Almost from the moment
that strange craft was reported by Police Officer Lonnie Zamora in 1964, Air
Force officers, UFO researchers, journalists and those with an interest in UFOs
have been searching for an Earth based symbol to match that which Zamora saw.
The search was complicated by military a military officer and an FBI agent who
interviewed Zamora within a couple of hours. They suggested that he keep the
symbol to himself, not to hide the evidence, but to have something to use if
others reported the craft and symbol. That was further complicated when they,
or someone at Project Blue Book, invented a symbol to satisfy the news media.
For those interested in
reviewing this aspect of the case, you can find my postings about that here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/11/socorro-symbol-redux.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-final-analysis-of-socorro-symbol.html
Over the years, there
have been suggestions about that symbol, but they weren’t very close matches.
Now, however, there is one that is frightening close to what Zamora reported.
It is upside down. It is attached to a document dated 1928 which is part of a
larger document. You can find that document here:
https://www.hal5.org/PDF/HAL5-Dec2018-Talk-AntiGravity.pdf
If the link doesn’t
work, and I’ve had trouble with this sort of thing in the past, this is a look
at several patents held by Nikola Tesla. The relevant one is Patent No. 1655144.
Use that number in your search engine. This is a pdf. You need to scroll down
to the patents from 1928 and you’ll see it in the upper left corner of the
illustration.
While it is not an
exact match, but, as I say, it is frightening close to the symbol that Zamora
drew. Yes, I know what you’re thinking, why not just show it. The links above show
the symbols released in 1964 and provide the documentation for it. I believe these
provide a good history of that symbol.
That doesn’t answer the
question however. Just in case links are broken or the patent number doesn’t
work, here is that symbol:
 |
| Is the symbol here, the inspiration for the Zamora/Socorro symbol? |
I should point out that
Charles Blithfield discovered this and passed it along to me. Credit for the
discovery goes to him.
And no, I don’t know if
this taints the Zamora case, though it seems to be an incredible coincidence if
an alien spacecraft held a symbol that is so close to the one Telsa used. Over
the years, there has been quite a bit of controversy about this. I have to
wonder, if the object Zamora reported was some sort of experimental craft, if
there is any link to the various machines flying around White Sands had any
link to Tesla.
Anyway, Blithfield has
certainly complicated the case. I am reminded that Hector Quintanilla, the chief
of Blue Book in 1964 had labeled the Zamora case as “unidentified,” he thought
that the solution was somewhere in Zamora’s mind. He thought there might have
been something that Zamora saw but hadn’t quite figured out what it was. Maybe
this is the hint that Zamora needed for access that memory.
I do want to note that
I don’t believe Zamora made up the sighting and I believe he was truly confused
by it. He saw something he couldn’t identify and reported what he had seen.
As I say, thanks to Charles Blithfield for the information.
29 comments:
I'm unable to find a patent actually on a government website with that number which corresponds to the image in question. I did find a patent with the number you give, and it really is Tesla's, and it really does have to do with a flying machine... but it is of a much more conventional appearance and type, relatively-speaking: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c1/56/a9/c16b3e44d00b9b/US1655114.pdf.
Are you sure you have a good source for this finding?
One can search the patent office for this patent.
US1655144A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US1655144A/) is a Grain-treating machine with no Zamora-like logo. It is not designed to be airborne.
US1655114A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US1655114A/) is an Apparatus for aerial transportation. But it looks in no way like a flying saucer and has no Zamora-like logo. No antigravity, more of a helicopter. More like a 1920's airship would look like. Rube Goldberg comes to mind.
Kevin: Thank you for this post about Lonnie Zamora’s notable symbol on the craft he observed. Unfortunately, the relationship between Zamora's craft symbol and Tesla's patent symbol is without proof of any direct connection aside from speculative conjecture. I believe that Charles Blithfield and yourself need something more than what is written in your blogpost in order to correlate the two and constitute a 'good match'. Thank you both very much though for bringing this to our attention.
The "Tesla Symbol" is different from the Zamora "Umbrella Symbol" in that:
1. The symbols are rotated 180 degrees from one another.
2. The Tesla Symbol has 3 dots beneath the concave arch of the "umbrella". Zamora's symbol lacks the 3 dots.
We also have to ignore the Zamora symbol controversy over which was the correct symbol: the umbrella one or the inverted V with 3 horizontal lines through/beneath/above it. There are good arguments for both IMHO. (And no, I don't want to rehash this here. We've debated it before and I don't see it being resolved unless something new and definitive appears.)
