Saturday, October 08, 2016

Did Lonnie Zamora See Alien Creatures?

We have discussed the Socorro case a couple of times here recently. When Ben Moss and Tony Angiola appeared on the Different Perspective radio show, they suggested that Lonnie Zamora had not said that he had seen creatures or aliens or figures. He had merely said that he had only seen two pairs of white coveralls in the distance, suggesting a humanoid shape but he couldn’t make out a head or facial features.

Socorro, New Mexico. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle.
This seemed odd to me because nearly every account I had read talked about the humanoid creatures. That was one of the most important features of the case, yet it seemed that Zamora might never have said such a thing. This was one of the more recent findings.

What I learned, however, doesn’t seem to support this. Coral Lorenzen, who interviewed Zamora two days after the sighting, wrote in Encounters with UFO Occupants, (published in 1976) “…and spotted what appeared to be a light colored car standing on end and two humanoid figures beside it (he said they looked about the size of young boys) about 600 feet away. One of the figures seemed to look toward Zamora as if startled by his presence.”

Timothy Good, in Above Top Secret, wrote, “Eventually he came across what he thought was an upturned car and two occupants, both dressed in coveralls.”

In The UFO Encyclopedia (1991) compiled and edited by John Spencer, it was reported, “…a shining egg-shaped object and two people who were obviously startled at the appearance of his police cruiser…. The ‘people’ apparently got back into the object which took off immediately…”

The same description, that is, people, was used by Robert Emenegger in UFO’s Past Present & Future (1974). He wrote, “‘I [Zamora] saw two pair of coveralls.’ One person seems to have turned and looked straight at Zamora’s car.”

Jacques Vallee in Dimensions (1998) wrote, “…Lonnie Zamora, who reported two small beings, dressed in white…”

Curtis Peoples in his Watch the Skies (1995), wrote, “…he was looking at the two figures, he did not notice ‘any particular shape or possibly any hats or headgear.’ They looked normal in shape, ‘but possibly they were small adults or large kids.’”

Jerome Clark in his massive UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition (1998), wrote, “Then he ‘saw two figures in what resembled white coveralls… The figures were small ‘maybe the size of boys,’ and from a distance looked ‘normal in shape.’”

Even Don Keyhoe who nearly always rejected accounts of the alien creatures wrote in Aliens from Space (1973), “Beside it [the UFO], unaware of his presence were two humanoids dressed in silvery coveralls.”

And in what might be the best example, the Albuquerque Tribune (April 27, 1964) reported, “Moving closer he [Zamora] saw two figures moving about outside the vehicle. One looked directly at him.”

But now we learn that Zamora allegedly never talked about figures or beings or anything like that. He just talked about seeing these white coveralls which suggested a human shape but he couldn’t see a head because of the brightness of the surroundings.

He was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal of April 27, that “He [Zamora] saw what appeared to be a pair of white coveralls, but whether there was anything in them he did not know.”

Ronald Story in The Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters (2001) tended to confirm this. He wrote, “He [Zamora] was quoted by Look (1966) magazine saying: ‘All I could see from that far away was what looked like two sets of white coveralls beside the object. I couldn’t see any features.”

Is there a way to resolve this?


What we need to do is look what was said in the hours and the days after the sighting. Fortunately there is a good record of this not only from the Air Force Project Blue Book files but also from some of those who investigated the case. Take, for example, what Coral Lorenzen wrote in the May 1964 APRO Bulletin. She, along with her husband, Jim, interviewed Zamora less than 48 hours after the sighting. While it generally agrees with what she wrote years later in her book, the Bulletin is much more descriptive. According to her, “… he [Zamora] said he hadn’t seen any ‘little men.’ Mrs. L [Lorenzen] pointed out he had told reporters for the first wire story that he had. He then admitted he had, and described them. He said they looked like ‘young boys’ or small adults…”

In fact, if we look at the Project Blue Book file, we learn that the descriptions really aren’t quite as vague as has been recently suggested. Even the Project Blue Book file suggests that Zamora saw something more than just white coveralls. In a letter dated May 13, 1964, signed by Colonel Eric T. Jonckheere and sent to the Headquarters, USAF (SAFOI), it was noted, “The only time that Mr. Zamora saw the two people in white coveralls…”

Also in the Blue Book file is a report apparently prepared by Major William Connor, who had come down from Kirkland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. Quoting Zamora, he wrote, “The only time I saw these two persons was when I stopped…”

There is another document in the file, but there is no name associated with who took the report. It is apparently a transcription of an early interview with Zamora but there is no date on it. According to this report, Zamora said, “Saw two people in white coveralls close to the object.”

