Thursday, November 10, 2016

We're Back to the Socorro Symbols


(Blogger’s note: I really should stop saying that something is my final post because I keep getting dragged back into these things. Given that I have another document that has not been published on this topic; I’m forced back into it. I do hope that we’ll all look at the evidence in a dispassionate way, but I have no hope for that.)

Since David Rudiak asked me, “To keep things simple, just explain why Hynek ALWAYS supported the inverted V symbol after talking to Zamora. That IS in BB files, twice at least, and is strong evidence for the inverted V being the correct symbol (unless Zamora, for reasons unknown, deliberately misled Hynek),” I have received additional information. Hynek actually confirmed what I have been describing as the “umbrella” symbol. Ben Moss, however, has jumped on this bandwagon as well, saying that he agreed with David 100% and that Hynek definitely stuck to inverted “V,” (who wasn’t a witness to the symbol on the craft) and was universal in his support of it.

Let’s briefly review the information.

In the Project Blue Book files (that is, the original files as shown on the microfilm), there is a scrap of paper on which Zamora drew the “umbrella” symbol and then signed it. (I confess that I do not understand the automatic rejection of this. We have a provenance, it is signed by the witness, and the testimony proves that Zamora drew the symbol on a scrap of paper within minutes of the object’s disappearance.)

In the Project Blue Book files, there is an illustration of the craft that Zamora drew that includes the “umbrella” symbol and that he then signed.

In the Project Blue Book files there is a report apparently written by Major William Connor that contains a hand drawn “umbrella” symbol.

Jim and Coral Lorenzen, who interviewed Zamora within 48 hours of his sighting, published their report in the APRO Bulletin and that contains the “umbrella” symbol.

Rick Baca, working with Zamora in the Socorro city attorney’s office, produced an illustration of the craft with the “umbrella” symbol on it.

Ray Stanford, in a letter to Dick Hall confirmed that the “umbrella” symbol was the correct one and that the inverted “V” with the three lines through it was the fake one given to the press.

Rich Reynolds, who interviewed Zamora’s wife about a decade ago, was told that the “umbrella” symbol was the correct one.

J. Allen Hynek, in a confidential interview with Isabel Davis on May 20, 1964, included the “umbrella” symbol as the correct one, contrary to the suggestions otherwise. He also told of the inverted “V” but noted it was from the newspapers.

Hynek's "confidential report to Isabel Davis.
On the flip side, there is the April 30, 1964, newspaper articles (apparently a news wire story that was reprinted around the country to which Hynek referred) that shows the inverted “V” with the three lines through it. There is a teletype message in the files that is in with a series of newspaper clippings. This message, which does refer to the inverted “V,” is an AP wire story rather than part of the Air Force investigation.

In the Project Blue Book file that were retrieved Carmon Marano and was recovered by Rob Mercer was a cursive note that reported the inverted “V” with the three lines through it. There was a second card with the same information on it that was apparently a hand-printed copy of the cursive note made, I would guess, for legibility.

Ray Stanford, in his book about Socorro, reported that the inverted “V” with the three lines through it was the correct symbol and the “umbrella” symbol was the fake. This is in opposition to what he had told Dick Hall years earlier.

Mike Martinez, in an interview recorded by Ray Stanford, seems to say that the symbol seen by Zamora is the inverted “V” with three lines through it.

Hynek, on September 7, 1964, in a handwritten letter, drew an inverted “V” with one line above it and two lines inside the legs of the “V” but do not touch it. It is a stretch to say that it is a match for the inverted “V” symbol.

Given that there is no indications in the Blue Book file that the “umbrella” symbol is faked, given there are multiple examples of it in the file, and given that Zamora signed two different examples of that symbol, it seems that the evidence and logic dictates that the umbrella symbol is the correct one. Add to that Hynek’s representation from May 20, 1964, Ray Stanford’s endorsement of it in his letter to Dick Hall (and his suggestion that the inverted “V” is in error), and Rich Baca’s illustration guided by Zamora, I do not understand how all this can be rejected for a symbol that seems to have no official support, no witness support, and appeared first in the newspapers when the true symbol was being withheld at the suggestion of Captain Holder.

34 comments:

Paul Young said...

I'm baffled by this obsession with probably the most trivial point of the whole Socorro affair!
Ok, we've rounded it down to one of two insignia's...but in an odd way, (because neither one of them has any resemblance to any aerospace company operating in 1963) the conclusion can only be the same for whichever insignia we personally believe to be the correct one...and that is that it was manufactured by someone unknown to by BlueBook and the US Airforce.


This arse kicking contest concerning the symbol simply pales into comparison with the two really big issues of this event.

1... The extraordinary capabilities of this craft.
A wingless craft that can vertically take off, then silently, and at a vast rate of knots, fly off horizontally. It's unknown of even now, let alone 50 years ago.
I totally understand the argument put by Brian in the previous "symbol" thread...that the whole point of a project being black is that it's not for public consumption...but 50 years down the line, wouldn't this billion pound technology have been used yet in one of the seemingly permanent wars we have been involved in since Gulf War 1?

2... (The real elephant in the room)..ie..the two "10 year old boys" entrusted to pilot this cutting edge technology.

KRandle said...

Paul -

Because this is fun, because I am in contact with a dozen people about this without the acrimony that accompanies so much of the UFO field, because I have been able to talk with a former member of Project Blue Book who provided some interesting insights into that operation and because it is a problem that can be and to my mind has been resolved... but mostly because we are all involved without having to spend a great deal of money on learning all about this.

The evidence available to those who were checking on it, and based on the documentation available tends to eliminate a terrestrial based technology. Chief of Blue Book, Hector Quintanilla, had access to the facilities in New Mexico and was armed with a letter of introduction which said that he was to be shown what he asked to see. He found nothing that would account for the craft.

We have all basically agreed that Zamora did report figures and based on his testimony, we have all the information that can be gathered about them. He didn't see them for very long, didn't get a look at their facial features, and could add little to what was already reported.

Ben Moss said...

Agree the symbol is the least of what is important with this case. As Kevin pointed out there is no Earthly explanation for this event despite many believing it was a black project that has never seen the light of day from 1964. I find that to be the biggest stretch of all since we still pour millions of $$ into propellant driven vehicles that crash and burn and there is ZERO evidence that the military EVER made an egg shaped craft with tiny people flying it. As Kevin mentioned Hector had access to anywhere he wanted to go, tasked by Blue Book and the Air-force and secretly the FBI and CIA. He found nothing and it frustrated him very much.

