Did Lonnie Zamora See Alien Creatures?

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

Socorro, New Mexico. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a way to resolve this?

Certainly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socorro UFO Landing and New Witnesses?

There are those who feel the Socorro UFO landing is a weak case because it is single witness. Nearly everything comes down to what Lonnie Zamora, the Socorro police officer who saw the craft on the ground and the two humanoid occupants near it, said he witnessed. This is not completely true.

Opal Grinder, owner of a service station reported that a tourist had said something about jets flying very low over the town. That tourist has never been found and interviewed so any description of the craft and the incident is second hand. It might have provided some important corroboration for the case. As it is, it is simply an interesting anecdote.

There are, however, two other witnesses who have been named and have been interviewed. According to an article published in the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald on Wednesday, April 29, 1964, Paul Kies, who was 24 and Larry Kratzer who was 26 (seen here), had been in Socorro the previous Friday when the object took off.

Kratzer told the reporter, "We saw some brown dust, then black smoke – like rubber burning – then a fire. The smoke hid the shiny craft as it flew away."

Then they began to talk about things they couldn’t have seen, but might have heard on the news or read in the newspapers. Remember, they were talking some five days later, after there had been a great deal published and broadcast.

Kries said that federal agents had cordoned the area and that government sources had denied they had anything like the observed craft near Socorro. Kries said that there were four depressions, about twelve feet apart, left by the object. He also claimed that there was a large burned patch on the desert and that the exhaust had melted a pop bottle when it took off.

Sometime later, an Iowa UFO researcher, Ralph DeGraw interviewed the two men, but he was not impressed with their story. He said that it seemed to be in conflict with what Zamora had described. He believed their testimony was not trustworthy.

The descriptions offered by the two men, of what was found on the landing site seems to imply that they had been there and seen it. They suggest the area was condoned. They talked about the landing traces left by the craft as it took off, implying they had seen that as well.

However, there is no evidence that any civilians were on the scene that night. Almost all the testimony that was offered by Zamora, Sergeant Sam Chavez of the New Mexico State Police, FBI agent Bynes and Army Captain Richard Holder and some later filtered through Col. Eric Jonckheere seemed to suggest no civilians on the scene that night. The descriptions given by those we know were there based on the documentation differs from what the two new witnesses said. I’m most bothered by the melted pop bottle. No one we know who was on the scene talked about anything like that. Charred cardboard and other trash, yes, but no melted pop bottles.

Their description of the landing marks were nothing that new. It could have been picked up by anyone who had watched the story unfold for the last couple of days. There had been plenty of stories about what was seen.

While it would be nice to have additional witnesses to the case, and these two men claim to have been on the scene, there are many problems with them. Had they left it with having seen something in the sky, as they drove by, it would be one thing, but it seems they were suggesting they were at the landing site. It might be the way the story was written, or it might have been they incorporated the additional information without thought about ramifications. They might just have been trying to give the reporter the impression of something other worldly, but it is clear that neither man had walked the field.

This report doesn’t seem to add much to the Socorro story. It suggests corroboration, but as it stands now, it doesn’t help.

The Socorro UFO Landing Part 2

I seem to have been deeply drawn into the latest investigations of the Socorro UFO landing. The latest theory to be floated was that it was a hoax perpetrated by students at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. One of the items in support of the theory is the cardboard found at the landing site and the suggestion that this cardboard was the remains of some kind of pyrotechnics that gave the object its alleged blue – colored flame. I say alleged because there is some discussion about this flame and whether or not it was ever there, but that is a discussion for another time.

I have read, carefully, the file that was held by the Air Force and Project Blue Book and I find no mention about how this cardboard was recovered. Hynek, in his reports, sort of brushed by it and I did find a list of materials submitted for analysis that does mention it.

The first real discussion about the cardboard is in a letter from UFO debunker, Dr. Donald Menzel, who questioned Dr. J. Allen Hynek about it. Since it, the cardboard, was found on the site, though no one seemed to have noted exactly where it was collected which seems to be a little sloppy for both the police officers and scientists involved, there was a question about it being related to the sighting.

In a letter dated February 19, 1965, Menzel, writing to Hynek, noted, "There was also a piece of charred cardboard. ... How big and what shape was the cardboard? Maybe it played a significant role in the enacted UFO drama. Did it, for example, support part of the aluminum foil? Were there holes in the cardboard to which aluminum might have been attached, or indentations carved by paper clips or the like?"

Hynek, in his notes to the chief of Blue Book, wrote, "As far as the cardboard is concerned, Menzel’s conjectures here fall completely flat. The cardboard was portions of very old and weathered corrugated [emphasis added] paper from a packing box [which also seems to answer questions about shape and holes]. There are many examples of this all over the region. There is a city dump not too far away, and when the wind, which blows tumbleweeds all over the place, gets hold of some of this stuff, it scatters the papers pretty well all over the region. Many of the bushes, I noticed particularly this time, have papers caught on their underneath side. In any case, some of this paper was still there, and I shall send Menzel a sample of what this cardboard really looks like. I would say that the cardboard had been there through many rains and had suffered successive dryings [emphasis added]. The original piece I picked up was definitely charred."

The charred cardboard was not part of a tube, but of a packing box so it did not contain pyrotechnics. Hynek, who recovered it, seemed to believe that it was only associated with the sighting by proximity but had nothing to do with the case. It was Menzel who tried to turn it into evidence of a hoax, which is, of course, something that is going on today.

The records are quite clear about this. The cardboard was old and weathered. The landing site was near a dump and there was a lot of cardboard, and paper, and other debris blowing around the area. The most logical conclusion is that the cardboard had nothing to do with the sighting.

There is an ancillary issue here and that is the suggestion that this charred cardboard was part of the pyrotechnics used to create the original flame and give Zamora a reason for driving off into the desert. The Project Blue Book files and our old friend Colonel Eric T. de Jonckheere provides an answer for us. In his May 28, 1964 letter, which was sent to "Hq USAF SAFOI PB (Mrs Gaiser)* he wrote:

(5) Soil Samples: The soil samples obtained at the sighting were given to Dr. J. Allen Hynek by Capt Holder. They were turned over to Captain Quintanilla who in turn submitted them to ASD for analysis. Laboratory analysis of the soil was completed on 19 May 64. It included spectrographic analysis which revealed that there was no foreign material in the soil samples (emphasis added). Also, no chemicals were detected in the charred or burned soil which would indicate a type of propellant (emphasis added). There was no significant difference in elemental composition between the different samples.

The evidence that was collected at the time of the sighting including the charred cardboard and the soil samples seem to rule out a pyrotechnic display. That is, all the evidence and not just the pieces that fit into a narrow window, seem to rule it out.

And again, I can ask, "Where does that leave us?"

Right back where we were. One side saying it was a hoax, but without the evidence necessary to sustain that conclusion, and the other side saying it was an alien spacecraft, but with only the eyewitness testimony of Lonnie Zamora to the strangeness of the craft. What he reported doesn’t lead us to the extraterrestrial.

In other words, this case is unidentified.

*I believe the translation of this is Headquarters, United States Air Force, Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Information and Mrs. Gaiser is the point of contact there.