TSgt David Moody, the Blue Book investigator sent out from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in his report, wrote, “…and the two things (described as coveralls) were no longer visible.”

Where does all this confusion come from? It seems that those investigating in some sort of official capacity were telling Zamora not to reveal certain things. According to the May 1964 APRO Bulletin, “Terry Clarke called to tell them [the Lorenzens] that he had called and talked to Zamora and that Zamora said that the FBI man [Art Byrnes] had cautioned him not to talk about the ‘little men’ to newsmen.”

To make it worse, Dr. J. Allen Hynek made a trip to New Mexico in the days that followed. He produced a long, detailed report about his trip, including his interviews with Zamora and other police and military officers (not to mention other details such as a flat tire on the drive to Socorro, that he stayed in a hotel and that he paid for a couple of meals he had with some of the other officials). Although he mentions the symbol seen by Zamora, one of the things that Holder had told him to keep to himself, he apparently didn’t mention seeing any sort of living beings around the craft, no matter how vague that description might have been. In other words, Hynek said nothing about that.

And there is this from the Dayton Daily News. David Moody (the Air Force representative sent from Wright-Pat) reported, “There were no signs of life around it; but when he approached it, the object rose and flew away slowly until it faded from sight…”We can analyze all this and come to a conclusion based on the information. The timeline of Zamora’s statements is helpful. In the beginning, that is on Friday evening, he told the official investigators, both civilian and military, and apparently some reporters that he had seen something more than just bright, white coveralls. The Blue Book file reflects this in the notes that were taken that evening or the next day and in the reports that were filed. People, persons, boys or young adults is used to describe what Zamora saw. Other reports derived from there or what Zamora said, suggest that he had seen something more than white coveralls hovering over the landscape.

The evolution of Zamora’s descriptions can be seen in the newspaper articles that appeared just a few days after the sighting. The Albuquerque Journal on the Monday following the sighting makes this evolution clear when they reported, as noted above, “…a pair of white coveralls, but whether there was anything in them he did not know.” That sort of thing also appeared in the Look magazine report on the sighting.

The exception that sort of proves the rule is the article published in the Socorro newspaper on Tuesday, April 28. It said, “The two persons appeared to be dressed in white coveralls… He did not take notice of headgear worn by the two short men.” But the information was collected on Friday, April 24. The newspaper only published on Tuesdays and Thursdays and the first chance to print anything was on Tuesday, April 28.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that Zamora had gotten a much better look at the images near the craft and that he told those who interviewed him first more about them. After the FBI agent on the scene, Art Byrnes, suggested it might be better if he didn’t talk about the beings the story changed into the white coveralls (pun intended). Given that we have the reports from the Blue Book file on the case, given what Coral Lorenzen reported in the APRO Bulletin, and given the change in the story over the few days after the event, it can be said that Zamora did see something more than coveralls. The evidence proves he got a better look than some believe he did. There were creatures or entities or beings near the craft and not just the flying coveralls.


Anonymous said...


I am curious why you have not considered the hoax theory in detail?

What leads me to believe it is a hoax is:

1) The description of the scenario being put forward. It is something we are all familiar with, that reminds us of our own travels, and also being stuck somewhere, or wondering off exploring. Earth like experience of exploring.

2) You have this egg shaped device? Why egg shaped? The aerodynamics of an egg shaped device only suit our environment here on earth. If you have a tremendously powerful craft that travels all the way to earth it does not have to use an aerodynamic craft to decend, and ascend as it has powerful engines. Even if this craft descended from a mothership you still have superior technology available to decent vehicles.

3) We have the description of beings, or people in white coveralls. What are the chances that beings visiting this planet would be bipedal and moving around their craft in the same fashion as humans in white coveralls.

4) It just seems we are comfortable using descriptions of things that are familiar to us, which leads me to believe it is craft this world, or it is a hoax, or both.

See link

Not trying to spoil the party, just would like to see more critical thinking in the discussion.


Neal Foy said...

Tommy asks:

"I am curious why you have not considered the hoax theory in detail?"

Where have you been Tommy? The hoax theory has been discussed over and over again in Kevin's other blogs. This plot by college students has been so completely discredited that it must be considered balloonacy.

