tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post1663000605873354788..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Tony Bragalia and the Socorro LandingKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58307698033217697182015-02-08T08:29:58.346-08:002015-02-08T08:29:58.346-08:00Wow, I guess most did not read Rays book. Some fai...Wow, I guess most did not read Rays book. Some fairly poor fictional writing here and now in 2015 the so called Hoaxers will not talk to anyone to prove their ignorant claim. You will see more convincing evidence on this case and it is certainly 100% not a hoax. Most people posting here have obviously done zero research. Armchair Ufologist are a dime a dozen.TheUFOGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02846005362986281745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73350662410616802212012-08-24T08:25:14.909-07:002012-08-24T08:25:14.909-07:00JAF,
I've considered the tow possibility 3 ye...JAF,<br /><br />I've considered the tow possibility 3 years ago when the balloon theory raised its ugly head again. There are multiple problems with it. <br /><br />The dirt road soon makes a dogleg which would take it away sharply from the direct line to he perlite mine (whereas Zamora saw the object leave in a straight line). <br /><br />A car wouldn't be able to drive very fast down the road since it is so bad yet Zamora saw the object making a fast departure. <br /><br />A car would leave a cloud of dust and unless ridiculously far down the road with a ridiculously long cable would be quite visible and would be heard, whereas Zamora reported dead silence once the object went silent. <br /><br />There were no other car tire tracks in the area besides Zamoras. (The police looked.)<br /><br />A balloon would bob around badly in the wind created by being towed and the crosswind of the strong wind blowing at the time. Zamora reported a highly controlled departure in a straight line with the object maintaining a constant altitude above the ground, no reported bobbing.<br /><br />A cable strong enough to tow a large balloon like that against strong winds would have to be of decent size and strength to prevent snapping (think of a sail on a sailboat which produces a lot of force in strong winds). Even with his glasses off, Zamora should have seen something. If slack on the ground when Zamora first arrived and got close with his glasses, but not seen, then it would have left a track behind in the dirt of the arroyo. No such track was found.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43798378398092081732012-08-23T14:22:02.522-07:002012-08-23T14:22:02.522-07:00Daviad Rudiak said:
The perlite mine is indeed th...Daviad Rudiak said:<br /><br /><i>The perlite mine is indeed the whitish area and the drawing is inaccurate. (graphics in book were not done by Stanford)</i><br /><br />Thanks, David! <br /><br />The only way I can see for a balloon to travel toward the Perlite mine is for it to have been towed. One end of a nylon cord tied to the balloon and the other to a car which travelled down the dirt road leading to the hospital would do the trick. This appears to be the same road Zamora was using, currently called Raychester for the part which is paved. He might not notice the noise of the car engine or the tires on the gravel/dirt due to his ears having been dampened by the roar of the flame, even once the roar stopped. I would expect him to catch sight of the car because visibility looks to be excellent in that direction, but he may have been distracted by having knocked his glasses off and having "hit the dirt" to escape an anticipated explosion which never happened just long enough for a car to have gotten far enough down the road as to not be easily seen. I've never been at the site to test the hypothesis.JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64222554041119513862012-08-23T11:14:50.215-07:002012-08-23T11:14:50.215-07:00Would anyone like to comment on the accuracy of th...<i>Would anyone like to comment on the accuracy of the picture on page 28 of Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry by Ray Stanford? It appears to me that the suggested trajectory is off by quite a bit. Isn't that the perlite mine way over on the right of the picture (the whitish area)? The trajectory shown doesn't take the UFO over the mine at all. Here's a link to the picture:<br /><br />http://files.myopera.com/BooBooBear/albums/12509532/SocorroDeparts.jpg</i><br /><br />The perlite mine is indeed the whitish area and the drawing is inaccurate. (graphics in book were not done by Stanford) <br /><br />Depending on which statements you use, the object went at least a mile or maybe the full two miles to the perlite mill before sharply angling up to clear the mountains. Also Zamora said the object seemed to just clear the dynamite shack. The drawing shows it angling up just before the dynamite shack, so another indication of inaccuracy.<br /><br /><i>Does anyone know if the dynamite shack still stands?</i><br /><br />I was just there last month (July 3, 2012), and the dynamite shack is no longer there. About 500 feet up from the landing site, where the shack used to be, is some sheet metal and what looks like a strongbox of some kind, but no standing shack. These may or may not be from the shack. People do dump stuff out there, e.g., an old refrigerator is also there a little closer to the landing site.