tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post1866252993614689787..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Socorro, New Mexico and Lonnie Zamora - Revisited 2016KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58409728888540468342016-08-14T11:38:03.348-07:002016-08-14T11:38:03.348-07:00The Lunar Lander did not have an internal working ...The Lunar Lander did not have an internal working engine in 1963. Zoom and Brian just never want to work with the facts. I do not think they read all of the great post here, they instead change the story to fit their 'proven wrong already' theories. Sometimes you can lead a horse to water...TheUFOGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02846005362986281745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73187996502402027152016-08-13T14:23:19.204-07:002016-08-13T14:23:19.204-07:00Zoam, I will end my comments on this thread the wa...Zoam, I will end my comments on this thread the way I began them when I wrote:<br /><br />“Zoam’s thought processes (if we can call them that) always provide a target rich environment for critical analysis. His recent musings over the Zamora incident are no exception.”<br /><br />In your most recent post you wrote: <br />“…Larry, in nearly every case we discuss, your goal seems to be the dismissal of mundane hypotheses by whatever means, as if by Sherlock Holmes' "logic" we must ultimately default to the extremely tenuous hypothesis. That strategy may work on loyal science-fictioneers but it's worthless in real-world logic and debate. …”<br /><br />I guess you’re too dim to realize that what you’re suggesting here is exactly counter to the approach advocated by Karl Popper and currently accepted as the consensus modus operandi by scientists, worldwide. The “dismissal” of hypotheses (whether mundane or not) was termed “falsification” by Popper and was recommended by him as a means of avoiding “the problem of induction”, in which no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. For example, if someone investigates 10 UFO reports and finds all of them to have mundane explanations Popper showed that it is logically indefensible to then make the inductive leap to a statement such as, “all UFO reports have mundane explanations”. However, if someone makes a statement such as, “Lonnie Zamora misidentified a Lunar Lander on April 24, 1964”, that is a scientifically well-formed conjecture, because it is testable. That means that you can consider all the characteristics that a Lunar Lander would have and compare them one-to-one with all the characteristics that Zamora reported and consider whether there is evidence that one was actually present at Socorro on April 24, 1964. If all the characteristics match up then the conjecture is probably validated. If the characteristics do not all line up, or there was no Lunar Lander present, then the conjecture is falsified. This is how scientific reasoning is done. You should try it sometime.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30558607057755184692016-08-10T15:42:19.121-07:002016-08-10T15:42:19.121-07:00More Brian Bell nonsense:
As for Zamora, you'...More Brian Bell nonsense:<br /><br /><i>As for Zamora, you're ignoring that he lost his corrective glasses mid-way through this sighting. Of course, everyone ignores that because it's so darn inconvenient....</i><br /><br />In reality, it's been discussed endlessly by me whenever brought up. Zamora lost his glasses probably for no more than 10 seconds when he racing away from the object as it took off with a roar and bumped the rear of his car. When the object went completely silent, he raced back to the car, picked them up, put them on, and watched the object fleeing the scene and fading out in the sky to the SSW WITH HIS GLASSES ON!!<br /><br />Now what part of Zamora's story was seriously affected by this brief period when he lost his glasses?<br /><br />1) Before he got to the site and saw the two beings off in the distance from the previous mesa? No, because he still had his glasses on. <br /><br />2) When he got to the site, got out of his car, approached to with 50 feet, seeing the red symbol on the object, then seeing the object start to take off emitting a bluish "flame" out the bottom which he said seemed to penetrate into the soil? No, because he still had his glasses on.<br /><br />3) As the object sped away and disappeared in the distance? No, because he had put his glasses back on after returning to his car.<br /><br />4) When he temporarily lost his glasses while fleeing the object, turned to see the object rising in the air about 20 feet, then speed off in a straight line, barely pass over the dynamite shack, and head for the nearby mountains? No, because he could still EASILY see a large NEARBY object like that rise in the air without his glasses, still see it EASILY as it first left the scene and EASILY see what direction it was headed in (towards the nearby mountains). This is true even assuming the absolute worst case scenario about his uncorrected vision. <br /><br />E.g., police departments generally allow uncorrected vision up to 20/100, meaning that even assuming this was the worst vision he had, he wouldn't be able to read lettering about a foot high at 100-150'--the furthest he ran to--but wouldn't affect at all his ability to see a 15-20' object rise in the air or seem to pass over the dynamite shack about 500' away. And this is assuming the worst case scenario. <br /><br />As I tried to explain in a prior post, Zamora was not nearsighted, which might cause worst-case 20/100 vision, but farsighted, and thus probably had very good vision even without his glasses, as mild to moderately farsighted people his age normally do because they can still use the lens in their eye to compensate for their farsightedness. I am an expert in such things having a degree in optometry, where we deal with questions of visual acuity routinely and what people can and cannot see in various circumstances. What is Brian's expertise in such matters? <br /><br />But the most important part of his testimony while he lost his glasses had NOTHING to do with his vision. He said the object went dead silent after it rose in the air and left the area making no noise. (As he said in his Walter Shrode radio interview: "It was very, very quiet; you could hear a pin drop.")