Saturday, September 01, 2018

Treasure Quest, Socorro, and the Zamora Symbol


I was watching Treasure Quest when they flashed the document that supposedly launched several expeditions into the Sacambaya region of Bolivia. I really wasn’t paying much attention because, well, we’re in the first couple of episodes where nothing much will happen. On the document were a couple of symbols. One of them I recognized.

Now, we go back to last year when I was working on a book about the UFO landing near Socorro, New Mexico. On the craft, as described by Socorro policeman Lonnie Zamora, was a strange symbol. I’m not going
into the controversy about the “real” symbol. I’m just going to concentrate on the one that was released to the press of an inverted “V” with three lines through it.
The alleged symbol seen on the Socorro spacecraft.

Friends, such as my pal Rich Reynolds, have searched for the symbol in various locations, documents, libraries, and archives, without finding a duplicate. But now, I’ve found one.

I don’t know if there is any significance to this. I don’t know what the symbol on the Treasure Quest document represents. I just happened to notice that the symbols were the same and found it odd
Symbol seen on the Sacambaya Document.
that this symbol is found on a document that was supposedly created a couple of hundred years ago matching one that was allegedly painted on the side of a spacecraft seen in New Mexico in 1964.

This is probably just a coincidence. The world is filed with coincidences. I just found it interesting and wondered if there was a connection…

For those interested in the Socorro landing and the trouble with the symbol, all that is outlined in the book Encounter in the Desert. Yes, I wrote it, but the chapter on the symbol explains the situation. While I believe the real symbol on the side of the craft was different than that originally reported, the real point is that someone came up with the inverted V with the three lines through it, and I just wondered where he got that idea. Is there some sort of terrestrial connection between that seen on that document and that Zamora had seen?

For those interested in more detail about the Socorro symbol controversy, see:

31 comments:

09rja said...

IIRC, Zamora didn't get that close to it so he may have not gotten that good a look at that particular symbol in the first place.

I have to admit I've always been intrigued with this case. I am convinced Zamora saw something.....I'm just not 100% sure what that "something" was. Being so close to White Sands, I don't think something experimental can be ruled out.

Ben Moss said...

While Kevin and I have respectively disagreed on the true symbol, this drawing is close, and I also looked high and low for a match. New information has come to light, and I will wait for James Fox's new movie before I spill the beans, but those close to the officer (Lonnie Zamora) during this incident, have since confirmed that what Dr. Allen Hynek drew of the symbol, that is in the National Archives, shows an inverted V with a line at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom. That can be seen here:
https://www.theufochronicles.com/2014/06/new-revelations-re-socorro-ufo-incident.html
This is what we believe was really on the side of the craft, and Cap. Holder did give Lonnie the fake unbrella symbol to sign off on, as confirmed by his son to Ray Stanford, the original NICAP investigator of the Socorro UFO landing. I found more than 10 newspaper article, all with the inverted v and 3 lines, all within just a few days of the incident. The fake symbol made its way into the papers later. But the point Kevin has made here, and its a good one, is that the symbol is unique, and now we have another one to look at to see what, exactly, it means, or stands for.
I did find one close that is an Alchemy symbol, and then we have this on inverted V's:
"The Math Symbols from the Question about Union and Intersection. The “V” symbols in the reader's question are ∨ and ∧, which mean “Logical Or” and “Logical And.” The ∧ is a capital Greek Lambda, which is stands for "l."
All in all, a very good find Kevin!

KRandle said...

09rja -

Once again, you do not remember correctly. According to the Project Blue Book files, Zamora approached to 103 feet of the object. The image on the side was estimated by Zamora to be about 30 inches wide. And before we have to go through the "he lost his glasses routine," I note that his vision was corrected to 20/20 and he didn't lose his glasses until he was returning to the car from his closest approach.

BTW, Hector Quintanilla, the chief of Book Book at the time, traveled to New Mexico, carrying a document that said, "CAPT QUINTANILLA IS CLEARED UP TO AND INCLUDING TOP SECRET [All caps in original document dated June 30, 1964]." According to Quintanilla, he was unable to find a classified project that would explain Zamora's sighting.