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71056802676432343742012-08-23T09:40:40.331-07:002012-08-23T09:40:40.331-07:00Would anyone like to comment on the accuracy of th...Would anyone like to comment on the accuracy of the picture on page 28 of <i>Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry</i> by Ray Stanford? It appears to me that the suggested trajectory is off by quite a bit. Isn't that the perlite mine way over on the right of the picture (the whitish area)? The trajectory shown doesn't take the UFO over the mine at all. Here's a link to the picture:<br /><br />http://files.myopera.com/BooBooBear/albums/12509532/SocorroDeparts.jpg<br /><br />Does anyone know if the dynamite shack still stands?JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80718577355820811422012-08-22T14:28:28.826-07:002012-08-22T14:28:28.826-07:00To JAF regarding balloon visibility:
Nothing wrong...To JAF regarding balloon visibility:<br />Nothing wrong with your figures. The 30 mph wind figure I gave was being liberal, based on <i>average</i> wind speeds recorded at Albuquerque and Truth or Consequences at the time being 20 and 23 mph. An assumed wind gust (defined as 10 mph above average) would take this up to about 30 mph, but more likely wind would be blowing in the 20-25 mph range in Socorro.<br /><br />At the liberal wind speed of 30 mph and assuming Sgt. Chavez arrived at the scene fully 2 minutes after the object made its departure, again probably a somewhat liberal figure, a 15 foot balloon would have moved only about a mile from the scene, so still a third the size of the moon (about 10 arc min). If only the cross-sectional area of the egg-shaped object was visible (viewed end-on), then about half that, or about 5 arc/min. If Chavez arrived only a minute after departure instead of two (quite possible), the balloon moves only half as far and double all sizes again.<br /><br />If the object wasn't moving, then it might be hard to spot. But if it was moving rapidly, as Zamora said it was, and with a good contrasting background (white shiny object up against the dark mountains), it's the sort of target that will tend to catch the eye. <br /><br />Ray Stanford has said Sgt. Chaves DID arrive in time to see the object rapidly rising against the backdrop of the mountains, according to all the other police he spoke to. Zamora hinted at this when he said Chaves arrived in time to see the object leaving if only he knew where to look.<br /><br />Still far from certain whether Chaves would necessarily have seen it, assuming a balloon, I agree. But if a balloon, it would still have been in the area and visible, which was my point.<br /><br />The far more fundamental problem for any balloon theory, would be the object taking off in a direction (WSW) that would take it into a very strong headwind (probably out of the SSW at the time according to surrounding wind data), which balloons can't do. <br /><br />Another very serious problem was Zamora's observation that it took off cross-country hugging the ground, in a straight line, only slowly rising with the terrain as it approached the mountains to the west, about 2 miles distant. Balloons, even with a proper tail wind, can't do that either.<br /><br />David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75046016171500048302012-08-22T10:18:50.597-07:002012-08-22T10:18:50.597-07:00David Rudiak said:
a 15 foot "balloon" ...David Rudiak said: <br /><i>a 15 foot "balloon" would have gone no more than about about a mile by the time Chavez showed up. It would still have been easily visible in the sky.</i><br /><br />The following table shows the apparent size of a 15' "balloon" seen from various distances:<br /><br />Miles % of size of<br />away the full moon<br />1 33%<br />2 16%<br />3 11%<br />4 08%<br />8 04%<br /><br />I used this page to convert distances to angular size:<br /><br />http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm<br /><br />A full moon is about one half degree in diameter.<br /><br />When you get down to about 10% of the full moon, you are talking a very small image, about the apparent size of what Kenneth Arnold saw. I would estimate a 15' object would still be visible at 3 miles away if you knew right where to look. This would give a 6 minute window of opportunity to watch a 15' balloon traveling at 30 mph. If the object were 30' in size, you can double those times.JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46077841610052715602012-08-21T15:00:27.353-07:002012-08-21T15:00:27.353-07:00I would like to make one more point. This isn'...I would like to make one more point. This isn't just about Zamora's say-so. This was also a physical evidence case, with burned ground and vegetation still smoldering when backup arrived minutes later, crushed rocks, fresh "landing" impressions on the ground noted by all primary investigators that seemed to have been made by an object of great weight setting down, and perhaps fused sand and radiation ("perhaps" because this was never written down in documentation by the Air Force). It was also notable for what wasn't there: no chemical evidence of what could have burned everything and no evidence of footprints, tire tracks, paraphernalia, etc. that would have been left behind by hoaxers fleeing the scene within seconds.<br /><br />The point is, SOMETHING PHYSICAL HAPPENED. There was an object there.