<br /><br />The reason this testimony is vitally important is that it eliminates absolutely every sort of conventional flying craft (except a balloon, which was impossible because the object flew against a stiff head wind). It couldn't have been rocket powered, jet powered, a helicopter, or Brian's Coanda-type craft (which used a noisy internal combustion engine, just like a helicopter). <br /><br />Other physical evidence at the scene absolutely ruling out something like rocket or jet-powered was the complete absence of ANY excavation crater that would NECESSARILY be created by jet or rocket propulsion and the complete lack of organic fuel residue from a rocket or jet engine in the burned soil when soil samples were tested by an Air Force lab for same.<br /><br />But, of course, everyone who wants to debunk this case (Brian, ZoamBot, etc.) ignores all this because it's so darn inconvenient....David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-819508941585454832016-08-10T15:33:22.781-07:002016-08-10T15:33:22.781-07:00Brian Bell spun:
You could have bothered to read t...Brian Bell spun:<br /><i>You could have bothered to read the previous posts. I'm referring to Zamora's Blue Book account of a "two second" glimpse of what Ben Moss insists were "things" (i.e. alien creatures) which they weren't. He never said that.</i><br /><br />He also never said they were human. He was too far away at the time (800-900') to distinguish. He could see they were dressed in white (resembling white coveralls) and they were shorter than the greasewood bush they were standing next to (later measured at 4-1/2'), therefore appeared to be child-sized. To repeat what he told Socorro KSRC reporter Walter Shrode shortly afterward when interviewed when Shrode interviewed him on this (www.roswellproof.com/Socorro/Socorro_Zamora_interview.html):<br /><br />SHRODE: Now you did say you saw two what appeared to be people dressed in white uniforms with... did they have helmets on like space men or anything....?<br /><br />ZAMORA: No sir, <b>I wouldn’t say they were people., I just... I saw something white, white coveralls, that’s all I can say.</b><br /><br />SHRODE: Like something in white coveralls.<br /><br />ZAMORA: Right.<br /><br />Thus couldn't tell who they were, human or otherwise--he was too far away.<br /><br />More:<br /><br />ZAMORA: ...I would say that... that, that, the white object [NOTE: Again doesn't call them men, people, human, alien, etc., but "the white object"] turned and saw me.<br /><br />SHRODE: Were there two of ‘em?<br /><br />ZAMORA: I would say there were two, because one was in front and the other of them was in back.<br /><br />And another interview by Ray Stanford with Walter Reidel, publisher of the Socorro El Defensor-Chieftain:<br /><br />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?<br /><br />REIDEL: He really doesn’t(?). He said there were two there. <b><i>Now he didn’t say anything about them being men</i>, 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.</b> 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.<br /><br />"Men" is a word being used generically by Reidel as any beings LIKE men, which could be actual humans or "men from Mars". Zamora instead described them as "objects" resembling white coveralls. In fact, Reidel specifically says Zamora didn't say they were "men", but Reidel assumed Zamora meant as much because one of Zamora's "objects" reacted to his approach by turning around and looking at him.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84902180299405861262016-08-10T09:31:55.367-07:002016-08-10T09:31:55.367-07:00Brian
You could have mentioned people, we were ta...Brian<br /><br />You could have mentioned people, we were talking about the craft. You continue to ignore the trace evidence. The Corvair was unsafe at any speed but how many burned vegetation?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82764546424631334792016-08-09T22:39:57.647-07:002016-08-09T22:39:57.647-07:00"We may not know exactly which exotic flying ..."We may not know exactly which exotic flying machine out of White Sands Lonnie accidentally witnessed that day, but it was definitely not beyond the space technology being developed at the time."<br /><br />We do know, Larry, that the exotic Lunar Surveyor mounted to the side of a Bell helicopter was flying out of the northern extent of White Sands on the very day of Lonnie Zamora's failure to identify.<br /><br />So your statement: "Zoam has no...knowledge that any exotic flying machine at all was at White Sands that day much less that it took a joy ride to Socorro" is just factually incorrect. We know that, don't we, Larry?<br /><br />And we also know that Bell had created a free-flying jet-powered Lunar Lander prototype in 1963 that with a little imagination one might see how Zamora might interpret as the underside of a car standing on end from 150 to 200 yards, but then reinterpret, more closely and so more correctly, as an upright oval on legs. Still, from beginning to end, the man had no idea what he was seeing. But then Lonnie never really claimed that much. <br /><br />Larry, your dismissal of the "earthly high-technology out of White Sands" hypothesis is based almost entirely on the descriptions made by a man who didn't know what he was seeing. How can you pretend to make definitive judgments based on Lonnie's failure to identify and the dubious claim of fused sand at the site?