Sgt. Lonnie Zamora, yeah, I know again lol. A question.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
This Man passed without any retraction on his original story. I want to ask what people think he experienced. Do you think maybe it truly was a hoax perpetrated by college students as was reported here some time back? Maybe a flight by the Lunar Lander that has been speculated on? Curious for your views as I find myself still intrigued by his story all these years later.
Thanks,
Vance

[edit on 12-6-2009 by vance]




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vance
 


I believe Lonnie [not Ronnie] Zamora's story. The college prank story is disinfo.

copycateffect.blogspot.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Thansk for the correction on the name Whaaa.
I believe Lonnie as well, I however don't know what it is he saw or experienced. Do you have some ideas?

Thanks,
Vance



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Try google and yahoo for a video.
They should include at least:
He saw a landing and takeoff.
Two crew were outside at one point.
The takeoff wind knocked Lonnie Zamora's hat off.
Just a few notable events.
Some great detail of the event re creation was in the series with
Robert Stack.
A great video to put in a post.
If you want extra points and a star.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vance
I believe Lonnie as well, I however don't know what it is he saw or experienced. Do you have some ideas?


I believe Lonnie also.

In fact one of the things that seems to make this case somewhat unique is that nobody seems to question his honesty and sincerity, so I think it's accepted that he witnessed something unusual.

The hoax theory is quite plausible but it's by no means proven. But when they asked Lonnie "what did you see?" and he says "It looked like a balloon", you have to consider the possibility that it was just as he said it looked like, a balloon as the hoax theory claims. And the history of hoaxing at the local school is legendary, so that adds more credibility.

The guy who broke that hoax story, Tony Braglia says he's going to see if he can find the original hoaxers and get them to come forward, but until that happens we have to say it's not proven.

I don't know why someone would say the hoax story is disinfo, as Braglia is not a disinfo kind of guy, he's an enthusiast. He's just telling it like he sees it, right or wrong.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Looked like a balloon as in oval craft.
No need for a force full wind in take off for a balloon.
A balloon just lifts off.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
I believe Lonnie [not Ronnie] Zamora's story. The college prank story is disinfo.

copycateffect.blogspot.com...


Brother Whaaa - I think you're right about that.


Theres some very interesting reading in this Lonnie Zamora Eulogy -particularly page two which goes into detail about the symbols he witnessed:

LONNIE ZAMORA (1933 - 2009)

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by whaaa
I believe Lonnie [not Ronnie] Zamora's story. The college prank story is disinfo.

Brother Whaaa - I think you're right about that.


I agree the story about the hoax could be wrong. But why would you guys say that story is "disinfo"?

Do you think Tony Braglia is a known disinfo agent?

Is there some possible motive you're aware of that would benefit anyone in any way for promoting disinfo on this topic?

I'm open-minded to accept the possibility that it could be disinfo but you have to say more than "it's disinfo" to support your case, otherwise it sounds like you are throwing the term around loosely to apply to anyone you don't agree with, and that's not what disinfo means.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



Zamora had agreed with Holder that putting out the fake symbol would conveniently identify any copy-cat hoaxers because they would describe the fake symbol instead of the REAL one. I agree that Zamora made the right choice, in that case, because it surely set a trap for hoaxers and even for hallucinating persons.


There sure have not been any copy cat hoaxters with any of Zamora's symbols.
The only landing and take off witness.
Take a look at the Rex Heflin case video UFO Hunters episode:

At 7:02 underneath the flat saucer the dirt is kicked up as with
Lonnie Zamora.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Any one think the fake symbol is more meaningful that the real symbol.
Well any symbol might have quite a few interpretations.

Three lines through a capital A just does not do it for me.
Perhaps the handlers of the Lonnie Zamora information are
a bit tainted due to the fact the this craft must be highly classified.

How would you feel as lead dis info scribe with over bosses
telling you, on your blue tooth earphone no less now days, to make
sure even those in the know have no chance of recognizing the disclosed
information.

Back when writing was quite abbreviated and almost digital in appearance
the A was just ^, thats it. See this in "America B.C. by Barry Fell.

Now a outline of a craft with a ^ and central cylinder, as seen by
Steve Mickalack through an open saucer door, make me think the
guys that ordered the fake sort of spilled the beans or the symbols
got mixed in the process.

The A with 3 bars looks incomprehensible even to advanced
dimensional travelers. The more advanced we become the more
cross bars we have on a ^.

