tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post4447235903842598243..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Socorro UFO Landing -- Part OneKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64005695035761476152009-11-16T18:25:54.120-08:002009-11-16T18:25:54.120-08:00"On his blog, he also has the wrong landing s..."On his blog, he also has the wrong landing site, is still claiming it was a balloon, and has posited and still holding to the equally impossible and preposterous pole-vaulting “explanation” for no footprints or other tracks being left behind. If anything, all Stalter has done is hit “goals” into the opposing net."<br /><br />I'd rather be off by a couple hundred feet than a couple thousand miles an hour.Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-92141446139901033142009-11-16T18:16:01.759-08:002009-11-16T18:16:01.759-08:00I wrote, regarding historical wind data ruling out...I wrote, regarding historical wind data ruling out any balloon explanation:<br /><i>"But I don’t expect our magical thinking debunkers to accept this."<br /><br />Frank Stalter replied:<br />lol . . . Yeah, I remember when I scored my first goal.</i><br /><br />Probably took a lot of hocky pucks to the head in the process, judging by his reasoning abilities.<br /><br />And Stalter has scored no “goals” in the Socorro case. He has explained absolutely nothing and made no plausible case at all for a hoax. Instead, he has made a lot of claims, some of them impossible, supported by nothing than “I, Frank Stalter, believe it was a hoax, therefore it was a hoax. And this is the way it was done, because I, Frank Stalter, say that is the way it was done.” <br /><br />On his blog, he also has the wrong landing site, is still claiming it was a balloon, and has posited and still holding to the equally impossible and preposterous pole-vaulting “explanation” for no footprints or other tracks being left behind. If anything, all Stalter has done is hit “goals” into the opposing net.<br /><br /><i>I've already acknowledged multiple times that the wind is a problem for the unpowered balloon explanation.</i><br /><br />I love how this guy massages words, just what you would expect from a marketing person. The winds are a lot more than just a “problem”. They make any balloon explanation IMPOSSIBLE, unless you use magical thinking or drugs.<br /><br />I remember Stalter challenging me on his blog to provide a source other than the evil and untrustworthy Ray Stanford that the object flew into the wind, so I quoted Hynek. Now we have the actual weather data, which confirms beyond any reasonable doubt what both Hynek AND the “untrustworthy” Stanford wrote. The object had to fly into strong, gusting winds to make its departure. The winds totally rule out “balloon”, but to Stalter it is still merely a “problem.”<br /><br />If balloons are ruled out, then what could the object taking off vertically with a roar and then departing horizontally IN TOTAL SILENCE rapidly toward the mountains, in controlled level, straight flight barely 20 feet off the ground have possibly been? There is no CONVENTIONAL aircraft then or now that can do this, period!<br /><br />And despite his supposed “acknowledgment” that winds are a “problem”, you’ll see no changes to his main blog, where he is sticking to the balloon “explanation”, to whit:<br /><br />“Mr. Zamora got his closest view of the vehicle as it flew away and described it as follows: ‘It looks like a balloon.’ He was right about that.”<br /><br />“Levitation-The craft flew away. ‘It must be an advanced aircraft, possibly from another planet!’ No, it was a balloon.”<br /><br />And, of course, while deriding the idea of a levitating aircraft, he still has the preposterous, impossible levitating pole vaulters who leave no tracks behind.<br /><br />“It was a magic trick so good that it's fooling people who didn't even see it almost a half century after it was executed. We don't know just yet who the pranksters were, but that doesn't matter to me.”<br /><br />Yes, Frank Stalter does indeed believe in magic, while hard facts and simple scientific realities do “not matter” to him. Pole vaulters leave no tracks behind and balloons flying into the wind are merely a “problem”.<br /><br />“We all must always look deeper and not take at face value the preposterous claims of bullshit artists…”<br /><br />Yes, I agree, such as the truly preposterous claims of bullshit artists like marketer Frank Stalter.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69431566947032048732009-11-16T16:37:05.019-08:002009-11-16T16:37:05.019-08:00"But I don’t expect our magical thinking debu..."But I don’t expect our magical thinking debunkers to accept this."<br /><br />lol . . . Yeah, I remember when I scored my first goal.<br /><br />I've already acknowledged multiple times that the wind is a problem for the unpowered balloon explanation.Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24423427380243558092009-11-16T16:05:18.623-08:002009-11-16T16:05:18.623-08:00THE WINDS
Hynek wrote that the winds at the time ...THE WINDS<br /><br />Hynek wrote that the winds at the time of the sighting were strong and gusting, either out of the south or southwest. He further added that this alone ruled out Menzel’s “balloon” theory, since a real balloon would of course be carried passively north or to the NE, not to the SSW, where Zamora reported the object departing and disappearing (toward the nearby mountains to the west, 2 miles from Socorro).<br /><br />But what is the historical wind data for the area? One can look it up on-line, digitized newspapers at ancestry.com or newspapers.com, and wind and other weather data at the NOAA website:<br /><br />http://data.nssl.noaa.gov/dataselect<br /><br />There is no wind data for Socorro proper, but one can infer the likely winds from newspaper reports and surrounding weather stations at Albuquerque (70 miles N), El Paso (160 miles S), Alamogordo (80 miles SE), Tuscon (270 miles WSW), and others.