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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

I wasn't referring to Braglia's opinions, which are not flat-out accusations.

Rather, I referred to the flat-out accusations leveled at Zamora by the renowned skeptic Philip Klass, who accused Lonnie Zamora and Socorro mayor Holm Bursum of hoaxing the whole sighting for publicity. Klass made a series of totally unfounded claims about Zamora and Bursum, claims that amounted to little more than mean-spirited character assassination, based on no evidence whatsoever.

In 1974, for example, Klass wrote about the Zamora case in his book UFOs Explained:

"The property where the UFO reportedly landed had, prior to the incident, been next to worthless "scrub land." But now, if the site became a long-lived tourist attraction, there could be need for refreshment stands, perhaps even a motel for those who might like to spend the night near the spot where an extraterrestrial spaceship had seemingly landed. By a curious coincidence, the property where the UFO reportedly landed was owned by Mayor Bursum, officer Zamora’s boss! The mayor’s principal business? He is the town banker and as such would not be unhappy to see an influx of tourist dollars."

But Mayor Bursum never owned the property at the alleged landing site.

When Klass claimed that "thousands of tourists" had descended on Socorro immediately following the Zamora sighting, he was only off by thousands — the actual number of UFO-seekers who immediately descended on the town was no more than a few dozen, according to the local media.

It's obvious that Klass lied in his reportage in several instances regarding the Zamora case.

Both Zamora and Bursum always strongly denied Klass's preposterous attempts at "debunking" the case; and history has shown that Zamora, Bursum and the town of Socorro did not profit from the publicity surrounding the sighting.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 12/8/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Regarding Anthony Braglia's articles, I'm not at all convinced of the veracity of Dr. Colgate's claims. Colgate apparently communicated with Dr. Linus Pauling at the time of the sighting in 1964, confiding his knowledge of "a student" who was behind the hoax in Socorro — yet, Dr. Colgate did not impart any such knowledge to Dr. Hynek, the foremost government-appointed UFO investigator of the day, who was on the ground there in Socorro, gathering information for an official government report.

If Colgate was so certain of a student-perpetrated hoax, why on earth did he not convey this information to Dr. Hynek?? Compounding his remiss, Colgate then maintained an extraordinary silence on the subject for over 40 years.

I don't buy it.

Dr. Colgate's actions — and lack of action — completely discredits his own claims, as far as I'm concerned, and suggests that he himself was complicit in any such hoax, if there was a hoax.

Which is the kiss of death for Colgate's credibility.

I don't fault Braglia for reporting his story; in fact, the only thing for which I fault Braglia is announcing that the Zamora case had been exposed as a hoax, when nothing of the kind has been proven.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by vance
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

Yeah vance, pay attention to the documented evidence.
A space ship landed or a Tesla ship take your pick.
What else do you have.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

First, let me say that i always appreciate your posts, especially whenever you disagree with me: i do appreciate people using their brain and posing to themseleves and to me legitimate questions, regardless they agree or disagree with me. THIS is what a forum is supposedly made for, and the only way to grow, all together: the alternative is to get LOST.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.
Well, this is apparently true, but one should be able to foresay the consequences of his actions:

i'll try to make my point.
If one claims that a policeman, that after serious assesments coordinated by CIA has been found to be EXTREMELY RELIABLE mistook some humans as alien entities and some students' prank as something out of the ordinary, then the straight consequence is that the policeman can be considered some clown, not to mention the details of the sighting.
Is to be considered some clown nice? NO, it is not, in my humbe opinion. Whether is purpose was to just debunk the case or discredit him, that's the consequence, all in all
And anyway he failed, because we have ZERO proofs corroborating his statements. The sighting occurred, has been investigated and filed as UNEXPLAINED. This is all that we have, even according to CIA .

Braglia's claims aren't even an actual event. They are a series of speculations that have been knitted together to form a theory about how a possible hoax could have occurred.

They are paper thin speculations as well, relying on an almost mystical belief in the abilities of students pulling a prank.

