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.

 

Famous Socorro landing case a hoax?

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

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?


I'm not rewriting anything, I'm sticking strictly to what Zamora said in detail and looking at area where the sighting took place.

Listen to what you and some other prank nay-sayers are in effect saying.

Zamora saw a vehicle and two people. Both left the area so the people must have gotten aboard the vehicle. Zamora never said that he saw people get aboard the vehicle.

Zamora saw legs on the craft and the vehicle left so the legs must have retracted into the vehicle. You're saying that, Zamora never saw legs retract into the vehicle and he never describes a speed of 6 miles in a minute as you're claiming now or 2000+ mph, or 33+ mpm, as you claimed earlier.

When the officer asked Zamora "What does it look like?" Zamora responded, "It looks like a balloon."




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

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.


Para 1: You're assuming that the landing legs left those impressions. They didn't.

Para 2: Zamora was never closer than 500 feet from the vehicle. As I've stated before, when you look at the terrain, the ground behind the site slopes down and away from Zamora. It's as simple as taking what you want with you, leaving what you want found behind and going down the hill getting into the getaway car and leaving the scene. Zamora can't see what's going on in that gulley. It's the perfect location to pull off such an illusion. Don't you like magic tricks?

Para 3-Who cares, some pyrotechnics of some sort, a less than minor detail.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
It is interesting that an FBI agent was dispatched to the scene and investigated thoroughly. Nothing is mentioned about him in the hoax article. I would put more value on an experienced G-man then a professor writing that there was a possible hoax.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Also, Project Blue book sent out officers to check out the case. This is an organization dedicated to finding a down to earth answer for UFO cases. They would also have been looking for evidence of a hoax.

This same group went out of their way to give the most mediocre explanations to cases they had such as swamp gas and weather inversion.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13
Para 1: You're assuming that the landing legs left those impressions. They didn't.


OK. What did?



Don't you like magic tricks?


Oh I love em. Especially the really good ones. I really love the ones where someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat and claims "its magic" - kinda like pulling a piece of paper out with writing on it and claiming its the answer to everything, and then trying to come up with the backstory for it afterwards, y'know?




Para 3-Who cares, some pyrotechnics of some sort, a less than minor detail.


Me. I care. I've watched rockets launched, I've seen VTOL aircraft lift off at very close quarters and I've seen more fireworks and pyrotechnics than I'd care to remember, and I can tell you right now that producing the kind of shock cone described by Zamora is most certainly not easy, and that a blue flame is only produced at very high thrust levels. and not by fireworks.

And if you think thats a minor detail, then there is something wrong with how you are looking at the whole thing.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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?


It would not have taken any sort of back projection equipment to pull this off. I've made my claim as to how this prank happened and explained how every aspect of Zamora's account fits in with it, save the speed inflations of the vehicle which did not come from him.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

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


My explanation is my explanation. It's a classic magic trick. I can accurately quote Bragalia's response to my explanation: "THIS"




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

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


Firemoon my friend, I believe it is you who needs to read the source, here's what it says:


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.


No mention of a projector there right? In fact when they mention the projector, they use the word "coincidentally" which implies to me it was just a coincidence the projector was gone that day. I don't see the projector being attributed as a source to any of this aside from the fact they might imply it could have had some undefined relation to the case because it coincidentally went missing that day.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


the pranksters may have incorporated

Err no you should read it and read it properly...I surmise, although no-one ever actually had said this..

it is the classic putting words in people's mouths and it is not allowed in a court of law when giving evidence.

That fact is you, or anyone, so far doesn't have a single student who has said. 1 it was prank we did it.. 2 This is how e we did it.. All you have is people quoting 3rd or 4th hand sources and then making their own guess at how it might have been done..

The bloke on the grassy knoll might have used a soft nosed bullet that disintegrated on impact. when assassinating JFK... it's exactly the same extrapolation of what you'd like to believe from a statement that has no actual evidence to support it at all..

As i have said before . I could fill this forum with anecdotes related to me about UFOs and make any number of assumptions based on them. I don't because i don't have anything to actually back it up. Neither do you or anyone, so far to back the idea up, this was a hoax..

All you have to do is name one student involved with the hoax and then their evidence of how they did it. it's simple till then, you have zilch but speculation based on rumour from someone who claims to have spoken to someone who knew someone..



[edit on 4-10-2009 by FireMoon]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


I was trying to clarify the role the projector was claimed to play, per your suggestion the hoax was based on the projector. And in response I don't see much discussion about the projector. I wasn't commenting on any of that other stuff you mentioned about the JFK assassination, etc.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

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?


The pranksters haven't talked publicly about it, they just did it.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

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?

What I said was this:


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.


I thought I was pretty clear. Maybe if you tell me what part of that you don't understand I'll elaborate.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
More people going on record. It's only a matter of time.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13
More people going on record. It's only a matter of time.


Thanks for the update link!

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.


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.


So maybe my post above about having a little patience for the perps to be revealed will pay off, we'll see.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

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.


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.

I think he'll get this wrapped up and certainly hope he does. Ufology needs someone like him working on the truly important cases which this one certainly is not. He's proven himself to be a credible and fine researcher. Certainly not, as Paul Kimball foolishly wrote, "everything that is wrong with ufology."



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

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.


I'm impressed with him.

As jkrog08 said in another thread, instead of skeptics and believers, what we really need in the field of UFO research are truth seekers. It seems to me that Anthony fits that description well, following the truth whether it leads him to proof of UFOs in one case, or to evidence of a hoax in another case.

And he does seem to realize the hoax hasn't been proven until he IDs those guys in the suits, gets details from them, etc, so it was nice to see he's trying to ID them.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by fls13
 


Oh look, yet more uncredited hogwash from an another unknown source. Based on claims completely lacking in evidence. Having failed to make the news by offering up, someone i spoke to who interviewed someone whos dog peed up the lamppost outside the house of a bloke who did astronomy with a girl who married the bloke who delivered pizzas to a bloke who knew the man who ran the diner in which the someone swaers the hoaxers were tasting about it. We now have...

One of the pranksters was in fact a personal friend of his - That friend and the other students "didn't want their covers blown" - He would see if they would now come forward

So, having tried to sell the story an failed, we now have moved a little closer but still no name of anyone who actually did it..

Well guess what.? A personnel friend of mine who worked on black ops for a Western Government and doesn't want to be named, swears that we are being visited by craft from another civilisation that are not man made..

All i see here is someone quite deliberately trying to create a media fuss by leaking out titbits of information, just like the UFO fakers do before revealing a big fat nothing that is so shot full of holes as to be beyond laughable.
Etscorn's grad student (for a credit project to study the incident) had located a suspected hoaxer who admitted the prank but would not allow use of his name.


in this case you don;t have the right,, if you do know the name, to hold it back. Name the person of just shut the hell up about it .

This is exactly the same, but in reverse, of the plethora of asinine documentaries that advertise themselves as *That prove beyond doubt that aliens exist*. Then, when push comes to shove, the person whose testimony you really would say. "Wow if they are saying that then we really have to look at this in t a new light".. is the one person who isn't in the film but there's a hundred and one people giving anecdotal evidence they are sure they know for a fact but can;t prove it.


it is simple.. re stage the Zamora incident, exactly as you it is claimed it was done, pay Zamora what ever it takes to get him to view it and lets the world see. *SNIP*

[edit on 4-10-2009 by FireMoon]

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/10/2009 by Mirthful Me]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join