<br /><br />Albuquerque is closest to Socorro and the Albuquerque Journal and Tribune provided some details. A cold front and storm was approaching from the west, predicted to produce some rain and snow, with gusty winds preceding the front throughout N.M. kicking up dust at times in the afternoon and night. Wind gusts in Albuquerque were predicted to be 25-30 mph by noon, and increasing to 40 mph or more during the night. Socorro was clear at 5:00 pm (45-50 minutes before Zamora’s encounter).<br /><br />This is all exactly as reported by Zamora: clear with a few clouds, strong gusty winds kicking up dust at times. But there was no information in the newspapers about wind direction. This is where the NOAA data comes in, which had hourly reports from weather stations.<br /><br />Basically it comes down to this. Between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. Albuquerque had mostly southern winds with a little western component. Further south (in El Paso, Tuscon, and Alamogordo), a strong westerly component came in, producing winds from the west or southwest, and to the north in Colorado, an easterly component began to kick in.<br /><br />This is a classic northern hemisphere cyclone (in the generic sense, NOT meaning hurricane force winds) storm pattern, with the winds circulating counterclockwise. Down in the southern part of the cyclone, circulation has winds from the west; at the eastern edge, winds are from the south, and up to the north, circulation brings in winds from the east.<br /><br />More specific data from 5:00-7:00 p.m., bracketing time of sighting to within 1 hour: (in degrees azimuth, with 180 being south, and 270 being west)<br />Albuquerque: 180-210 (S to SSW)<br />Alamogordo: 200-250 (SSW to WSW)<br />El Paso: 230-270 (SW to W)<br />Tuscon: 210-270 (SSW to W)<br /><br />Thus Albuquerque appears to be near the eastern edge of circulation pattern (but a little south, picking up a westerly component), with stronger western winds as you go south to El Paso, Tuscon, and Alamogordo. <br /><br />Best guess for Socorro would be a strong southern component (like Albuquerque), but more westerly (like nearby Alamogordo), since it is further south. Thus probably winds ranging from the south to the southwest, averaging SSW, much like Hynek wrote.<br /><br />Of course, this historical wind data completely rules out any balloon theory for Socorro, since, again, the object traveled WSW, , or at approximately 45 degrees AGAINST the prevailing winds. <br /><br />But I don’t expect our magical thinking debunkers to accept this. No, natural law was momentarily suspended, the winds magically swerved to the ENE right at the encounter to carry the hoax balloon toward the western mountains. Yeah, that’s it!David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4256460884073912832009-11-16T14:07:10.789-08:002009-11-16T14:07:10.789-08:00"Stanford would have had to lie about the NAS..."Stanford would have had to lie about the NASA analyst initially telling him the metal did not match any known alloy."<br /><br />That couldn't have happened . . . no way. lol<br /><br />"Hoaxers would have had to create a 3-foot patch of vitrified sand"<br /><br />So what, they had all afternoon to seed the area any way they wanted.<br /><br />"All first responders indicated the marks were still fresh, including moisture at the bottom from underlying subsoil that remained for several hours."<br /><br />If the moisture lasted several hours, it could have been there several hours too . . . duh.<br /><br />"Donald Menzel tried to argue back then it was a hoax, including the idea of students releasing a balloon, but Hynek refuted him in detail, including the arguments that everybody would have to be in on the hoax, including the police, balloons don’t fly against the wind, and the complete absence of any track evidence."<br /><br />A gross and dishonest distortion. Hynek outlined the pros and cons of a hoax and he was wrong about the necessity of Zamora and the first responders being involved. They clearly were not.Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50735911515885537972009-11-16T14:06:02.054-08:002009-11-16T14:06:02.054-08:00Just a quick insert before more blather from Rudia...Just a quick insert before more blather from Rudiak. Most of his assertions are straw men. <br /><br />He speaks as though a complete claim of how the hoax may have been accomplished has been presented and he is responding to it (in his inimitably disingenuous way).<br /><br />I have not seen Tony or Frank present any kind of scenario of how exactly they are claiming the hoax was accomplished so Rudiak is making things up in his mind to respond to. As I have shown, making things up is what Rudiak does best.<br /><br />An example:<br /><br />My understanding is that Hynek claimed the film looked like it MIGHT have been fogged by radiation. Rudiak takes that and says it ABSOLUTELY was radiation (an example of his addled way of thinking). <br /><br />As someone very familiar with motion picture film, I wonder how one might distinguish between radiation fogging and mere light leaks. When I worked in TV news using 16mm film, light leaks were a common problem (happening while loading the film or during the processing). <br /><br />This is just one example of how Rudiak takes a small bit of testimony and STRETCHES to the point of comedy (here he proffers an extra dose of silliness, hilariously raving about isotopes, etc.).<br /><br />Notice how Rudiak has never responded to how I caught him in an outright fabrication on his web site. He is truly without shame.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63579980832006663342009-11-16T13:49:57.873-08:002009-11-16T13:49:57.873-08:00(part 2)