Brian Bell said...

Hello Paul:

You had asked -

A. "...but 50 years down the line, wouldn't this billion pound technology have been used yet in one of the seemingly permanent wars we have been involved in since Gulf War 1?"

The answer might be yes, but it wasn't disclosed to the public. For example, our governments deploy spies, Navy Seals, etc all around the globe, but the public is not told where or specifically why.

It may also depend on what the purpose of the supposed vehicle might be. If it's for surveillance or communications for example, then perhaps it didn't carry or drop any ordnance on the enemy.

B. ".....the real elephant in the room)..ie..the two "10 year old boys" entrusted to pilot this cutting edge technology."

Let's recall Zamora's original description stating he thought he saw a car overturned end up. Well it wasn't of course. His brief glance in the direction of the figures may have also been an initial thought, but unlike the craft he never saw them again to confirm his hunch as correct.

C. "A wingless craft that can vertically take off, then silently, and at a vast rate of knots, fly off horizontally. It's unknown of even now, let alone 50 years ago."

Don't forget concepts for such craft were proposed as early as the 1920's, some patented, and others tested in laboratories; Biefeld-Brown, Searl, Tesla and others. The Germans prototyped VTOL aircraft in the 1940's as well. Designs well established as authentic.

Brian Bell said...

Not to belabor the point, but some folks think the blue flame under the craft was novel in some ways and therefore "not of this earth".

Well the fact is blue flame is common in some aircraft that use thrust vectoring from rocket engines. For aircraft, the method was originally envisaged to provide upward vertical thrust as a means to give aircraft vertical (VTOL) or short (STOL) takeoff and landing ability.

While we are used to seeing orange flame coming from rockets or turbine afterburners, blue flame is produced when a very lean mixture of fuel (kerosine, etc) is mixed with pure O2 producing thrust. Some aircraft produce this blue flame. Lean mixtures produce blue flame while orange flame generally has soot as a byproduct of the fuel mixture.

If this were a VTOL aircraft using Coanda effect for stable flight, it's conceivable the craft had a central thrust system attached for additional lift on take off.

All of this was possible in 1963.

Again I'll say the Zamora insignia can be readily identified as an umbrella shaped VTOL craft dome with an upward arrow underneath representing vertical lift as rising from the straight line representing the ground.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin: “J. Allen Hynek, in a confidential interview with Isabel Davis on May 20, 1964, included the “umbrella” symbol as the correct one, contrary to the suggestions otherwise. He also told of the inverted “V” but noted it was from the newspapers.”

From your attached Hynek doodles, it shows that Hynek sketched not one “umbrella” symbol, but 3 distinct different versions. Two of them lack the long horizontal line at the bottom underneath the inverted V or “arrow”. The one that does have the bottom line, has a significantl shorter vertical line entirely within the inverted V part, instead of extending below the V, as in the other two sketches.

One doesn’t even have the “umbrella” part, namely the arc at the top. Does it even qualify as an “umbrella” symbol anymore? If anything, it more resembles the inverted V symbol with three bars.

Hynek notes he wasn’t even sure the arc was part of the symbol: “Sometimes he drew with an arc over it (representing the object itself?) [points to left drawing], sometimes not, as at right.”

In the two sketches with the arc, Hynek drew it most of the way around the rest of the symbol, leaving it open only at the bottom. Zamora’s signed symbols have a much shorter arc at the top.

Two of the sketches Hynek says Zamora drew for him have two short bars above the inverted V part. None of the “umbrella” symbols signed by Zamora has this feature.

The third “umbrella” sketch with the long line at the bottom most closely resembles the Baca sketch, also supposedly done with Zamora’s approval. However, it has a much longer “arrow” shaft and an arc not as encompassing as Hynek’s version.

The Baca drawing was published by both the Socorro paper and the APRO Bulletin. But APRO published yet another, very different “umbrella” symbol, looking more like the 10 Commandments tablet, with long straight vertical sides coming down from the top arc, and a very long arrow shaft down the middle. This too was said to be based on Zamora’s description.

So which is the “correct” “umbrella” symbol: the ones originally signed by Zamora or the 3 different versions sketched by Hynek, at least 2 of them based on what Hynek says Zamora sketched for him? Or is it the Baca version, or the second APRO version, all said to be based on what Zamora said?

What Hynek said Zamora sketched looks like hybrid between the Zamora-signed“umbrella” symbols and an inverted V with 3 lines one. Maybe Zamora didn’t know what the hell he was supposed to tell anyone at that point. Or maybe Hynek altered what Zamora really showed him because he felt he couldn’t fully disclose the “real” symbol to a non-official investigator, and invented his own hybrids.

We still have the conundrum that Hynek 3+ months later was asking Blue Book to search for yet another symbol to see if they could find a match to an existing aerospace project. This was no “umbrella” symbol with an arc and arrow beneath, but a strict inverted V one with 3 horizontal lines, a longer line above the V and two shorter ones within the V. That also happened to be a close match to a description from April 29 in the newspapers attributed to Zamora. There is also the problem that Hynek was putting out in the media a strict inverted V description with one to 3 lines the day after interviewing Zamora, and also speaking of the symbol in his BB report as an “inverted V” and the same one Zamora supposedly drew for Holder.

And I haven’t mentioned that Chavez before Hynek even got involved was quoting Zamora as saying he saw an inverted V with three lines through it, and dispatcher Martinez telling Ray Stanford that Zamora described something very similar to him. And then there was Shrode asking Zamora about the inverted V symbol, with Zamora deflecting the question, saying he was told not to talk about it. If this was the fake symbol designed to smoke out hoaxers, that would have been the perfect time to publicly confirm it.

KRandle said...

David -

Your bias is showing... Hynek's doodles?

You said that he always supported the inverted "V" with the lines through it, though that actually isn't the case. He drew the inverted "V" with a line to the apex and one that had the umbrella over it. But the point is, he seems to have been confused as to what the symbol looked like.

You say that SGT Chaves said that Zamora said that he saw the inverted "V" with the three lines through it, but this seems to be second-hand testimony at best and might be third hand depending on your source.

What we have are two instances in which Zamora signed specific drawings of the umbrella symbol, we have Major Connor putting that symbol in his report, we have Zamora, in consultation with Rick Baca producing that symbol. You say about that "supposedly" done with Zamora's approval but do you have any evidence to doubt this? You seem to reject all this for what don't seem to be very good reasons.