Ed: I'll take a chance on how it went down.
The reported symbol was not liked by the bosses.
They said do something about it.
They made the secret 'real' symbol (multi steps above the
B.C. ^) and had Lonnie sign off on the 'secret' real to
appease the boss for the scribe.
So the popular symbol make sense and holders to the dis
info must continue the hoax and can't let go.


[edit on 12/7/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Do you think Tony Braglia is a known disinfo agent?


Braglia used to be a pretty hardcore "believer", but has since flip-flopped on so many major cases, Roswell being one, the Socorro (Zamora Incident) being another among them. I don't know if he is a disinfo agent (such a strong and ambiguous accusation) but he surely has made some questionable reversals based on lax evidence in the last years in my opinion, which doesn't do a lot of great things to ones credibility.
 


As far as the Zamora incident goes I for one believe him and don't buy the prank theory, there is just way too many variables and unlikely scenarios for the college prank to have occurred in my opinion. The Socorro incident still remains one of the top cases IMHO, and unless some definitive evidence comes to light to dispute the facts of the case I do not see this one being debunked anytime soon. Here are two good threads on the incident:

  • Three of The Best UFO Trace Cases (New Bob White Evidence Included)

  • Famous Socorro landing case a hoax?



  • posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:15 AM
    link   
    The theory of the hoax is some hundreds of times weaker than the story itself:
    if we really look at facts, then all we have is one letter from Dr. Stirling Colgate, the President of New Mexico Tech which reads:


    I have a good indication of the student who engineered the hoax. Student has left. Cheers, Stirling.

    ufos.homestead.com...

    (see "update" below)

    THAT is supposed to debunk a case that Hector Quintanilla, in his conclusion of the brief ""Policeman's Report" included in "CIA publication, "Studies in

    Intelligence," wrote:

    everything that was humanly possible to verify was checked. Radiation in the landing area was checked with Geiger counters from Kirtland AFB. The
    Holloman AFB Balloon Control Center was checked for balloon activity. All
    local stations and Air Force bases were checked for release of weather balloons. Helicopter activity was checked throughout the state of New Mexico.
    Government and private aircraft were checked. The reconnaissance division in the Pentagon was checked. The White House Command Post was checked. The Commander at Holloman AFB was interviewed at length about special activities from his base. Down-range controllers at the White Sands Missile Range were interviewed. Letters were written to industrial companies engaged in lunar vehicle research activity. The companies were extremely cooperative, but to no avail. The Air Force Materials Laboratory analyzed soil samples from the landing area

    and then concluded:

    The findings were altogether negative. No other witnesses could be located.
  • There were no unidentified helicopters or aircraft in the area.
  • Radar installations at Holloman AFB and at Albuquerque observed no unusual blips; but the down-range Holloman MTI radar, closest to Socorro, had been closed down for the day at 1600 hours.
  • There was no unusual meteorological activity, no thunderstorms; the weather was windy but clear.
  • There were no markings of any sort in the area except the shallow "tracks" Chaves and Zamora found.
  • The soil analysis disclosed no foreign material.
  • Radiation was normal for the "tracks" and surrounding area.
  • Laboratory analysis of the burned brush showed no chemicals that could have been propellant residue.

    www.cia.gov...

    Then, since no mundane explanation was found, here comes some ANONYMOUS student who "made the hoax", source? Uh, wait: second? third? fourth? Fifth hand party? Was he told about the hoax by the hoaxter himselve? By one of the hoaxter's friends? By a friend of a friend? By the grandma of a friend of a friend?
    And we should blindly accept it as undeniable proof, and also accept the fact that he fooled US Air Force and a lot of other professional investigators:
    sounds a little bit POOR as some debunking, doesn't it?
    Without any PROOF corroborating the hoax theory, the hoax theory can be labeled as BS, with all the due respect for the investigator who, despite he claimed to "don't be happy to report the results of his investigation" tried hardly, or, better, DESPERATELY to debunk this case at every cost.
    And by proof i mean PROOF, like some series of photos of them making up the hoax, not just some dude "coming clean" and claiming to be the author of the hoax. Ah, no wait: there's an important update:
    another email exchange with Colgate, 45 years after:

    - To the question, "Do you still know this to be a hoax? His reply was simple: "Yes."
    - When asked, "Today, decades later, can you expand on what you wrote to Pauling about the event?" He wrote: "I will ask a friend, but he and other students did not want their cover blown."
    - He offered that the hoax, "was a no-brainer."
    - When asked "Specifically how did they do it?" He just answered, "Will ask."
    - When queried, "Have you ever publicly commented on this?" he replied "Of course not."