Ben -

This isn't really a discussion about which symbol is correct, but about the coincidence of the symbol associated with the Zamora sighting and its appearance on the Treasure Quest document.

vonmazur said...

What happened to the story of the engineering students and a hot air balloon, that was put forth sometime ago as the solution, was it not? There was also, around the same time, a sighting around Wichita Fall TX, with a similar script, was there not? and this one had a symbol as well, reported by the USAF NCO who was the witness.

Bob Koford said...

AF System Command symbol very close to both versions, in some ways. But obviously not on document on show.
Have a good weekend.

KRandle said...

All -

Answers to questions about the Socorro event, the student hoax theory and the like have been posted to this blog. Just type Socorro or Zamora or even student hoax into the provided search engine. More detail on the case can be found in my book, Encounter in the Desert.

KRandle said...

Bob -

I'm thinking not. Sort of resembles both versions but it's not very close.

Ben Moss said...

Sorry, got off track. I will follow up on this document and see what the symbol means if possible. Interesting that there are 3 triangular drawings on the paper.

Ben Moss said...

See my Mufon Journal cover story from July and June 2018 for a comprehensive debunking of the student hoax tale. That story is actually the hoax.

Brian Bell said...


This symbol is not a mystery. In fact it is an ancient alchemy symbol. I’ve stated this before only to be ignored. You can see it repeatedly in alchemy (occult) symbol charts as I’ve shown below and as people have illustrated.

The symbol means “amalgam” or “to join together”. Perhaps it was drawn simply out of coincidence, or the illustrator simply knew the symbol. It is certainly NOT the symbol that was on the “craft” as Kevin’s book clearly concludes.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/set-alchemical-symbols-isolated-on-white-609056855?src=S4_4cnnV81MFGfq4PUj2og-1-0

https://karenswhimsy.com/photo_details-2/700/11878/Alchemy-Symbols-5/view/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h2bwKw8SUUE/Tpfwvxwp0tI/AAAAAAAACB8/nliLREpOEDg/s1600/alchemy%2Bsymbols%2B1.png

09rja said...

"Once again, you do not remember correctly. According to the Project Blue Book files, Zamora approached to 103 feet of the object. The image on the side was estimated by Zamora to be about 30 inches wide."

103 feet isn't my idea of "close". And any estimate of the symbol's size is just that. (Since we don't have to object to measure.)

vonmazur said...

Thanks, Kevin. I was also and Army Aviator, and I find this subject fascinating--sometimes!!

Ben Moss said...

Zamora was withi 35 feet of the craft as marked off by Dr. Hynek and Ray Stanford. Project Blue Book conveniently lacked all of the details of the case, but we know that Lonnie had a clear view of the symbol from about 35 feet.

KRandle said...

09rja -

103 feet is not all that far... and a bright red symbol painted on the side of something would be easily visible to anyone with good vision... The real point is that the symbol was large enough for Zamora to see without any difficulty.

Ben -

The Blue Book measurements were taken on the night of the event. I'm not sure why you'd want to reject the information in the Project Blue Book files, much of it from Army and Air Force officers who were not part of Blue Book, but who were on the seen. At any rate, I don't think anyone actually believes that Zamora wasn't close enough to get a good look at the symbol. Well, there is an exception, but once again, it is based on opinion and not on objective and dispassionate research.

KRandle said...

Paul Young -

I, and nearly everyone else who visits here, am not interested in your personal feud with another of the commentators. While your initial point was appreciated, you then degenerate into some snide comments. They will not be published as written. Remove the personal attack, and I'll be happy to post. This little feud has gone far enough.

jamesrav said...