There are also more than one versions of the Zamora umbrella symbol. They are not identical.
If this was a secret government craft from White Sands, there are other details that don't exactly match. Did the guvmint routinely use child-size test pilots? Would the guvmint test and land a highly secret craft so close to a populated area? Why did the craft speed off to the west into the middle of nowhere instead of flying south back to White Sands? What was the "blue flame" that came out of the object as it took off with a roar, burned the ground and vegetation, yet left no excavation crater that a conventional propulsion system like rockets or jet engines would necessarily create?
And if orientation doesn't matter, then we should also consider Dr. Leon Davidson's argument that the umbrella symbol is just a scrambled or dyslexic rendering of "CIA" turned on its side. And there are also no missing dots to account for in that case, which in one way would make it more like the Zamora symbol. (Davidson was anti-ETH and instead believed the guvmint/CIA used UFOs as a means of hiding secret projects.)
I suspect this is most likely a coincidence. (Interesting though). Look at enough symbols and eventually you'll find 2 that resemble one another. I once came across a real estate company logo that resembled the Zamora symbol. (Think peaked house being "protected" by an arch over it.)
Brian Bell similarly in a previous blog pointed out that the alt-Zamora symbol (inverted V with 3 lines through it) was the same as an old alchemy symbol for amalgam.
Did you not even bother to check if the patent is real? That drawing looks nothing like a 1920’s style draft drawing, and is clearly a Lazar saucer. The real patent is for a helicopter-ish device. https://patents.google.com/patent/US1655114A/en
David -
I am impressed with the symbol because it is one of the closest that has been found and as I say, that is somewhat worrisome. I posted the article because I thought it would be of interest to others.
John -
Tony Bragalia has made something of a connection, though it is through our buddy, Charles Moore. According to Tony, Moore was testing Tesla's interest in lightning rods and whether those with a pointed end or with a rounded end attracted more lightning bolts. This is a rather tenuous connection, but it does, sort of, make a connection.
Scott -
Nope. What mattered to me was that I had a picture of the symbol and it looked like, with David's comments about that, the one Zamora drew. Besides, I posted a link to the entire presentation so that you and others could see it. Did you look at that?
All -
Tony provided additional information about it to me, which, I'll try to get to in the next few days. He points out there is another symbol, which I believe has been circulated which also is similar.
But, as I say, the important point was the presentation that was linked in the story. You all can check that out, and no, I haven't verified much about the organization that produced the presentation, because, here was a representation of Zamora's symbol (yes, David, I know it isn't an exact match), but I thought that interesting. And, David, given the Blue Book documentation, I believe we know what symbol is the correct one because we have the scrap of paper on which Zamora drew the symbol as the craft lifted off... And yes, I would like to see if someone (Charles Moore) conducting experiments at White Sands or around Socorro, that would have had to do with lightning strikes... That raises some interesting questions.
Kevin, yes I looked at the entire “presentation.” It doesn’t matter because the actual patent isn’t what’s in the presentation! The drawing with the symbol is a modern fake! Look at the link I provided for the real patent!
Here is a scholarly article that has multiple views of the patent drawings and does show the sympbol: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/214/1/012141/pdf
HOWEVER, a search of the U.S. Patent Office under that number does indeed show two 1928 patents for a distinctly non-Tesla grain machine.
It's a scam. The only relevant Tesla patent for 1928 is US-1655113-A, a "Device for Aerial Transportation" that looks more like some Orville and Wilbur would have designed. This intense research project took me about 4 minutes.
Scott -
This whole patent thing is a red herring... I mean, that is the wrong rabbit hole to go down. The point is that the symbol resembles the one that Zamora drew. It seems that the illustration in the presentation (which BTW, the organization doesn't seem to be quite as credible as it could be) can be found in other documents referenced in other comments. The real question is when that illustration was created... and I have yet to find a good date for that. So, let's dispense with the discussion of the patent and try to find the original source of the illustration. If it precedes the Zamora sighting, then there is something interesting, then we have something. I have yet to find a source from the 20th century, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only I haven't spent enough time looking for it.
