Since
the discussion of the Socorro symbol isn’t confusing enough, here is another
conundrum. I have in my possession handwritten documents that are apparently
notes taken at some point after the landing. These notes were sent to me by Rob
Mercer who acquired them from a former Project Blue Book officer. So we do have
a provenance for them and a chain of custody though that chain might be a
little bit cloudy.
On
page 59, though I’m not sure what the numbers mean because it is a short
document that begins on page 56, it says, “There were fresh imprints resembling
a V with a bar across it …”
There
is an illustration that accompanies this. It looks like this:
 |
The "V" with a bar through it as shown in the
documents recovered by Rob Mercer.
|
The
symbol is repeated on page 61. It suggests that it wasn’t a helicopter that
left the imprint and that it looks more like a cattle brand.
Rob
Mercer did ask the Blue Book officer about this and he said that the Socorro
case was something that happened before he arrived. He told me the same thing. These
were notes about the case that he discovered as he was cleaning out desks. The
only thing that can be said is that they probably weren’t written by Hynek and
probably not Holder because both are mentioned in the third person. Zamora is
addressed as “Zamoro” in part of the document, which suggests they were written
by someone who had only a passing knowledge of the case.
The
question now becomes, was this imprint the inspiration for the story about the
symbol with inverted “V” with the bars through it? Could it be that the
description of the imprint was confused with the symbol Zamora saw? When we
listen to the interview with Mike Martinez describing what Zamora saw could
there have been some confusion there? It is very difficult to understand
because it is lost in so much noise.
This
really is an amazing coincidence when you think about it.
(And
yes, for those of you keeping score at home, I have just thrown another monkey
wrench into the equation, though if you’re paying attention, you’ll know what
the correct symbol is.)
Is it an upside down A meaning "For All" - https://oeis.org/wiki/List_of_LaTeX_mathematical_symbols
ReplyDeleteThere's not much to go on here--same old BB notes with dubious provenance. We don't know who wrote them, when, or what their connection with the investigation was.
ReplyDeleteNo where else is there any mention of ground markings resembling an "A". Besides the four rectangular, wedge shaped landing impressions, there were some roundish depressions, conjectured by some to be ladder imprints, and something sometimes called a "footprint". Holder's drawings of the landing pad prints and other markings are of known provenance and from an investigator on the scene within 2 hours of he event.
Three things come to mind. The landing pads were wedge shaped, but it seems rather bizarre to describe them as an inverted "A" instead of a "V" shape. And where would the "bar" come from in the landing impressions? Why didn't somebody like Holder draw it if it was there?
What I think is a more likely explanation comes from the fact that the insignia on the craft and the various ground impressions are often both referred to as "markings" in various write-ups. Somebody in BB so disconnected from the facts that they spell Zamora as "Zamoro" may not have known the difference and confused the craft marking with a ground marking.
And yet a third possibility is that somebody took a stick and drew the “A” in the sand, perhaps to show the craft insignia, but this happened after the event and had nothing to do with the object or occupants leaving such a ground marking behind.
(Note that Hynek in his initial BB report wrote: "[Zamora] drew exactly the same thing which he had drawn for Holder... The object... had the inverted V insignia on it...” No mention of a bar or bars, but Hynek also spoke of the inverted V insignia with a bar or bars publicly on April 29 (the day after first arriving and interviewing Zamora), both on the radio and for newspaper reporters. Both publicly AND internally, Hynek was always stating the inverted V was the real symbol, and in this writeup said it was the SAME one that Zamora had drawn for Holder originally.)
David -
ReplyDeleteThere is a provenance for this which is Project Blue Book. The document was in the files there... but as I said, that's about all we know so I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to repeat that.
I do notice that you invent the idea that someone took a stick and drew this in the ground but you have nothing to support that idea.
And I will note, again, that the only symbols available that Zamora signed, including the one he drew in the minutes after the object took off is the "umbrella" symbol.
Of course I totally invented the idea (speculated) that maybe somebody took a stick and drew the "A" in the sand after the event. Of course I have zero evidence to support this. (Did I say otherwise?) I was just trying to come up with an idea, any idea, why such a ground marking might be mentioned when NO primary investigator or witness (people like Zamora, Chaves, Holder, Hynek, Stanford, Conner, Byrnes, Jordan, Lucky, Lorenzens, Reidel, Shrode, etc.), i.e. people we know of who were actually at the site immediately or soon after, ever mentioned it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, we have zero provenance for whomever within BB claimed such a ground marking existed. (No name, no date, no connection to case.) So given that NOBODY else who we do know of with a direct connection to the case (see above) mentioned such a thing, why give any credence to it? Sounds instead like another factual screw-up within BB about the case, along with many other screw-ups.
I still think the most likely explanation is that somebody within BB (clerk perhaps?) may have confused the marking on craft (the insignia) with markings on the ground. Both are referred to as "markings" within various write-ups.
I brought up Hynek again because Hynek always claimed the "real" symbol was the inverted V one, not only publicly but also in internal BB documents where he would have no reason to lie about it. Hynek ALSO claimed this was the SAME symbol that Zamora originally drew for Cpt. Holder. Hynek NEVER mentioned (at least to my knowledge) the "umbrella" symbol as being the real one.
Yet the only one that we can document that Zamora drew for Holder were the Zamora signed ones with Holder's handwritten headings. Hence the confusion. Unless this huge contradiction can be resolved, we are no where closer to knowing what the "real" symbol was that Zamora originally drew for Holder. (However, others, particularly Chaves, went public before Hynek even got there that Zamora described the inverted V with bars, and Chaves should have seen Zamora's drawing of it immediately after the craft disappeared.)
Holder of the Army could have cleared the symbol confusion up when Conner representing BB and the USAF asked Holder about the insignia, with Moody writing that Holder denied to Conner knowing anything about it. ("Lt [sic] Holder was visited and the report made by the FBI agent (Mr Barnes [sic]) and Capt Holder read by Major Conner. Cpt Holder claimed no knowledge of the red mark."
Just more case confusion on Moody/Conner's part? (Note, e.g., Moody's BB report gives two different ranks for Holder within the same sentence.) Holder literally holding out on Conner/Moody and BB for reasons unknown? (Trust issues? Inter-service rivalry?)
Conner/Moody (who investigated 2 days after Holder) just went with the Holder-notated "umbrella" symbol signed by Zamora. But Hynek apparently didn't get the memo and stuck with the inverted V as being the "real" Zamora/Holder symbol.