Hoaxers would have had to create a broke...(part 2)<br /><br />Hoaxers would have had to create a broken rock at the edge of the NW landing mark with small embedded metal particles in it (noted first by Zamora, recovered by Stanford, witnessed afterward by many, including Richard Hall—photos in Stanford’s book). Stanford would have had to lie about the NASA analyst initially telling him the metal did not match any known alloy.<br /><br />Hoaxers would have add another subtle touch of making the same landing mark the least distinct one, as if tilted to the side by same broken hoax rock.<br /><br />Hoaxers would have had to create a 3-foot patch of vitrified sand, not even known to original researchers like Hynek or Stanford, but which showed up in documents of Dr. James McDonald afterward, including interview with analyst who examined patch. Similarly, in came out later the Air Force had found an unusual rock with a bubbled surface and powdery residue at the center of the primary burn area where Zamora had seen the blue flame. It did match any other rocks in area. Hoaxers would have had to create that also.<br /><br />It was not possible to reproduce the landing marks by simple digging. All first responders indicated the marks were still fresh, including moisture at the bottom from underlying subsoil that remained for several hours. All agreed the marks appeared to created by something of great weight pressing down into the soil, compressing it, and gently pushing aside topsoil and mounding it. No hoaxing paraphernalia or tracks of same were found to explain them. A physicist’s analysis of soil compression estimated an object of 4-10 tons would be necessary to create the marks. (A real heavy “balloon”)<br /><br />Hoaxers would have had to be so detailed and fastidious as to align four rectangular landing marks to be parallel with one another, also make sure the diagonals intersected at right angles, which mathematics indicates would be exactly as expected for an object distributing weight equally on all four pads. In addition, center of mass would align right over primary burn area where Zamora saw ear-splittingly loud bright flame and where strange bubbly rock was found.<br /><br />Hoaxers would have had to create this flame and roar right in front of Zamora, yet remain unobserved and leave not a trace of paraphernalia or chemical residue behind. They would have had to create a flame that seemed to penetrate into the soil, kick up little dust, show no blast effects, then somehow release hoax craft still emitting flame and roar, and again, leave not a trace of their presence or of any needed paraphernalia behind, all right in front of Zamora and backup that arrived within 2 minutes. (So again, Zamora and backup would have to be part of hoax.)<br /><br />All investigators at the scene, including the Air Force, agreed the hoax scenario was untenable. AF debunker, Project Blue Book head Hector Quintenilla ruled out hoax and tried to make a case that it must be a super-secret U.S. test craft, though he checked everywhere, including up to the Pentagon and White House, and could find no evidence of such a craft. No evidence of such a craft has ever emerged.<br /><br />Donald Menzel tried to argue back then it was a hoax, including the idea of students releasing a balloon, but Hynek refuted him in detail, including the arguments that everybody would have to be in on the hoax, including the police, balloons don’t fly against the wind, and the complete absence of any track evidence.<br /><br />Anybody who thinks this would have been a simple hoax or “magic trick” either don’t know the first thing about the details of the Socorro case, or simply don’t care, because debunkers don’t care about the facts.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75602227344414892392009-11-16T13:47:47.788-08:002009-11-16T13:47:47.788-08:00Let us look at ALL the elements that would have be...Let us look at ALL the elements that would have been required for a hoax (many of them mentioned by Hynek in his letter to Menzel):<br /><br />Zamora would have had to lie about what he saw and heard or have hallucinated the critical details such as seeing a solid metallic object at close range resting on legs, taking off emitting an ear-splitting, roaring brilliant blue flame, departure to the WSW bucking a strong wind, all in complete silence, flying straight and level for 2 miles, then cutting up sharply and rising very fast to fadeout.<br /><br />All the first responders (Socorro police and NM State Troopers) would have had to lie about the area still being hot and smoldering and the complete absence of any track evidence or hoaxing paraphernalia to support other humans being out there.<br /><br />The FBI agent who arrived soon afterward would have also had to lie about absence of any tracks and paraphernalia.<br /><br />The Air Force would have had to lie about finding no chemical residue on the plants and soil to explain the burns.<br /><br />Thus hoaxers would have had to freshly burn plants & soil, right in front of Zamora who was only 50 feet or so away, create a tremendous roar (auditory witnesses in town, some of whom called the police dispatcher before anybody knew about the event), yet absolutely no track evidence of any kind or paraphenalia needed to do such things as freshly burning the area, creating a tremendous roar, releasing a fake craft (the mythical “balloon” that could fly against the wind in a straight line, etc., etc.), yet leave absolutely no trace of their presence: no footprints, no ropes, no burning apparatus, no pyrotechnics, no chemical residue, no nothin’<br /><br />In addition, Hynek pointed out that hoaxers would have had to release a balloon BEFORE Zamora got there (otherwise he would have seen them and necessary paraphenalia, like ropes), and the winds were all wrong, coming out of the S to SW. Any balloon would have been blown N over town or NE of town (not gone WSW, as Zamora reported).<br /><br />In addition:<br />Gas station owner Opal Grinder (and his son) would have had to be lying about the unidentified tourists passing through who said an object almost took off the roof of their car and saw a police car chasing after it.