Chasing Footnotes: Kevin Randle Edition

 

Well, this is going to be a weird one…

For those who visit here regularly, you’ll remember, just a few weeks ago, we were talking about the DIRD reports, specifically, that one created by Kit Green. That one, which actually dealt with UFOs, referenced a number of sightings in which the witnesses were injured in some fashion. Dr. Michael Swords had connected some of those sighting reports to an article written by Walter Webb that appeared in Official UFO in 1976.

That launched a search for the article which I eventually published here. The problem was that the entries were not very detailed and while Webb did mention the sources at the end of the article, he didn’t provide any way to connect those sources to a specific report, which meant that we needed to search all the mentioned sources for the specific case we wanted to identify. A rather tedious task.

I was able to do it with a few exceptions and one of those was the case from Mannford, Oklahoma. Webb provided a little information about it. He wrote:

Mannford, Oklahoma. October 16, 1973. As the UFO hovered nearby, witnesses in a pickup truck heard or felt, or both, an intense and penetrating low-pitched hum. The air seemed charged and oppressive.

That was it. I went through my books and sources, looking for anything to provide additional information. Remember, I did have Webb’s list of sources, but since the list included The UFO Investigator published by NICAP and The APRO Bulletin, published by, well, APRO, it meant searching through many issues. The task was complicated because sometimes a case would be reported months or years after the fact. And, of course, there was the final note that some of the sightings were from his personal files, which I couldn’t search.

Anyway, there was only three or four that I couldn’t find anything beyond what Webb had published. The Mannford, Oklahoma, case was one of those. In the catalog that I was preparing of the sources Webb used, I was stymied by these cases.

George Eberhart, was doing the same thing, or rather, had cataloged a number of the cases in the past so that he was able to provide a long listing to those of us interested in it. His listing included additional sources, almost as if he was chasing the footnotes or sources back to their original appearance before the latest interest brought all this to our attention.

He did have a longer entry for the Munnford, Oklahoma, case, which was helpful. He wrote:

Night. William and Donna Hatchett are driving down a country road near Mannford, Oklahoma, when she sees a bright light coming from the south. They first think it is a security light on a pole, but then realize the object is pacing them and descending. When the Hatchetts stop the truck, the light also stops in front of them. As the object hovers, it gives off a blinding light and a penetrating low-pitched hum. They have a feeling that there are occupants who know everything they are thinking. Donna is so afraid that she twice leaves the truck cab and goes into the back. William manages to persuade her to return, and they set off, the object rising up in the opposite direction. 

That was something, and the names of the witnesses struck a chord with me. I mean I recognized the names but I didn’t know where I had heard or read them. That meant that his source was a real shock to me, when I reached that point. It said, “Kevin D. Randle, The UFO Casebook, Warner, 1989, pp. 143–144.

Unfortunately, The UFO Casebook was made up of magazine articles I had written back when I was starting out as a writer, and in keeping with the conventions of the time, sources were generally not included. There was a sort of “Reference” section in the back of the book, and for the entry on the October 1973, sightings, it didn’t provide much in the way of help for finding the original source. It said:

October 1973: The UFO Occupants

Charles Hickson [yes, I had actually interviewed him], Pat Roach, James Harder, Susan Ramstead, Leigh Proctor, Coral Lorenzen, the APRO Bulletin, various newspapers from October 1973, and a number of witnesses who asked their names be withheld.

In other words, I didn’t know now where that information had originated and wasn’t sure how to find it. There were hints, but suggesting the that I had found information in various newspapers and The APRO Bulletin, just didn’t tell me much. However, I had a very good working relation with Coral Lorenzen, and the entry in the book seemed to suggest more than just a newspaper report. I suspected it might have been something that Coral had provided. I do have a file labeled, “October 1973 Occupant Reports.” I was surprised to find that it contained several issues of The APRO Bulletin from 1973.

Yes, the information I sought came from the September-October 1973 issue. The Bulletin usually ran a month or two behind so that information gathered by APRO in October, would have appeared in the September-October issue. Credit is given to APRO Field Investigator L.G. Sikes for the investigation, whom I would guess lived in Oklahoma at the time.

This is about as far as I can take this. Rather than retype the entry for inclusion here, I’ve just scanned the relevant parts which you can read here:

The APRO Bulletin entry for the Mannford UFO sightings

 

Unless someone knows Sikes or how I might contact him, this is the end of the road. I did find an email address but it bounced as not existing now. I did, however, make it to the original published source that I had used and the only way to improve on it would be to talk with Sikes, or even better, the witnesses themselves. But, at least, I have found the source that I used to prepare the entry for The UFO Casebook.