You endorse the newspaper symbol of the inverted "V" with the lines, labeled in the confidential report as a "newspaper" and seem to overlook the fact that Zamora said that he had been asked (told?) to withhold the real symbol which seems to suggest these newspaper reports are not correct.

To me the evidence that includes Zamora's endorsement of one symbol over the others is persuasive. The evidence for the inverted "V" seems to be newspaper articles and statements from those who didn't see the symbol. Since we have Zamora's signature on one and nothing to suggest it is the faked symbol, then the conclusion is obvious.

David Rudiak said...

Brian,

This has all been discussed before, but you continue to ignore the huge holes in your arguments. It could not have been a conventional jet or rocket-powered VTOL craft as these create large blast effects, namely large excavated crater. There was none at Socorro. Also jet and most rocket engines leave organic residues behind, such as if your kerosene fuel were used. Chemical testing of soil and plant samples by the AF found no such residues.

Zamora said the object went dead silent after it rose up and then departed at high speed horizontally. Complete silence is yet another argument against jet or rocket engine, and also rules out an internal combustion engine, such as on a helicopter or Coanda-type VTOL craft.

Coanda-type craft do not fly at high speeds. Zamora said the object departed at high speed. He reported his craft shooting vertically up the nearby mountains at very high speeds, almost too fast to follow by eye. The very low end estimate of average speed was 120 mph. More likely several times that based on more likely, shorter departure time estimates. No Coanda craft ever built can do even 120 mph.

The winds were all wrong for the silent object to be a balloon. It would have had to fly into a stiff wind (as would a Coanda craft, whose large cross-sectional profile also creates a lot of wind resistance, making high speeds even less likely).

Silence precludes rockets, jets, internal combustion engines. Brian mentions field propulsion, such as Biefeld-Brown, which uses a high voltage asymmetrical capacitor to achieve lift and propulsion. You can see model "lifters" on YouTube built on this principle. All are weak effects, barely able to lift the light-weight model, much less the large power supply needed to generate the high-voltage needed. The likely explanation for the weak propulsion effect is ionization of the air and a weak ion wind from electrode to electrode. If it were true field effect, then it should work in a vacuum where there are no air molecules to ionize, something I've never seen demonstrated. In fact, in a Mythbuster episode, they tested such a lifter in a vacuum chamber and it no longer worked.

Same goes for any other field propulsion technology--never convincingly demonstrated. Besides, there is the usual objection that if we had such an amazing field technology VTOL craft back in 1964, where is it now? Why doesn't the military have fleets of them, instead of using jet and internal combustion engines to power all their known aircraft? Half a century is a very long time to perfect a technology, which already seemed very advanced and functional back in 1964.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin,

Your own biases are showing. You have complained that there are inconsistencies in the description of the inverted V symbol, particularly the length and placement of the lines. Indeed there are. You have used this as an argument against this symbol. Shouldn’t there be more consistency if it were the real thing?

But you aren’t using the same argument about the “umbrella” symbol, which is at least as inconsistent, maybe more so. To recaptulate:

Basic “umbrella” symbol: Top arc, with upward pointing “arrow” and “shaft” underneath, with long line under arrow.

Hynek alone drew 3 different versions, one not even having the curved arc, “umbrella” part, in fact closer to the inverted V with 3 bars symbol (but having two above, and one below and vertical—the arrow shaft). Two of the three are very different from the signed Zamora figures. The Lorenzens published two versions, both very different from one another (the Baca version, said to be based on what Zamora told him, very similar/same to signed Zamora one, the classic “umbrella” symbol), and one looking more like the 10 Commandments tablet, with long straight sides extending down from top arc and very long “arrow shaft”. Yet ALL were said to be personally drawn or described by Zamora.

Major nconsistencies 1) Large variations in the size, extension and shape of the “arc”, including an instance of no arc (leading to Hynek wondering if the arc drawn by Zamora in one figure really depicted the outline of the surrounding craft) ; 2) large variations in the length of the vertical shaft of the arrow (either completely contained within V, extended a little beyond bottom, or extended FAR beyond the bottom; 4) Variation in whether or not the shaft was connected to the point (inverted V) above it; 3) Presence or absence of the bottom line; 4) Two extra, short lines above the arrow and beneath the arc, present in two representations that Hynek said Zamora drew for him (one wth arc, one without), but NOT in any others, including those 3 signed by Zamora initially.

Basic inverted V symbol: Inverted V with usually 3 horizontal lines of various length and placement relative to the V, some long and all through V, some shorter and all underneath V, or 1 or 2 above V. Described by Hynek publicly April 29 & 30 in various interviews (Shrode, newspaper reporters), internally in his BB report, with another drawing by him 5 months later to BB asking them to look for it. The latter drawing closely matched a verbal description April 29 attributed to Zamora, but could easily have been 2nd hand through Hynek, who was doing a lot of talking to reporters that day. Widely reported AP Hynek description: “...inverted V with bars through it.”

Quote attributed to Zamora: “...like an upside down V with three lines across the top, through the middle and at the bottom.” Hynek drawing in letter 5 months later: very similar—longer line above V, two shorter ones underneath and within V, one through middle, one at bottom.

Was Chavez really speaking 2nd-hand? He was the first by Zamora’s side as Zamora was sketching what he had seen (that slip of paper), so Chavez would not only have spoken to Zamora, but should have seen what he drew. Yet what he was quoted as saying April 28 before Hynek got there was Zamora seeing “an inverted V with three bars crossing it,” nothing like the umbrella symbol that Zamora allegedly drew at that time.

Fellow officer, dispatcher Mike Martinez to Stanford (recorded interview) as to what Zamora told him: "...un 'V' invertido, con tres líneas debajo,", "an inverted 'V' with three lines beneath it". (Not necessarily inconsistent with Chavez, depending on line extension, not specified here)

Walter Shrode asked Zamora about the symbol: ” someone said that the markings that you saw was an upside down “V” with three lines running through it. (consistent with Chavez).

I see a LOT of inconsistencies for both symbols and don’t see anything conclusive here one way or another.

KRandle said...

The difference David is that Zamora signed two of the representations of the symbol, both of which were the same, and in describing the event to Rick Baca in the city attorney's office, gave the same description, correcting the illustration as needed.