<br /><br />Identified tourists Paul Kies and Larry Kratzer, approaching Socorro at the time from the west, would have had to be lying about seeing something emitting flame and kicking up dust (considering it remarkable enough to soon report it to their local newspaper).<br /><br />The police would have had to be lying about numerous witnesses on the south side of town hearing the roars. The two women Stanford spoke to would have had to be lying about hearing two roars, a minute or so apart. (If they weren’t lying, where was the paraphernalia that created the very loud roars?)<br /><br />Similarly the police dispatcher would have had to be lying (or deliberately deceived) about receiving three calls within minutes from people who had seen the bright flame and heard the roar of the object either taking off or landing before the event was publicly know. (No doubt the debunkers will claim the hoaxers made the calls.)<br /><br />Everybody who reported seeing other egg-shaped objects flying around New Mexico before and afterward would have had to be lying or hoaxing (includes one car stalling case and one landing case with burning and identical marks on ground up in La Madera, also investigated by local police and FBI).<br /><br />Hynek would have had to lie to Zamora and later Stanford (on camera) that the original film taken at the scene 10 minutes afterward by trooper Ted Jordan was fogged by radiation. (or Hynek was lied to by Air Force, or hoaxers would have had to find and use short-lived isotopes that quickly decayed and didn’t fog film next morning, meaning access to something like a cyclotron or nuclear reactor to create such isotopes)<br /><br />(cont. next post)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60180705568738245662009-11-16T08:31:57.320-08:002009-11-16T08:31:57.320-08:00Earlier I wrote:
"Bragalia, on the other han...Earlier I wrote:<br /><br />"Bragalia, on the other hand, has yet to trumpet one conclusion (even while delivering many in an embarrassing, silly and breathless style) that was even slightly supported by his evidence."<br /><br />This was a bit too much hyperbole (even for this crowd!). Tony's conclusions are SLIGHTLY supported by the evidence but far too slightly to stand on their own.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71421775037005927762009-11-16T05:58:32.307-08:002009-11-16T05:58:32.307-08:00Dear Kevin,
I think that some of this can be prove...Dear Kevin,<br />I think that some of this can be proven by a video I saw on "Sightings" TV show. I am sure they found video of a family that visitrf the spot soon after it happened and film it . They showed the newly released film. What I remember was the burning bushes all around in the film and the deep impression of the landing spot. The family was driving through the town close to the landing spot and heard from a Gas Station Attendant about the landing and the police officer. This could of been before they secured the place. Of course the problem now would be to get the video. I will look around and see if it can be found.<br /><br />Joe Capp<br />UFO Media Matters<br />Non-Commercial BlogJoseph Capphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12428219762980782866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52743132761042276882009-11-16T04:35:34.183-08:002009-11-16T04:35:34.183-08:00Christopher is quite right, of course, but another...Christopher is quite right, of course, but another factor that is often criminally dismissed by believers is the ability of humans to spectacularly misinterpret what they are seeing.<br /><br />As an amateur magician, I often would hear my spectators reconstructing the trick they had just seen. It was amazing how wrong they could get things. And I am not talking about the sneaky stuff that is hidden from the spectators, I am talking about things that they saw out in the open but for various reasons (including psychological principles that Magic takes advantage of) misinterpreted.<br /><br />For instance, I might hear one say to the other, "He never touched the cards!" When, in fact, I had touched the cards quite a bit and right in front of them.<br /><br />This is a dirty little secret of eyewitness testimony and I am well aware that it is exactly the kind of insight that gets stupidly discarded by those who prefer mystery over reality.<br /><br />None of the above should imply that I think Bragalia or Frank have produced the kind of evidence needed to support their claims. They haven't even come close. But unlike the disingenuous and despicable Rudiak and many other childishly unqualified "researchers", I can't pick and choose what evidence I embrace (the very fact that I don't blindly accept the hoax theory should cause Rudiak's head to explode under his ridiculous theory of how "skeptibunkers" work, but alas this is not a fair world). <br /><br />Indeed the entire Bragalia Socorro story shows how deeply deluded many in the field actually are. It is hilarious to watch them suddenly require a rigorous standard of evidence for the hoax theory while they allow the flimsiest foil paper and strings to suffice for their own pet theories.<br /><br />Lance<br /><br /><br />P.S. I wanted also to mention that I was appalled to see that Kevin had authored a paper with Bragalia. Kevin is someone who knows what the word "evidence" means and although I disagree with his conclusions about Roswell, I respect his work. <br /><br />Bragalia, on the other hand, has yet to trumpet one conclusion (even while delivering many in an embarrassing, silly and breathless style) that was even slightly supported by his evidence.