<br /><br />Lonnie's account of the event isn't an objective recording, it's not an account of a simple failure to identify a machine, it's an imaginative product of the fallible human perception, conception and reporting process from beginning to end. It's more like a waking dream turned nightmare than an objective recording. First it's the underside of a car standing on end with "two people in white coveralls" standing beside it, then its temporarily out of his sight, but then he's much closer and the machine begins loud, then louder roaring as it blasts out of the arroyo and into Lonnie's sight again. It now appears to be a vertical ellipse with legs and a red arrow-like logo about 2.5 feet square. It rises and flies away horizontally and silently. <br /><br />That's Lonnie's story anyway. How much of it and which parts are even close to accurate, are real or imagined is unknown. But even if relatively accurate there's nothing about it that's "beyond the space technology being developed at the time." Again, the Bell Lander prototype had been built the year before, the first LLRV was delivered in April 1964 and the rocket-powered Lunar Module would land on the Moon five years later.<br /><br />"Most people in Socorro, and several of the investigators, thought it was most likely a secret government experiment, and some Blue Book researchers even pinned it down as a tenant operation run by Holloman, the base for the Surveyor test flights." --Dave Thomas, lifelong New Mexico resident and Socorro skeptic, http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm<br /><br />Exactly, Dave, in 1964, "Why was there ever a question about the <i>most likely</i> identification?"<br /><br />Larry, in nearly every case we discuss, your goal seems to be the dismissal of mundane hypotheses by whatever means, as if by Sherlock Holmes' "logic" we must ultimately default to the extremely tenuous hypothesis. That strategy may work on loyal science-fictioneers but it's worthless in real-world logic and debate.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5936286783134651482016-08-09T16:40:41.201-07:002016-08-09T16:40:41.201-07:00@ Neal
"Two seconds? Where did that come fro...@ Neal<br /><br />"Two seconds? Where did that come from? A hell of a lot happened in those two seconds is all I can say."<br /><br />You could have bothered to read the previous posts. I'm referring to Zamora's Blue Book account of a "two second" glimpse of what Ben Moss insists were "things" (i.e. alien creatures) which they weren't. He never said that.<br /><br />As for Zamora, you're ignoring that he lost his corrective glasses mid-way through this sighting.<br /><br />Of course, everyone ignores that because it's so darn inconvenient....<br /><br />About as inconvenient as time travelors from a parallel dimension....Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80894296006542878472016-08-06T17:28:34.718-07:002016-08-06T17:28:34.718-07:00Brian;
you wrote:
"Zamora was certainly a g...Brian;<br /><br />you wrote:<br /><br />"Zamora was certainly a good witness, but even he couldn't be sure of certain aspects of his testimony. There's a good chance he got some thing "wrong" about what he actually observed given the "two second" glimpse he got and the various range of distances he reportedly saw things."<br /><br />Two seconds? Where did that come from? A hell of a lot happened in those two seconds is all I can say. When you exaggerate it doesn't help your case Brian. You're also forgetting the trace evidence that doesn't support your pet theory of the Coanda craft, this has been explained to you several times yet you persist.<br /><br />Yes, observers do get things wrong, but your examples are apples and oranges in regard to the Zamora sighting, regardless of exactly how close Zamora was to the craft he was a lot closer than the observers you mentioned were to what they were seeing. Let's take another example, during the first gulf war gas trucks were mistaken for mobile missile launchers and targeted for destruction. It would be interesting to know if any were destroyed as a result of eyes on from recon troops on the ground. That may be classified, maybe Kevin can help us there.<br /><br />@ Bob Koford<br /><br />You made some good points and from what I've seen the military rarely misses a chance to weaponize technology. Yet we have no reports I'm aware of from ISIS or any other enemy forces of these Black Triangles. If they're capable of being used for disaster relief it would seem that extraction of wounded soldiers on the battlefield would also be a possible use. I don't know if Kevin flew medivac missions in Vietnam but I'm sure he would have welcomed one of these things instead of hanging his ass out in a skin ship.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28391457217866852622016-08-06T14:41:50.438-07:002016-08-06T14:41:50.438-07:00"For my own sighting"