    Now this has to be the ultimate proof that puts the case to rest, rrrrrright?


    Seriously, the case is just unexplained, both professional and official investigations ruled out any possible mundane investigations and even to CIA it was secretely (at the time) reported that he saw something out of the ordinary: these are the facts, the rest is blah blah blah. And blah blah. And blah. And claims. And guesses. And theories. And "i will ask".
    Just my two €. cents.



  • posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:34 AM
    link   
    Jim Marrs, in his book Alien Agenda, noted Philip Klass' claim of it being a hoax because the UFO happened to land on property belonging to Socorro's mayor at the time, who supposedly wanted to make the spot a tourist attraction.

    However, I don't think Klass is a real reliable source.



    posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:01 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by DarthChrisious
    Jim Marrs, in his book Alien Agenda, noted Philip Klass' claim of it being a hoax because the UFO happened to land on property belonging to Socorro's mayor at the time, who supposedly wanted to make the spot a tourist attraction.

    However, I don't think Klass is a real reliable source.



    True.
    Unfortunately (for him), according to the local newspaper "El Defensor Chieftain", the then Major, Holm Bursum, had never owned the property in question, which was

    part of the estate of Delia Harris in 1964: 1968, the land was bought by the

    Richardson family and they apparently still own it.


    Originally published in El Defensor Chieftain newspaper, Saturday, August 2, 2008
    By Paul Harden, na5n@zianet.com
    For El Defensor Chieftain

    Debunkers claim the entire affair was a hoax, based on the fact that the landing occurred on land owned by Holm Bursum, Jr., the mayor of Socorro at the time.
    This is untrue.
    In 1964, the property where the landing occurred was owned by the Delia Harris estate. In 1968, the parcel was purchased by the Richardson family,
    who still owns the property and the previous deed documents. Holm Bursum never owned this parcel of land.

    More informations here:
    www.caminorealheritage.org...
    (.pdf file)

    Moreover, it was Philip Klass' second attempt to debunk the case, after his first attempt (misidentified ball lightning) was debunked itself by (amongs other specialists) atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald.

    Let's say that Klass' role regarding this story has ended in an epic fail.
    Well, at least he gave up before trying to play the "swamp gas" card.



    posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:48 AM
    link   
    An insignificant detail:

    Lonnie's hat was blown past his car in the reconstruction
    on Unsolved Mysteries and Lonnie has the appearance of wind
    in his face.

    What if there was an attractive force.
    An upward force on the craft that weighs thousands of pounds
    would draw in forces.

    Such details might not ever been noted.



    posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:15 PM
    link   
    Well,
    That is all well and good. What I was hoping to illicit from ATS members was what they think he actually experienced. I really can't even imagine what happened that day myself. I do however, believe that something happened.
    Thanks,
    Vance



    posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:21 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by jkrog08
    reply to post by Arbitrageur
     


    Do you think Tony Braglia is a known disinfo agent?


    Braglia .... has made some questionable reversals based on lax evidence in the last years in my opinion, which doesn't do a lot of great things to ones credibility.
     


    Even Braglia admits the hoax theory isn't proven, which I suspect is why he was trying to chase down the perpetrators to get them to come forward. I think he knows if he can't do that, it's not proven, just speculation like any other explanation.

    As for someone who flip-flops, I'd say while discovering correspondence between a college president and Linus Pauling falls far short of proof, it is new evidence which is subject to interpretation.

    As John Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

    That correspondence taking place appears to be a fact as does the interview with the college president. I don't see how his accepting that evidence affects his credibility, but it might affect your opinion of his judgment if you think he's giving that evidence more weight than it deserves when he presents his speculation on how the incident may have been hoaxed.



    posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:00 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Arbitrageur
     


    It just isn't this one case from Braglia, he has showed such careless and obvious ambiguous force fitting attempts at debunking ever since he did "flip-flop" some years ago. As I said, I don't know what his issue is, it is probably like so many other aging and/or fatigued ufologist who get fed up with the lack of anything major and irrefutable happening so they kind of seem to go into some spiral downward, maybe because they are angry or frustrated (probably both
    ) and thus start trying anything they can to get some answer or closure, no matter how ludicrous it might be, as is very obvious in his "investigation" of the Socorro case IMHO.