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80219345301965452232009-11-16T02:42:22.248-08:002009-11-16T02:42:22.248-08:00I refer to Quintanilla's own account as reprin...I refer to Quintanilla's own account as reprinted in "UFOs 1947-1997" (ed Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy). There are a few clauses where he hints, but does not explicitly say so, that part least part of Zamora's story is wildly exaggerated, or even invented. He does NOT call Zamora a liar, far from it, but he says, in two places:<br /><br />"And yet I have always had some doubt about this case, even though it is the best documented case on record". <br /><br />"I've always felt that too many essential elements of the case were missing. These were the intangible elements which are impossible to check, so the solution to this case could very well be lying dormant in Lonnie Zamora's head".<br /><br />Quintanilla & Blue Book tried very hard to solve the case and failed, yet he still had his doubts. I think we can deduce from this that, when everything had been exhausted and found lacking, he thought Zamora's account was contradictory, overblown or even imaginary in places. This may have been merely Q's excuse for not solving the case, or it may be the truth. We cannot say. <br /><br />The moral is that it is not necessary to explain every little item or every single piece of evidence in a UFO case. As an analogy, there are plenty of murder cases where you know, or feel certain, that someone is guilty but are still some nagging little unexplained parts of the story. <br /><br />The Socorro case IS explainable as a hoax (of some kind) only, I think, if we assume Zamora had elaborated or fabricated part of his story. <br /><br />We have spent a great deal of time on the physical aspects of the Socorro case, but none whatever on the witness himself - his history, motivation, interests in life and his psychological make-up. We have taken everything Zamora said as gospel and have got virtually nowhere in explaining the object seen. Should we have concentrated more on the witness himself? I don't know the answer.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51986905361902759812009-11-16T01:20:43.247-08:002009-11-16T01:20:43.247-08:00"Zamora said "It looks like a balloon&qu...<i>"Zamora said "It looks like a balloon" not "it looks like a balloon with a rocket at the bottom." He says nothing about any exhaust emissions. His account was detailed enough that I think if he had seen that, he would have written that."</i><br /><br />Well, according to the Project Blue Book file quoted on wikipedia, this is what Zamora described [excerpt]:<br />----------------------------------<br /><br />Zamora drove towards the scene, radioing his dispatcher to say he would be out of his car "checking the car in the arroyo." He stopped his car, got out, and attended to the radio mike, which he had dropped, then he started to approach the object.<br /><br />"Hardly turned around from car, when heard roar (was not exactly a blast), very loud roar--at that close was real loud. Not like a jet--knows what jets sound like. Started low frequency quickly, then roar rose in frequency (higher tone) and in loudness--from loud to very loud. At same time as roar saw flame. Flame was under the object. Object was starting to go straight up--slowly up. Object slowly rose stright up. Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color From this angle, saw the side of object (not end, as first noted). Difficult to describe flame. Thought, from roar, it might blow up. Flame might have come from underside of object, at middle, possibly a four feet area--very rough guess. Cannot describe flame further except blue and orange. No smoke, except dust in immediate area."<br /><br />—Lonnie Zamorra, Project Blue Book case number 8766<br /><br />Keeping the object in view he ran behind his car, bumping his leg on the rear fender and dropping his glasses, and continued running northwards away from the object, which was still near the ground. He now gives a more detailed description of the object. "oval in shape...smooth--no windows or doors...Noted red lettering of some type (see illustration). Insignia was about 2 1/2' high and about 2' wide I guess. Was in middle of object. . .Object still like aluminum-white." He also noted that the object was still on the ground when the roar started."<br /><br />See: http://bit.ly/idBFJ<br />----------------------------------<br /><br />So Zamora did describe "exhaust emissions" in the sense of describing the conical flame, its shape and size/length, colors, etc. If you thought by "exhaust emissions" I meant some smoke, no, I was referring to the jet of flame Zamora observed as the object "slowly rose stright up." There are other, supplementary descriptions with additional details of this having been seen by Zamora, including some that also describe some dust or dirt being kicked up blowing around the bottom of the object as it began to rise up.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43708219730762781772009-11-15T20:49:48.612-08:002009-11-15T20:49:48.612-08:00"Yes, I know one theory is that some kind of ..."Yes, I know one theory is that some kind of balloon-based object was used by hoaxers, but if so, how does one explain the ovoid shape, initial sounds and appearance of "jet" or "rocket" propulsion Zamora saw when the object lifted up and hovered, and particularly, when the object went silent, what source of motive force could have been used to move the object into the wind, followed by even, apparently controlled horizontal flight, followed by some debateable acceleration in speed a few miles distant before and during its rapid elevation near the base of the mountain? How could this have been hoaxed? This question is for the hoax theorists."<br /><br />Zamora said "It looks like a balloon" not "it looks like a balloon with a rocket at the bottom." He says nothing about any exhaust emissions. His account was detailed enough that I think if he had seen that, he would have written that.<br /><br />Here's what Hynek wrote about the wind, from the article you found," The wind was blowing strongly from the south, yet the object was reported to have gone on directly west. This would hardly fit a balloon, [b]unless, or course, the directions are wrong.[/b] I questioned and requestioned the people on this point and couldn't shake them from that."<br /><br />I have said that is a problem for the unpowered balloon explanation.Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41995472070541444952009-11-15T20:40:48.503-08:002009-11-15T20:40:48.503-08:00Frank and David, et al:
"Can't we all ju...Frank and David, et al:<br /><br />"Can't we all just get along?"<br />---Rodney King<br /><br />Oh, <i>hell</i> no! Why I oughta...! 8^}<br /><br />Let's take a pause here, can we folks? This is becoming not only pointless, but quite unproductive. I'd like to hit the reset button, if that's possible at this juncture. <br /><br />I know there are vested interests in play here, but this kind of give and take is increasingly diversionary to what I had faintly once hoped might be a serious discussion of the conflicting issues. <br /><br />I, for one, am now backing off from the ad hominem attacks and the reactionary conflicts that have emerged here. <br /><br />For my part, I apologize to anyone offended by my own prior comments. The harshness here, and emotional blood-letting, has finally gotten to me, so at least I am going to try to return to a more formal, serious discussion of the matters under debate. <br /><br />I'd like to start again with two central questions:<br /><br />1) Is Zamora's credibility as a witness himself in any serious question? This goes to the root of the Socorro incident--nearly everything flows from there. I'd like to hear others opinions here as to his reliability as a witness, and any critical discrepencies or issues anyone here may have with his testimony.<br /><br />2) If Zamora's testimony is basically accurate, and his essential honesty and integrity as a witness is not being seriously questioned or cannot be documented, just how do interested parties here explain the nature of the object seen, and its means of propulsion? Yes, I know one theory is that some kind of balloon-based object was used by hoaxers, but if so, how does one explain the ovoid shape, initial sounds and appearance of "jet" or "rocket" propulsion Zamora saw when the object lifted up and hovered, and particularly, when the object went silent, what source of motive force could have been used to move the object into the wind, followed by even, apparently controlled horizontal flight, followed by some debateable acceleration in speed a few miles distant before and during its rapid elevation near the base of the mountain? How could this have been hoaxed? This question is for the hoax theorists. <br /><br />In turn, for those who advocate a craft involving, apparently, some form of either non-human intelligence (or, possibly, a much more elaborate hoax that might have been staged by people other than the hypothesized NMIMT students), don't elements of this case also seem to contradict virtually all other CE III cases, and have unique aspects of what seemingly appear as human technology, at least in the initial propulsion phase of lifting off and hovering? How can this case be definitively explained or defined, in other words, as necessarily either extraterrestrial or from some advanced non-human source? <br /><br />In other words, is there a third or alternative possibility we may be overlooking, that is neither NMIMT "balloon" hoax nor extraterrestrial "metallic craft"? <br /><br />BTW, I also don't buy into a military or aerospace vehicle being involved, given the technology of such available in 1964. We had nothing like this then.<br /><br />These are serious questions I'd like some better, and more serious attempts at trying to answer or at least some more specific, explanatory theorizing about, regardless of which side of these issues you may be on. Anybody? <br /><br />I think we have a mysterious quandry either way, and I also have no explanation either way, in terms of either "hoax" or "ET" that seems sufficiently satisfactory no matter how I look at this case. Are there any other cases on record directly like this, in the sense of object shape, propulsion aspects, insignia, ground trace evidence, aerial behavior and movement parameters, etc.? I'd really like to know just how unique this case is within the history of the UFO phenomenon.<br /><br />I realize I'm being "redundant" here with these questions, but no satisfactory answers have yet been produced from either side. Maybe it's naive of me to ask again. Perhaps these questions, 45 years on, are actually unresolvable.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-44182956691098092009-11-15T15:46:34.808-08:002009-11-15T15:46:34.808-08:00"Congratulations Frank! You are now dumber th..."Congratulations Frank! You are now dumber than a two-year-old."<br /><br />But still smarter than you.Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27465343690796943422009-11-15T14:54:31.789-08:002009-11-15T14:54:31.789-08:00I wrote:
"More magical thinking on Stalter’s ...I wrote:<br /><i>"More magical thinking on Stalter’s part. He thinks that by just changing the name, the pole marks and footprints made by the vaulters magically vanish. Whatever the type of vaulting, the vaulter has to run to gain necessary forward momentum, plant the pole, and come down again on the other side. Then repeat. Traces of the pole and vaulter are necessarily left behind."</i><br /><br />Frank Stalters brilliant comeback:<br /><i>Judging from the online photographs of you, you appear as physically inept as you are mentally inept. It's not surprising you can't figure out how someone could propel themselves forward a significant distance by using a pole and without running.<br /><br />Watch and learn, David.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyRWmbyeglg</i><br /><br />So what does video show? People indeed running multiple steps forward (presumably with feet on ground), planting pole (presumably in ground), flying forward and clumsily landing on feet or falling on their ass (presumably on ground), all of which leaving multiple clear imprints on ground, unless they are levitating across using debunker magical thinking.