Everything else is basically hearsay or second hand. Even Ray Stanford, in his letter to Dick Hall said the umbrella symbol was the correct one.

Of course you will say that he "corrected" this years later, but the fact remains, in the days after the sighting, he repudiated the inverted "V" with the three lines and endorsed the umbrella.

David Rudiak said...

“The difference David is that Zamora signed two of the representations of the symbol, both of which were the same, and in describing the event to Rick Baca in the city attorney's office, gave the same description, correcting the illustration as needed.”

What about those Hynek drawings for Isabel Davis, which Hynek said Zamora drew for him, which are VERY different from the signed Zamora drawings? (Lack bottom line, one lacks any arc, one has arc wrapping far around rest of symbol, both have two bars above inverted V or arrow tip, arrow shaft is significantly shorter than Zamora's signed drawings, also disconnected from V, unlike two of Zamora's signed drawings.)

How are these different from the Baca drawing in the way they were obtained? Both drawings are by third parties and unsigned by Zamora. You just prefer the Baca drawing because it is close to the signed Zamora drawings, while dismissing Hynek’s various symbol versions as “second-hand” and “hearsay.” That is trying to have it both ways.

Hynek got the inverted V from the newspapers. Really? Then why did Hynek in his BB report say Zamora described an inverted V symbol to him (same as he drew for Holder, he added). Why did Hynek much later ask BB to look for a match to his included drawing of the inverted V symbol, which I can only assume was also based on what Zamora told him? Would Hynek send BB off on a wild goose chase looking for the wrong symbol? Why did Hynek always tell the press immediately after interviewing Zamora the first time that it was an inverted V symbol described to him personally by Zamora?

Why did the Lorenzens publish a totally different version of the "umbrella" symbol in addition to the Baca one? They said this was also based on a Zamora description. Why did Chavez and Martinez say Zamora described the inverted V symbol to them (and Chavez should have seen it being drawn by Zamora on-site immediately afterward, so not just a verbal description).

The fact remains, in INTERNAL BB documents, Hynek was clearly promoting the inverted V symbol as the real one for an extended period, which doesn’t make any sense if he thought the “umbrella” symbol (including the ones he drew for Davis, one not even being an “umbrella”) was correct. These were documents not meant for public reading, so no reason for Hynek to be deceptive here.

I have still not seen a good argument refuting Hynek’s clear internal favoritism of the inverted V. If Hynek was “confused” as you argue (and maybe he was), maybe he was getting different descriptions from Zamora at different times. Hynek mentions in his BB report returning to Socorro in a month to ask Zamora and Chavez more questions. Also the Baca drawing (which you say Hynek reviewed) and Davis interview were a month later. Is this when Zamora possibly changed drawings from the inverted V to the “umbrella” symbols with Hynek presenting the newest versions to Davis? (Obviously just speculation on my part, trying to make sense of all this.) But initially and months later, Hynek was clearly favoring the inverted V symbol.

David Rudiak said...

Let’s do a chronology of the evolution of the two basic symbols (“umbrella”/inverted V) and some of the known facts:

1. Immediately after the object disappeared, Zamora drew a picture of the symbol he had seen on a slip of paper and we believed signed it. If the signed slip of paper still in BB files was the original one drawn on-site by Zamora, then it’s game over. Zamora saw the “umbrella” symbol. But if it’s a substitute drawn later as part of a deception scheme (below), then maybe not. There are oddities about the origin of that torn piece of paper, such as where Zamora got it. According to fellow policeman Mike Martinez, Zamora tore it out of a magazine, but the known slip doesn’t seem to be the sort of material that Zamora would read and carry around in his police cruiser. Further, Sgt. Chavez was quickly by Zamora’s side and should have seen the actual initial drawing. But Chavez publicly described a different symbol (inverted V) 4 days later.

2. Zamora described early on the symbol he saw to fellow police (clearly Chavez, maybe Martinez and others) and maybe some non-police before Holder of the Army became involved on Day 1.

2. Same night, Holder interviewed Zamora and convinced him to publicly support a false symbol in case hoaxers were to later appear. He was not to discuss the real one with nonofficials. Thereafter, Zamora would commonly say when asked about specifics, that he couldn’t discuss it.

3. Zamora signed the “umbrella” symbol 3 times, one on a torn slip of paper, and twice on drawings of the craft and one the symbol alone. On the latter two, the drawings were notated by Holder. This is Kevin’s chief argument in favor of this symbol, and it’s a good one, but still there is Holder’s involvement in at least two of these signed symbols. So the big question is whether the signed drawings we know about were substitutes for the real thing as part of the Holder deception scheme.

4. When Blue Book sent out two reps (Connor and Moody) two days later, Holder denied knowing anything about the symbol (according to Moody’s report), which was clearly a lie and strongly suggests he wasn’t being fully cooperative with BB for some reason. (Didn’t trust them? Army vs. AF?) Moody used the signed Zamora/Holder drawings (“umbrella” symbol), but it wasn’t clear from his report whether Zamora independently confirmed this shape with them when he was interviewed by them. The symbol was drawn at least two other times in BB files.

5. On the same day, before Connor and Moody, the Lorenzens of APRO interviewed Zamora. He absolutely refused to describe the symbol to them, saying Holder had instructed him not to. Holder independently confirmed this to them. Instead, the Lorenzens the next month published two very different versions of the “umbrella” symbol, one the Ricky Baca drawing done a month after the event under the advice of Zamora (also published in the Socorro newspaper), and very close to Zamora’s signed drawings done Day 1. However the other very different version (what I call the “10 Commandments tablet”) was also said to be based on what Zamora described.

6. Possibly the same day, Walter Shrode of KSRC radio interviewed Zamora on air and asked him about the inverted V with 3 bars through it, saying “somebody” had said that is what he had seen. This was one early instance when Zamora refused to answer, saying the military had instructed him not to talk about it. The “someone” was never identified. (fellow police?)

7. Four days after the event, Sgt. Chavez was quoted in the newspapers that Zamora described an inverted V with three bars through it. Chavez should also have seen the original drawing Zamora made on-site on a slip of paper right after the object departed.

David Rudiak said...

(2 of 2)
2. Later that day, Hynek of BB finally arrived and interviewed Zamora. According to his BB report, Zamora described an inverted V symbol to him, the same one he drew for Holder. But the ones we know about that Zamora signed, are not the inverted V, which again raises the question whether there were two sets of drawings, one of the real symbol and one of the false. This might also help explain why Holder feigned ignorance of the symbol when Connor/Moody asked him about it.