<br /><br />The second point, is where did it go in such a short period of time if it was something conventional like a balloon? <br /><br />Zamora told Hynek when he first saw the object from a distance, he radioed friend State Policeman Sam Chavez to come alone. Chavez confirmed to Hynek the radio call about coming alone. Chavez could have gotten there in only 2 or 3 minutes at most, or only 1 or 2 minutes after the object blasted off, then departed the area towards the mountains towards the west-southwest (bucking a strong wind out of the south to soutwest).<br /><br />Chavez publicly said he didn't see the object leaving, but Zamora said if Chavez knew where to look when he arrived, he would have seen it, which means the object was still visible when Chavez got there. <br /><br />Ray Stanford said every Socorro policeman he spoke to said Chavez DID arrive in time and told them he DID see the object scooting up the mountainside off in the distance, like what Zamora also reported, but Chavez didn't want to give further credence to the report in case it was a secret government project.<br /><br />So my third point, is assuming Chavez didn't see it, then why not? How could a "balloon" of that size disappear THAT fast. Even if the winds were blowing a constant 30 mph in the right direction, a 15 foot "balloon" would have gone no more than about about a mile by the time Chavez showed up. It would still have been easily visible in the sky.<br /><br />So either Chavez really did see it, but refused to acknowledge it (now making for two eyewitnesses to the object departing the area), or if he didn't, then he should have unless the object left the area at a speed much higher than any possible balloon. By the time he got to Zamora's position, a large balloon should still have been visible and Zamora could have pointed it out in case Chavez missed it approaching the area.<br /><br />Also given the ACTUAL winds (south to southwest), an actual balloon would have been blown over Socorro itself, not towards the mountains to the west. There were three reported calls to police dispatch about seeing a flame in the sky at about the time of Zamora's encounter, but nothing about an object like a balloon flying over town. Again, why not?<br /><br />Not an iron-clad case against a balloon, but not exactly supporting the hypothesis either.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74789987543783808982012-08-21T14:19:54.553-07:002012-08-21T14:19:54.553-07:00Steve Sawyer wrote:
David, while Tony provided a l...Steve Sawyer wrote:<br /><i>David, while Tony provided a link to a video in his post that shows how a large, hot air "chinese balloon" could be made of tissue or other kind of paper of some sort, I assume that was intended to only be illustrative, an example, of how such can be created, and not an indication or any "claim" by Tony that the Socorro incident involved an actual paper balloon. In fact, Tony has never claimed that the Socorro incident involved any kind of paper-based balloon.</i><br /><br />First on his blog:<br /><br />http://bragalia.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-ultimate-secret-of-socorro-finally.html<br /><br />...Tony quoted Colgate saying it was supposedly a "candle-balloon":<br /><br /><i>“How did they do it? What was the craft made of?”<br /><br />His short but telling reply: “A candle in a balloon. Not sophisticated.”</i><br /><br />Then Tony added:<br /><br /><i>Here in the video below, two very clever British boys show us what Colgate means by how a simple “candle in a balloon” can also be an extraordinarily effective hoax and aerial effect:<br /><br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjMn1diPIvo&feature=related</i><br /><br />This was a link to a so-called Chinese or sky lantern hot-air balloon made of paper.<br /><br />In a private email titled "This is what Lonnie saw", Tony sent me a link to another youtube video of a larger paper hot-air balloon or "sky lantern", which he again equated to Colgate's "candle-balloon".<br /><br />And if you haven't noticed, Tony in this blog has been trying to make a case that the alleged hoaxers were using a modified International Paper logo and the school used IP paper products, again suggesting they made the "candle-lantern" out of paper.<br /><br />But whether such a "candle-balloon" is made of paper or something else like plastic is another trivial side-show, the key point remains that ANY balloon cannot fly into the wind, nor can it fly level in a straight line for two miles, nor can it fly at over 100 mph, the low-ball speed the Air Force attached to it.<br /><br />As for the winds, I've argued the point 'til I'm blue in the face, that the actual historical wind data from literally 200 or so hourly wind data points from about 10 nearby weather stations leaves NO doubt that any object would have had to fly into stiff winds. For many hours before and after, with NO exceptions, winds in the area were out of the south to west. Even Viktor Golubic, who was also trying to argue that Socorro was somehow exempt, has just recently conceded the point on UFO Updates after examining actual Socorro wind data with similar low pressure systems.<br /><br />Balloons of any kind are out, period.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89941255157597391952012-08-21T13:17:44.986-07:002012-08-21T13:17:44.986-07:00Part 2 of 2:
I can neither empirically conclude t...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br />I can neither empirically conclude that it was either a hoax nor a genuine "UFO CE III." It remains a genuine, extremely perplexing mystery, and unresolved either way, IMHO. <br /><br />I also don't agree that it can conclusively or factually be determined that the "symbol" allegedly observed by Zamora was derived from the International Paper [IP] logo designed in 1960 by Lester Beall. Again, it's a "maybe, maybe not" or ambiguous, secondary issue. <br /><br />Frankly, I doubt it, given the debate about the "<i>two</i> symbols" (regarding U.S. Army Capt. Holder's alleged role) that Stanford, Hynek, PBB, and various contemporaneous newspaper accounts referred to, i.e., the "inverted V with three horizontal lines across it" vs. "upward arrow" controversy. But both symbols seem prosaic in nature, and I don't know of any other "legit" UFO CE involving a UFO with such symbolic markings being ever observed, but that issue is rather peripheral to the "big picture" of all the elements of the sighting combined. <br /><br />[I have, btw, independently of Tony, confirmed the IP logo was created in 1960, and in use by IP as early as 1961, not "the late 60's," as IP's own "brandmark" guidance .pdf cites <i>erroneously,</i> as initially cited by David.] <br /><br />I'm trying to be as objective about all the factors involved as humanly possible, and the Socorro incident, whatever it was, remains the only case Project Blue Book considered an "unknown" involving a landing with two "entities" observed. <br /><br />One crucial issue that has not been directly debated much is whether Zamora's statements and reporting on the incident might have either been partially confabulated or exaggerated for some reason, perhaps out of shock at what he perceived. Regardless of all the evidence noted at the "landing site," this remains an extremely bizarre and questionable incident, based on the fact that it was a single-witness case. Can we assume Zamora reported accurately what actually occurred vs. what he perceived or said later? Yet another "Pandora's Box" there.<br /><br />And yes, I also acknowledge the tourist's "gas station" report and reports of similar incidents both before and after the specific Zamora sighting in both nearby and distant areas/regions as also being suggestive, but essentially circumstantial in nature. Again, no proof either way, just anecdotal for the most part. <br /><br />[[While I have posited before, humorously, that the truly bizarre mix of both prosaic and unexplained or unknown elements of the sighting might suggest a "hoax," only created by "ET's," to create a kind of absurdist "cognitive dissonance" in the witness(es) and subsequent investigators (sort of like the famous Monty Python routine, "Confuse-A-Cat, Ltd."**), objectively that's simply a kind of intentionally provocative, idle kind of speculation, meant to throw yet another potential scenario [thinking <i><b>way</b></i> outside of the "box," as it were]; to spur rethinking the case, perhaps, into the mix)]].<br /><br />In conclusion, since it appears this case, at this point still remains unproved (unless one or more persons from NMIT are willing to go on the record, by name, with a reasonable, detailed explanation of how any "hoax" might have been created that can be further investigated or vetted), it seems likely the case may not <i><b>ever</b></i> be truly resolved.<br /><br />Clever, those frickin'... "aliens?" 8^} <br />-----------------------------------------------------<br /><br />**See: http://bit.ly/NaD5Nz <br /><br />**[The analogy here, ref. Confuse-A-Cat, is that "the others" are the "company," and we are the "cats" to be shaken out of our own anthropocentric "rut."]Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90306098521013248362012-08-21T11:56:07.967-07:002012-08-21T11:56:07.967-07:00@DR:
Part 1 of 2:
"...you still are dodging...@DR:<br /><br />Part 1 of 2:<br /><br /><i>"...you still are dodging all the critical questions about an alleged hoax, such as how would a paper balloon fly against the wind.<br /><br />"...some NMIT students used a modified IP logo from their paper supply and built a hot-air balloon out of paper?"<br /><br />"...such as the winds being totally wrong for your claimed paper hot-air balloon from that 1964 IP paper."<br /><br />"...ask your reliable Dr. Colgate how his paper balloon could fly into a stiff wind in a straight horizontal line for two miles."</i><br /><br />David, while Tony provided a link to a video in his post that shows how a large, hot air "chinese balloon" could be made of tissue or other kind of paper of some sort, I assume that was intended to only be illustrative, an example, of how such can be created, and not an indication or any "claim" by Tony that the Socorro incident involved an actual paper balloon. <br /><br />In fact, Tony has <i><b>never</b></i> claimed that the Socorro incident involved <i>any</i> kind of paper-based balloon. <br /><br />Instead, Tony has referenced the possibility of some kind of weather balloon might have been used by NMIT grad students to hoax the incident. Weather balloons are made of neoprene or similar rubbery types of materials. <br /><br />OTOH, how does one inflate a weather balloon to create an <i>oblong shape</i> about 15 to 20 feet across horizontally? One would think it would have