I personally think Zamora was legit.

Hynek certainly seemed to think so too, and he saw more than his fair share of crap (and debunked a whole lot of things) during his Blue Book time.

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

First, let me say that i always appreciate your posts, especially whenever you disagree with me: i do appreciate people using their brain and posing to themseleves and to me legitimate questions, regardless they agree or disagree with me. THIS is what a forum is supposedly made for, and the only way to grow, all together: the alternative is to get LOST.

Likewise, your posts always make me think because they are obviously well-thought-out posts so they give me a lot to consider whether I agree with them at first or not. This is why I mentioned you and jkrog as such excellent contributors because you always make me think which is what a good discussion should do! And at the end of the day maybe the truth lies somewhere between two differing opinions.

Besides if people just posted "I agree" not only would that violate the T&C but it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion board.

In this case I think we agree on some parts but not others.

I think we agree that Braglia's hoax theory is unproven.
And I think we agree Zamora is an honest guy who reported exactly what he saw to the best of his ability.

Where we may disagree is on the plausibility of Braglia's hoax theory, as I think it's plausible and I'm not sure you do.

If Braglia's hoax theory is true, surely the students playing the prank on him see him as a clown perhaps.

But I've read Zamora's reports several times and nothing he did or said makes him look like a clown to me, even if it was a hoax. In fact, if it was a balloon, then when they asked him "what did you see?" and Zamora replied "It looked like a balloon" that would make him look like the exact opposite of a clown. Actually it would make him look pretty darn smart that he wasn't fooled by the hoax.

In fact maybe the hoax failed if it was an effort to get Zamora to conclude it was an alien spaceship, as I don't think he ever drew that conclusion. And in that respect it would prove to me that Zamora is NOT a clown, that's why I will still respect him just as much if the hoax theory is ever proven.

But for now it's unproven so I just consider it one possible explanation among other possible explanations.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
If Colgate was so certain of a student-perpetrated hoax, why on earth did he not convey this information to Dr. Hynek?? Compounding his remiss, Colgate then maintained an extraordinary silence on the subject for over 40 years.

Actually he never did come forward of his own accord. As far as I can tell it's a secret he had planned on taking to the grave, and it was only when he was confronted by the Linus Pauling letter that he reluctantly gave a few terse, non specific answers. This is exactly the kind of behavior I'd expect from someone who had been trying to keep that secret.

As for Colgate being implicated in the hoax if he didn't admit what he knew publicly, well, if he's not going to say any more than he's said so far, why would he say anything? Obviously coming out and saying "I know who did it but I'm not going to tell" would do nothing but inspire anger in others and would just get him in trouble. So yes it does implicate him in the way harboring a fugitive implicates somebody even if they weren't otherwise involved in the fugitive's crime. And given his position of responsibility, that was all the more reason to keep his mouth shut.

So I think the one proven fact in Braglia's hoax theory is that Colgate at least THINKS he knows it was a hoax and has admitted as much but only when confronted with Pauling's letter. But the quality of that fact that Colgate THINKS it was a hoax falls very short of proof since it could be 4th hand information by the time he gets it for all we know and grossly distorted, and maybe even some students claimed credit for a prank after the sighting when they heard about it but those students weren't even involved. So while there may be no basis in fact to the actual hoax, that doesn't mean Colgate is lying when he says he had information that it was a hoax, maybe he did and maybe the information was wrong. And maybe he had good reason to keep his mouth shut about it. He's still not saying much about it, he's very tight lipped.

reply to post by neformore

I personally think Zamora was legit.

But what about the officials telling us 'what happened'.
Lonnie's hat blow off away from the blast off or toward the
blastoff, as the ship rises to only a few feet off the ground,
can be critical to observation of mechanical effects.
The official report already has secret symbols.
How many more secrets in the only landing and takeoff witness report.
Re construction by Unsolved Mysteries thus has errors.

Three separate witnesses telephone in with reports of unidentified flying objects in the vicinity just before the Zamora incident.