    As internos stated, his explanation and postulate of the hoax theory is so ridiculous and unlikely it needs to be disregarded unless some documents can come forth proving something. But I am pretty sure they won't, because it WAS NOT a hoax in my humble opinion. This is a clear cut example of a "force fit" debunk, and a very, VERY poor one at that. There is plenty of evidence, as internos mentioned about the very extensive, multi-governmental investigation. Here is some of the findings:

    The Socorro UFO Landing
    - Date and Location: April 24th, 1964 Socorro, New Mexico
    - Witness: Officer Lonnie Zamora


    Image courtesy of science.howstuffworks.com

    This is one of the top cases in Ufology and also has the primary witness being a police officer. This report is also in the USAF Project Bluebook. Here is a brief report on what happened that day.


    The witness in the Socorro case is a well-respected policeman, Lonnie Zamora, who claimed in the report he filed (included in Project Blue Book, Brad Steiger, Ed., 1976) that he saw a flame in the sky, "bluish and sort of orange too...sort of motionless flame, slowly descending narrower at top than at bottom...Sun was to west and did not help vision. Had green sunglasses over prescription glasses. Could not see bottom of flame because it was behind the hill....noise was a roar, not a blast..." The policeman drove around the area trying to see the flame again, and said he suddenly came across "a shiny type object ... oval in shape. It was smooth - no windows or doors. ... seemed like O in shape and I at first glance took it to be overturned car."

    He also described "two people in white coveralls...two persons..." Zamora said he saw the two people at a distance of 150 to 200 yards, and that "they appeared normal in shape... but possibly they were small adults or large kids." He also noted "what appeared to be two legs of some type from the object to the ground...the two legs were at the bottom of the object, slanted outwards to the ground." Zamora then got closer to the object, got out of his car, heard a loud roar, saw a flame, ran, bumped his leg, lost his glasses, and kept on going. He saw the object fly up, and move 10 to 15 feet above the ground, and then leave the area "travelling very fast." He radioed his dispatcher to look out his window for "an object .... it looks like a balloon."

    Nearby, the bushes were still smoldering. News reports in the local paper, El Defensor Chieftain, also mentioned "an unidentified tourist" who remarked about how "aircraft flew low around here," and that the strange object was a "funny-looking helicopter, if that's what it was."
    Zamora's earnest nature and credibility, along with the physical traces, brought the Socorro "landing" to national attention. J. Allen Hynek came to town, and was very interested in the pod-like tracks and burn marks at the scene. Ray Stanford wrote a whole book about the incident, Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry. Phil Klass came to investigate. The Socorro event has appeared in numerous books and articles, and was even featured on Unsolved Mysteries.

    nmsr.org

    Summary of Physical Evidence

  • Scorch marks on ground in reported landing site.
  • Abnormal readings in surrounding plant life.
  • Indentations on ground in reported landing site.
  • Burnt brush around reported landing site.

    Here you can see two of the original photos of the site, beware they are not great quality...



    This shows the circular burn pattern...



    Image courtesy of Bluebookarchive.org:NARA-PBB94-582 and Bluebookarchive.org:NARA-PBB94-581



    So what really happened there? Is a distinguished police officer lying, or perhaps he was mistaken on what he saw? Here are some of the leading hypothesis:

    Alternate Hypotheses

    1.Propaganda hoax by the cities mayor or hoax by college physics students.

    Either one of these are highly unlikely as there is no supporting evidence for either of these scenarios. And the "new evidence" from Braglia makes this theory even worse now.

    2. Test of Apollo lander or a helicopter carrying a Lunar Surveyer.

    The lander scenario is not possible because there were no lander prototypes operational in 1964. The Lunar Surveyor is more plausible of an explanation, however after further research you can see from the range log from Holloman AFB in Alamogordo, NM the only tests of the Surveyor were conducted in the morning. Zamora’s sighting happened at 5:45 PM, although tests can be carried out ‘off schedule’ there is no evidence that this was the case on the evening of April 24th.


