It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by fls13
That is you simply rewriting the event to fit your belief system, completely ignorant of the actual data. You are cherry picking the bits that fit your hypothesis and totally disregarding the parts that are difficult for you. In other words doing exactly what the most *batty* of believers do.
You can't have it both ways. If you are accepting anecdotal evidence then you have to explain all the other anecdotal evidence that, at first sight, seems to back Zamora's account.
Typical magicians trick? Scuse me but care to show me the famous... UFO trick where it travels 6 miles in less than a minute?
Originally posted by neformore
Lightweight cardboard legs that made impressions equivalent to 4 tons of pressure?
And what happened to the gear that did that, exactly? How was it removed without Zamora hearing, or seeing it, given that he didn't leave the scene? He would also have seen the tether line in order for the object to rise vertically, because an immediate release would have sent the object moving straightaway (try letting a balloon go in the wind, it doesn't stop, hover and then move off, its moving from when its let go, any lighter than air untethered object will do the same.)
I notice though that you didn't answer the point about the flame. Please explain that one. Light blue cone, orange at the bottom, blowing downwards.
Originally posted by fls13
Para 1: You're assuming that the landing legs left those impressions. They didn't.
Don't you like magic tricks?
Para 3-Who cares, some pyrotechnics of some sort, a less than minor detail.
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by fls13
As I recall, she tracked down some Techies of that era and talked to them and also found out that a rear projection device had been removed/borrowed/checked-out etc. from some place on campus.
That exactly what you are doing. The only hint at how it was perpetrated seems to be claiming, there was no physical object at all but it was a back projection. So, you have not only made up your own scenario but ignored the very evidence offered by your own source.. Just how many ways do you want it?
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by fls13
Read your own source, that the only explanation that is even hinted at. No models, nothing, just a back projector
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by fls13
Read your own source, that the only explanation that is even hinted at. No models, nothing, just a back projector
the pranksters may have incorporated 1) a large helium balloon resting on the desert floor to appear "landed" and then released up into the air on cue. Perhaps it was a reflective white colored balloon or a balloon fitted over with glossy-white craft paper- with added "landing struts" and a red insignia drawn on its side 2) "roaring" or "whining" explosives, pyrotechnics, model rockets, thrown flares or a flame device 3) smaller students dressed in white lab coats acting as the "aliens" and 4) the digging out of "landing depressions" and burning of nearby bushes. Soil or rock in the area may have been "salted" with silicon or trinitite from the school's Geology Lab.
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Arbitrageur
So we are agreed? There isn't a single shred of actual evidence from anyone who actually was part of the hoax to be looked at?
So why are we discussing it like it's real?
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Arbitrageur
So we are agreed? There isn't a single shred of actual evidence from anyone who actually was part of the hoax to be looked at?
So why are we discussing it like it's real?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This is still a pretty fresh revelation, so I'm going to give the students some time and see if they come forward. If they don't the hoax remains unproven in my book.
All we need now is some proof from the (ex) students.
Originally posted by fls13
More people going on record. It's only a matter of time.
In a future article I hope to conclusively identify the white clad students who walked the arroyos outside Soccoro in 1964 - fooling a town, a nation and the world for decades.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's getting more interesting! It strikes me that Anthony Bragalia has no axe to grind against UFOlogy, he's just calling it as he sees it from his research.
Originally posted by fls13
I can personally vouch for that. Some of the conjecture I've seen tossed about regarding any motivation, other than finding the truth, on Anthony's part is completely irresponsible.