3. The following day, Hynek was telling various reporters, including Shrode, that Zamora described an inverted V with either a single bar or three bars. Hynek also drew a version of the inverted V/3-bar symbol in another internal BB document, a handwritten letter to BB 4-1/2 months later. He asked them to search for it, hoping for a match in some aerospace project.

4. Same day, a description attributed to Zamora also appeared in the newspapers, the inverted V with 3 bars again, but more detailed, and strongly resembling what Hynek drew for BB in that letter much later. Possibly this didn’t come directly from Zamora, but second-hand from Hynek, who was talking to a lot to reporters that day before leaving Socorro.

5. Following day, UPI transmitted a wirephoto drawing of the object with the inverted V/3-bars through it symbol, said to be based on six witnesses.

6. About same time, NICAP investigator Ray Stanford left Socorro. He wrote a short report to Richard Hall of NICAP, saying the inverted V symbol was the fake one; the “umbrella” the real one. Later he changed his mind (such as in his book), saying every policeman he talked to told him Zamora described the inverted V symbol. When I asked Ray about this note, he said it was clearly his handwriting, but he didn’t remember writing it, nor does he remember his thinking at the time. He may have been confused by the conflicting stories. Also he may have thought the police were jerking the young guy around, then changed his mind on further reflection. Also he knew his mental focus at the time was on the very important metal scrapings he had recovered at the site out of a landing impression and how he was going to have them analyzed.

7. Hynek returned to Socorro about a month later to ask more questions of Zamora and Chavez. It was about this time that young Ricky Baca drew the picture of the object and classic “umbrella” symbol, said to be approved by Zamora (also very close to Zamora’s signed drawings). According to Kevin, Hynek also saw this before it was published in the Socorro paper and had the symbol whited out. (APRO, however, published it uncensored) So did Hynek know of the Holder decepetion scheme and have it whited out to try to protect the identity of the real symbol? Or was Hynek, the scientist, appalled that Zamora would approve a fake symbol and didn’t want misinformation put out?

8. At about this same time, Hynek was interviewed by Isabel Davis and drew two different symbols that he said Zamora drew for him (not specifying when these were drawn—initially or when he returned to Socorro?). Kevin argues these are umbrella symbols, but they are very different from Zamora’s signed symbols. They lack the bottom line, they have two short bars above the inverted V or arrow tip, one completely lacks the top arc (leading Hynek to ask whether Zamora meant to convey the shape of the surrounding object rather than it being part of the symbol). To me these symbols more resemble hybrid versions of the two symbols, with aspects of each.

9. Hynek also drew two other symbols from the “papers”, the inverted V with three lines through it, and the classic “umbrella” shape, like what Baca drew at about the same time and what Hynek had apparently reviewed.

10. Months later, Hynek drew the inverted V with three bars symbol and asked BB to search for it. Clearly he thought this was (or could have been) the correct symbol in making this request.

Brian Bell said...

Basic question:

Why the insistence on the multiple variations of the inverted "V" when at least four sources, including Zamora, testified and confirmed the "umbrella" version?

Is there something special about the inverted "V" that drives a passion for the symbol to be that one?

Ben Moss said...

David I believe you have pointed out many problems with the so called 'signed' symbol. I see more evidence for the inverted v with 3 bars. Again, the drawing has been shown not to be in Zamora's handwriting. Also, he was sworn to uphold his patriotic duty, so of course he would hold to that even to his wife and sign a drawing he did not make.
Brian,your still hung up on a VTOL. Again this was investigated and nobody had this type of craft, nothing was flying in the area, and nothing was picked up on radar. VTOL's did not have much of a range at all and the ground was tested showing no kerosene, no propellants at all. It was certainly not a VTOL, and find me one egg shaped craft built by us, much less one that could fly silently and then go many miles up into the wind at top speed. The flame KNIFED into the ground. All of our tech would have made a crater and dispersed a lot of material as well as leaving traces. Lets also not forget the film fogged by radiation, which I have Hynek confirming on video. And finally, if we had this tech in 1964 then why all of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

Brian Bell said...

@ Ben

You think Zamora's signature a fake? Or are you suggesting the "doodle" he drew was drawn by someone else....and who might that have been?

Even if he didn't scribble the simple drawings we have, it's not a deal breaker. Cops are used to sketch artists for profiling criminals, and in the end Zamora did sign it.

But now you're claiming he fraudulently signed the fake illustration out of a sense of patriotic duty to our national security. Right? Well we have no evidence of that at all. That's just pure conjecture on your part.

Furthermore, if he signed the drawings fraudulently:

- Then Zamora is just a fraud too and we should question everything he said with new eyes focused on a cop making up false stories.
- He wasn't ordered to sign it and there's no evidence he was coerced or forced to do it either.
- If he signed those drawings knowing them to be false, then why were the other inverted V versions printed in the newspapers, were they the genuine ones?
- Why didn't he just sign every illustration to confuse everyone if that was the goal anyway?

This is where your claim above falls apart. In addition you wrote:

"....your still hung up on a VTOL. Again this was investigated and nobody had this type of craft, nothing was flying in the area, and nothing was picked up on radar."

- Yes investigated, but you fail to acknowledge that some classified projects aren't revealed even to internal investigators, which I already stated.
- You mean nobody (government or corporation) fessed up to the classified project, and anyway why would they do that for a bunch of UFO investigators?
- Not everything on radar is picked up for a variety of reasons, some due to weather anomalies or temperature inversions which are simply ignored by the technician, and some due to the construction of the object itself.

If not a VTOL then perhaps a bonafide human engineered flying apparatus of unusual design and propulsion system. You believe government and military insiders claim aliens are real, right? Well there are also government insiders who have claimed the U.S. Invented this technology back in the mid-1950's and has kept it secret for decades due to the implications of its use. Why don't you believe them if you believe the others? We have plenty of patented designs for radical new disc aircraft predating 1963. Why are these facts dismissed in favor of nonexistent data that you and others claim definitively proves aliens are responsible?

KRandle said...

All -

This post is about the symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw and not the ancillary stuff about VTOL aircraft... comments that relate to VTOL will disappear into cyberspace.

Ben Moss said...