Since this blog is about the beings Zamora reported seeing one must ask, where did they go?
Anyone who has ever been on a New Mexico mesa will tell you that there is barely a place for a jack rabbit to hide let alone two small adults or children. Did the balloon from the article in the link you provided carry them away, against prevailing winds? What is the lifting power of this crude contraption?

You can call it critical thinking if you like but to me it sounds more like a very poor attempt at revisionist history.

Bob Koford said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Bell said...

@ Tommy

I've walked the site. Even with the current modern structures that surround it, there's no way this was a hoax. No place to hide.

It's either a real ET craft, something from another dimension, a secret terrestrial vehicle, or some yet unexplained psychic phenomena that confused Zamora but originated in his mind.

The helicopter and hanging widgets theory doesn't hold either. He would've seen the helicopter had there been one.

Anonymous said...

@ Everyone

Great points. Here is one of Kevin's older blog on the incident - with a link to a YouTube video on using a balloon.

As for no place to hide, the most obvious place is in plain sight using a camaflouged blind. From a distance, the human eye would not be discern the difference between a camaflouged blind made from the same material found on the ground. The trick would be to distract the person(s) looking, and then raise the blind (I.e. made of cardboard, glue, sand, and dirt) at an angle, and walk behind, and crouch down. When the person refocuses their attention in the general area they would not see the difference as the background was similar.

The (space) vehicle was described as having some form of propulsion system that scorched the earth, or burned the surrounding bushes when landing, or taking off. Yet with a real propulsion system that generates heat, would it not scorch the paint off any cars it passed over? Or cause the shack (dynamite?) to catch fire when overhead; it did for the bushes)

If I have a highly advanced propulsion system why do I need to turn it off, or even use a landing gear? If I have a propulsion system that was created in the past 15 years then I need to turn it off to conserve energy, and I need a landing gear. These are things that are familiar to our space voyages. But if you are an advanced alien species why do they approach, and take off in a manner that is so typical of our moon/ mars landing. Yet we are only sixty years into our own space exploration, and we are using similar methods as they are using?

Does anyone know what Lonnie was doing earlier in the day. We hear what happened during the run up to the sighting, and just after, but do we know who had contact with Lonnie earlier in the day. Maybe we need to know a little more about his day.

David Rudiak said...

Let's look at some more early Zamora statements:

AP article (April 25), or next day: "He drove to within 150 yards of the draw where he spotted what appeared to be an overturned car. Moving closer he saw two figures moving about outside the vehicle. One looked directly at him..."

Walter Reidel, publisher of Socorro newspaper, one of the first to talk to Zamora, interviewed by Ray Stanford:

STANFORD: In talking to Dr. Hynek, he implied that Zamora had told him nothing specific at all about seeing any men and implied that he had never mentioned any men. He later seemed to come down and say that he did mention coveralls, after very pointed questioning by one of the persons who was present. But did, um, in this talk with Zamora soon after the sighting, since you were one of the first to be there, did he mention to you that he actually saw men or just coveralls?

REIDEL: He really doesn’t (?). He said there were two there. Now he didn’t say anything about them being men, but, ah, but you were meant to think so, because he said that he, that when he was still in the car, the one of them, both men or objects, had their back turned, and one of them turned around looked him squarely in the face. That was his exact words. And he very definitely said that he saw two men there at the, ah, at the object. He said that immediately, that he, ah, they disappeared, kinda got in the plane, from the side, from the west side, and the plane lifted up and started off.

In addition, the Lorenzens noted that one of the persons with them when they spoke to Zamora April 26 was one of the reporters from the newspaper. This the interview where, as Kevin quotes: “… he [Zamora] said he hadn’t seen any ‘little men.’ Mrs. L [Lorenzen] pointed out he had told reporters for the first wire story that he had. He then admitted he had, and described them. He said they looked like ‘young boys’ or small adults…”

So I agree with Kevin. Early on Zamora told people about two short beings, dressed in white, one which turned around and seemed to stare at him. So they were more than just "white coveralls". They moved around and one seemed to react to his presence. They were small in size, shorter than the 4-1/2 foot creosote bush they were near. At the distance he was at (about 750-900 ft), where he first spotted the whitish object at the two beings outside it, I doubt he could have seen any more details, like hands or a face, which would be especially true if fully covered with suits (a point which Zamora also made). They were short, dressed in white, like coveralls (implying humanoid shape), they were animate and reacted to his presence.

According to the Lorenzens, after speaking with FBI agent Bynes the night of April 24, Bynes advised him to not talk about the small beings (saying no one would believe him anyway), after which Zamora tried to tone down the story and claim he saw no men, only white coveralls.