to be round in shape, if a weather balloon was inflated for use. <br /><br />I agree that your weather data is <i>quite significant,</i> as any type of balloon would <i>not</i> be able to fly horizontally, at increasing speed, and silently, into the wind, but it's unknown just exactly what the wind conditions in the precise, limited area of the Zamora sighting were, and what near-ground effects and what erratic (or constant) wind conditions or patterns there may have been close to the ground in the arroyo either. <br /><br />I also agree that the lack of any prosaic oxidation residue, as determined by the USAF chemical analysis of the partially burned greasewood bush argues against pyrotechnics or other conventional propulsion source of the kind that might have been used in any hoax. <br /><br />In addition, there are several <i>other</i> critical, mitigating factors (like the reported blue and orange downward-pointing flame from the bottom of the object as it descended and initially ascended), that also argue against a hoax, but Tony has also gathered some potentially significant, but only circumstantial, data that <i><b>might</b></i> point towards some kind of quite sophisticated hoax.<br /><br />But, a hoax has yet to have been factually <i>proven</i> by Tony. No one allegedly involved has ever come forward either. Problematic, to say the least. <br /><br />[The object was also <i><b>not</b></i> some super-duper secret CIA prototype lunar lander, I'm sure, regardless of what <i>some</i> armchair "quidnuncs" have argued at nauseating length, without a shred of documentation or other evidence, btw.]<br /><br />The fact of the matter, all things considered, exhaustively, is that the Socorro incident remains, in my mind at least, for now, a true <b>unknown.</b>Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41258625275758296912012-08-21T09:50:23.511-07:002012-08-21T09:50:23.511-07:00Colgate emailed me that Pauling never asked him ab...<i>Colgate emailed me that Pauling never asked him about Socorro again because he was likely embarrassed to do so because it was a hoax!</i><br /><br />By all means go do something else, but what you previously said is that Pauling accepted that it was a hoax because Colgate told him, therefore we should accept it too because Pauling was such a big name.<br /><br />Now you are saying Pauling never asked him about Socorro again allegedly because he was too embarrassed it was a hoax. So nothing factual like a notation by Pauling, instead all we have is mind-reading or seance-going that Pauling concluded it was a hoax. <br /><br />Even if that were true, so what? What if Pauling had asked Charles Moore, also of NMIT, about Roswell, Moore told him it was a balloon and Pauling didn't inquire further? Should we then passively accept Roswell was a balloon when other evidence might tell us otherwise?<br /><br /><i>I would rather rely on Dr. Colgate than the work of frauds like Ray Stanford that you refer to!</i><br /><br />And Hynek was a "fraud" also? The FBI agent Byrnes? Army range officer Holder? Officer Chavez? Even Project Blue Book? Were all the primary investigators "frauds" because they concluded it wasn't a hoax?<br /><br />Please be sure to ask your reliable Dr. Colgate how his paper balloon could fly into a stiff wind in a straight horizontal line for two miles. No more handwaving about we don't know what the winds really were. We DO know--the weather data is unambiguous. <br /><br />(And please no more "impaired" nonsense about Zamora losing his glasses "twice" and having really awful vision, also supposedly being drunk because of more hearsay from former NMIT students.)<br /><br /><i>And we do not have to simply rely on Colgate- there are many, many others at NMIT who were in a position to know that have affirmed a hoax- including Dr. Frank Etscorn (who was so confident it was a hoax that he gave an 'A' for the Masters Thesis of the grad student woman who found the principle perpetrator using the schools' yearbooks.)</i><br /><br />And according to you, Etscorn told you that it was 25 years ago and he had only a vague memory. His was at least a 3rd-hand account of the grad student telling him of locating one of the hoaxers who told her he did it, but again zero names, zero details.<br /><br />And do you seriously believe he gave the grad student an "A" simply because he believed Socorro was a hoax? Wouldn't it be for the actual work she did on her masters?<br /><br /><i>And Dave Collis, who is still w/ NMIT at the Energetics Lab- he was told by his Physics Professor in '65 it was a hoax by grad students.</i> <br /><br />Again no names, no details, just another person passing on an unverified rumor from somebody who probably heard it through the grapevine. Absolute classic hearsay that wouldn't pass muster in small claims court.<br /><br />In the end, nothing but people repeating rumors, maybe even started by a few grad students to impress other people. But if there are no names and people can't explain to you in a SCIENTIFIC, PLAUSIBLE way how the hoax was actually carried out, you have a lot of nothing. Chinese lanterns flying against the wind in straight lines at 100+ mph ain't going to do it.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63588618791019918812012-08-21T03:36:10.819-07:002012-08-21T03:36:10.819-07:00Hi David-