The drawing is not his. Your argument about VTOL falls apart quickly but Kevin wants to stay on topic. (Tell me one project from 1964 that is still classified, and by the way it was not a disc and there is no project that built eggs flown by midgets).) As Dave has pointed out there is more evidence for the inverted v than any other yet you still hold on to a scrap of paper, probably hastily torn out of some paper by FBI agent Byrnes who had Lonnie sign and help him to it as a former Army man. Of course they would play on his patriotic duty to his country.
" Chavez and Martinez say Zamora described the inverted V symbol to them". Hynek drew the same symbol many times, he just put the bars in differently but he was an absent minded kind of Professor. The newspapers had that same symbol THE NEXT DAY. Walter Schrode asked about it the next day, and instead of Lonnie correcting him if that symbol was wrong he SAID HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT. That sure sounds like a cover-up, he could have easily said 'no it was an umbrella etc.'
"Following day, UPI transmitted a wirephoto drawing of the object with the inverted V/3-bars through it symbol, said to be based on six witnesses."
Did you even read Davids comments?

Ben Moss said...

This from David should make anyone pause on thinking one is 100% correct:
"Hynek was interviewed by Isabel Davis and drew two different symbols that he said Zamora drew for him (not specifying when these were drawn—initially or when he returned to Socorro?). Kevin argues these are umbrella symbols, but they are very different from Zamora’s signed symbols. They lack the bottom line, they have two short bars above the inverted V or arrow tip, one completely lacks the top arc (leading Hynek to ask whether Zamora meant to convey the shape of the surrounding object rather than it being part of the symbol). To me these symbols more resemble hybrid versions of the two symbols, with aspects of each."
Finally:
The inverted V with three bars through it was being reported in the media before Ray even got to Socorro four days later and finally questioned Zamora (as I recall) on day 5. So despite some nonsense on the Net, Ray certainly did NOT invent that insignia, somehow getting Zamora to change his story. Examples of the media mentioning the symbol in the days immediately following:

1. Zamora interviewed by Walter Shrode on KSRC, I think the day after the incident. Transcript at my website and link to recording:

Socorro_Zamora_interview

SHRODE: And someone said that the markings that you saw was an upside down “V” with three lines running through it.

ZAMORA: No sir, I couldn’t tell you that, because they still don’t want me to say nothing about the markings.

2. Walter Shrode interviewing Hynek had him saying it (maybe April 29, after Hynek arrived at about the same time as Ray the evening of April 28), my transcript and link to recording:Socorro_Hynek_interview

SHRODE: Well, about this marking, can you tell us how he described this marking and what the marking was?

HYNEK: Yes, I see no reason why not. He described it to me as an inverted “V” with a sort of a bar across it...

3. AP quoted Hynek saying it:

AP Story, April 30 (e.g. Frederick MD News)
“The scientist [Hynek] also discussed the markings that Zamora said he saw on the side of the object, a red, inverted V with bars through it.”

4. First responder and Zamora's friend Sgt. Sam Chavez was quoted saying it:

Hobbs NM Daily News, April 28, front page
“State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez said he was told by Socorro policeman Lonnie Zamora that the UFO he saw Friday… had red markings on its silvery side. Chavez said Zamora told him the design was an inverted V with three bars crossing it, but that the Air Force had told him not to discuss the markings.”

5. AP attributed the description directly to Zamora himself:

AP Story, April 29 (e.g., San Antonio TX Light, Danville VA Bee)

“Officer Lonnie Zamora said the object he saw last Friday was a brilliant white. He said there was a red marking on it like an upside down V with three lines across the top, through the middle and at the bottom.” (San Antonio paper also showed a drawing of the object with the symbol, said to be based on "newspaper accounts")

6. Ray has a recording of Socorro police dispatcher Mike Martinez saying it. As Ray notes in his book: "Martinez quoted Zamora in Spanish, "...un 'V' invertido, con tres líneas debajo," meaning exactly what it says, "an inverted 'V' with three lines beneath it"

In fact, I haven't been able to find a similar description of what became known as the real symbol in this early reporting. That seems to have appeared later

Ben Moss said...

You can see Captain Holders son's letter saying that his father did have Lonnie obscure the symbol here:
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2014/06/UFO-NEWS-new-information-surfaces-re-famous.html

David Rudiak said...

Believing that the Zamora-signed "umbrella" symbols are the false ones requires a theory that Cpt. Holder deliberately had Zamora sign these are part of his deception scheme to screen for possible future hoaxers. The deception would have to extend to the Blue Book investigators Moody and Connor, because they accepted these signed symbols as being the real representation. Evidence that might support this is:

1. Holder and Zamora admitted to the Lorenzens two days after the event that they had agreed to the deception. (But the Lorenzens were not told what the true symbol was.) The signed "umbrella" symbols were done the first night when Holder investigated and interviewed Zamora, and they are notated by Holder (his handwriting).

2. When Moody/Connor asked Holder about the symbol two days later (right after the Lorenzens spoke to Zamora and Holder), he claimed he didn't have any knowledge of it (in Moody's BB report). This begs the question of why Holder lied about this. It does strongly suggest to me that he wasn't being fully cooperative with BB for reasons unknown. (Which requires additional speculation why Holder would do this.)

3. Chavez, the first police responder, thus the first person to speak with Zamora and also to see his initial drawing done on-site, four days later publicly gave the alternate symbol description (inverted V with 3 lines). One other Socorro policeman, Martinez, told Ray Stanford, on tape the same thing. Stanford has written that every policeman he spoke to likewise told him Zamora said he saw the inverted V.

4. Hynek in his initial BB report said that Zamora (same day as Chavez's public statement) described the same symbol he had drawn for Holder, the inverted V. Five months later he wrote BB a letter with a drawing of the inverted V and ask them to look for it in aerospace programs to see if they could match it. Hynek also made several public declarations the day after interviewing Zamora about the inverted V symbol.

Against this we have:
1. We need a conspiracy theory involving Holder to explain away Zamora's signed symbols, with Holder deliberately planting a counterfeit within BB using their investigators Connor/Moody (thus lying about ignorance of symbol). This would require something like Holder not trusting BB/USAF and wanting to keep the correct information internal to Army intelligence. I think that is too much for many people to swallow

2. Zamora may not have been entirely consistent with Hynek, as Kevin's document of the drawings Hynek made for Isabel Davis a month later shows. Hynek drew two different symbols for Davis, saying that these were what Zamora drew for him. I call these hybrid symbols, because they have characteristics of both the inverted V and "umbrella" symbols. At about the same time, Hynek had returned to Socorro to speak to Zamora again, so it is possible Zamora then changed the symbols on him. Other possibilities are that Hynek was confused and confabulated hybrid symbols, or was not being candid with Davis.