Coast to Coast - More UFO Occupants

One of my reports on UFO occupants caught the attention of one of the listeners. He, or she, contacted me, wondering how many UFO sightings included reports of the occupants, which is, of course, a good question. Jim and Coral Lorenzen collected such stories long before most of those in the UFO community were willing to talk about occupant sightings. They (or rather Coral) wrote several books about UFO occupants. You can learn more about their books here:

https://www.amazon.com/Flying-saucer-occupants-Signet-T3205/dp/B0006BQ02U/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Coral+Lorenzen&qid=1610720666&sr=8-1

and

https://www.amazon.com/Encounters-occupants-Berkley-medallion-book/dp/0425030938/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Coral+Lorenzen&qid=1610720715&sr=8-2

Along with the enquiry about UFO occupants, the writer added this detail. “One my bosses in the USAF said that one night he was flying an airplane and got a call from ATC [Air Traffic Control] that he had fast moving traffic approaching. It slowed and flew in formation with him for a bit. He did not describe it, other than to say, ‘I’m telling you that was a ship from another world.’ Then it did the usual zip maneuver and ATC said they lost track of it.”

Of course, we can’t do much with the story without additional information. I find it interesting but without being able to communicate with the actual witness, it just falls into the category of anecdotal evidence, which isn’t much in the way of evidence. However, when added to the hundreds or thousands of other stories, it does take on some added weight.

It also reminded me of a story that I had heard while researching the Roswell case. I was told about a retired Air Force colonel, who had been a pilot on Air Force One during the Kennedy administration. The story was that the man had flown the president out to a base to see the alien bodies recovered in Roswell.

After a month or more, I found the man. I caught him as he was walking into the business he owned and asked him about this tale. He confirmed for me that he was a retired colonel and that he had been an alternate pilot on Air Force One in the early 1960s. He had flown President Kennedy to various locations at various times. And, the colonel said that one night, while flying a fighter, he had been approached by a domed disk. Through some sort of cockpit window, he seen the alien pilot of the craft. He didn’t get a good look at that pilot, other to know that he wasn’t a human.

I have more confidence in this report because I talked with the witness in person sothat I had a chance to gauge his reactions and body language as he talked, but in the end, it too, is anecdotal. Oh, I should mention that almost all of the elements of the rumor checked out. He was an Air Force One pilot; he had seen an alien and he had flown Kennedy around the country. It was just that the tale was a combination of more than one incident. And, most importantly, he hadn’t flown Kennedy anywhere to see the Roswell bodies.

I will note here, that I don’t know how many UFO reports contain descriptions of alien creatures. If we limit ourselves to Project Blue Book, there are three sightings labeled as unidentified that contain descriptions. These are Socorro and Lonnie Zamora, of course. Then there is Pittsburg, Kansas on August 25, 1952, and finally, Temple, Oklahoma, on March 23, 1966. The other cases in Blue Book involving occupants label the witnesses as unreliable or as having psychological problems. I will have a link to the unidentified sightings at my blog.

For those interested in the Socorro landing, take a look at Encounter in the Desert, which is my investigation into that sighting. You can find the book here:

https://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Desert-Alien-Contact-Socorro-ebook/dp/B07J1WMGP7/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Kevin+Randle&qid=1610728620&sr=8-3

It also details some of the other reports of landings and alien creatures. To learn more about the other landing cases labeled as unidentified, you can find the information here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/search?q=Pittsburg%2C+Kansas

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/search?q=Temple%2C+Oklahoma

And for those who would like to look at more occupant cases found in the Project Blue Book files; you can read about it here:

https://www.amazon.com/Government-UFO-Files-Conspiracy-Cover-Up-ebook/dp/B00IWTR464/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=Kevin+Randle&qid=1610728826&sr=8-7

Finally, I had another occupant case that came in over the transom, which means that I have not had a chance to vet it. The report comes from the Dallas – Fort Worth area. A couple, in the area south of Arlington, reported they had seen a low, hovering domed disk on January 8 of this year. Like the colonel, through a window, porthole or cockpit windshield, they could make out the shape of what they thought was a small humanoid creature. Given the distance, they couldn’t see much detail, other than they didn’t believe it was human. After a minute or so, the object lifted up, into the clouds and was gone. I’ll try to follow up on this but I don’t have any additional information at this time.