I have spent an inordinate amount of ti...Hi David-<br /><br />I have spent an inordinate amount of time on logos, wind, etc. and must begin to "wind down" on this as I simply do not have the time.<br /><br />However:<br /><br />Colgate most certainly confirmed far more than you are relating:<br /><br />- He knows at least one of the hoaxers and still communicates with him to this very day<br /><br />- He knows how they did it<br /><br />- He knows why they have not come forward<br /><br />- He knows about how many were involved<br /><br />- He is not "guessing"- in his emails to me he is affirming it was a hoax <br /><br />- Colgate emailed me that Pauling never asked him about Socorro again because he was likely embarrassed to do so because it was a hoax!<br /><br />I would rather rely on Dr. Colgate than the work of frauds like Ray Stanford that you refer to!<br /><br />And we do not have to simply rely on Colgate- there are many, many others at NMIT who were in a position to know that have affirmed a hoax- including Dr. Frank Etscorn (who was so confident it was a hoax that he gave an 'A' for the Masters Thesis of the grad student woman who found the principle perpetrator using the schools' yearbooks.) And Dave Collis, who is still w/ NMIT at the Energetics Lab- he was told by his Physics Professor in '65 it was a hoax by grad students. I could (and have) gone on and on ...but I must now work.<br /><br />AJBAnthony Bragaliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876831804254045646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19320566363857111422012-08-20T22:33:16.728-07:002012-08-20T22:33:16.728-07:00Tony Bragalia wrote:
If Dr. Pauling himself accept...Tony Bragalia wrote:<br /><i>If Dr. Pauling himself accepted it was a hoax because Colgate informed him, shouldn't we?</i><br /><br />Again, you are completely exaggerating the little that you have.<br /><br />What you produced was a typed letter from Pauling to Colgate thanking him for his visit to Socorro. Pauling as an afterthought then scribbled a P.S. asking him what he knew of Zamora, Chavez, and what what was the NMIMT view of the sighting.<br /><br />Colgate scribbled under that he had "indications" that a student was behind the hoax who was no longer there. That's it: no name, nothing about what the "indications" were, nothing about how the hoax was carried out.<br /><br />First of all, where does Pauling ever say "he accepted it was a hoax" and even if he had, how does that prove anything one way or the other?<br /><br />These appeals to authority are worthless. I had a call from a scientist a few months ago who told me he knew Charles Moore back in the 1970s, asked him about Roswell, and Moore told him it was a balloon. Because it came from Moore, whom he trusted, he believed him.<br /><br />So does that settle it? Moore told him it was a balloon and he believed him. According to your argument, that somehow proves it was a balloon and we should just accept it too.<br /><br />But now he doesn't trust him, thinks he was deliberately misleading him, maybe even a part of the coverup.<br /><br />Again, does this prove anything one way or the other, even if this scientist happened to be as eminent as Linus Pauling, who in this case I am totally unaware even expressed an opinion one way or the other, only expressed an interest in the Socorro case.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24751583983719551592012-08-20T17:18:59.410-07:002012-08-20T17:18:59.410-07:00Hi Daniel-
Thanks for the input. I did not know t...Hi Daniel-<br /><br />Thanks for the input. I did not know that Pauling supported Gabriel Green!<br /><br />Please Google in quotes "UFOs and Vitamin C" to view an article I did some time ago about finding Pauling's UFO studies that he had marked "Confidential." I also discovered his Battelle connection and other interesting things about Dr. Pauling.<br /><br />And this is critical:<br /><br />If Dr. Pauling himself accepted it was a hoax because Colgate informed him, shouldn't we?<br /><br />AJB<br /><br />TonyAnthony Bragaliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876831804254045646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90067621775345696132012-08-20T16:20:39.903-07:002012-08-20T16:20:39.903-07:00Tony Bragalia describes Dr. Linus Pauling as a ...Tony Bragalia describes Dr. Linus Pauling as a 'secret UFO researcher'. I'm not sure how much of a secret it was that he researched UFOs; but he gave his unqualified support of Gabriel Green's candidacy for the U.S. Senate, in 1962 (letter to Max B.Miller, May 12 1962). People would have read about this at the time (and later) and assumed that Linus Pauling was probably generally supportive of UFO research as featured in Gabriel Green's publications, right? It wouldn't have also been unreasonable, given the endorsement of Gabriel Green, to guess that Dr.Pauling had carried out some UFO research himself. So, it wasn't exactly a very well-concealed 'secret', was it?Daniel Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02936796213773640538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25935509764462540162012-08-20T10:36:03.710-07:002012-08-20T10:36:03.710-07:00I'll take the second-hand account of an unname...<br /><i>I'll take the second-hand account of an unnamed person who saw the craft coming down over the second-hand account of an unnamed person who alleges they hoaxed the event. I'm refering to the tourist who stopped at Whiting Brother's Service Station on Route 85 the day of the incident and remarked that "aircraft flew low around here."