So far I'd have to agree with LBP and Scott Hamilton. There is no such US patent of an antigrav saucer by Tesla. The whole thing is a fake (maybe with the intent of discrediting the Zamora sighting by throwing in the inverted Zamora symbol). Even if it predated 1964 (very doubtful), it still doesn't explain the details of the Zamora sighting. It wasn't just Zamora's report. There was actual physical evidence at the site (landing impressions; freshly burned, still smoldering soil and vegetation; fogging of film by radiation). Even if one assumed that somehow Zamora saw such a drawing with symbol and then unconsciously redrew the symbol (but upside down?), still doesn't explain the physical evidence.
Although the image cannot be associated with Nikola Tesla's 1928 space drive-patent, a google search reveals several variations of the same image, all of them accompanied by the symbol, some of them by (apparantly) Russian text along the margins. After a day or so of searching in vain for any hints on the origins, I did come across a 4-year old reddit discussion featuring yet another of these purported patent sketches, featuring in the upper left hand corner the same symbol as depicted in the other ones, but this time in the company of the inverted V one with the three lines throught it. The reddit item can be viewed here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/o7rbkb/originally_posted_in_raliens_by_umountainmazzi/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
The poster of this image apparantly translated some of the text, revealing several references to "element 115" and the like, which makes me fairly confident it's a post-Bob Lazar era hoax.
This is not even close, and I can see from the post here that there is a lack on DD for the true symbol, which was an inverted V with a line above, thru the middle, and at the bottom. It is in Dr. Hyneks private notes that Ray Stanford and James Fox found in the national archives. Also, Captain Holders son confessed to Ray Stanford that his father made up the umbrella symbol and had Lonnie sign it as a duty to the country and it's secrets. Patrick Richard, who did the portrait of Lonnie that hangs in the museum in Socorro (formerly the police station) had coffee with Lonnie several times and at one sitting, present the umbrella symbol on one napkin, and the inverted V with 3 lines on the another. Lonnie said nothing when asked which one was real, but then pointed to the inverted V. Also, when the correct symbol was drawn by Baca, he was I asked by Holder to erase it. The fact that Project Blue Book never figured this landing out and was baffled is another reason they presented a 'fake' symbol, so that if anyone else reported seeing this egg shaped object and symbol, and reported the umbrella, they would know they were lying. I believe the /\ pointed directly at the source of the blue flame, and the 3 bars are representitive of radiation, which was found at the site due to the fogged pictures, admitted on tape by Dr. Hynek, a tape I have. it could have been a warning symbol, meaning do not stand here when engaged of you will get dosed.
Dear Mr. Randle,
As you rightly point out, the association of the image with the alleged 1928 space drive-patent is less important than establishing the approximate timeframe in which it was created.
A rather exhaustive google search has revealed several variations of that same image, such as the one found and commented upon by LBP in one of the previous comments. This one featured not only the alleged patent design but also some Russian scribble jotted down around the craft depicted. Interestingly, each of the variant images depict the umbrella-symbol in the upper left corner and were incorrectly attributed to Nikola Tesla.
Although I have not managed to find when, where or by whom the image was first put into circulation, one of the variants I found in the following four year old reddit-thread features both the umbrella-symbol ánd the inverted-v one with the three horizontal lines through it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/o7rbkb/originally_posted_in_raliens_by_umountainmazzi/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Equally noteworthy is the fact that both symbols are displayed in red, clearly conforming to the colour of the symbol as described by Zamora immediately following his encounter with the craft in 1964.
In addition, the author of the above thread translated some bits of the writing around the saucer-image, revealing several phrases associated with the 1989 Bob Lazar hoax, including mention of "element 115".
If this image originates from the same person responsible for the other depictions floating around- and I have no reason to think otherwise- it appears to pretty much settle the matter in favor of the assertion we are dealing with a post-Bob Lazar hoax, at some point attributed to Nikola Tesla and distributed as such on the unsupervised web.
Curious to learn what your thoughts are.