More of Zamora's story: When he drove closer and approached to (50-100 feet) they were gone. Before he got out of the car, he heard two or three thumps, like a tank hatch closing (Zamora had driven tanks in the Army). When the site was inspected, there were some faint small prints about where Zamora spotted the beings, speculated to be footprints. There were also two sets of deeper circular prints, speculated to be either from a ladder that was put down and then repositioned, or more "footprints" again (Cpt. Holder's words on a diagram).

David Rudiak said...

Having also been to the site, I basically agree with Brian Bell's comments: No place to hide. Helicopter impossible--Nobody can not see or hear a helicopter from 50-100 feet away.

As to origins, ET craft and another dimension amount to essentially the same thing: Not of human/Earth origin. A secret terrestrial craft gets weaker with every passing year. No such craft found then or since. The characteristics (such as totally silent departure, absence of excavation crater, level flight without wings) indicate unconventional propulsion system that didn't exist then or now.

The July 1964 APRO Bulletin does mention an anecdote originating out of Alamogordo, related to them by two reporters, of an airman going to a store and said that the AF had a UFO under guard at the base. Two days later he came in again and retracted his story. The Lorenzens thought this was possibly an attempt to plant a story that the Socorro UFO was really one of own secret craft. It is a fact, that Dr. Lincoln La Paz, who said he had known Zamora for 15 years and considered him an extremely reliable witness, also said in newspaper stories a few days later he thought it was a secret VTOL craft. Where La Paz got this idea was not explained, perhaps nothing more than personal speculation, perhaps another attempt at misinformation.

The bottom line this is nothing more than rumor or speculation at best. Blue Book head Quintanilla was under pressure from high up (like the White House) to come up with an answer. He was given top secret clearance to learn of any secret project we had that might explain Socorro. He even poked around in those hangars at Alamogordo. He came up with nothing.

It couldn't have taken place in Zamora's head. Psychic phenomena do not leave extensive physical evidence behind: e.g., burning of plants and ground, pronounced ground impressions. Also there were other witnesses. E.g. dispatcher Nep Lopez said he received three calls of a bright light in the sky before Zamora's encounter was ever publicly known. Residents on the south side of town heard the roar that Zamora reported as it lifted off.

Ben Moss said...

Lonnie originally said '2 things is white coveralls'. The subsequent news stories changed that to people and it was picked up elsewhere by other news agencies. He was quite clear when talking to Walter Schrode the day after the incident on KSRC radio. Walter asked about 'people' and Lonnie said 'I cannot say they were people'. And he mentioned that the Air Force did not want him to talk about it. Most likely the Air Force wanted the word 'people' to indicate a human event, which this was not. This is an example of the press changing the wording and others thinking that Lonnie reported that, which he did not.

Neal Foy said...

It comes down to three things this object may have been. A hoax, ET craft or secret terrestrial craft. The hoax idea is as dead as I can make it in my mind because I can't see how it could have been done. ET craft, as amazing as that is, seems to be the best explanation. That's using David's definition of ET which would include dimensional craft of some sort.

I've always held on to the secret craft theory because if I believe that secrets from 1947 can still be secret then I can accept that the same would hold true for this case. But, to me the likelihood of a secret craft becomes smaller when you consider that Zamora couldn't say that he saw people. That seems to be a strange comment. If he didn't see people then what does that leave? When you consider that the Air Force didn't want him to talk about the beings it adds to the suspicion that this was not a human project gone awry. Zamora was almost an ideal witness, he doesn't seem to embellish his story or to try to draw immediate conclusions.

Anonymous said...

I am very familiar with the Zamora sighting and with Socorro. The event simply sounds so completely "terrestrial" - including the figures in coveralls - that it is difficult for me to take any other explanation seriously. At the time of Zamora's sighting, development work on the Lunar Module was already far along. Some of the early designs, including one being considered in 1963, look remarkably like what Zamora reported. Full-scale mock-ups were constructed. Propulsion systems were being tested at White Sands before Zamora's sighting. I understand what Zamora reported seeing isn't a neat fit with the state of Lunar Module development as we know it in April 1964, but if he saw an ET craft the "coincidences" do seem extraordinary. It seems far more likely to me he honestly but inaccurately reported an event connected with the Lunar Module development program.

Rob Cravens said...

