Mystery Object Called Inter-Planetary Craft

Mornin' Forumerions,

51 years and one day ago, an "egg shaped object" landed in Levelland Texas . . . could this be the same craft Lonnie Zamora saw in Socorro, New Mexico 7 years later:

A man who has spent 20 years studying aerial phenomenon said today a mysterious object seen in West Texas and New Mexico was a spacecraft from one of the neighboring planets.

The rest of the story . . .

Cheers,
Frank

Maybe they needed to rest their wings for a second? Or a smoke break?

Wish we could know more, individually, though. I don't care if these dudes want to eat me or harvest me or be my buddy, I wanna meet them in the flesh. How much info do they need from us? All these abduction reports...seem to be enough to figure out whatever they needed to know already - even if it's tons of different civilizations coming to have a look see.

Thanks for posting this, good sir. S/F

reply to post by Frank Warren


Thank you for sharing that story. Many people forget to realize that Lonnie Zamora saw an egg shaped object.

Afternoon KF!

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

Thank you for sharing that story. Many people forget to realize that Lonnie Zamora saw an egg shaped object.

Actually, there have been a few "Egg-Shaped" UFO sightings; however, this one, like Lonnie's was up close and personal.

Additionally, I found the car engines "shutting off" most interesting.

Sadly Lonnie's health is failing, and he doesn't like to be bothered re his sighting . . .

Cheers,
Frank

sorry the first thing i could think of was this uk.youtube.com...

an intresting story, thanks for sharing.

Mornin' LF,

Originally posted by lifeform
sorry the first thing i could think of was this uk.youtube.com...

an intresting story, thanks for sharing.

A fine documentary . . . :>))

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Frank Warren

Good revist.
The thing i would like to menton is the fact that the craft used "thruster" type engine to take off. This leads me to believe also that the craft is a shuttle and not a intersteler craft. I would venture a guess that it came from the Moon but a Mother Ship is also possible.
Also the engine quiting on the car indicates a stong EM feild pressent to be able to disrupp the coil of the car for there was not elecronic ignition in that car at that time. That would led me to believe that there is anouther type of engine on the craft that uses electricity some way.

Regards,
Kitos.

Going off on a tangent here...

I remember a few weeks prior to that GFL hoax date me & two of my friends witnessed a light take off into the sky similar to that description.

We were out skateboarding at the local park, catching some R & R time, it was getting dark we decided to take a break. Staring up at the sky we noticed a light of which looked to be star, just that it was getting increasingly brighter (Possibly due to the direction the craft was traveling) when it suddenly shifted its pattern shooting straight up into the air, where it then turned red and disappeared, we took some time to ponder what we just witnessed, we figured it turned red due to exiting the atmosphere, we don't believe it had any characteristics of a plane, just one solid light, no red or blue flashers, and an odd flight pattern...

Evenin' Kitos,

Originally posted by kitos
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

Good revist.
The thing i would like to menton is the fact that the craft used "thruster" type engine to take off. This leads me to believe also that the craft is a shuttle and not a intersteler craft. I would venture a guess that it came from the Moon but a Mother Ship is also possible.
Also the engine quiting on the car indicates a stong EM feild pressent to be able to disrupp the coil of the car for there was not elecronic ignition in that car at that time. That would led me to believe that there is anouther type of engine on the craft that uses electricity some way.

Regards,
Kitos.

Thanks for the kudos; however, the article states, "the object suddenly took off with a roar"' I would argue that making the statement that the UFO had a "thruster type engine" categorically speaking, is getting a little ahead of yourself (to be polite). Moreover, determining the "type of craft," and or its "origin" based on anecdotal evidence from a newspaper article is equally a stretch.

As far as an "EM field" is concerned: based on the article, one could say that "one possibility" is that an EM field "may" have present, which "may" have affected the electrical system of the vehicle.

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by SolarSeaman

I wanna meet them in the flesh.

You're so sure they have flesh like you and I?

OP- Here are more articles on the Levelland Texas UFO sightings.

ufos.about.com
ufoevidence.org
wikipedia

Copy that Frank.
If i remeber correctly the craft took off with a roar, not a common description of you typical soundless ufo. Also the ground was "burnt" at the point of touchdown, so it lends creadance to a fule type engine that produces noise and heat, so buy the size alone of the craft there would have to be room for fule.
I am not an expert by anymeans but there is calcualtions for thrust based on wheight to fule ratio.
The size of this craft at that time does not match anything that nasa was showing the puplic.
So maybe the craft does not have enough power to break earths gravity.
Food for thought.
Cheers,
Kitos

reply to post by kitos


Where in the Levelland Texas incident does anyone say anything but a roar? Perhaps they didn't mean it literally. Lot's of UFOs leave "burn" like imprints on the ground. This can be caused by high amounts of radiation, not necessarily chemical combustion.