<br /><br />So now we have “watched and learned.” What have the rest of us “mentally inept” people learned? In addition to being a total jackass, Stalter is also quite blind. <br /><br />I must also now apologize to the two-year-olds, to whom I just compared Frank Stalter (after just demoting him from kindergarten status in mental ability). I thought I would have to wait until tomorrow before Stalter reached a new low, but Stalter was more than up to the challenge. Congratulations Frank! You are now dumber than a two-year-old.<br /><br />Stalter is either a Total Twit or Troll. Either way, he doesn’t deserve any further time, having completely discredited himself in any serious discussion.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67428701853827593772009-11-15T13:38:11.473-08:002009-11-15T13:38:11.473-08:00Kev, how does a "no-brainer" - Colgate&#...Kev, how does a "no-brainer" - Colgate's term to Pauling - become, decades later, a carefully choreographed techno hoax perpetrated against a particular police officer - Zamora - by way of retribution for some supposed infraction against a cabal of uber genius engineering students?<br /><br />A no-brainer, surely, means something so pathetically obvious only a complete idiot wouldn't be able to see it?<br /><br />This doesn't mean Socorro WAS an alien technology incident, but it DOES suggest decades later, when Colgate was asked to comment on his "no-brainer" remark, he compensated for being unable to provide a simple "no-brainer" explanation, by providing an overly elaborate scenario that's almost more fantastical than the aliens explanation.<br /><br />It also strongly suggests whatever Zamora encountered, it wasn't a deliberately contrived prank by a gang of juvenile super geniuses.borkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05042275165058229970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17282951596273210642009-11-15T12:02:56.651-08:002009-11-15T12:02:56.651-08:00"More magical thinking on Stalter’s part. He ..."More magical thinking on Stalter’s part. He thinks that by just changing the name, the pole marks and footprints made by the vaulters magically vanish. Whatever the type of vaulting, the vaulter has to run to gain necessary forward momentum, plant the pole, and come down again on the other side. Then repeat. Traces of the pole and vaulter are necessarily left behind."<br /><br />Judging from the online photographs of you, you appear as physically inept as you are mentally inept. It's not surprising you can't figure out how someone could propel themselves forward a significant distance by using a pole and without running. <br /><br />Watch and learn, David.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyRWmbyeglgFrank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53975887605534578212009-11-15T11:59:54.247-08:002009-11-15T11:59:54.247-08:00For a pelicanist's view of Socorro, please go ...For a pelicanist's view of Socorro, please go to http://pelicanist.blogspot.com (part of the MAGONIA blog, and currently the 4th topic from the top) where you will find a discussion of all the theories regarding the case. It is under the heading "The Pelican at Socorro".<br /><br />The 'pelican' gives what he considers the silliest explanation of them all (and one that is totally different to anything mentioned either on the current blog or the iconoclasts one). The 'pelican' ends up firmly sitting on the fence with Socorro, which is probably the safest, if a bit uncomfortable, place to sit. <br /><br />In the end, remember it is only a single witness case (as far as the CE3 aspect is concerned).cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84140355599410871772009-11-15T11:29:06.142-08:002009-11-15T11:29:06.142-08:00I wrote:
"the “stick” legs in the schematic s...I wrote:<br />"the “stick” legs in the schematic showing the first-seen UFO from a distance of 600-800’, could not be seen with the naked eye from that distance if they were the thickness of true pole-vaulting sticks."<br /><br />If it was really a pole-vaulting pole, Zamora could not have seen it from a far distance to draw it later as a UFO landing gear. Notice how Frank Stalter again evades the point made, not that it really matters, since the rest of Stalter’s argument is so incredibly stupid, even for a debunker. (Maybe he should write "Debunking For Dummies")<br /><br /><i>Don't let facts get in your way David. The diagram at my blog is clearly labeled "Vault For Distance Over A Bar." Distance vaulting and pole vaulting are not the same thing. If you don't understand the difference between distance and height, why should anyone take any of your silly distortions seriously?</i><br /><br />More magical thinking on Stalter’s part. He thinks that by just changing the name, the pole marks and footprints made by the vaulters magically vanish. Whatever the type of vaulting, the vaulter has to run to gain necessary forward momentum, plant the pole, and come down again on the other side. Then repeat. Traces of the pole and vaulter are necessarily left behind. <br /><br />I think even cda gets it, and I believe I hear Menzel and Klass cringing from their graves. "No Frank, for Chrissake, don't argue that! You're making us all look bad."<br /><br /><i>"The stick figure, kindergarten sketch of the UFO with the “stick” legs does go along well with the kindergarten level magical thinking skills of our resident debunking genius."<br /><br />Now you're insulting Zamora as well as me. You really don't have any intellectual integrity at all, do you?</i><br /><br />I apologize to all kindergarteners everywhere for insulting their intelligence. Stalter’s reasoning ability and magical thinking are more on par with a two-year-old.<br /><br />Tomorrow I’ll probably be apologizing to the two-year-olds as Stalter tops himself.