Again, this tale falls into the category of anecdotal evidence. However, following the lead of Len Stringfield, I offer the case without critical comment in case there are others who have additional information about the sighting. Without more to go on, it joins a long list of interesting UFO cases that can’t be verified. 

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Rob Swiatek (Harzan Scandal)

By a strange coincidence, I had invited MUFON Board Member Rob Swiatek on the show to talk about the history of MUFON and what is happening in the world of UFOs today. Less than twenty-four hours before we sat down, Jan Harzan, MUFON’s Executive Director, was arrested for attempting to engage in sexual

Rob Swiatek

activity with a minor, according to the Huntington Beach Police. That was, of course, the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room. As Rob mentioned, we could not not talk about it.

I began the show with a brief history of MUFON, starting with its creation in the late 1960s. I mentioned that Walt Andrus, the original International Director but a one time member of APRO, had approached Coral Lorenzen of APRO with the idea that he would organize the field investigators in the Midwest into a network to prevent duplication. This was the genesis of MUFON. Coral Lorenzen was furious about Andrus break with APRO to start his own organization.

After that very brief history, we moved onto the discussion of Harzan and what it meant for MUFON. You can listen to that discussion here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/39787151

During the interview, we did get some insight into the reactions of those inside MUFON and on the Board to the police report. It shocked nearly everyone who heard the news. My first reaction was that it was some sort of a hoax, but I made contact with some of those I know in the UFO field. It became clear, quickly, that

Jan Harzan

the information was true and that it had been released on the Huntington Beach Police website. There was a mug shot and a few additional details.

According to Rob, MUFON had prepared for some sort of a catastrophic event at the top before this happened so that there was a plan to pass the leadership to another if necessary. Their thinking, frankly, seemed to be that a natural disaster at MUFON headquarters in California would be the culprit. Leadership would then pass to another at the push of a button. The new Executive Director, selected by the Board in the hours after the news about Harzan broke, was David MacDonald, who lives in Cincinnati, Ohio.

There were those in the UFO community but not necessarily members of MUFON, who wondered if this wasn’t a somewhat tone deaf (a term that will probably offend someone in the world today) move. MacDonald had run, and may still run, an aerial charter service that helped consenting adults join the “Mile High Club.” One of those commenters wondered, “I mean the guy ran a company for aerial sex. Is this going to smooth over the bad publicity over the reprehensible sexual activities of the previous International Director?”

Now, I confess that I’m a little concerned about this rush to judgement because, to be fair, Harzan has not been convicted of anything at this point. Arrest does not translate into guilt. I talked with Rob McConnell and in X-Zone Radio Show a few hours after I had interviewed Rob Swiatek (what are the odds there would be two Robs in this story?) and mentioned this. You can listen to our discussion here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/39788045

I think we make it clear that MUFON had no choice, and given the facts as they developed. The accusation was enough to require action by the Board. More to the point, it doesn’t seem as if there is any error in the arrest. Still, Harzan has not been convicted of a crime.

The other thing that has come up, as both Robs and I discussed is that in the last several years, MUFON has been rocked by a number of scandals, from racist rants by state directors, to similar statements held by members of what is called the Inner Circle. I did explore some of this a number of years ago and you can read about some of that here which links to the interview:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/06/x-zone-broadcast-network-jan-harzan-and.html

There was another part of the discussion as well. I was concerned that the mission of MUFON had changed from investigating UFOs to a more business-oriented strategy of filling the corporate coffers. Rob Swiatek said that the mission hadn’t actually changed, but in thinking about it, I believe that it has. Investigation was secondary to creating income streams. In other words, speakers at a recent MUFON Symposium were invited, not for their scientific credibility but for their ability to put butts in the seats. For those who wish to learn a little more about this, you can read some of my thoughts here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/07/are-some-tales-just-too-wild-to-believe.html

For those in the UFO community, the latest scandal, is important even though it has nothing to do with UFO research. When the leadership falls, it sometimes takes everything down with it. This just might be one of those times. There are already rumblings by some of the membership that this was one step too far and some of those have said they will sever their connections to the organization.

Next week I’ll be talking with John Greenewald about Eric Davis and Admiral Wilson. What is the true story here? John has an interesting theory. And, we’ll probably talk about the latest from the AATIP program. If you have questions, let me know in the comments section.