So there we have it--a big muddle with good but contradictory evidence either way.

Zamora generally became less and less cooperative as time passed. When Hynek returned again in August, he said he could barely get a word out of him. Chavez told him he was getting a hard time from some of the townspeople, particularly the kids.

I think Zamora felt besieged, didn't like the position he had been put in where he felt he couldn't be completely candid (this included the FBI agent Byrnes advising him the not to talk about the small beings). I don't think he was dishonest or evasive. Everyone who knew him said he was a straight arrow, unimaginative cop. I think he didn't like the publicity and ridicule, was getting pulled in multiple directions and didn't know what to say anymore, so he just stopped saying anything. His daughter said her father refused to discuss the case even with her

Ron S. said...

But wait! Alas the amazing Ray Stanford claims (as usual) to have spectacular photo's of THE same egg shaped UFO WITH it's landing gear extended flying through the air. Sometime later after Zamora's incident, Stanford went to the same dynamite shack that was originally involved to photograph it (for whatever reason) - and miraculously what shows up on the film? The egg same egg shaped UFO that Zamora saw! It's a miracle! But of course, as standard Stanford operating procedure - Ray only show's his photo's to a select few. So we'll never get to see them.

Ron S. said...

I'd also like to know how somehow Zamora's UFO went from looking like an upside down car - to a smooth egg with landing gear? How exactly do you confuse the two?

David Rudiak said...

(1 of 2)
Here's a new wrinkle in the symbol issue. Zamora was drawing the symbol on a piece of paper right after the object disappeared. Chavez arrived soon after and must have seen what was on that paper. Chavez 4 days later was quoted saying it was an inverted V with 3 lines through it. But the slip of paper that still exists in Project BB files at the National Archives with a symbol signed by Zamora shows the “umbrella”symbol. What gives?

As usual everything is contradictory. Either Chavez lied or what is on the paper is not what Zamora drew originally, but a substitute drawing on another slip of paper, perhaps as part of the Holder deception scheme that Zamora agreed to (both admitted to such a scheme). In the latter scenario, when Holder interviewed Zamora back at the police station that night, another piece of paper was torn out of a magazine, a new symbol was drawn, and Zamora signed it, along with two other drawings of the symbol notated by Holder. The torn piece of paper drawing was taped onto a full page of paper, and Holder notated that as well. (Kevin reproduced that last week: See Nov. 6, 2016, “A Final Analysis of the Socorro Symbol”)

The new information has to do with Ray Stanford and James Fox reviewing the original materials instead of xeroxes a few years ago at the National Archives. The Scotch had deteriorated such that the small piece of paper with the symbol had come loose, allowing BOTH sides to be examined. This shows more of the front side with the drawn symbol, which I have now traced as being torn out of the corner of a Kodak camera ad that ran in April 1964 (more below). The backside is a portion of a multiple choice quiz which at least two people took, with two circled answers and red check. Stanford and Fox scanned both sides, and Ray just sent copies on to me. (Thanks to Ray for sharing.)

The front side with symbol in these much better images has the words "General Dynamics" beneath the bottom of a photo and then at the end of the right side of the caption, "lift-(off)", "vital role" "..e, records", and in large letters beneath that, "with a". Now here is almost an exact match from "Boy's Life" Magazine, April 1964 (look at bottom right corner):

http://tinyurl.com/April-1964-Boys-Life

This is the SAME ad (which continues on the next page), but the caption is formatted with different, smaller font, thus the same words above are there, but in different locations in the caption There is also no multiple choice quiz on the backside, so the ad must have appeared in a different magazine.

From what I've found so far, this ad campaign with this layout had run back through the previous year, but each month they changed the photos. E.g., Boy's Life from the previous month ran it, all the same except the photos. Thus whatever the publication, it likely dates to April 1964. The ad is spread out on two pages, so to get at the right bottom corner and tear it off, it would seem the whole page may have been torn out first. The general theme of the ad is all the ways and professions that photography is used (thus multiple pictures demonstrating this, which kept changing month to month).

The multiple choice exam on the back shows only a fragment of questions 9 & 10. Question 9 shows only the word "The" at the question beginning and the circled "a", "b" or "c" with red check mark. Question 10 reads "10. "On......see a. fashi(on) b. beatni(k) c. Jewish", with circled/checked answers. Weird.

I have been unable to match this from any publication. The only other clue Ray provided is that the paper was cheap, more like from a pulp magazine, periodical, or newspaper, not the glossy paper one might expect from a LIFE, TIME, LOOK, etc. However, it would have to be the sort of publication that a big outfit like Kodak would advertise in, and also something that might appeal to a hobbyist or various professionals.

David Rudiak said...

(2 of 2)
I am presenting this information in the hope that maybe someone has some bright idea what the original publication was, with Kodak ad and strange multiple choice quiz on the back.

The importance of this has to do with whether it was likely Zamora would have such a magazine in his police cruiser, i.e. whether it was his sort of reading material. If not, it is unlikely that this was the original drawing he made. Right now I would lean towards “no”, for one reason, he spent his entire time patrolling the streets, not conducting stakeouts and passing the time. I also don’t see his rather unimaginative personality taking multiple choice quizzes. Being brand new, it certainly wasn’t laying out in the desert waiting for him to pick up and draw on.

Finally, as I mentioned, it seems at least 2, maybe 3 people tried their hand at the rather strange quiz. There are two sets of circled answers, different ink color, different circle styles, plus the red check marks. This strikes me as some sort of magazine that would have been laying around at the police station and read by multiple people, not in Zamora’s cruiser, and certainly not laying out in the desert. This would suggest the drawing and signing of it was done back at the police station, not out at the UFO site.

The other thing I’d like to note is that all three signed Zamora symbols show different representation of the “umbrella symbol” with significant differences. The torn piece of paper one has the symbol much narrower than the other two. The upward facing “arrow” or inverted V with shaft beneath it is broken, with the shaft not joining the arrow tip. The top arc is more like a narrow parabola whose ends do not come down to the bottom of the inverted V. The bottom line is short, the same width as the V. Holder labeled it “Sketch made by Patrolman XXXX aproximately 5 min. after object departed.”