See 31:30

a reply to: karl 12

Hey thanks for this post Karl, I am still a fan of this incident.

a reply to: vance

Hey Vance for what it's worth here's Ray Stanford's take on the incident where he also discusses separately located witnesses and other aspects like ground trace evidence.

Apparently Officer Zamora did recommend (and give a copy of) Stanford's book to his own daughter.

See 5:25

You ever looked into the Valensole case from one year later - some pretty interesting similarities.

Cheers.

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: vance

Hey Vance for what it's worth here's Ray Stanford's take on the incident where he also discusses separately located witnesses and other aspects like ground trace evidence.

Apparently Officer Zamora did recommend (and give a copy of) Stanford's book to his own daughter.

See 5:25

You ever looked into the Valensole case from one year later - some pretty interesting similarities.

Cheers.

Again thanks. Yay a new case for me! 😁

originally posted by: jkrog08


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.

I agree and believe he saw what he saw, but WHAT he saw will intrigue us forever more.

I laughed at the Project SERPO scam's attempt to weave Zamora into its 'alien exchange program' saga, claiming he witnessed an advance military scout ship that had cocked up its landing coordinates.

Nice try, Mr Doty, but no dice.



(This remains a Top Five case for me, alongside the Kaikoura Lights (1978), the Robert Taylor 'assault' (1979), Betty and Barney Hill (1961) and Travis Walton (1975) - the last two being potential candidates for sinister military interventions; the sheer scale of Walton's story is impressive despite various suspicious/coincidental aspects, but the man himself remains impressively resolute and consistent.)

It's a compelling case, but I've always kind of wondered about the whole "blue rocket flame" takeoff he described. There are things that can look shiny and egg-shaped out in the desert. Blue flame? Propane?

a reply to: Blue Shift

For those interested, Kevin Randle has blogged about various aspects of the case several times with ongoing discussion in the comments section. Google search - zamora site:kevinrandle.blogspot.com

While intriguing, I dont really see it as a UFO case, the whole story is just too low tech. Especially in regards to propulsion.

Levelland (electrical interference) or Westall(anti-gravity) seem more in the UFO category.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: Blue Shift

While intriguing, I dont really see it as a UFO case, the whole story is just too low tech. Especially in regards to propulsion.

That was my first impression as well. Until I realized that the ‘flame’ was only visible when the object rose vertically. After that, the flame was no longer visible and the egg-shaped, wingless object was noiseless while it traveled very fast against the wind.

The ‘flame’ has the characteristics of a plasma discharge:
1 It was blue like a welder’s torch, turning to orange or yellow at the ends.
2 It was difficult to describe.
3 Laboratory analysis of the burned brush showed no chemicals which would indicate a type of propellant.
4 The grass and the bushes were seared locally, with portions right next to a seared portion quite untouched.

Hynek remarks in one of his letters (he was still in his skeptical phase back then):

”No doubt was left in my mind but that NICAP and APRO, and possibly others, would consider this the best authenticated landing sighting on record. […]
They will probably say that the burns are ‘plasma burns’ which can scorch locally, I understand.”

At 1:15 in the video below you get an impression of what he means by ‘scorching locally’. The video compares three different lighters, one of them being a plasma lighter:


Sgt Chavez arrived at the point where Sgt Zamora was parked about three minutes after the object had disappeared. There he proceeded to where Zamora has sighted the object. Smoke appeared to be coming from a bush which was burned but no flame or coals were visible. Sgt Chavez broke a limb from the bush and it was cold to the touch. The grass and the bushes were seared locally, with portions right next to a seared portion quite untouched.

a reply to: Guest101

Great post , I will give it another look. Personally Im on the believer side of things anyway.

a reply to: Guest101

Thanks for the additional information, nice post.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Good video here mate - Timmerman also speculates about Hynek's response to USAF debunking efforts.

Researchers Ben Moss and Tony Angiola discuss the symbol witnessed on the Socorro object, physical trace evidence and other UFO witnesses in the area - also the (rather dubious) hoax theory.