Socorro Symbol Redux

I am sure that most of those who visit here do not wish to descend into another pit of minutia about the real symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw on the side of the landed UFO. My first thought was to just allow Ben Moss to have his say and let it go. My second was to respond in kind, but that seemed like an exercise in futility. My last, and current thought, was to post the information in a dispassionate fashion and let the readers decide which symbol is correct based on the evidence. Not exactly the most scientific of methods, but one that would allow those who had no strong feelings one way or the other to determine, from the information, which symbol is most likely the correct one.

The facts of the case are not in dispute. I think everyone agrees that there was something that landed near Socorro and that Lonnie Zamora saw it. Zamora was the one who raised the issue of the symbol. Within a couple of hours, maybe less,

Richard Holder

Zamora was interviewed by Captain Richard T. Holder of the Army and Arthur Byrnes, Jr. of the FBI. During that interrogation both Holder and Byrnes made recommendations to Zamora about withholding some of the information. In both cases, it seemed that the suggestions were not an attempt to hide information, but to provide a way of determining copycats and to protect Zamora.

According to Coral Lorenzen, writing in The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, Holder had wanted to withhold the design of the symbol Zamora saw. He thought that if others came forward with a story of seeing the same thing as Zamora, they could weed out the liars by asking them to draw the symbol they had seen. Zamora, as a police officer, apparently agreed with this. When Lorenzen questioned him about it, he refused to provide any information.

As an aside, and of no real relevance to this discussion, it was Byrnes who suggested that Zamora not mention the two beings. It wasn’t for an official reason. Byrnes thought it would spare Zamora some cheap shots from reporters and others who routinely laughed at tales of, well, little green men. Lorenzen said that Zamora did tell her about the creatures but steadfastly refused to say anything about the symbol.

Given this, several different examples of the symbol have been published over the years. Most aren’t close to the two that have come into prominence. It’s those two that I’ll discuss here in no particular order.

The first is what I think of as the “Umbrella Symbol.” It is the one most often associated with the case. Here is the evidence for it:

According to the testimony from Lonnie Zamora, as the craft departed and before Sergeant Sam Chavez arrived, Zamora scribbled, on a piece of scrap paper, this

Zamora's first scribbled representation of the symbol.

symbol. He signed that.

During his questioning by Holder and Byrnes, he drew representations of the craft, and on one of them, he drew the symbol. He signed this one as well. The other writing on that illustration was not Zamora’s, which may or may not be relevant.

Jim and Coral Lorenzen interviewed Zamora within forty-eight hours of the sighting and published a long article about the case in The A.P.R.O. Bulletin. That same Umbrella symbol is used on one of the illustrations, though a second stylized symbol is used on another illustration in that same issue. Neither of them resembles the inverted “V” with the three lines drawn through it.

Rick Baca, working with from information provided by Zamora, given in the city attorney’s office, produced an illustration of the craft. The symbol on that illustration was added later, under the direction of Zamora. It is, obviously, the “Umbrella” symbol.

Rick Baca's drawing of the craft with the "Umbrella" symbol on it.

In the Blue Book files is a report prepared Major William Connor, who had driven Hynek around the Socorro area in April 1964. Connor prepared a report about his interviews with Zamora. On page 3 of that report, he included an illustration of the “Umbrella” symbol that was reported by Zamora.

Major Connor's internal report from the Project Blue Book Files.

Ray Stanford, in a May 3, 1964, letter to Dick Hall, confirmed the arc and arrowhead symbol (Umbrella) as the correct one but also mentioned that the symbol of the inverted “V” with the lines through it was the “faked” one given to the press.

Stanford's Letter to Dick Hall.

Rich Reynolds, who interviewed Zamora’s wife around 2006, was told that the “Umbrella” symbol was the correct one, that is, the arc over the arrowhead.

Hynek, in a confidential interview with Isabel Davis on May 20, 1964, included this symbol as the correct one. He did mention the inverted “V” with the lines through it, but noted it was from the newspapers. It is clear that at that time, Hynek was aware of which symbol was correct and which one had appeared in the newspapers.

On the other side of the argument, there are those newspaper stories printed on April 29 and 30, which seem to be based on an Associated Press story in which Hynek seemed to suggest the inverted “V” with the three lines through it is the correct symbol. In the Project Blue Book files, there is a teletype message that is located with a number of newspaper clippings that does refer to the inverted “V”, but that teletype message seems to be referring to the newspaper clippings rather than any of the testimony given by Zamora. That is not part of the Air Force investigation.

James Fox has said that in conversations with the late Lonnie Zamora’s wife, she said that the inverted V was the correct symbol. Fox has spent time with her, in their house, and has been granted access to some material that might be unique.

The "top" two symbols in this discussion.

Ben Moss has reported that other members of the Socorro Police Department, when asked about the symbol, seem to uniform in their answer. The inverted V is the one that Zamora saw on the craft.

In the unofficial Blue Book information discovered by Rob Mercer, there is a hand written note that suggests that New Mexico State Police Officer, Sam Chavez, a close friend of Zamora and who arrived on the scene within minutes, provided more commentary on this. According to that, "Sgt Chavez says that the Socorro Policeman had told him that the sighting had markings on its silvery side. Chavez said that the officer told him that the design was an inverted [V] with three crossings on it, but that the Air Force had told him not to discuss the markings."

The page from the unofficial Blue Book files.

Ray Stanford said that he had recorded an interview with Mike Martinez, who said that the symbol was the inverted V.

Hynek also appears on this side of the argument. Interviewed by Walter Shrode at KSRC radio, told of the inverted V. Hynek said, “He [Zamora] described it to me as an inverted V with some sort of bar across it.”

There is a letter dated September 7, 1964, written by Hynek and found in the Blue Book files. There is an illustration on it of an inverted V but the three lines are between the legs of the V and do not extend beyond them.

Symbol from Hynek's September 7 Letter.

In those “unofficial” Blue Book files saved by Carmon Marano and ultimately obtained by Rob Mercer, there was the cursive note on a 3X5 card that reported the inverted “V” with three lines through it. There is a second card with the same information on it that is a hand printed version of the first note. Both seem to be 

Carmon Marano

derivative of the newspaper articles rather than information gathered from Zamora or that were part of the official Blue Book file. According to Marano, this file was made up of documents and information for use in briefing the press about UFOs and included newspaper clippings that were not part of the official file on the case, and was, in fact, kept in in a desk drawer rather than in the official files.

As I noted in an earlier post, the inverted V with the three lines through it is one of the many symbols used in alchemy which certainly gives it a terrestrial based source. I’m not sure how relevant that is, but it seems unlikely that a spacefaring race would paint such a symbol on their craft. (Yes, I have slipped from the dispassionate rail here but I think this fact is relevant.)

And to us all get back on track, I mention that Ben has said there is a letter from Richard Holder, written at some later date, that explains some of this. According to Ben, the correct symbol is the inverted V as pointed out in this letter.

There is one other fact that might be important. When Baca’s illustration was published in the Socorro newspaper, the symbol wasn’t on it. The symbol was added later. This might be the reason that some suspect that the inverted V had been on the drawing, removed, and the Umbrella symbol substituted for it.

These are all the relevant facts about the symbols, or so I believe. I might have missed a reference. If so, please send a comment and I’ll try to get it included. I’d be interested in what everyone thinks now, given this information. Let me know. If nothing else, it will be an interesting exercise.