Not to sound pessimistic here - but this case is 52 years old (I was born in 1964). Who really cares anymore? What difference do these arguments make? So what if he did/did not see creatures. to me - this is now a pointless exercise in futility which wastes time that could be logically fulfilled in other more modern endeavors. Same goes for the rehashing of old docs (i.e. MJ 12, Eisenhower memo or any other of the countless 1940's - 1960's docs). 90% of the authors have passed and we are at a "he said she said" stage that can never be resolved. what is going on RIGHT NOW? Who is in charge (or purportedly in charge) of the evidence now? Where is the governmental paper trail from 2000 on?

Sorry to be such a buzzkill - but there is NOTHING new to be learned by all the "glory days of UFO research" stuff.

Wayne Patterson said...

I see several people make statements ruling out balloon use for a hoax. I believe this was either an extraordinary device of non earth origin, or an elaborate professional grade hoax. I know my writing is not academic , but I'm sure everyone scoffed at my mention of a counterintelligence operation aimed at the Soviets. As I said, not an academic, but a career nco, and while I don't believe it was a hoax, I assure you that the military intelligence world, can, with the right level of backing, do incredible things. For instance, I don't believe this was the case, but one balloon...the Fulton star/ sky hook system, can be assembled by 2 people in minutes , inflated, it's white, slight larger than a delivery truck, is WHITE, rises rapidly to over 100 feet, and can, when recovered by the aircraft sent for it, be over the horizon in moments.....and it can lift a payload, say a framework of pvc pipe, made as a mockup, and be gone like for the beings a properly prepared spider hole, in a nearby depression, would be all but invisible.....stay out of sight till dark, which the right sort of soldiers know how to do, and you can walk over the hide and not see it. As to why, being devils advocate, you want the Soviets to wonder if you have managed to back engineer a new power plant from a craft you have had a decade, when in reality you can't figure out what it's made of, etc.....just an exercise in possibilities, but is a way to show possibilities.....and to stretch it, if only one guy, he could have went up with the hook exists, it works, and you can't rule it out......and as I suggested, this captain holder.....any g2 or cic in his past? Never heard......seems sort of odd, his arrival, when that area was supposedly shut down for the day

KRandle said...

Ben -

Seems to me, based on the documentation, that Zamora did suggest something more than white coveralls in his first interviews, but after talking with Art Byrnes, changed his story. He told Coral Lorenzen, on Sunday, something less than 48 hours later, that he hadn't seen any figures. When pressed on that point, he admitted that he had. The change to coveralls by the craft seems to be a compromise in the description that came about after Byrnes made his suggestion. I note, again, in passing, that Hynek mentioned nothing about creatures, things, humanoids or coveralls in his first report to Blue Book.

Rob -

If I follow your line of thought to its ultimate conclusion, then there is no need to study history because it all happened so long ago... or in other words, what difference does it make.

But the difference here is that we have a large body of documentation produced within hours of the landing. We can examine that documentation, plus what was said later, and can reach some conclusions. Clearly there will never be a consensus because some of those interested in the case had an agenda, but we can actually make some positive statements. We can, even after a half century, learn something new about the case...

Besides, its fun to try to piece the puzzle together, to see what others thought and to determine what actually happened. It does make for interesting conversation, and it can add to our knowledge in some fashion. As we become more sophisticated in our research we can reach some important conclusions.

Ben Moss said...

You could be right about that. Despite confusion about the symbol and the beings, the fact is we have a real event, and from all the data and evidence,that points to a non-human landing of an unknown craft from who knows where.

Neal Foy said...

Ben, although I think you may be right, just for fun let's explore the secret craft a little more.

What if it was technology back engineered from some ET craft, a crash or a gift. It could be possible that this project is still secret. Maybe it was in it's formative stages and got lost from the test range for some reason. It came down in an attempt to fix the problem.

Like I said, just for fun, this could be just imagination at work.

J. T. Drake said...

Perhaps what he saw were robotic and not biological. It would be something so unknown at the time he would not recognize it.

Wayne Patterson said...

Point of facts folks.......unless you have worked in desert areas, You don't understand visual perspective, or estimating size/ range....I know one statement was that Zamora said the being was the height of some brush, but he was completely baffled and somewhat frightened......this causes an effect called TUNNELING...You focus on the threat, and those things in your zone become often dominate to things outside that immediate area. This can change your perspective, and perception. In combat, you are taught this can get you this case, it might adversely affect his observations. In military training, you are taught that things can appear closer or further, depending on terrain...whether the observer is aware of the terrain issues (hidden depressions,looking from elevated or depressed areas, etc.)or not. Lastly, if Zamora doesn't know what the object is, he has NO CLUE to its size....and his statements about size of a car, etc. Are a frightened man's subjective are his statements on the beings...Kevin randle, as a soldier and with training in psychology, can appreciate this, but I never see anyone else address. I suggest people reexamine their opinions around these points...and I didn't create them, info on military ranging and observation are readily available, as are data on stress psychology...thank you for the soap box colonel

Paul Young said...

Thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis of this Korean war veteran / seasoned police officer...who had probably been faced with many more weird and dangerous situations than you could even dream of.

David Rudiak said...

Neal Foy wrote:
"What if it was technology back engineered from some ET craft, a crash or a gift. It could be possible that this project is still secret. Maybe it was in it's formative stages and got lost from the test range for some reason. It came down in an attempt to fix the problem."

Neal, I think that is the ONLY possible scenario in which this could be explained as a human event instead of a non-human one, but it still would have the ET technology angle in it. The propulsion system was just totally unlike anything we know of then or now. If this was a back-engineering project of ET technology, it would explain why no trace of such a human project was found then or now, because the ET angle and all that goes with it had to be hidden and is still being hidden.

On the other hand, according to Zamora's descriptions, the crew would have to be midget human pilots under 5 feet tall, probably closer to 4 to 4-1/2 feet. Also, if it was a crippled craft (why they might set down close to Socorro), why would they head toward the mountain range and disappear to the west, which is a more difficult departure route (had to clear the mountains) and where there is absolutely nothing out there but jack rabbits and rattlesnakes? Why not head south towards White Sands range, an easy, straight shot with nothing in the way, if they were having mechanical difficulties? Disappearing west in the middle of nowhere would require them circling back to the nearest base (White Sands) for assistance.

And yet another problem is why not eventually deploy such technology for service in our own military (it would have a big advantage over conventional jets), using some suitable cover story of where the technology arose, trying to hide its ET origins. Seems like it could have been done, yet it wasn't. One answer I can think of to this is that maybe it was feared that if it were routinely deployed, our enemies would soon get the technology and use it against us. Or maybe the technology was too advanced for it to have arisen spontaneously through our own R&D and the ET origins would be obvious again. Maybe it would be like jumping technologically from crossbows to lasers, just TOO big a jump to be plausibly explained in a conventional way.

David Rudiak said...

Wayne Patterson wrote:

"In military training, you are taught that things can appear closer or further, depending on terrain...whether the observer is aware of the terrain issues (hidden depressions,looking from elevated or depressed areas, etc.)or not. Lastly, if Zamora doesn't know what the object is, he has NO CLUE to its size....and his statements about size of a car, etc. Are a frightened man's subjective are his statements on the beings...Kevin randle, as a soldier and with training in psychology, can appreciate this, but I never see anyone else address."

There are two big reasons why this line of reasoning is wrong:

1) He got to within 50-100 feet of the object, where size could be easily and accurately estimated, and he wasn't terrified YET. That happened when he started to go down into the arroyo on foot and the object took off with a roar, Zamora then fearing for his life. But until then, NO!

For an idea of what Zamora would have seen from the edge of the arroyo, near where he probably parked his car, see:

Now ask yourself whether you can or cannot accurately judge the approximate size from such a close distance? Can you tell if something is car-sized (like Zamora described) or not from a distance of only 60 feet or so? I think the answer is obvious.

2) Let me repeat, it was NOT just Zamora's say-so, scared or not scared; there was physical trace evidence left behind that corroborated his story. The critical physical evidence concerning size were the four rectangular, wedge-shaped landing impressions, the distance between impressions being OBJECTIVELY measurable, which was of course done by various investigators.

The distance between front and back landing impressions (along the length of the egg-shaped object) was a little under 16 feet, and between left and right impressions, a little under 20 feet. Thus indeed about "car sized" (for 1964 period, where cars were typically larger than today, many cars indeed ~16-20 feet in length)

To create the graphic linked to above showing Zamora's viewpoint, I used these measurements from 1964 plus Zamora's descriptions of the object to build the 3-D model with Google Sketch-Up, which I imported to the exact site in Google Earth, showing the 3D topography. I then overlaid the photo I took at the site in 2012 at the edge of the arroyo, just off the dirt road that Zamora drove up on to the site.