Kind regards,
Jurriaan Maessen
Hello, Kevin. As usual, I found your newest blog post one week after you posted it. Hopefully today is not too late to post a comment here. If not, then sorry, but at least I attempted. I just wanted to let you know that the illustration included in the blog post looks familiar. I must have seen it years ago when I looked at various patent illustrations for disk shaped craft both real and fake on the internet just for fun. I vaguely remember viewing something like it. Perhaps we can find it with web searches. Found it!
https://fr.pinterest.com/pin/413275703283384866/
More examples with the exact same image can be found below it on that page. Thought you might be interested. Over two years ago, I noticed the same symbol police officer Lonnie Zamora witnessed in New Mexico in 1964 appeared shown upside down in the fifth photograph down on this page.
https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/steve-quayles-photos-of-alien-symbols-glyphs-10622/
Notice it in the left column in the second row down from the top below what appears to be a drilled hole. Honestly, I suspect the thing to be a modern forgery, not an ancient artifact, knowing about some other things in which modern Bible giant hunter Steve Quayle is involved. Curious to know if you or your other followers have opinions about this. Hoaxers are known to duplicate symbols seen in rare UFO sightings and crop formations into their works attempting to convince us somebody found more examples of written languages from other worlds. Come to think of it, UFO cases involving symbols on the crafts or the crews' uniforms are especially rare. These are the type of cases worth investigating. Thanks! Keep up the good work! Goodbye.
All -
Here's where we seem to be. The association of the "umbrella" symbol to Telsa is probably irrelevant. Unless someone can find that symbol used somewhere else prior to April 24, 1964, then we don't have much. If the symbol does appear, prior to that date, the context would be interesting.
TheUFOGuy -
You want due diligence? Then you should have typed "Zamora Symbol" into the search engine on this blog and you would have learned that I looked at all this, literally, years ago. First, within minutes, seconds actually, as the craft took off, Zamora drew the symbol on a piece of scrap paper... that paper can be found in the Blue Book files and I posted it here. That is the umbrella symbol. Ray Stanford, in a letter to Dick Hall, not long after the event, wrote that the inverted V with the three lines was a hoax. The other symbol was correct. The relevant parts of that letter are posted here. In the Blue Book files are several reports written at the time of the incident in which the umbrella symbol is mentioned and portions of those letters are posted here. An illustration of the craft was drawn by an artist in Socorro under the guidance of Zamora. The symbol on the craft is the umbrella symbol. The Hynek letter was written months later and contained several different symbols. I discussed all this at length in Encounter in the Desert. There would be no point in creating a fake symbol for the official records because, at that time, no one thought those records were be available to the public. So, those letters and memos in the Blue Book file should be considered the best evidence and tales told by the son of a participant should viewed skeptically.
I believe that before you cite due diligence, you should make sure that you have done it yourself.
Most of this you know... but the persuasive evidence is the scrap of paper on which Zamora drew the original symbol, and that paper exists.
This has been an interesting exercise because so many became involved in the quest. Since we don't know the original source of the symbol seen in the document and since we don't have a clear date on which if first appeared, it seems that it is now irrelevant... pending additional information. But, as I say, it has been an interesting time.
The following was forwarded to me because the original author had trouble posting it.
" Although the actual source of
the purported patent image cannot be associated with Nikolai Tesla's
1928 space drive-patent, a rather exhaustive google search has revealed
several variations of that same image, most of them accompanied by
Russian scribble, all of them depicting that same umbrella-symbol Lonnie
Zamora purportedly observed on the craft in April of 1964.One of these
images was posted four years ago on the following reddit-thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/o7rbkb/originally_posted_in_raliens_by_umountainmazzi/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Interestingly,
the above image features *both the umbrella-symbol ánd the inverted-v
one*, both visible in the upper left hand corner. Even more telling is
the fact both symbols are displayed in red, conforming to the colour of
the symbol as described by Zamora. Furthermore, the author of the above
thread translated some bits of the text, revealing several references to
the Bob Lazar hoax, including "element 115". In my estimation this
pretty much settles the matter in favor of the assertion we are almost
certainly dealing with a post-Bob Lazar hoax."
BTW TheUFOGuy -
I should point out that I interviewed the artist, Rick Baca, who told my that they had covered up the symbol on the drawing published in the newspaper because they didn't want to reveal it at that time. However, Baca has the original drawing and the umbrella symbol is on it, and as I say, he made the drawing with the help of Zamora. Just another point in favor of the umbrella symbol.
I did do my homework and it appears that you are unaware that Lonnies original drawing of the symbol was not on a piece of paper, but actually part of a bag found at the site, still the inverted v with 3 lines. Also, you completely dismisd Captain Holders son saying that his father told him he created the umbrella symbol, as wrllszas Patrick Richard's encounter with Zamora.