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Robert Koford and the Aztec UFO Crash

This week I interviewed Robert Koford who has visited here frequently, commenting on various aspects of the UFO phenomenon. This discussion was inspired by his investigation into the Aztec UFO crash claim from March 25, 1948. This story has

Robert Koford

been around publicly much longer than the Roswell case but has far fewer witnesses and virtually no documentation to substantiate the crash. In fact, unlike Roswell where everyone agrees that something fell, with Aztec there are many members of the community who deny that anything happened. You can listen to the program here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/23484702

Bob bases his interest on a series of documents that suggest that General Carl Spaatz issued orders about an event on March 25. Although it seems to related to “flying discs”, one of the names given to the flying saucers, there is nothing to tie it to Aztec and apparently no one seems to know what triggered Spaatz’s response. You can see the documents and some of Bob’s arguments at his website found here: 

https://www.ourunconventionalskies.com/

As I mentioned on the show, I have addressed the Aztec crash on a number of occasions on this blog. For those of you interested in reading the background about the case, you can find it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/02/aztec-in-perspective-by-monte-shriver.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/02/aztec-in-perspective-by-monte-shriver_8.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/02/aztec-in-persspection-by-monte-shriver.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/06/aztec-karl-pflock-and-scott-ramsey.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/05/aztec-incident-by-scott-and-suzanne.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-aztec-incident-review-by-jerome.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/05/return-to-aztec.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-real-honest-to-goodness-date-of.html

And for those who would like to hear what Monte Shriver has to say about the crash, I interviewed him on the radio show/podcast. You can listen to it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/05/x-zone-broadcast-network-monte-shriver.html

And for those who worry about not providing Scott Ramsey with the opportunity to refute many of these points, I will note that I have invited him on the program several of times. He had refused all those opportunities. I have no plans to invite him again.

I hope that all this provides enough information for those interested in the Aztec case to make some sort of intelligent decision about the reality of this crash. Just for the record, I have copies of Steinman’s book UFO Crash at Aztec, and, of course Ramsey’s book, not to mention a variety of other magazine articles about it, including Coral Lorenzen’s investigation in the mid-1970s reported in The APRO Bulletin.

Next week, I’ll be talking with Michael Hall about his UFO experiences and his UFOiTeam. If you have questions, send them as a comment here and I’ll get to them during the show.

UFO vs UAP vs AAV

Well, here we go again. Another reason to dislike Ufology. This time I find myself engaged in a discussion over semantics. I have to wonder what is the proper terminology for these things that people claim are buzzing around Earth. And this is just another part of a much larger, societal problem with nearly everyone requiring everyone else conform to their personal beliefs and to use their personal terminology, sometimes under penalty of law (or thoughts of changing laws for that purpose, but I digress already).

Steve Bassett suggested during my recent interview with him that his preferred term for what we all think of as UFOs is UAP, standing for unidentified aerial object. Back years ago there were those who made the argument that UFO suggested two things that might not be true. That is, these things were objects and they were flying. UAP didn’t suffer from those preconditions and was, therefore, a much better term.

But even before we got to UFO, there were the Foo Fighters, a name which conjured up no sort of image or preconceived notion. Foo Fighter was something that airmen on all sides of the war saw that they couldn’t identify. When World War II ended, interest in the Foo Fighters and their origin ended and that name didn’t translate into anything that was coming in the near future.

Arnold's "Flying Saucer."

We, of course, here in the United States, started out with flying saucer, based on Ken Arnold’s description of the motion of the things he saw as opposed to their actual shape. Others thought that flying disk was a better description. I’m not really sure I understand the difference… both came to mean (please note the qualifier) alien spacecraft. That wasn’t the only definition back in 1947, it just evolved into that.

Although Ed Ruppelt is credited with creating the term, unidentified flying object, a review of the Project Blue Book (Project Sign and Project Grudge documents that are all a part of the Blue Book files) shows that others might have used the term or a variation of the term without really suggesting it was the definitive definition of what was being seen and reported. These records mention unidentified objects and the like without making this an official designation.

Ruppelt told us about the distinction between the terms, or as he defined the distinctions, when he was leading Blue Book. In serious matters, it was UFO or unidentified flying object, and when attempting to ridicule the whole thing it was those flying saucers, probably said with a sneer or a smirk.

There was a point during Blue Book and during the mountains of paper generated by this topic which wasn’t supposed to be important but seemed to attract a lot of attention, the acronym became UFOB, for unidentified flying object. I don’t know why they attached the “B” to it. Taking this to its ultimate

A "true" UNIFLOB

conclusion, I designated then as uniflobs, which just grabbed a bunch of the letters from unidentified flying objects and strung them together.