Another detail, the present dirt road at the site is further back from the arroyo than it was in 1964 (which can be determined from period topo maps overlaid on current Google Earth aerial photos). Thus Zamora could have driven up very close to the arroyo back then, gotten out of his car and taken a few steps down into the arroyo as per his basic story (with the edge of the arroyo again about 60 feet from the the object). Again, I think it very clear that from such a close distance, he would have had no problem accurately guessing the size of the object, with the estimate being backed up by the measurements done afterward by multiple others.

Wayne Patterson said...

In respond to d. Rudiak
1. Throughout the entire Incident, it is safe to say Zamora was somewhat agitated to frightened.....he thought an explosion had occurred, then a possible vehicle accident. He was focused on the object from the time he saw it. Thus some degree of TUNNELING.
2. A completely objective opinion would be that any measurements, indentations, burns etc. Can not be proven to be from the object......yes they are there, but their presence has no 100 percent connection to the odd craft. That is subjective, not objective evidence
3. Any honest sceptic would say that people involved in that effort, may have made the observations fit the finding, i.e. landing gear equal indentations. That may be unpopular, but it is certainly possible.
4.Zamora did not have a clue about what the object was. If his estimates were wrong in any degree, many things change...if instead of a car size object, it was say the size of ups truck, then your 4 foot creatures are 6 feet or 8. If it's 2/3 the size of a car, they are smaller.
5. Whether he was 60 feet, 80 feet or 100, he was not observing this thing next to a known object. Nothing was in the same area...yes, he's by his car, but it's not in the same visual frame.
6. I don't know what Zamora saw. I don't doubt his word. But little of what passes for evidence in this subject tells us anything.
7. And again, if you have never observed things under high stress, you can't understand how it can affect the observer. I think he saw either some project so classified we still aren't aware of it, or something from somewhere "else"
But I can't prove anything from the available facts, and neither can anyone else. And that is perhaps what motivates me to say so
8. Mr Young. I didn't insult Mr Zamora, made some observations. As a career us army special forces soldier, I served in war zones in Iraq, Afghanistan, el salvador, Honduras, and liberia. I was wounded by rifle fire in Panama in 1989, and sustained injuries in Kosovo. I don't know what Mr. Zamora saw, neither do you. I pointed out some actual points, and didn't insult anyone. Do you have any points to make or just more snark.....

Wayne Patterson said...

One more item........Whether one served in combat in Korea, the middle east, or the moon, doesn't mean they are immune from psychological stressors, including when encountering an unknown object in broad daylight. We ignorant unwashed enlisted soldiers in my line of work were taught about these factors to make us better able to handle them. To know what your own brain is doing to maybe overcome it. It didn't prevent it from happening to us. And korean war soldiers were not made aware of these things , nor were 1960s police. I accept he told the truth. But he was a human also...I have clearly said I believe he saw something unknown, possibly alien. But if I HAD SEEN it myself, that day, with him, I would not be certain my estimates or observations were 100percent accurate.
Is it so hard for people to believe that a witness is completely truthful, but maybe his estimates could be in error in some aspects......
What if , this "non human" craft never actually touched ground?, or was 20 feet further away, and not exactly at the spot he remembered because of his angle?..people make bold pronouncements, and when you point out other considerations, you are worthy of insults. I don't normally babble on, in blogs like this. I enjoy Kevin's work, and his honesty. I never said Zamora was crazy, or a liar, or a coward. I know something about stress, and fear. I read this blog, and sometimes post, to pass the time. I have spent the past year recovering from VA 18th century spinal surgery. I live on pain meds, and dont find typing all that easy. I said nothing out of malice about Zamora or the subject. I am not the world's expert on all subjects like some folks, but I can recognize the difference between provable data, and subjective opinions.

Don Maor said...

Patterson wrote:

"Throughout the entire Incident, it is safe to say Zamora was somewhat agitated to frightened"

"And again, if you have never observed things under high stress, you can't understand how it can affect the observer."

Wayne I just don't agree with your line of reasoning. A level of stress is recommended in order to get things right. Get too relaxed and you just won't be able or even willing to get the details. Senses of sight and hearing might even get sharper in emergent situations of danger or stress. Much more over, police men must have a reasonable degree of training in situations of stress, they are usually sobjected to varying levels of stress when they deal with fights, quarrels, nasty people, delinquents, prostitutes, car crashes, etc.

The point with the Socorro case is that it has more to it than the account of Zamora, which is important in itself. The case as presented in Ray Stanford's book is convincing for me.