103 feet is rather precise, so everyone might consider the following: Go outside, take about 35 normal paces from an SUV, turn around and see if there's any doubt at what you're looking at. Could he really have mistaken what he saw for a *balloon* prank done by some students (on no budget I'm sure). Could he really have not noticed a helicopter flying above that was ferrying some experimental craft hither and yon? And now, 54 years later, a matching symbol 'coincidentally' shows up right in front of the most avid researcher on this encounter. To quote Uncle Eddie in Vegas Vacation, this sighting is "the gift that keeps on giving"

Ben Moss said...

Hynek had Ray walk off the distance of his closest approach with Lonnie right there. We have Ray's description on video, it was 35 feet. The Blue Book files are missing a lot of the event details, and Rob Mercers found files show that the final Blue Book report was lacking. Regardless, the symbol was described as fairly large, Lonnie had a clear view.

09rja said...

Even assuming Zamora had a clear view.....we are talking in the middle of a startling event here. For those who haven't read on non-UFO cases involving eyewitness testimony (where what happened is clearly known): a lot of times eyewitnesses get fine details (and even big details) messed up. You can also talk to police officers. I've talked to dozens (and seen/read interviews many more) and they are almost unanimous that (paraphrasing one of those interviews) you get 10 good, honest witnesses....you get 10 different versions of what happened.

So what I am driving at is: the symbol he remembered is not a reason (alone) to dismiss/not dismiss the case.

Paul Young said...

If eye witness testament is never going to be considered good enough...then we should empty our prisons of all those people in there who have been convicted on the strength of it.

09rja said...

"If eye witness testament is never going to be considered good enough...then we should empty our prisons of all those people in there who have been convicted on the strength of it."~Paul Young

As Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: "No matter what eyewitness testimony is in the court of law, it is the lowest form of evidence in the court of science."

Paul Young said...

The evidence in your claim that Zamora could have gotten the symbol wrong is as strong as your suggestion that Edwin Easley was mentally unsound through "meds" when Randle interviewed him... ie, none at all.

There's no reason to believe that a seasoned police officer, part of which his job entails is to observe and note...would have got it wrong. 103 feet is pretty close. Any able bodied man could hit it at ease by throwing a rock at it. We know that, with his glasses on, he had good vision. Why would he get it wrong?

09rja said...

"The evidence in your claim that Zamora could have gotten the symbol wrong is as strong as your suggestion that Edwin Easley was mentally unsound through "meds" when Randle interviewed him... ie, none at all."

There's no reason to believe that a seasoned police officer, part of which his job entails is to observe and note...would have got it wrong. 103 feet is pretty close. Any able bodied man could hit it at ease by throwing a rock at it. We know that, with his glasses on, he had good vision. Why would he get it wrong?"
~Paul Young

I explained that. Research any historical event and notice the varying eyewitness accounts of what happened. The Titanic is an excellent example. You had people who said it broke apart before going into the ocean, others who said it didn't, and the vast majority didn't notice either way. The Titanic was 900 feet long and the 700+ people in lifeboats were obviously were not far from it and the moonlight was quite bright that night. This is how notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Police officers are human and make mistakes too.

And it's interesting you make this point on Easley....because this is what you said about age and health before the whole Easley thing came up (on the "Jesse Marcel's Journal" thread):

If it was just the one interview that he said it, out of a load of other interviews...is it not just possible he was having a "senior moment"? (I'm 55 and I can tell you that i have em.)

I also wonder if this was one of his later interviews?
He was a very poorly man toward the end and (I don't know) but ...was he being treated with Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy. Could battling the dreaded "C" mean he might ramble in a certain interview if he was having a bad day? ~Paul Young

July 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM


The tune has changed there hasn't it?

KRandle said...

O9rja -

Zamora drew the symbol on a scrap of paper within minutes, minutes I say (really more like seconds) of the craft's departure.

09rja/Paul Young -

Can't either of you stay on topic and post to the proper thread? I'm really tired of trying to figure out what you're saying as you both carry on this argument over two or three postings. No more. Stay on topic or the comment will never see the light of day. I don't know why I bother to warn you both, I ought to just delete them.

KRandle said...