Coral Lorenzen was also unhappy with the connotations that calling them flying saucers created so she preferred UAO, which stood for unidentified aerial object. We can look at back issues of The A.P.R.O. Bulletin in the late 1960s to see this. For example, in the July/August 1967 issue was the headline, “UAO Struck Automobile in Ohio.” She soon tired of this, probably because it was a battle that she would never win and reverted to the conventional UFO a couple of years later.

At some point, and I don’t know what that point is, others, unhappy with UFO, created UAP, as mentioned. This has been around for a while but has never grabbed the status of UFO, probably for the same reason that Lorenzen’s UAO failed. It just didn’t seem to have the pizazz of UFO and by the time she attempted to shift to UAO, it was too late. That’s probably going to happen to UAP.

I mention all this because there are those out there now that think we need to rethink the name of these alleged alien spacecraft. Those at the Academy to the Stars have come up with their own acronym, AAV. This stands for Anomalous Aerial Vehicle. I’m not sure that it does anything other than disguise what we are talking about from those who haven’t kept up with the latest trends, which again, in the world today, is filled with the latest trends.

I will point out that this new name doesn’t suffer from all the problems of UFO but that it does assume that what we’re talking about isn’t just an object but is a vehicle. It seems to presuppose that these anomalous (unidentified) aerial (flying, but not in the same way that flying suggests an operation… it just means it’s in the sky) vehicles (which is worse than object because a vehicle suggests a manufactured ship rather than object would could be a meteor, or a cloud, or a bird) are someone’s’ craft.

This is all driven, to some extent, by an attempt to disguise what we’re really talking about. No, it’s not UFOs, it’s AAVs. Somehow this change will slip by those with open eyes and be fooled that we’re not talking about alien visitation but something of more scientific. We’re not studying UFOs, we’re studying AAVs. Is there really a difference, other than the letters in the acronym?

I just thought I would mention this history of the ever changing name and point out that UFO is probably here to stay, no matter what some of us attempt to do. If I had my way, I’d stick with uniflob, but only because it suggests that we don’t take ourselves so seriously that we can’t see the irony of changing the name as if that will change the outside perception.

Update 1:

From Chris Rutkowski (which makes this even worse):

Back in 1980, the term TOPA was suggested by a scientist as a replacement for UFO, to make it more acceptable by the scientific community.

Oddly enough, he was ignored.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980JRASC..74..168S

Zamora vs People

Last night, while appearing on Martin Willis’ Podcast UFO (see http://podcastufo.com/about/) to talk about Encounters in the Desert, I had a chance to speak with Ray Stanford. I believe Ray is the last surviving investigator or witness who was on the site of the Socorro UFO landing in the days that

Martin Willis

followed. He provided some interesting insight to what he had seen and done but there was one point that he made, which is that Lonnie Zamora had never used the word “people” to refer to the figures he had seen near the landed craft.

I did know, based on my research, that FBI agent Arthur Byrnes had suggested to Zamora that he might not want to mention those creatures because he might find himself the butt of jokes. UFOs in the sky were fine, and landed craft were okay, but the actual sighting of the crew on the outside was just too hard for some to accept. This gave rise to the idea that Zamora had only seen white coveralls in the distance and had seen no real detail.

While I suggested that the official file did provide a number of words for the crew, Ray insisted that people wasn’t one of them. He objected strongly to that word, though I’m not sure why. He did say that in his discussions with Zamora, only the word “figures” had been used.

As they often say, “Let’s go to the video tape,” which, of course, doesn’t exactly apply here but we can go the documents created at the time. What do they say about this?

Coral and Jim Lorenzen had been in Socorro within 48 hours of the landing and had the opportunity to interview Zamora. In the May 1964 issue of The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, she wrote that she had asked Zamora about what he had seen. He said he hadn’t seen any “little men,” which is not the word people but does move us beyond “figures.”

When Lorenzen pointed out that he had already described them in the press and that description had been published, he expanded on it, saying that they looked like “young boys” or “small adults.” I will go out on a limb here and point out that the quotation marks are used in that article suggesting that they are the words of Zamora. Still not people, but moving us even closer.

In the Project Blue Book files there are various reports written by a number of men. In one of those documents, dated May 13, 1964, written just over two weeks after the event, it says, “At this point he saw two people in white coveralls…” That moves us directly to the use of the word. The document was written by Colonel Eric T. de Jonckheere. His name surfaces in a number of reports of UFOs besides the one in Socorro.