I see the drawings presented in Ray Stanford's book show the humanoids with bald and somewhat larger heads, but I don't know whether there is a description like this by Zamora.

Paul Young said...

Wayne..."Do you have any points to make or just more snark....."

Only to mention that it must be the same in the USA as it is here in the most soldier's I ever come across tend to claim to have been in the SAS. So, like over here, Special Forces MUST be the biggest unit in the US Army, everyone seemed to have been in it.

zoamchomsky said...

The Three Crowns in Plymouth! I'm sure you had a great time. Good pic, Paul.

Paul Young said...

Stroll on on! I was at my old home port for our annual reunion!

ufodude2010 said...

Kevin -- Rob does have a good point about looking at current cases though. Are there any good ones (even close to potentially credible) out there that can be analyzed, given there are so many fakes constantly being uploaded to YouTube?

KRandle said...

Paul -

I too worry about people claiming military service, especially with elite units because there are so many who are simply lying about it. I note here that I sometimes worry about saying I am a Vietnam Veteran because so many lie about it and I wonder if they believe I am lying as well. Back in 1990, one of the US Census questions asked if you were a Vietnam Veteran. Thirteen million answered yes... the problem, there are only 2.5 million Vietnam Vets... Ten million plus were lying on the form.

Wayne -

I am not suggesting that your claim of service with the special forces is anything but accurate. I am only pointing out that those who claim that service and there are many in the UFO field as well as in nearly every other endeavor (just type Stolen Valor into a YouTube search engine)is infested with those claiming service they didn't have.

I wonder how many have tried to get my military records from St. Louis to find out if I was really an Army helicopter pilot in Vietnam or have the years of service I claim. Since I never hear of anyone challenging them, I assume they learned that I have accurately reported my service. For those who wish to make a quick Internet search, just type 187th AHC into your search engine and you will find me under the Rs in the unit roster... a simple way to verify some of this.

Wayne Patterson said...

I didn't hinge my comment on my military service. I brought it up in response to an insult. Not only did I spend the majority of my career in special forces (I was 82nd airborne prior to e5) I grew up in Fayetteville /fort Bragg. My father served in ww2, re entered the army in 1950 rose to Sgt major, left in 1961 to open a western auto. My two older brothers both served in special forces, the oldest entered army in 60, sf in 64, was an 18c, got out in 70, and spent career as sheriff's detective. My other brother entered in 67, and because he had one year of veterinary college, asked to go sf 18d because of shortage of sf medics( was not e5) and was prometed to e5 after q course and 18 d school. He was not the only one to do so at the time. He got out in 75, finished college. I was a late child of 7, entered army in 79, special forces in the 80s and served with a two year break in the 90s. Got out in after time in Afghanistan and Iraq ( in Iraq served in a signals unit non sf. I obtained two mos in my time 18b and 18d. I went on to work for two private military contractors, one being DynCorp. I spent a short time as weapons trainer on contracts for two state Leos. My comments did not reference my service, and the things I spoke of were easily locatable. I responded to an insult. Mostly what I got for my years is a damaged spine, a wound in my left leg and arm, a lot of pain, dead best friends and bad relations with my grown kids. I made some valid points, and was insulted. I don't try to sell my self as some hero. You won't see me at the vfw or writing blogs about my exploits. I am a guy with a lot of time, few friends left ( most didn't make 50 for many reasons, some on the job, some battered health, one suicide) I thought my ideas might give something to discuss, now you want a dxxk measuring contest. Ok,, you win, my ideas aren't welcome, I get we used to say, just another fxxking army day.......I will stay out of your club, you have my life story, now make some more comments about my lying. It's easy to do when you don't have to do it in person. Always admired you colonel, esp. Your way of valuing your pilot time above all else. Look thru my comments and find one where I said I was a green beret ufo expert. And by the way...a green beret is a hat folks, in case anyone is confused. I was a special forces soldier, and not one calls himself a green beret

KRandle said...

Wayne -

Again, no is was saying that your claim of service was anything but accurate. I was pointing that there are many who claim military service who have none, and Don Shipley at his Navy SEALs web site has suggested that for every 1000 requests he receives about men claiming to be SEALs, one ONE, turns out to be authentic.

And no one said your ideas are unwelcome but if you are going to post, you must be ready for those with a differing opinion to offer them. And while we all know that a green beret is just a hat, we also one about the Trojan Horse coin.

But if you are that thin skinned, then maybe this is the wrong forum for you... and just take a look at some of the comments made about me (which as the moderator, I do not have to post).