    Image of test log courtesy of nmsr.org

    Of course any hot air balloon is out of the realm of possibility because the maneuvers described by the witness. This case is still officially open and unresolved, but the evidence is extremely strong in favor of a UFO landing.The following is a direct quote from the investigators (as internos already specified) of Project Bluebook:


    "There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is a serious officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we. This is the best documented case on record."

    rense.com

    Here is some information on the surrounding plant life and the fused sand:

    When interviewed by McDonald, Mayes reported that she and two others had worked on studying physical evidence from the Socorro site, but she could not remember the names of the others. According to Mayes, she had examined the site the day after the event, and had gathered plant samples for analysis. Mayes later determined that the plants which had allegedly been burnt by the UFO's flames were, unusually, "completely dried out". (Druffel, 219) Mayes also found no evidence of radiation, but found "two organic substances" she was unable to identify. (Druffel, 219)
    Mayes also reported to McDonald an area of apparently "fused sand", where the sand had taken on a glassy appearance, near where the object had allegedly landed and then departed. The area of glassy sand was roughly triangular, measuring about 25 to 30 inches (760 mm) at its widest, though it gradually tapered down to about 1 inch wide; it seemed about a quarter of an inch thick. Mayes thought the glassy areas looked as if a "hot jet hit it." (Druffel, 219)

    wikipedia.org

    Picture of the researchers investigating the area, you can see some of the charred brush in the photograph.

    Image courtesy of science.howstuffworks.com

    We have a police officers testimony of seeing a UFO land and two of its occupants coming out. Then we have physical evidence left at the site in the form of burn marks and radiation type readings in the area. All the alternative theories for this case are lax at best in my opinion, and even more speculative and ridiculous now after the Braglia issue. All the facts of the case point to a STRONG probability of something extraordinary happening that afternoon. Will we ever know? Maybe, maybe not, we can only hope---either way this case remains in the top 20 of all time. Especially when you consider other VERY similar reports from across the word that day, as well the shape of the craft being described the same down to nearly EVERY DETAIL.

    As always Arbitrageur I love having these discussions with you, you are QUICKLY becoming a top contributor and an asset to ufology. To surmise what I said:

    Braglia IS giving WAY too much weight to something that he already seems shady on. He is accepting 3rd, 4th, 5th hand hear-say evidence and claiming it as debunked. THAT CANT happen. This is one of the rarer cases where the UFO explanation seems about 95% more likely than anything else.

    I always enjoy our discussions my friend, you are quickly becoming a VALUABLE member to ufology and ATS.


    ~Justin





    [edit on 12/11/2009 by jkrog08]



  • posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:51 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by vance
    I want to ask what people think he experienced.... Curious for your views as I find myself still intrigued by his story all these years later.


    There are only a few UFO contact stories that I accept as legitimate: The Betty & Barney Hill incident is one; the Pascagoula, Mississippi incident is another; the Travis Walton incident is another; and the Lonnie Zamora incident is yet another.

    There are others, but I'm not going to discuss (debate) them, as we're only addressing the Zamora story here.

    Having read and heard and viewed a number of interviews with Officer Zamora over the decades, I found that he was one of the very few honest and earnest witnesses who still seemed genuinely baffled by his experience right up to the end. Zamora didn't try to sell us a bogus New Age philosophy, he didn't come back later and claim to be in possession of prophetic messages from extraterrestrial intelligences, he didn't try to profit from the popular exploitation of his experience.

    Rather, Zamora remained an honest and earnest fellow, a churchgoer, a character of strength and stability in his community.

    Unlike many purported UFO witnesses, he didn't sink into depression and require psychiatric care — I think many (if not most) UFO witnesses/contactees are already suffering psychological instability before their "UFO experiences." And that goes for the "gone-Hollywood-contactees" such as Whitley Streiber, in my opinion.

    But not Zamora. Lonnie was just a nice guy, an honest guy, a reliable and respectable small-town police officer who reported exactly what he saw — and I think it's regrettable that the paid professional debunkers have tried to discredit Zamora over the years with trumped-up and patently false evidence.

    — Doc Velocity



    posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:15 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by jkrog08
    I always enjoy our discussions my friend, you are quickly becoming a VALUABLE member to ufology and ATS.



    Thanks, but I don't begin to hold a candle to the brilliance of the contributions you and Internos make, just to mention two top contributors in this thread, but I enjoy the discussions too.


    Originally posted by Doc Velocity
    But not Zamora. Lonnie was just a nice guy, an honest guy, a reliable and respectable small-town police officer who reported exactly what he saw — and I think it's regrettable that the paid professional debunkers have tried to discredit Zamora over the years with trumped-up and patently false evidence.


    Just to be clear, the hoax theory put forth by Braglia doesn't attempt to discredit Zamora in any way. He in no way suggests that Zamora was anything but a victim of the speculated hoax and even though that hoax is unproven now, if it ever were to be proven, I would still consider Zamora to be an honest guy who reported exactly what he saw to the best of his ability.





    new topics
    top topics
     
    3
    <<   2 >>

    log in

    join