</i><br /><br />That story was in the first news account of the Socorro Chieftain, so right from the start. There has never been any indication that Opal Grinder, the gas station owner made it up. His son was there and has also repeatedly corroborated the tourist was real. Damn shame this person was never located, because it would have been icing on the cake, as it would have been near impossible to hoax, just like the rest of it.<br /><br />However, there was other minor corroboration. Nep Lopez, the police dispatcher, stated they received three calls about a "flame" in the sky at about the same time as Zamora's sighting. If a hoax, hoaxers would have had to send something like a bright flare into the air to attract attention like that (it was still daytime).<br /><br />There were also aural witnesses from the south side of town (starting about .6 miles from the site) to the roaring sound. With the assistance of radio owner Walter Shrode, Ray Stanford spoke to two of them, who recalled hearing two roars about a minute or two apart. This doesn't disprove hoaxing but does indicate some really, really loud sound effects that have to be accounted for. No physical evidence of pyrotechnics was ever found so you have to have rock concert-loud speakers in the middle of the desert? How would you lug them out there and power them, then immediately make them disappear without leaving any trace evidence behind? I've seen speakers like that in remote locations and they're powered by 100 kilowatt generators, kind of hard to run away with in seconds.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37506493881901982502012-08-19T18:29:21.732-07:002012-08-19T18:29:21.732-07:00Thank you Dr. Rudiak for the link to the IP logo. ...Thank you Dr. Rudiak for the link to the IP logo. I was incorrectly assuming the current day logo must be much different than that of the early 1960s. Page 7 of the link you provided says the current logo was in use starting in 1968. A picture of the IP logo with the caption "International Company Program, 1961" can be seen at the bottom of this page:<br /><br />http://www.lesterbeall.com/chronology.shtml<br /><br />This suggests that the 1968 date may be in error. Seven years to decide on a new logo strikes me as a bit too long.<br /><br />If the landing was hoaxed by students at New Mexico Tech, I would expect those students to base the insignia on something nearby: The New Mexico Tech logo of 3 mountain peaks. The upside down V would represent one peak and the three lines would indicate "repeat 3 times."<br /><br />The UFO itself supplies a good inspiration for the insignia. The cone shape of the fiery exhaust is evocative of an inverted V, with the three lines showing the ground disturbance such a flame would create.<br /><br />I'll take the second-hand account of an unnamed person who saw the craft coming down over the second-hand account of an unnamed person who alleges they hoaxed the event. I'm refering to the tourist who stopped at Whiting<br />Brother's Service Station on Route 85 the day of the incident and remarked that "aircraft flew<br />low around here." The full account can be read at http://www.caminorealheritage.org/PH/y0808_socorro_ufo.pdf . There are also images of how the landing pad depressions looked in 2008. Not much left but circles of rocks placed around where the marks were to protect them from being trampled on back in 1964.JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41341079001108070762012-08-19T14:02:38.102-07:002012-08-19T14:02:38.102-07:00cardown wrote:
Kevin,
I recently watched an old e...cardown wrote:<br /><br /><i>Kevin,<br />I recently watched an old episode of "Sightings" where you appeared, and discussed a new report released from the AF(?) connecting the Zamora sighting to a test from White Sands.<br />Where can I find that report?</i><br /><br />As I recall, this was referring to the theory that Socorro was caused by a Voyager probe moon lander which was being tested at White Sands that day.<br /><br />As I further recall, this was actually a totally unpowered drop test from a tower, no fuel, no landing rockets, and the test ended hours before Socorro. It was certainly quite impossible for the Voyager to end up at Socorro on its own.<br /><br />To dress it up, it was then proposed, for reasons unknown, that "Voyager" was being towed by a "helicopter" and somehow the cabin dome of the helicopter got mushed together with the very un-egg-like Voyager to become Zamora's egg-shaped object.<br /><br />This theory, of course, is totally preposterous on multiple grounds, e.g. asking us to believe that Zamora couldn't see or hear a very obvious and extremely noisy helicopter flying overhead (no doubt another "massive misperception" by the "impaired" Zamora, who not only temporarily lost his glasses but his ears as well).<br /><br />Add to this that the Voyager was designed to operate in lunar gravity, not Earth's, would not have been fueled or blasted off, even if it could, when it was allegedly being towed by a cable, would have left chemical residue behind even if it had blasted off, but didn't, had three round landing pads, not four rectangular ones, flew off in a direction opposite White Sands, etc., etc.<br /><br />But all this can be ignored if some anonymous people from NM Tech claim they heard through the grapevine it was a Voyager lander.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46243970891279996482012-08-19T11:34:23.844-07:002012-08-19T11:34:23.844-07:00Tony,