But the use of the term is not in quotation marks and it could be argued that de Jonckheere had interpreted what Zamora said to mean people although he hadn’t used that specific word. Fair enough.

In a report written by Major William Connor, who has been identified as the Public Information Officer at Kirtland AFB but whose job was probably a bit more significant, wrote in his report that Zamora said, “The only time I saw these two persons was when I stopped… These persons appeared normal in shape – but possible they were small adults or large kids.”

In another document, either written by Zamora, or dictated by him, he said, “Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled…”

Although it was argued that these weren’t exactly Zamora’s words, they are in quotation marks that suggest that they were. In that document, which is a partial transcript of what Zamora had told those first investigations, it seems that he did use “people” to describe the beings.

Other documents, however, seem to cloud the issue. T/Sgt David Moody, the Air Force investigator on the scene, wrote in his undated report, “…it [the craft] appeared to be a thing on four pronged legs and the two white things (described as coveralls) were no longer visible.”

This, of course, moves us away from people, but by the time Moody had arrived, Zamora had become reluctant to talk about seeing anything at all. But the newspapers were not reluctant to print stories about the landing. The Alamogordo Daily News reported that Zamora “saw two ‘men’ adjacent to it wearing white suits.”

The Albuquerque Tribune, on April 25, the day after the sighting, reported, “Moving close he [Zamora] saw two figures…”

Interestingly, the Albuquerque Journal reported on April 27, “Zamora denied that he had seen any little creatures around the object…”

Later in that same article, however, Zamora talked about seeing white coveralls near the craft. According to the article, “…whether anything was in them he did not know.”

Now we have moved from a debate about whether Zamora ever said “people” in relation to the figures he had seen to a denial that he had seen anything other than the craft and white coveralls. This, of course, reflects the confusion of the time and the suggestion by Byrnes that Zamora might be better off he said nothing about the alien beings.

The El Paso Herald-Post, reinforced the white coveralls without anything in them on April 27. According to that article, “Zamora said he also saw what looked like white coveralls but could not tell if anyone – or anything – was in them.”

Finally, the Socorro Defensor Chieftain reported that Zamora has seen two persons near the object in a gully. Given that it was the local newspaper, you would think that one of their reporters or the editor would have interviewed Zamora, but there are no direct quotes from him, though others, such as Captain Richard Holder are quoted. The only thing about the beings in quotation marks are the words, “child-like.’”

The point here, maybe unnecessarily, is that according to the documentation from 1964, within days of the sighting, Zamora had used a number of words to describe the beings he saw. One of those documents, in the Project Blue Book files, is a transcript of Zamora’s testimony and while it might not have been tape recorded, it is a transcript of his words. He said they were “people.” He also said they were “child-like,” and said they were “persons,” but he also said they were figures, and it is clear that after he talked with the government officials, he said that he had only seen “white coveralls.”

But the real point, one that is missed as we drive deep into the weeds, is that Zamora said he saw two beings, two humanoids, standing near the craft and that once they returned inside, it lifted off with a roar. We can argue about the precise words, but that only hides the real issue. Zamora was talking about something that was very strange and it frightened him badly.

You can read the full Socorro landing story and review the words of Lonnie Zamora here:

https://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Desert-Alien-Contact-Socorro/dp/1632651130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508096455&sr=8-1&keywords=encounter+in+the+desert

A Final Analysis of the Socorro Symbol

It is time to put the controversy about the symbol Lonnie Zamora saw to rest. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that Zamora saw what I have begun to call the “umbrella” symbol. I say that based on the “official” Project Blue Book files, what those investigators, the civilians that include Coral and Jim Lorenzen and Ray Stanford and even Rick Baca said in the days after the sighting and what was printed in some of the newspapers and in the APRO Bulletin.

Although I have gone over this before, I will repeat it here. In the minutes after the sighting, according to the testimony given on the night of April 24, 1964, Zamora scribbled the symbol on a scrap of paper. That scrap is in the Project Blue Book files and it was signed by Lonnie Zamora. There have been suggestions that it isn’t the original because Zamora would have drawn it on something else or that it was inserted into the file later. The only truth we have here is that the scrap of paper is in the Blue Book file and that Lonnie Zamora signed it.  It is clear from the deterioration of the tape that it had been in the file for a very long time. The testimony tells us that there would be a piece of paper and there is one. There is no evidence to suggest it is anything other than what it purports to be.