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21112428688164851582009-11-15T07:35:13.609-08:002009-11-15T07:35:13.609-08:00"the “stick” legs in the schematic showing th..."the “stick” legs in the schematic showing the first-seen UFO from a distance of 600-800’, could not be seen with the naked eye from that distance if they were the thickness of true pole-vaulting sticks."<br /><br />Don't let facts get in your way David. The diagram at my blog is clearly labeled "Vault For Distance Over A Bar." Distance vaulting and pole vaulting are not the same thing. If you don't understand the difference between distance and height, why should anyone take any of your silly distortions seriously?<br /><br />"The stick figure, kindergarten sketch of the UFO with the “stick” legs does go along well with the kindergarten level magical thinking skills of our resident debunking genius."<br /><br />Now you're insulting Zamora as well as me. You really don't have any intellectual integrity at all, do you?<br /><br />"Not to mention the final AF Socorro report and a UPI story both quoted Zamora as saying they were “girderlike.” <br /><br />And Zamora's report says nothing of the kind, his two drawings don't indicate that and Moody's report says the legs were pronglike. Zamora also said he only saw two legs and only draws two legs.<br /><br />David, peyote buttons are NOT one of the four major food groups.Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53884164892982138312009-11-15T07:11:59.896-08:002009-11-15T07:11:59.896-08:00Steve Sawyer wrote:
And that, in any event, the sk...Steve Sawyer wrote:<br /><i>And that, in any event, the sketches Zamora producted at that time were simply very basic illustrative schematic drawings to show the basic shape, legs positions, and symbol, without details?</i><br /><br />Yes, exactly, just like the highly simplistic schematic AF map of the area, with no attempt to draw in detail or with accuracy.<br /><br />The stick figure, kindergarten sketch of the UFO with the “stick” legs does go along well with the kindergarten level magical thinking skills of our resident debunking genius, who still apparently believes that somebody could “pole-vault” away with those “sticks” and not leave numerous pole marks and footprints behind.<br /><br />It does not seem to occur to this brilliant mind that the very fact the Zamora also drew a figure of the legs when he was up close and viewing the object from the side and was quite insistent that the object was still resting on the ground on those very legs means the genius’ hoaxing students had not removed them so they could go invisibly pole-vaulting away.<br /><br />It also does not seem to occur to this unnamed genius that the “stick” legs in the schematic showing the first-seen UFO from a distance of 600-800’, could not be seen with the naked eye from that distance if they were the thickness of true pole-vaulting sticks. <br /><br /><i>And that, regardless of your opinion, that the charcoal drawng made by the 14-year old boy was considered the best representation of what Zamora saw, at that time, among many other drawings others produced? And that it shows girder-like legs?</i><br /><br />Not to mention the final AF Socorro report and a UPI story both quoted Zamora as saying they were “girderlike.”David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62921492137689407742009-11-15T07:08:11.878-08:002009-11-15T07:08:11.878-08:00Steve Sawyer wrote, quoting Ray Stanford in his bo...Steve Sawyer wrote, quoting Ray Stanford in his book:<br /><i>"Every law-enforcement officer who talked to Zamora within minutes to an hour or so after the event, including police dispatcher Mike Martinez, told me unequivocally that what Zamora really saw on the object was, as 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", and not the thing he was drawing and telling others that he saw, after Holder's request.</i><br /><br />It is more than just Ray Stanford’s say-so that the symbol was altered and Zamora was just honoring AF requests that he not reveal the real symbol. It is also in newspaper stories of the time.<br /><br />Socorro El Defensor Chiefton, April 28, 1964 (front page):<br />“Zamora said he saw lettering on the side of the UFO, and he sketched the lettering on a post sack after the object had taken off. He did not believe the lettering was in English and he observed no numerals as there are on known aircraft. <i>Zamora said he was not at liberty to further describe the lettering.</i>”<br /><br />Hobbs NM Daily News, April 28, front page<br />“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. <i>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.</i>”<br /><br />AP Story, April 29 (e.g., San Antonio TX Light, Danville VA Bee)<br />“Officer Lonnie Zamora said the object he saw last Friday was a brilliant white. <i>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.</i>”<br /><br />AP Story, April 30 (e.g. Frederick MD News)<br />“The scientist [Hynek] also discussed the markings that Zamora said he saw on the side of the object, <i>a red, inverted V with bars through it.</i>”<br /><br />Finally, transcript of Hynek radio interview, April 29, KSRC, Socorro (reprinted in Stanford, 66-67)<br />“He described it to me as an inverted V with a sort of bar across it.” <br /><br />(Hynek interestingly also says he was called by the Pentagon, who tells him that AP was quoting Zamora saying some Air Force guy told him not to say anything about the lettering. Hynek then claims Zamora denied this and it was nothing but a rumor, but see newspaper quotes above where BOTH Zamora and Chavez specifically say that he wasn’t supposed to discuss it publicly, though apparently he did to a limited extent.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49800170001842472352009-11-15T06:36:14.735-08:002009-11-15T06:36:14.735-08:00Kevin:
Your title is "Socorro Landing part 1...Kevin: <br />Your title is "Socorro Landing part 1". In view of the large number of posts and fierce debate so far, are you going to dare to publish part 2? And might there even be a part 3? The mind boggles.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com