In the second version on a full sheet of paper, labeled by Holder: “Observed ‘insignia’ located approximately at center of object as seen from above side”, the arrow tip and shaft are still disconnected, but the bottom line is MUCH wider than inverted V. The arc is now like a wide, flattened partial ellipse with the ends dipping below the inverted V, instead of ending above it. The proportions of the various parts are about the same as before (except for bottom line now much wider), but the whole thing is now wider than the paper slip sketch, stretched in the horizontal direction.

And in the third version, the top arc is now VERY wide and flattened, now MUCH larger proportionately than the arrow and bottom line. The arrow tip and shaft are now joined. Holder labeled it: “Sketch of object from my position at approximately 103 ft.” I also noticed the surprising precision of the distance, not “approximately 100 ft.” By “103 ft”. This looks to me like Holder putting words in Zamora’s mouth. The 103’ value generally remained the official number for how close Zamora got to the object (which would require another long post to get into).

The symbol components are different enough in proportions and shape that it is hard to believe all three of them were drawn by the same person.

David Rudiak said...

Ron S. "I'd also like to know how somehow Zamora's UFO went from looking like an upside down car - to a smooth egg with landing gear? How exactly do you confuse the two?"

First seen from 800-900 feet, Zamora's first impression was that it MIGHT be an upside-down car. When he approached much closer and saw it from 50-100 feet, he could now see it was a "smooth egg" with girderlike landing gear. So two very different distances involved.

Also landing gear confirmed from four rectangular, wedge-shaped impressions left behind. That it wasn't a car also obviously confirmed by it taking off right in front of him and flying away, leaving burned, smoking brush and soil behind.

Ben Moss said...

At about 450 feet a white object in a gully can easily be mistaken for an overturned van. The last thing that Lonnie was thinking was a landed UFO. The dynamite shack picture Ray took has been shown to many, including me. It clearly shows 2 egged shaped objects, both tilted up, and one has 3 landing struts visible. Been trying for 2 years to get him to release it, but the closest object is only .06 miles from his Argus C3 camera with a 50 MM lens. It is not an artifact, and looks exactly like Lonnie's description of the craft. One day it will come out, but it is up to Ray when.

David Rudiak said...

"First seen from 800-900 feet, Zamora's first impression was that it MIGHT be an upside-down car. When he approached much closer and saw it from 50-100 feet, he could now see it was a "smooth egg" with girderlike landing gear. So two very different distances involved."

Should have added, "two very different distances and VANTAGE POINTS", the distant VP being end on from behind, the much nearer VP being from the side.

Paul Young said...

Ben..."One day it will come out, but it is up to Ray when."

I can't think of one good (even partially good) reason why Ray is sitting on it.
If it's not a good time now, 52 years later...then when will it be a good time?

I can only conclude that the picture won't stand up to professional analysis, and that Ray knows it.

David Rudiak said...

I think Ray Stanford said on Kevin's program that he isn't sure whether the photo shows an actual object or if it is a photo defect. That may be why he isn't releasing it.

Paul Young said...

I think you're right David. If I were in his shoes though, I'd just want to know...get it out there and get the photographic boffins onto it. At least that way, depending on how a proper analysis calls it, he can either put the thing to bed or enjoy the renewed interest the photograph would generate.
Just sitting on it doesn't help anyone.

KRandle said...

David and Paul -

Stanford did suggest that the image wasn't as Ben and Tony had suggested, but if you listened carefully, he also said that he didn't have the original at his finger tips. He said it was filed away and when he had the time he would try to dig it up so that the proper research could be done on it...

But I have heard from another person who has seen the photograph and he said that the image was clear and sure looked like the Socorro craft. I have not seen the picture so I simply do not know, but we have differing stories on the clarity of the object in the photograph. Since Ray has it, it's up to him to release it for analysis... I would certainly like this issue resolved, but as I say, all that is up to Ray.

David Rudiak said...

If it's Ray's photo showing the kid standing in front of the dynamite shack, I do have a JPG of that that Ray sent me. It has three blotches in the sky, two small and grey, which could easily be photo defects. A much larger one near the left horizon is a sort of tilted elliptical shape created by a blackish crescent on top. I don't see anything like legs on it that Ben and Tony mentioned. There just isn't enough resolution in this ~1300x600 pixel image to determine anything. Could be another photo defect, or maybe something real.

Another photo is Stanford took is of Hynek photographing eastward down the arroyo and towards the Rio Grande valley (one of Hynek's photos in Project BB files). Up in the top of the clouds at the left is another elliptical looking thingee, white on top, black crescent shape on bottom. Resolution here is even poorer, ~900x450. It's about 5 pixels wide in ~39 deg FOV, so roughly 12 or 13 minutes of arc. Maybe a little large for a common photo defect, but not out of the question either.

Without high-resolution blow-ups of these areas, it is impossible to make any sort of determination here. Since Hynek took a picture of the same area facing down the arroyo at the same time as Stanford (what Hynek labels photo #9 in his BB writeup and improperly labeled as showing "Socorro", which was north, not east, and 90 deg. to his left), if something was there, this would obviously corroborate Ray's photo. But I have seen nothing but crappy reproductions of these photos. The best of them in the Fold3 BlueBook files, is overexposed, showing a completely whited out sky with no clouds, much less an object.

Anthony C said...

Sometimes, I believe we get so caught up in our own agendas or opinions, we forget we are all human and leave that important element out. Yes, Mr. Zamora was a trained and sworn police officer but that doesn't make him immune from making mistakes. This man encountered something that changed his whole viewpoint of the his world/universe/life, as he was taught from day 1, on its head. Now add that his whole life was under a microscope and on full public display. Don't forget to mix in all the pressure that was being put on him, both internal and external, from various groups with different and competing agendas.

I believe both sides (umbrella vs. inverted v) should recognize the importance that both sides can agree there was some sort of red colored symbol on the side of the craft. In my mind, this red symbol served as a hazard warning for the craft's propulsion system. Similar to warnings posted on modern day aircraft near engines, rotor blades, taxi ways, runways, collision lights, etc.

Finally, there is case law precedent going back at least to the 1930s, supporting the use of deception by law enforcement personnel to aid in criminal prosecutions (see Sorrells vs. U.S.). This tactic is used to this day and is sanctioned even for informants. So while I have not read or seen any hard evidence that a fake symbol was used in place of the real one, I would not be at all surprised if this tactic was employed to separate the wheat from the chaff in this highly publicized case.