I have reached out to Patrick to get his feedback on the talk with Lonnie. I disagree with your assessment, as it was done remotely, while I was in Socorro in person talking directly to witnesses and Lonnies family. You can get a lot more direct information in person than from working at home on a computer.
Lonnie changed the symbol because he was afraid the Air Force would authorize harm to his family.
He pointed to the correct symbol in my presence showing a printed copy of the paper sack he had in his cruiser that afternoon. In that extremely psychological confrontation, I'd go with his original scribble.
In my investigation of this case Lonnie originally drew the symbol of the remains on a bag or sack found at the landing site. This, of course, has never surfaced. Your completely discounting the fact the Captain Holders son was told by his father that he made the umbrella symbol up, and that Lonnie confirmed the inverted V with Patrick Richard. Before the clamp down on the news, the symbols that showed up in several papers was the inverted V, soon to be replaced by the fake umbrella symbol.
Wow, this is one hilarious discussion. The symbol does not appear in the actual document it is purported to appear in. Instead it appears in some ridiculous buffoonery about space drives and other drivel--with NO provenance whatsoever.
Then we hear Kevin, that you are getting your information from one of the most worthless "researchers" who has ever been part of this circus.
How embarrassing this all is.
Have a good look at the version of the "Tesla patent" that Jurriaan Maessen posted:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/o7rbkb/originally_posted_in_raliens_by_umountainmazzi/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
It actually has BOTH Zamora symbols: the "umbrella" (but upside-down) and the inverted V with three lines through it, perhaps paying homage to the Zamora sighting.
In addition, look real closely and you'll see some of the written description on the "patent" drawing is in English, and includes "S-4", "Papoose Lake", "Nellis test range, NV" [Note modern postal abbreviation for Nevada that didn't appear until the 1960s, not 1928, not that it matters"], "E-6722 MAJ", which by amazing coincidence is what Bob Lazar said his employee number was, and the curious similarity to the "sports car" flying saucer that Lazar said he worked on.
Quite obviously this is a very modern fake based on the Lazar Area-51 story, with a little Socorro and Nikola Tesla mystique thrown in for flavoring.
I swore I wouldn't get drawn into the symbol controversy again, but here I am. I just want to comment on one aspect of this. Zamora drew the symbol on a slip of scrap paper on-site immediately after seeing it and after the object had just vanished in the distance. You can see a copy here at one of Kevin's old blogs (fourth image):
https://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-socorro-symbol-resolved.html
In Blue Book files this slip of paper was Scotch-taped to another piece of paper with the caption: "Sketch made by patrolman XXXXXX [redacted] approximately 5 min. after object departed". The printing looks like that of Army Capt. Richard Holder of White Sands, who lived in Socorro and was the first official to interview Zamora at length on the evening of the sighting. Holder asked Zamora to change the actual symbol to a fake one to help detect copy-catters who might spring up. Besides Zamora saying this is what happened, Holder admitted it when asked by the Lorenzens of APRO (who agreed it was a good idea to detect hoaxers).
So was the scrap of paper in Blue Book files with the signed "umbrella" symbol the original or the fake one? When Ray Stanford and James Fox reviewed the original Blue Book file on Sccorro at the National Archives, they found the original, not photocopied, taped scrap of paper with the umbrella symbol and Zamora's signature.
The paper had been torn off the corner of a magazine and contained part of an ad on it. On the backside was a popular culture multiple-choice quiz that 3 people had taken, based on ink-colors and method of marking.
When Ray Stanford sent copies of this to me, I set about trying to find the magazine this came from. The partial wording from the ad led me to a two-page ad run by Kodak for April 1964. I found one version of the ad in Boy's Life magazine using a Google books search of some of the words:
https://books.google.com/books?id=aPc2Ss_QPaEC&pg=PA6&dq=general+dynamics+blast-off+to+recovery&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE3v2r7_qKAxUNLzQIHeR2E6AQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=general%20dynamics%20blast-off%20to%20recovery&f=false
The ad campaign changed the ad every month with different photos. The point is, the changing ad dates this specifically to April 1964. It was a new magazine, not one likely to be lying off in the middle of the desert.
Further, this ad took up two, adjoining, full pages. Thus the magazine binding ran down the middle of the ad. The torn corner came from the bottom right corner of the left ad page, a strange place to quickly tear off a piece to draw a picture. Much more likely one would tear off an outer corner. An inner corner would likely involve tearing off the entire page first. Why bother?