Also contained in the “official” Project Blue Book files is a drawing by Zamora of the craft with the symbol on the side. It is of the umbrella symbol and once again, Zamora signed it. This too argues for the authenticity of the umbrella symbol.

There is a report in the file which seems to have been prepared by Major William Connor, who was the Public Relations Officer at Kirkland Air Force Base in Albuquerque and who escorted Hynek around New Mexico when he made his investigation in the days that followed. He is reporting on his interview with Zamora. On page three of that report, he included an illustration of the umbrella symbol.

There was a suggestion that Zamora not reveal the real nature of the symbol so that if others reported seeing a symbol it could be cross-checked without fear of contamination. Almost everyone thought this was a good idea but the fact is, the symbol was revealed within a couple of months when the Lorenzens published it in the pages of the May issue of their APRO Bulletin. The symbol they published was the umbrella symbol. To be fair, they also had a different symbol in that same issue, though it vaguely resembles the umbrella symbol.

There is another source for the umbrella symbol. Ricky Baca, a teenager in 1964, drew the craft along with the umbrella symbol on it within two weeks of the sighting. It was ordered by the city attorney whose legal secretary was Baca’s father. The thinking was that a youngster such as Baca would be free of any bias that would influence his illustration. Baca and Zamora sat in the city attorney’s office for two hours working on the sketch. Baca took the job seriously and altered the sketch and the elements in it according to Zamora’s instructions. It was later published in the Socorro newspaper but the symbol had been “whited out” on instructions by Hynek, according to one source. However, Baca retained the sketch and a picture of him holding it many years later was published in the Socorro newspaper and the umbrella symbol is clearly visible on it.

Finally, as I have noted, in a letter to Dick Hall, Ray Stanford himself confirmed that the umbrella symbol was the correct one. Stanford included, in his letter to Hall, a sketch of the “fake” symbol, which at that time, just days after he returned from Socorro, was the inverted “V” with the three lines through it.

This inverted “V” symbol was the first published by the national media. In a newspaper story on April 30, that symbol is shown. If, as has been documented by not only the Lorenzens, but also Captain Richard Holder, that the real symbol had been withheld, then how did the newspapers obtain it only days after the sighting. There is nothing in the official files to suggest that this symbol is the correct one.

Dr. J. Allen Hynek, in a handwritten letter on September 7, included an illustration of the symbol. While it is of an inverted “V” and it does contain three horizontal lines, it does not actually resemble the symbol as suggested by others. There is a line above the apex of the “V” and two lines between the legs but that do not touch them. To the discerning eye, it can’t really be called a match.

The best evidence for this symbol seems to be two pieces of paper found in the files that had been retained by former Blue Book officer, Carmon Marano. The story of these files was explored in my interview with him on November 2 and can been accessed on YouTube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyz0ZAvhv7g

This information was not part of the official Socorro file and they don’t seem to have been filed with that information. In other words, as David Rudiak tells us about other information from that same source, we don’t know who drew them, who made the notes or when those notes were written. Rudiak suggested that given the wording, which is close to that from the newspaper articles, someone might have been jotting down this information from that source. It might not be based on testimony from those directly involved, but part of the deception of the faked symbol.

Ray Stanford also suggests that Mike Martinez, who was a police dispatcher, said, in Spanish in a recorded interview, that the inverted “V” with the three lines was the correct one. That interview, recorded in the police station, is difficult to understand because of the background noise. I guess the question here is if Martinez was sticking to the script of not revealing the real symbol or if he thought he knew what it was.

As I review all the documentation, all the testimony that is available, everything that was in Carmon Marano’s copy of the Blue Book file, the obvious conclusion is that the umbrella symbol is the correct one. There is nothing in the file to suggest that those signed by Zamora were faked, it is clear that those who spoke to Zamora in the hours after the event all were told of the umbrella symbol, Zamora himself said that he had drawn the symbol on a scrap of paper and that scrap is in the file showing the umbrella symbol and there is nothing in the official file other than Hynek’s loose interpretation of the inverted “V” to suggest otherwise. Given all this, I say that the correct symbol is the umbrella symbol… let the arguments flow.

The Socorro Symbol - Resolved?

For the last several weeks I have been looking into the symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw on the side of the object he reported. (Note to all: I am not suggesting anything other than Zamora saw an object with a symbol on it. I am not drawing any conclusions about that object’s origin). During the research, I have found a variety of documents, I have received assistance from a variety of investigators in a variety of locations, and I have been able to draw some pretty specific conclusions.