09rja -

You forgot to mention that many of those in the lifeboats after the Titanic sank knew that it had broken up before it went down... some didn't see it in its last moments, and J. Bruce Ismay said that he didn't watch because the destruction of Titanic was too much for him.

And overlooked in this conversation is that some eyewitness testimony is quite good and the closer it is take to the event, the better it is... I now bow out of this conversation.

SugarRayTaylor said...

The comments section on Kevin’s blog lately seem to rapidly degenerate into a Michael Horn type standoff.

Now all we need is the delusional Ray Stanford to join in and claim he still has a photo of the Socorro craft, which he will never release unless he gets “a few apologies from certain people” whatever that means. Only those deemed worthy enough worshippers of the Church of Stanford can see it. Like all the other footage he claims he has. Pointy eared beings piloting UFO’s, yep he’s got footage of that. Bollocks, as we say in England.

It would be great if Stanford had actually chased up leads to two corroborating witnesses, two ladies I think he said, yet didn’t bother chasing it up as “they’re probably dead now”. Hasn’t stopped him from referring to them in his book and every interview. Kevin can speak more on that issue regarding the female witnesses as I can’t listen to Stanford whenever he’s on radio/podcast shows because the ego and BS claims are completely ridiculous and after well over 10 years of listening to his excuses about why he wouldn’t release the footage I believe nothing he says. I’m sure someone might mention the new agreement Christopher O’Brien has with Stanford to release the footage but we’ve heard it all before for over years for Christ’s sake.

SugarRayTaylor said...

Quite often we will hear the hardline Skeptics claim that there is no such thing as a “trained observer” ......that is absolute bullshit. I’m reminded of a case from witnesses who were working on an oil rig in The North Sea, a few miles off the coast of North East England. The report involved the sighting by a group of workers of two conventional aircraft escorting what they described as an aircraft that was a solid black triangle from the underneath view as well as some other unique features. The main witness was trained to instantly recognise all aircraft types around the world, if he didn’t recognise it then it had to be a highly classified aircraft such as the fabled Aurora, although I’m not sure that was the actual name in reality. Observing aircraft coming towards and flying over the oil rig was one of several tasks in his job description, from any angle.

The case was featured on an episode of the British series “Strange but true”, it’s on YouTube if anyone hasn’t heard of it so you might want to take a look. The show ran for several seasons with multiple cases per episode so if someone wants to view it then you’re best off checking the episode guide on Wikipedia first.

Paul Young said...

The difference is that the UFO was literally a stones throw away from a man trained in observation and reporting.
There's nothing to suggest he could have got it wrong.
The only question is which one is the correct symbol...after the irritating intervention of that Holder chap.

KRandle said...

Paul Young -

There really is no question about the real symbol. He drew it twice on the night he saw it, once within minutes... he signed both of those. The other symbol was released to the press to weed out the copycats.

Ben Moss said...

Kevin, since YOU brought it up... ;)
Have to disagree. Holders son told others that his father confided in him that he had Lonnie sign the fake symbol. Any handwriting analysis shows that one person drew what Kevin refers to, and Lonnie signed it. I have over 10 different newspaper articles, one to a few days after the event, all showing an inverted v with 3 bars. That is what Lonnie described in Spanish, that is what Baca drew on his recreation of the vehicle, and that is what Hynek drew and resides in the National Archives.

KRandle said...

Ben -

While I understand that we'll end up running around in circles, I must point out that Rich Baca did not draw the inverted V on his drawing and that Hynek not only drew an inverted V with two bars between the legs which is not the same symbol, he also drew the other symbol and a number of times. There would be no point in Holder having Lonnie draw the incorrect symbol and sign it because Holder didn't believe that anyone other than military officers were see the file.

KRandle said...

Oh Ben -

Forgot to mention that in a letter to Dick Hall in May 1964, Ray Stanford wrote that the inverted V with the three bars was the hoax symbol. It was the other one, drawn by Lonnie and signed by him that was the correct symbol.

And the symbol that Hynek drew, to which you refer, is part of the Project Blue Book files that are available on line.