I never found a matching magazine with the multiple-choice quiz on he backside. The fact that 3 different people filled it in suggests perhaps some sort of popular magazine that might be in a waiting room of a public area, like a police station.
I don't think it very likely this came from a magazine Zamora found in the desert or carried in his police car. More likely it was at police HQ where Holder questioned him, and was not the original slip of paper Zamora had drawn on.
Of course, I’m dismissing Holden’s son’s comments on the symbol reported by Lonnie Zamora. It’s second-hand anecdotal hearsay.
However…
I have posted a picture of the symbol that Lonnie Zamora drew as the craft disappeared. Your argument is that it should have been on the remains of a bag or sack found at the site rather than a scrap of paper. This is semantics because a bag found there could be considered scrap. You offered no evidence that the picture I posted, with a known provenance, is not the original. And you have provided no source that is of that bag with the inverted V. Unless you can produce that evidence, then it can be rejected… For your point to be accepted, you must provide the evidence.
The Project Blue Book files contain a few drawings made by Lonnie Zamora in the hours after the sightings. These were signed by Zamora. They show the umbrella symbol on them. What would be the motivation for the investigators on the case including Captain Richard Holder, Major William Connor and others to use a faked symbol in their reports that they would have no expectation of reaching civilian sources?
You have, of course negated your own argument. You write, “Before the clamp down on the news, the symbols that showed up in several papers was the inverted V.” If this was true, and the inverted V was already published, what would be the purpose, in official documents and reports of using the umbrella symbol? The expectation of those officers was that their reports would not see the light of day in the civilian world. There is no reason not to use the “correct” symbol in those rather than the inverted V.
I also have a document that lists several newspapers in which symbol was published. One of the notes shows the inverted V and is labeled as “papers.” It also shows the umbrella symbols, suggesting it is the accurate one.
And when you resort to insults, it suggests that your argument is invalid. I have interviewed Rick Baca who made a drawing of the craft under the guidance of Lonnie Zamora. Zamora guided him with the placement of the umbrella symbol. But, if, as you say, the inverted V was already out in the public arena, then there would be no reason to use a symbol that is incorrect.
In my investigation, Paul Harden, the resident historian in Socorro, told me, and I quote, “Secondly, there is ample ‘proof’ of the symbol Lonnie saw to his own testimony IMMEDIATELY following the incident. He jotted it down on several occasions, including for the newspaper and Hynek. He also drew it for Ricky Baca when he [Baca] drew the craft… This sketch [Baca’s drawing] was drawn with Lonnie’s instructions including the symbol. Ricky said he did the symbol in red pencil because Lonnie said it was red in color, not black.”
Interestingly, according to Harden, it was Hynek who suggested that Lonnie not publish the symbol.
As just an aside, I have been to Socorro a half dozen times. My late pardner, Robert Cornett, visited with Zamora when he, Robert, was visiting the very large array, which is just west of Socorro… and I have pictures of Don Schmitt and me, at the VLR, because, well, we both had an interest in astronomy and it does document me in the area.
So, where does this get us? Well, I was in Socorro and not just sitting behind my computer. I interviewed some of those involved, not the relatives of the participants. First-hand sources and documentation trump the hearsay evidence of others. You have offered no original sources or witnesses.
The real point is that the evidence overwhelming supports the umbrella symbol as the correct one. I am astonished when others simply reject documentation and first-hand testimony for a favored theory.
Lance -
You are correct. I inadvertently open a can of worms. I didn't check out the credibility of the presentation, just looked at the symbol. My bad.
But degenerated into a discussion of the symbol, which I did find interesting. But I'm surprised when people reject information that they don't like because it doesn't support their theory. It has been some fun though.
Lance.
You rightly point out that the image has been falsely associated with a 1928 Tesla patent image.
You don't point out that it's the very discussion that ensued as a result of the alleged association that resolved the matter to every reasonable man's satisfaction. Not as a result of unchecked suspicions of buffoonery, mind you, but of subsequent investigation by folks devoted to resolve the matter one way or another. The fact that your (and my) suspicions of buffoonery turned out to correct, does not justify qualifying the subsequent discussions as hilarious, especially when they allow us a better understanding of the underlying issues. After all, we can now base our conclusions not on mere suspicions, but actual facts to explain them.
Post a Comment