For those interested, I have found about a dozen different designs, four of them in the Project Blue Book files. The controversy seemed to arise when Captain Richard Holder (who lived in Socorro), assigned as the up range commander at the White Sands Missile Range, which is not all that far from Socorro, asked Zamora and others not to reveal the true symbol. His thinking was, and it seems that Jim and Coral Lorenzen of APRO felt the same way, that this could help eliminate hoaxers and confabulators from the witness pool. Oddly, in their APRO Bulletin of May 1964, they print illustrations of the craft with an insignia on the side. If you look carefully, you’ll see that the symbol in one of the illustrations differs from that in the other.

The first of the symbols from the APRO Bulletin.

The second of the symbols from the APRO Bulletin.

Within days of the sighting, on April 30, 1964, San Antonio Express among other newspapers, complicated the matter in a report that said, “Witnesses to the craft seen by Zamora said it was marked with a red inverted V with a line or several lines horizontally through the V.”  

An Associated Press Story, also on April 30 suggested that Hynek was one of those witnesses. They reported, “The scientist [Hynek] also discussed the markings that Zamora said he saw on the side of the object, a red, inverted V with bars through it.”

Ray Stanford reported that he had recorded on tape, a conversation with Socorro police dispatcher Mike Martinez telling him that Zamora described the design as "...un 'V' invertido, con tres líneas debajo," meaning "an inverted 'V' with three lines beneath it". I don’t have an indication of when that recording was made, but it would seem to confirm that the inverted “V” with the three lines is the correct symbol. Note I said “would seem.”

Hynek's inverted "V."

This does nothing to answer the question. Both symbols, or variations of them, were reported in the days that followed Zamora’s sighting. But there is one that appeared in the Blue Book file on the case that might give a hint. Although Hynek, in a letter dated September 7, 1964, drew a symbol that was an inverted “V”, he placed one of the lines above the apex of the “V” and two short lines that did not touch the sides inside the legs of the “V.” Ray Stanford, when he found the letter at the National Archives (in what had to be the Blue Book files) believed that it corroborated the inverted “V” with the three lines through it. I don’t believe it does.

Instead, I look at the symbol that Zamora signed. This is the inverted “V” with the “umbrella” over it, and a perpendicular line into the apex of the “V” and a line under that. Zamora signed this drawing, which to me, suggests that it is the correct symbol. None of the other competing illustrations in the file were signed by Zamora, though there are other representations of something like it.

But there are other documents in the file and these, I believe, give the nod to what I think of as the umbrella symbol. First, is one on a scrap of paper and the notation on the paper suggests that it was drawn within five minutes of the

The first drawing made by Zamora.

sighting, whenever that it might have been, and is the correct one. This tiny scrap of paper, also in the Blue Book file, is also signed by Zamora.

Finally, there is an undated, unsigned report in the file but it seems that it was written weeks or months after the sighting. I base this on the comments section that mentions other sightings after the fact and the analysis of some of the soil samples that had been gathered. This document also shows the “umbrella” symbol, which reinforces the idea that it is the correct one.

The "umbrella" symbol from the undated report in the Blue Book file.

Here’s my thinking on this. I can see no reason why a false symbol would be included in the file without a notation that it is a false symbol. Hynek’s illustration, drawn months after the sighting looks more like he was recreating a symbol that he had been told about rather than he was drawing the real thing. Besides, he never saw it himself and because of that, and because it was months later, no one bothered to mention a thing about it.

I will note that I have, in my possession, a copy of a handwritten letter by Ray Stanford dated May 3, 1964, in which he wrote, “I advise not letting out the real (as told in the tape by Mike Martinez) description of symbol on UFO, as if person(s) claim UFO ‘contact’ with an “A” or “A” (here he drew the one with the three bars through it) on side we can suspect a hoax.” (Or, in other words, he is contradicting himself when he now claims that the inverted “V” with the three lines is the real one.) 

Stanford's May 3, 1964 letter to Richard Hall.

With the symbol signed by Zamora, we have, not only the one reported to have been drawn within minutes of the departure of the craft, but another, apparently created within hours, while the very first investigators were on the scene. It would seem to me that two signed symbols in the file outweigh the contradicted inverted “V” with the three lines. It would seem to me that the correct symbol is the one we thought it was all along.

Did Lonnie Zamora See Alien Creatures?

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

Socorro, New Mexico. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a way to resolve this?

Certainly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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