be what an actual sighter would see.

A few questions…

Why a need for such a convoluted scenario? Did the Air Force know that craft with a real symbol might show up in a raft of new sightings? It’s an odd ploy.

So odd, that I discount the story as it exists. Something doesn’t add up, but that’s usually the case with a Stanford UFO account.

To add a red herring to a thorough and exemplary observation baffles.

And it’s possible that the inverted V was the bogus symbol, to throw off investigators and the public, flummoxing an actuality – that the craft was a military/CIA construct commissioned by the government using Howard Hughes’ Toolco and/or Hughes Aircraft under contract by Raven Industries, a CIA front, which I’ve covered amply many times here and elsewhere.

Somehow the Air Force attempted to perplex/bewilder those hoping to determine what Lonnie Zamora saw. And it worked.

Here we are struggling to explain the sighting and its mysterious symbol, 50+ years later.

Was or is Stanford part of the “disinformation”?

Like Frank Mannor in the 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter “swamp gas” event, Lonnie Zamora threw up his hands and removed himself from the incident, experiencing all the waywardness of the Air Force, Hynek, and others, even Stanford himself.

(The anecdote that when Officer Zamora’s daughter asked what really happened, he, Zamora, pointed to Stanford’s bizarrely titled book and said, “He got it right” is strictly apocryphal.)

I’ll have a note on the symbol/insignia, the case’s “smoking gun,” upcoming.

RR

10 Comments:

  • Rich, in your opinion, who has written definitively on the Socorro case?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • No one, Tim, no one...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • One wonders if a fresh set of eyes, with no bias one way or another, could help solve the issues. I agree, the symbol appears to be the key.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • The problem has been that those with an ET bias keeps looking at the sighting as an extraterrestrial incursion, which it may have been, as a remote, to my mind, possibility.

    Those without an ET bias don't give a damn. It's a non-event for them.

    It's a long-ago incident, that only intrigues me because of the insignia, which has been mucked up by Stanford's work and, apparently, a stupid (seemingly) concoction by an Air Force flunky.

    Hynek destroyed the 1966 Mannor (Ann Arbor/Dexter) observation with the "swamp gas" explanation and before that with the Socorro subterfuge.

    That he came to his senses later didn't remove his blunders on behalf of the Air Force earlier in his UFO career.

    Who wants to muster the energy to really get at the core truth of the Socorro sighting? Not the two guys, who Kevin interviewed recently. They stonewalled him and avoided the substance of his questions, which he kept trying to get answered.

    Anyone listening to the "broadcast" will readily hear the vacillation and superficiality of their answers and investigation.

    Kevin pressed them, but they sneaked away, putting the onus on Stanford's silly book which they were marketing as a sidebar, original, signed copies, Pathetic.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • It would have to be treated as a "cold" case, but I believe that it could be done. Given that it would be time consuming, it would be a question of perseverance.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • The "smoking gun" Tim is the symbol.

    That's not too overwhelming to pursue.

    I have a gazillion books of symbols and plan a posting of some symbols that might accrue to the Socorro symbol, whichever one it is.

    But it's a needle in a haystack kind of effort.

    If the insignia/symbol were actually from an extraterrestrial civilization, there is no way to find it, here on Earth, unless one accrues to Ancient Astronaut theory, which I do not.

    That it is of Earthly origin, as it typifies human development and display of symbolism, there has to be fount from which it springs. But I haven't found any that mimic Zamora's drawings, no matter which one is the authentic drawing.

    The problem is his eyesight. Did he see, clearly, the symbol he provided -- either the inverted V with lines through it or the arrow with a arc over it?

    That alleged damn ploy by Holder, the AF Captain, is puzzling and confuses the issue.

    Stanford was inclined to go after the ET angle, and so one can discount his effort as warped somewhat by that.

    The "object" or craft was Earthly it seems: the blue flame and ascent and the "beings" outside it, in coveralls.

    The symbol is the clue and the "smoking gun" but it is flummoxed by the seemingly idiotic AF ploy to create a hoax-reducing scenario.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • Hello,

    You guys are (imho) according too much confidence in Cognitive Human Memory for a "symbol" seen under special conditions, and here on Zamora memories for the symbol...
    There are (and were) psychometric tests devoted on visuo-spatial cognitive skills (and memories). Too bad Zamora was not tested...

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • I agree Gilles...

    Not only did Zamora need corrective glasses but he also was viewing an image under adverse, stressful conditions.

    That is problematical in itself, but to add a second image for some odd reason, merely exacerbates an odd situation making it even odder.

    And adding Ray Stanford to the mix merely piles muck upon muck.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • Yeah.

    You can do the test by yourselves at home. Aka to present the or a symbol(s) to friends. and ask them to draw it after, "immediately", in 1 week, two weeks, etc.

    You will be surprised by some drawings, imho...

    After, you can "stress" them (your friends as sample) during the symbol presentation in order to "mimic" Zamora or "a stressful" condition, and ask them after to draw the symbol(s) they have seen. Again, full surprises, cause stress as a "supra-additive variable" for "false-memories". and people (ufologists) interpreting such drawings...

    Zamora was not tested about his visuo-spatial memory abilities, skills...

    Well, that's ufology, after all.

    Regards,

    Gilles.





    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • My psychological discipline, Gilles, is Psychometric Methods so I'm familiar with the cognitive dissonance that imagery (and memory, along with other malfunctions) imposes on the senses and brain.

    Zamora may well have mis-seen the insignia or misconceived it when asked to recreate it., as you note.

    Adding the option of supplanting a false symbol for the real one, if that, in fact, actually happened, adds to the probability that the symbol is awash with error.

    One can say, however, that such a traumatic event could implant a fierce image in the brain/mind, but such an implant would be compromised by a lot of other things, which might be discussed at length.

    Let it suffice to say that the symbol is an iffy item to contend with but it's all that we have, of a concrete nature, from the incident, aside from Zamora's exemplary [sic] witness account.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home