Sweet Baby Geezu..."For my own sighting" <br /><br />Sweet Baby Geezus! Neal has had a "sighting."<br /><br />Yes, Sir! Nothing says WOO like "my own sighting." Good One, Neal!<br /><br />"I'm leaning toward a dimensional possibility."<br /><br />Neal, other dimensions exist ONLY at ultramicroscopic and ultramacroscopic scales. They are most definitely not complete 4D "worlds" that somehow coexist with ours. That's science-fiction.<br /><br />Sorry, the Interdimensional hypothesis for "UFO" reports is almost as old as the ETH, and just as silly.<br /><br />"But I can't rule out an alien explanation either. Maybe even time travel...."<br /><br />Believe me, Neal, you can safely rule them both out. If ET were visiting Earth, we'd all know it already. The much better question is "Why haven't ET visited Earth?" And the most likely answer is that they are so rare and far away, and space travel is all but impossible, and they are so unlike us and a dozen other very good reasons, that we'll never even detect their existence, much less meet them.<br /><br />As for time travel, Stephen Hawking says one might move fractionally into the future--never the past--while falling into a black hole, but being vaporized you'd never know it. For other hypothetical methods, he thinks that there is some undiscovered physical prohibition to it ever occurring.<br /><br />Kip Thorne has said that if one were able to construct a viable time machine, it would either simply fail to function, do nothing or it might explode. Again, because some fundamental principle of the construction of spacetime would prohibit its functioning.<br /><br />But imagine that a time-machine box would work, it would work only on time inside the box! Exactly opposite of the way time-travel is conventionally depicted. Doesn't seem very useful, does it? And again, the box works but it has done nothing; you shut it off open the door to the very same world you never really left. <br /><br />Think about it, Neal, how's a time machine supposed to transform all of reality? Again, it's science-fiction. Same for worm-hole travel: one would have to physically harness all of the spacetime between two distant points in the Galaxy to open the wormhole. And even if that impossibility were somehow possible, as with a black hole, on entering, a spacecraft would most probably be vaporized.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64975320452722666912016-08-06T13:45:02.489-07:002016-08-06T13:45:02.489-07:00"We may not know exactly which exotic flying ..."We may not know exactly which exotic flying machine out of White Sands Lonnie accidentally witnessed that day, but it was definitely not beyond the space technology being developed at the time."<br /><br />We do know, Larry, that the exotic Lunar Surveyor mounted to the side of a Bell helicopter was flying out of the northern extent of White Sands on the very day of Lonnie Zamora's failure to identify.<br /><br />So your statement: "Zoam has no...knowledge that any exotic flying machine at all was at White Sands that day much less that it took a joy ride to Socorro" is just factually incorrect. We know that, don't we, Larry?<br /><br />And we also know that Bell had created a free-flying jet-powered Lunar Lander prototype in 1963 that with a little imagination one might see how Zamora might interpret as the underside of a car standing on end from 150 to 200 yards, but then reinterpret, more closely and so more correctly, as an upright oval on legs. Still, from beginning to end, the man had no idea what he was seeing. But then Lonnie never really claimed that much. <br /><br />Larry, your dismissal of the "earthly high-technology out of White Sands" hypothesis is based almost entirely on the descriptions made by a man who didn't know what he was seeing. How can you pretend to make definitive judgments based on Lonnie's failure to identify and the dubious claim of fused sand at the site?<br /><br />Lonnie's account of the event isn't an objective recording, it's not an account of a simple failure to identify a machine, it's an imaginative product of the fallible human perception, conception and reporting process from beginning to end. It's more like a waking dream turned nightmare than an objective recording. First it's the underside of a car standing on end with "two people in white coveralls" standing beside it, then its temporarily out of his sight, but then he's much closer and the machine begins loud, then louder roaring as it blasts out of the arroyo and into Lonnie's sight again. It now appears to be a verticle ellipse with legs and a red arrow-like logo about 2.5 feet square. It rises and flies away horizontally and silently. <br /><br />That's Lonnie's story anyway. How much of it and which parts are even close to accurate, are real or imagined is unknown. But even if relatively accurate there's nothing about it that's "beyond the space technology being developed at the time." Again, the Bell Lander prototype had been built the year before, the first LLRV was delivered in April 1964 and the rocket-powered Lunar Module would land on the Moon five years later.<br /><br />"Most people in Socorro, and several of the investigators, thought it was most likely a secret government experiment, and some Blue Book researchers even pinned it down as a tenant operation run by Holloman, the base for the Surveyor test flights." --Dave Thomas, lifelong New Mexico resident and Socorro skeptic, http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm<br /><br />Exactly, Dave, in 1964, "Why was there ever a question about the <i>most likely</i> identification?"<br /><br />Larry, in nearly every case we discuss, your goal seems to be the dismissal of mundane hypotheses by whatever means, as if by Sherlock Holmes' "logic" we must ultimately default to the extremely tenuous hypothesis. That strategy may work on loyal science-fictioneers but it's worthless in real-world logic and debate.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61481263150238437172016-08-06T12:41:34.493-07:002016-08-06T12:41:34.493-07:00@ Neal who wrote:
"You and others have made ...@ Neal who wrote:<br /><br />"You and others have made some proposals that ignore certain parts of the Zamora testimony, sorry, but close isn't good enough."<br /><br />Zamora was certainly a good witness, but even he couldn't be sure of certain aspects of his testimony. There's a good chance he got some thing "wrong" about what he actually observed given the "two second" glimpse he got and the various range of distances he reportedly saw things.<br /><br />Let's not forget he lost his prescription glasses too; and whether he was near or farsighted or with poor vision overall I don't know, but you can't just ignore that and claim anything similar to what he saw is a "forced" explanation or "pet" theory.<br /><br />Observers, even credible ones, can get some aspects wrong. There's plenty of evidence to prove that too. Case in point, WWII USN observers searching for enemy vessels from the air often reported they saw IJN carriers, when what they saw was really a tanker. Submariners would claim they sunk a battleship when what they really torped was a cruiser.<br /><br />They weren't lying, they actually saw ships, but what they reported wasn't exactly correct. In other words, they got things wrong despite their best efforts, integrity, training, and determination.<br /><br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27741557760149424502016-08-06T11:53:16.349-07:002016-08-06T11:53:16.349-07:00Brian
If you don't mind, I would like to inte...Brian<br /><br />If you don't mind, I would like to interject my own thoughts here on the terrestrial secret technology angle.<br /><br />Even the SIGN, GRUDGE and BLUE BOOK offices were aware of that possibility, and that is why they were given permission to access so many other agencies and offices to confirm or deny that they were "ours". The ones that remained "unidentified" were the ones that passed through the entire mill without explanation.<br /><br />I often think about certain of the more modern Black Triangle sightings, and group them with the many of the disc sightings that I mentioned before. In the "Flying Disc" sightings, going back even to Gorman (yes, I am aware it was a lighted orb) I would again put forth that they were evasive.<br /><br />They acted the way our NSA incursion ops would when being confronted by Soviet MIGs, high tailing it outta there, etc.<br /><br />I add to this thought the fact that our Navy has access to extreme technology that they put to good use when there is a disaster someplace. Whether its drones, or Medships, or just personnel, the Navy is there first, or one of the first to arrive on the scene. Then I ponder: where are the giant black triangles, and the saucers, and whatever super advanced technology we supposedly have at our secret disposal?<br /><br />Don't you think that these devices would come in handy, lending much needed assistance in, lets say, a flood, or an earthquake? They could be hovering over the area and pluck people out of the water, or off of rooftops.<br /><br />But according to the school of thought that all these sightings are comprised of "us", they can't bring them out for these disasters cause its all so secret. But wait, they brought them out to hover over a freeway right in front of on lookers, or over someone's house, etc. It didn't seem to matter that it was a secret until an intercepting pilot showed up to check on who it is.<br /><br />Really? Does that make any logical sense?<br /><br />Then we are eventually forced back to the idea its some enemy nation --not very likely.<br /><br />The point is, so many times we get pushed into this ever tightening vortex of possibilities that end up leading back to "Unknown."Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55620401578998875162016-08-06T11:05:04.589-07:002016-08-06T11:05:04.589-07:00Brian;
You wrote:
"The operative word here ...Brian;<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"The operative word here is "known". You really can't say there didn't exist such technology when the facts show:"<br /><br />No kidding Brian, that's exactly why I wrote it that way. And maybe you missed it but I also said that I would be perfectly happy with a terrestrial explanation for the Zamora sighting. But so far we haven't had one. You and others have made some proposals that ignore certain parts of the Zamora testimony, sorry, but close isn't good enough. You can't just ignore things and make things up in order to force fit your pet explanation. That's what I object strongly to.<br /><br />For my own sighting I have always said that there was a possibility that it was a secret project of some kind, among other possible explanations. That's what an open minded person does Brian. <br /><br />If it wasn't terrestrial then what was it? Just my opinion but I'm leaning toward a dimensional possibility. It's been said the math supports that and now it's an engineering problem. Maybe it's been solved by brilliant engineers somewhere, I don't know. But I can't rule out an alien explanation either. Maybe even time travel, another thing that only exists in theory as far as I know.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26802465492443081082016-08-05T23:56:06.970-07:002016-08-05T23:56:06.970-07:00@ Neal who wrote:
"Please get this through y...@ Neal who wrote:<br /><br />"Please get this through your thick skull, there simply was no known earthly technology in 1964 that could do what the object Zamora saw did."<br /><br />The operative word here is "known". You really can't say there didn't exist such technology when the facts show:<br /><br />1) Saucer craft concepts were patented by genius level inventors long before 1964 and the records prove it. It's a fact.<br /><br />2) Paging through publically available material does not prove such technology could not exist in 1964. There is such a thing as classified projects and they are compartmentalized. It's a fact that such projects do exist and the US Congress knows they do, because they approve most of the funding without knowing where the money goes.<br /><br />3) Science and engineering has demonstrated multiple ways to levitate and propel an object in flight without the use of conventional wings and fuselage. The object did not behave in such a manner that it couldn't be replicated by humans.<br /><br />I'm fascinated with the ET supporting crowd who goes to great lengths to debunk terrestrial explanations that may account for many sightings while displaying constant skepticism that humans cannot engineer such craft. The same crowd insists the governments of the world and their military are incapable of classifying and secretly hiding black projects, yet claim the very same governments are more than capable of classifying and secretly hiding aliens and their technology.<br /><br />Are you people that far lost into this subject that you will ignore and deny terrestrial possibilities because you just can't stomach the thought that aliens may not be visiting or for that matter, even exist?Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36022096623777810502016-08-05T15:29:17.579-07:002016-08-05T15:29:17.579-07:00Gentlemen =
Let's reign in the rhetoric a lit...Gentlemen =<br /><br />Let's reign in the rhetoric a little bit here. Make your points without the name calling. This is not the national elections.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-48056637611433347212016-08-05T15:18:26.591-07:002016-08-05T15:18:26.591-07:00zoam,
Please get this through your thick skull, ...zoam, <br /><br />Please get this through your thick skull, there simply was no known earthly technology in 1964 that could do what the object Zamora saw did. Read Larry's comment please.<br /><br />I assume you mean Kevin when you refer to science fictioneers, how does that disqualify him? He has shown himself to be a no bullshit investigator as well. I wish I could say the same of you, you are certainly no investigator and you are chock full of bullshit!<br /><br />I will have nothing else to say to you, have a good life in your confused little brain.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82688697342524356342016-08-05T15:14:34.329-07:002016-08-05T15:14:34.329-07:00Does not this Socorro affair bring up the whole pr...Does not this Socorro affair bring up the whole problem with these single witness UFO sightings? If we accept what Zamora says literally, there is no satisfactory explanation in terms of what is known to science. But if we allow for human error and memory lapses (both very common occurrences) then things become more explainable and indeed more terrestrial, such as Zoam proposes. <br /><br />We don't need to take EVERYTHING Zamora describes as the gospel truth. Quintanilla more or less came to the same conclusion, as I said earlier. This case will simply degenerate into another argument between believers (i.e. those who take Zamora's evidence as the literal truth) and skeptics, who do not. <br /><br />Naturally I am trying to find a way out of the dilemma, but there is no simple answer. If only we had two or more independent witnesses to this whole affair. <br /><br />If only!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82060636342422327132016-08-05T12:50:46.395-07:002016-08-05T12:50:46.395-07:00Straw-man, Neal. I never said the LLRV was what Za...Straw-man, Neal. I never said the LLRV was what Zamora saw, but you pretend that I did so you can wrongly dismiss the "earthly high-technology out of White Sands" hypothesis. Understand the meaning of word "hypothesis," Neal? I said he might have seen the 1963 jet-powered Bell prototype lander since it combines the attributes described by Zamora and could seat two men. And gosh, Bell Aerosystems R&D existed at nearby White Sands testing range. So the lander prototype or something much like it is <i>most likely</i> what Zamora saw.<br /><br />And I've seen not one bit of evidence that would cause me to think otherwise. As a skeptic I adhere to parsimony, I doubt any extraordinary explanation is necessary to explain any "UFO" report--a mere anecdote--until someone shows that it is. <br /><br />All I have seen from known <i>science-fictioneers</i> pushing their flying-saucer and paranormalist beliefs is excuses, phony rationalizations, and make-it-up. If that's all you have, Neal, maybe you should follow your own advice because you're not showing anything otherwise.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6271970660224182132016-08-05T12:29:49.273-07:002016-08-05T12:29:49.273-07:00Zoam wrote
"... We may not know exactly which...Zoam wrote<br />"... We may not know exactly which exotic flying machine out of White Sands Lonnie accidentally witnessed that day, but it was definitely not beyond the space technology being developed at the time."<br /><br />As I've said before, few people can pack so much BS into such a tight space as Zoam. He's practically in a class by himself. Let's look at that sentence, one piece at a time:<br /><br />First, as Mark Twain is supposed to have said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial we." Since Zoam is neither king, president, nor editor, you can figure it out for yourself. By using "we", of course he pretentiously sets himself up as though he's speaking for a larger group. Needless to say, that's a lie. He's speaking only for himself. The more accurate confession of his ignorance would be, "I (Zoam) do not know exactly which exotic flying machine out of White Sands Lonnie accidentally witnessed that day...". This would be a true statement as far as it goes, but he's being modest; his ignorance extends further. Zoam has no tangible evidence and therefore no knowledge that any exotic flying machine at all was at White Sands that day much less that it took a joy ride to Socorro. These two ideas are made up out of whole cloth.