Also, why would NASA or any agency fly around Texas and land in the middle of roads causing vehicles to stall and people to panic? A governments first and highest priority is to gain the confidence of people.

Judging by the reports there was more than one craft that night. The 200 foot long craft seems like the larger vessel- perhaps a "mothership" for the smaller 20 ft egg-shaped objects.

Of course the craft can break earth's gravity. Have you ever watched a rocket (like Apollo) take off? That's 6-9 g's of acceleration force. Judging by UFO reports they are in the realm of 100+ g's.

This 1957 event is one of the best cases for ET ever to come out. Humans don't manufacture vehicles like that (now or in 1957), and they certainly don't fly them around and land on roads impeding traffic.

Can I show you the fire? No. But where there's smoke there's fire.

Evenin' Kitos,

Originally posted by kitos
Copy that Frank.
If i remeber correctly the craft took off with a roar, not a common description of you typical soundless ufo. Also the ground was "burnt" at the point of touchdown, so it lends creadance to a fule type engine that produces noise and heat, so buy the size alone of the craft there would have to be room for fule.

The article does in fact mention a "roar" as recounted by one of the witnesses; however, to the best of my knowledge, there is "no mention" of the ground being "burnt." Previously you wrote:

"the fact that the craft used "thruster" type engine to take off."

My point was/is there isn't enough evidence to make that statement emphatically.

I am not an expert by anymeans but there is calcualtions for thrust based on wheight to fule ratio.

Those calculations are superfluous since there isn't enough "known data" to prove the hypothesis of a chemical engine.

The size of this craft at that time does not match anything that nasa was showing the puplic.
So maybe the craft does not have enough power to break earths gravity.
Food for thought.
Cheers,
Kitos

Food for thought yes, but purely speculatory (and in the words of Jerry Seinfeld--there's nothing wrong with that).

Cheers,
Frank

Sorry all, disregard my post, i am on the wrong "ufo"
Cheers,
Kitos.

reply to post by kitos

Sorry all,

Don't be.

Check out those links I provided. Unless there was a mass hallucination with physical effects (electrical systems dying), then this case is a slam dunk. Even if one witness reported a "roar," I don't think anyone else did. When you see an object move that fast it is human nature to expect a roar. Perhaps in their astonished psychological state they interpreted a noise as louder than it truly was? Just a thought..

Mornin' SJ,

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by kitos

 

Sorry all,

Don't be.

Check out those links I provided. Unless there was a mass hallucination with physical effects (electrical systems dying), then this case is a slam dunk. Even if one witness reported a "roar," I don't think anyone else did. When you see an object move that fast it is human nature to expect a roar. Perhaps in their astonished psychological state they interpreted a noise as louder than it truly was? Just a thought..

In checking "other" reports, there were in fact additional witnesses who "heard a roar." However, since we're ignorant to UFO propulsion systems, this doesn't "prove" anything definitively.

Cheers,
Frank

hmmm...


this is in my neck of the woods. I live about 1.5 hours away from Levelland, and have travelled there FREQUENTLY for athletic events (both mine in high school and my kids). I never heard of this story. Thanks for sharing....i will look more into it.

reply to post by Frank Warren

In checking "other" reports, there were in fact additional witnesses who "heard a roar." However, since we're ignorant to UFO propulsion systems, this doesn't "prove" anything definitively.

hey frank,
Well I guess what I was getting at is what percentage of the reports heard roar vs didn't hear roar. You know? Pure math is the only way to sort it now I supose.

One more thing. Even though we're ignorant to UFO propulsion, we do have access to a dataset which points to "silence/lownoise" as an attribute.

-SJ76

wow another sighting report among millions...this really proves beyond a doubt that ET's have visited us! not!!

i think the most likely explanation is the government has had awsome technology for many years however in the fear of losing it to other countries has kept it all under wraps which is a perfectly rational thing to assume

also on top of this it is also rational to assume that everything that people have seen over the year's is just the governments ships doing god knows what

SJ,

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

In checking "other" reports, there were in fact additional witnesses who "heard a roar." However, since we're ignorant to UFO propulsion systems, this doesn't "prove" anything definitively.

hey frank,
Well I guess what I was getting at is what percentage of the reports heard roar vs didn't hear roar. You know? Pure math is the only way to sort it now I supose.

One more thing. Even though we're ignorant to UFO propulsion, we do have access to a dataset which points to "silence/lownoise" as an attribute.

-SJ76

There is certainly ample evidence in support of a "silent means of propulsion" in regards to UFOs; my point however, is just because there is/was a roar associated to this particular incident, it doesn't automatically make it a "conventional craft." But that doesn't make it a "slam dunk" either. For the lack of "additional data" it remains a "true UFO."

Cheers,
Frank