You sent me a photo claiming it was IP pape...Tony,<br /><br />You sent me a photo claiming it was IP paper packages from specifically 1960 but with no evidence supporting the 1960 date.<br /><br />As I have said many times before, this whole IP logo debate is a trivial sideshow from the REAL issues, such as the winds being totally wrong for your claimed paper hot-air balloon from that 1964 IP paper.<br /><br />As I just posted on your blog, Viktor Golubic, who you cited as a supporter, has just bailed on the balloon hypothesis after analyzing REAL Socorro wind data with conditions similar to those on April 24, 1964 during the sighting. As he writes on UFO Updates today:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/96spufo<br /><br />"Having completed some data analysis with similar pressure surface patterns as was shown by David Rudiak on the day of Lonnie's sighting, <i>it does appear that a balloon could not have been involved with the Socorro sighting, thus reducing the probability on the UNM [sic] prank hypothesis considerably..."</i><br /><br />As for your prior contentions that some "esteemed" NMIT scientist could not possibly be screwing with a UFO researcher, I have but two words: Charles Moore.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8893728054106087572012-08-19T10:51:15.329-07:002012-08-19T10:51:15.329-07:00Kevin,
I recently watched an old episode of "...Kevin,<br />I recently watched an old episode of "Sightings" where you appeared, and discussed a new report released from the AF(?) connecting the Zamora sighting to a test from White Sands.<br />Where can I find that report?Curt Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13773941506205598439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2399650567432096962012-08-19T03:46:47.461-07:002012-08-19T03:46:47.461-07:00I might add that the Graphis Annual for 1961 (comp...I might add that the Graphis Annual for 1961 (compiled in 1960) itself refers to the image as "IP Corporate Logo."<br /><br />AJB<br /><br />PS Corporate histories and institutional memory (such as with IP) can only be as "correct" as the people today who are reporting it. Designed in '59, we are talking about something from well over a half-century ago and no one at IP today would have any first hand or direct knowledge of it at all. And in all likelihood, anyone at IP then who could tell us is either 90 or dead. That is why such solid documentation as the Graphis is so helpful.<br /><br />AJBAnthony Bragaliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876831804254045646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87472979224358512982012-08-19T03:15:25.916-07:002012-08-19T03:15:25.916-07:00Actually, the Graphis Annual 1961 in which Beall&#...Actually, the Graphis Annual 1961 in which Beall's logo design was lauded was actually voted on and compiled in 1960! This makes sense as many say he actually designed it in 1959! I sent David what I believe to be that 1959 design, please post if you can.<br /><br />Anyone who could definitively answer exact dates of first use are dead by now unfortunately. And it is abundantly clear that IPs own pdf David offered on this is not correct- I myself distinctly remember the IP paper in my own elementary school - before the late 1960s! And David, post the 1960 IP paper packaging jpg I sent you too please. This too confirms that prototype packaging with logo was completed in the year 1960.<br /><br />AJBAnthony Bragaliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876831804254045646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12703363171666894182012-08-18T18:46:33.935-07:002012-08-18T18:46:33.935-07:00JAF, again you can view the various IP logos here:...JAF, again you can view the various IP logos here:<br /><br />http://www.internationalpaper.com/documents/EN/BrandGuidelines/BGEMEA.pdf<br /><br />People have proposed all sorts of supposed orgins for the Socorro symbol. In the 1960s a fellow named Leon Davidson was claiming it was a secet CIA vehicle and the symbol was a version of CIA (more like C<I) turned sideways).<br /><br />According to Ray Stanford and some newspaper accounts from 1964, the alleged "CIA" symbol was NOT what Zamora first described to fellow policemen and Hynek and Stanford. Instead it was an inverted V with 3 horizontal lines through it. This was, e.g., reported by first responder Sgt. Sam Chavez in a Hobbs N.M. article a few days later.<br /><br />Well, there goes CIA and that modified IP logo.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53845698531493827332012-08-18T16:37:41.457-07:002012-08-18T16:37:41.457-07:00Tony or David,
I hope one of you will upload thos...Tony or David,<br /><br />I hope one of you will upload those IP logo pictures to a free picture sharing website so we can all enjoy looking at them. One such service is http://my.opera.com/community/ . You can open a free account by going to https://my.opera.com/community/login/ .<br /><br />X-rays of my dog's broken leg are interesting and this example shows how one URL can reference an several photo albums: http://my.opera.com/BooBooBear/albums/ .JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.com