<br /><br />Second, the statement "...it was definitely not beyond the space technology being developed at the time..." is factually incorrect. In my longer postings above, I listed at least 4 observations that Zamora and others reported that are definitely not reflected in the space technology being developed at the time (or even today, for that matter). Those are:<br />1. The wide mouthed funnel shape of the "flame" is beyond rocket thrusters or turbojets of the time. 2) The ability to land, take-off, and hover over unprepared desert floor without creating a crater, ejecta streaks, and a massive dust cloud is beyond rocket and jet thrusters of the time. 3) The ability of space-storable bi-propellant thrusters or vertically facing turbojets to vitrify sand is beyond such thrusters of the time. 4) The ability to fly off into the distance at great speed without making any sound is beyond rocket or jet thrusters of the time. Zoam is the one making the assertive claim here; it is up to him to substantiate his claim. Show some counterexamples from 1964, for instance.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9964179771980298592016-08-04T22:12:44.612-07:002016-08-04T22:12:44.612-07:00All:
Zamora saw the two "beings" (human ...All:<br />Zamora saw the two "beings" (human or otherwise) from the top of the previous mesa. Having been there, I checked where he would have had a view and found that the topography was such that he could look up the winding arroyo to the site from a distance of about 800-900 ft. Zamora thought he was maybe 200 yards away when he saw the beings, but he was actually further away. Closer than ~800, he would be dipping down between mesas, in fact at 200 yards was at the bottom of the shallow dip between mesa. That and the winding topography would have obscured his view of anyone there until he drove up onto the next mesa and got fairly close and looking down into the bottom of the arroyo. <br /><br />By the time he got there, he said he didn't see anyone, but heard several loud thumps, like someone shutting a heavy hatch. (Zamora had been in the Army and driven tanks, and compared it to that.) <br /><br />The point here is when he briefly spotted them, he was too far away to see fine details, like what their faces might look like (assuming they weren't covered up), or what sort of hands they might have (if they weren't covered). <br /><br />Instead he said they resembled "white coveralls", or what they were dressed in. He said one of them looked up and appeared startled that he was there. He did perceive them as being humanoid (like the shape of coveralls) but small, child-size, because they were shorter than the greasewood shrub they were next to, later measured to be about 4-1/2 feet tall.<br /><br />So if they were human adults, they were midgets. Any use of "people" would be in the generic sense--they resembled small people wearing white suits of some kind. Here's a short excerpt of Zamora's description during an interview with KSRC radio newsman Walter Shrode right afterward (www.roswellproof.com/Socorro/Socorro_Zamora_interview.html):<br /><br />SHRODE: Now you did say you saw two what appeared to be people dressed in white uniforms with... did they have helmets on like space men or anything....?<br /><br />ZAMORA: No sir, <b>I wouldn’t say they were people, I just... I saw something white, white coveralls, that’s all I can say.</b><br /><br />SHRODE: Like something in white coveralls.<br /><br />ZAMORA: Right.<br /><br />He wasn't scared of the beings seen from afar (though things didn't seem normal--he called state policeman Sam Chavez for backup at that point). What scared the bejeezus out of him was when he attempted to approach on foot after parking his car, probably got within 50 feet, and the thing took off with a roar emitting a bright blue "flame". He thought it was going to explode and ran away. Then it departed the scene in dead silence at high speed, which may have created some additional psychological shock or stress in this conservative, skeptical man, who said he didn't believe in UFOs and was now in a state of major cognitive dissonance from what he had just experienced.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31510441947711517372016-08-04T17:06:23.969-07:002016-08-04T17:06:23.969-07:00zoam said;
"Hard evidence and where it leads...zoam said;<br /><br />"Hard evidence and where it leads is what counts to skeptics--not credulous belief ahead of selective and wishful enhancement of the details of inherently dubious stories. And all the evidence in total--all "UFO" stories ever--leads to a very different conclusion for why people make "UFO" reports than visiting ET spacecraft."<br /><br />zoam, if you actually practiced what you preach this statement wouldn't be so hilarious. An example would be your failed attempt to prove the LLRV was what Zamora saw. You twisted so many facts, made up your own version, left out important details, on and on, Is this your hard evidence, if so I'm laughing at it.<br /><br />Admit it zoam, you're no skeptic, you think alien visitation and paranormal mumbo jumbo as you call it can't exist so it doesn't exist.<br /><br />If you actually read my posts instead of twisting things as is your M.O. you would know that I don't have a preconceived notion that ET is the only explanation.<br /><br />Try opening your mind zoam, it will be a refreshing change. Someone once said if you don't have an open mind you should keep your mouth shut. I think that's good advice.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82479492180085955732016-08-04T10:11:13.820-07:002016-08-04T10:11:13.820-07:00Brian B:
Ray is withholding photographic evidence...Brian B:<br /><br />Ray is withholding photographic evidence he acquired maybe 52 years ago. This evidence, so we are told, goes to support whatever it was that Zamora saw in 1964.<br /><br />So yes, we all have to attend the said conference to learn the vital truth of whatever Ray has. You will be missing something vitally important concerning the past, present and future of our planet, and other planets too, if you don't attend.<br /><br />So make sure YOU are there! Me? At my stage in life, I probably can't make it. A great pity, but there it is.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90744479464454566902016-08-04T07:59:30.962-07:002016-08-04T07:59:30.962-07:00"In my opinion neither approach is scientific..."In my opinion neither approach is scientifically acceptable."<br /><br />In fact, Neal, not opinion, false analogies--as is your comparison of skeptics and believers--aren't acceptable, logically, scientifically or any other way. It amounts to nothing but finger-pointing in opposite directions and claiming they're equal when they're very obviously not. Sharing a disposition to strong beliefs does not make opposites, or any other points on the scale, equal.<br /><br />I've seen this trick dozens of times over decades used by those trying to rationalize their belief in "UFOs" and other paranormalist mumbo-jumbo. They also like to refer to themselves as "true skeptics," pretending that the suspension of judgment, the inability to make judgment, is of greatest importance, even when a case has been made and the conclusion is obvious. Instead it's simply an excuse to believe anything could be true when there's no good evidence for it, and so no "UFO" case is ever decided in the paranormalist fantasy world.<br /><br />"Saw two people in white coveralls..." is pretty clear to me. “Well, I didn't think it was an object from outer space because I don't believe in those things” said Zamora, best witness to the event. <br /><br />Skeptics know that the "UFO" subject has more to do with new-age religion, science-fiction and publishing than it does with astronomy, hypothetical ETs and interstellar travel. And not all but many space scientists will tell you that interstellar travel would be a highly risky if not impossible undertaking for anyone from anywhere, and will be always. A great many more guffaw at the idea that even a fraction of "UFO" reports might be ET spacecraft. It's not impossible, there's just no good evidence.<br /><br />Hard evidence and where it leads is what counts to skeptics--not credulous belief ahead of selective and wishful enhancement of the details of inherently dubious stories. And all the evidence in total--all "UFO" stories ever--leads to a very different conclusion for why people make "UFO" reports than visiting ET spacecraft.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69279222762274928032016-08-04T07:44:36.130-07:002016-08-04T07:44:36.130-07:00Ben wrote in his farewell address:
"I am not...Ben wrote in his farewell address:<br /><br />"I am not going into a deep discussion on the picture taken at the site."<br /><br />NOTE: (at the site)<br /><br />"I already had that experience on another blog. Your reaction to this is one of the main reasons why Ray is reluctant to let the picture out."<br /><br />"For anyone else hope you can come to Orlando on the 25th. After that event I will share more info on our Mufon Va web site."<br /><br />So, nothing against Ben or Ray, but this just smacks of an "advertising pitch" to get people to go to a UFO conference.<br /><br />As if Ben is saying:<br /><br />"Ray has secrets...I have secrets...want to know? Come to the event..."<br /><br />Now if Ray had these photos of Zamora's craft from "the site" as Ben now claims, but was afraid to reveal them in 1964...you have to wonder how legit this is and what Ray's agenda has been all along.<br /><br />Ray writes a book, goes on talk radio, etc., and holds significant evidence for 52 years before releasing?<br /><br />And Ben believes that gimmick?<br /><br />And what's with Ben NOT wanting to discuss this because he took heat on another blog? His secret info is only good before a UFO-ET supporting crowd at a MUFON supported conference?<br /><br />Give me a break....Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-23357853667696762672016-08-04T07:42:13.050-07:002016-08-04T07:42:13.050-07:00"there must have been something about the occ..."there must have been something about the occupants that really spooked him"<br /><br />Paul; Zamora never said anything about being frightened by the "two people."<br /><br />"Suddenly noted a shiny type object to south about 150 to 200 yards. ... Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object.<br /><br /><b>"The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at the object.</b> ... <br /><br />"Then paid attention to road while drove towards scene. Radioed to sheriff's office 'Socorro 2 to Socorro, possible 10-44 (accident), I'll be 10-6 (busy) out of the car, checking the car down in the arroyo.'"<br /><br />There's nothing there about being frightened by the "two people" and "a car turned upside down" seen from "150 to 200 yards." He says he drove towards the scene and radioed that would be out of the car investigating the accident on foot and up close AFTER seeing the "two people." Does that sound like he's frightened. Absolutely Not! <br /><br />Please stop trying to "spook" this story up. Just stick with the facts of Zamora's original report and not what was made up afterwards. We may not know exactly which exotic flying machine out of White Sands Lonnie accidentally witnessed that day, but it was definitely not beyond the space technology being developed at the time.<br /><br />http://www.nicap.org/reports/640424zamora2.htmzoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.com