Thursday, April 16, 2009

The Socorro/Zamora Insignia by Matthew Gilleece (with Rich Reynolds)

The RRRGroup contends, as many of you know, that the 1964 Socorro. New Mexico event, witnessed by police officer Lonnie Zamora, was a Hughes Aircraft test of a lunar landing module.

New York resident Matthew Gilleece discovered a logo on a piece of equipment being sold on eBay that (very) closely resembles the insignia or symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw and drew for UFO investigators and the Air Force.

Here are Zamora’s drawings:



And here’s a common representation:


And here are images (found by Matt Gilleece) of the logo for Hughes Connecting Devices, an adjunct of Hughes Aircraft, extant in 1964:




Matt Gilleece will have a follow-up to his find, and we’ll have an updated posting about the Zamora sighting at our UFO web-site and here….

Friday, September 14, 2007

A "forensic" analysis of the April 24th, 1964 Socorro/Zamora UFO sighting


Two sites dealing with the Socorro sighting [April 24th, 1964]:

The first site – New Mexicans for Science and Reason – presents an objective overview of the Zamora sighting.

The Chris Lambert account – the second site above – is, while tending to choose the alien spacecraft scenario, provides a rather thorough account of the Socorro sighting.

However, let’s set aside the various hypotheses about what Zamora saw, even our own (which appear elsewhere), and look at some details that Zamora and his report show but have been ignored or overlooked by UFO researchers.

Zamora, in his own words (see previous post here), notes that he was wearing green sunglasses over his prescription glasses.

(Even David Rudiak, whose career-profession is optometry, eschews discussing Zamora’s eyesight condition, and no one has ever addressed, as far as we can tell, what exactly Zamora’s vision deficiency was.)

The green tint of the sunglasses would affect the color and tone of the object seen by Zamora, and the flames he describes.

This skews his observation, considerably.

Later, when Zamora stumbles and loses his glasses (both the sunglasses and his prescription glasses), he describes the object’s departure, but his estimations and observation has to be affected by the loss of his necessary visual aids.

But nowhere is this significant visual loss taken into account, nor is Zamora’s exact visual deficiency. What was Zamora’s visual acuity, and what visual impairment did he suffer from?

Zamora describes a symbol or insignia on the side of the object he saw. (We, and others, deal with this elsewhere, and Dr. Leon Davidson provided an interesting interpretation in 1976 which can be found at our UFO web-site.)

Our concern here, however, is that Zamora, before he lost his glasses, describes the symbol/insignia as 2¼ by 2 inches in size.

And this is his drawing of the insignia:


This when the object was somewhere between the 200 yards, when he first spotted the object, and the distance from which he observed the object after he and gotten nearer to it and it started to lift off.

Zamora’s approach has not been delineated in feet or yards, so we can’t be precise about how far away he was from the object when it began to depart so our forensic search can only be guessed at.

For instance, if you draw the insignia with red pencil or paint, and set it only 50 feet from you – a distance much smaller than Zamora’s from the departing object we assume (or else he would have been scorched by the flames he said were spewing from it) – you can note that the insignia – all 2¼ by 2 inches of it – are barely discernable.

(Several UFO web-sites report a CIA report that states the insignia was 1 foot to 18 inches in height. Zamora’s testimony is the one that should be accepted.)

And is you add green sunglasses over prescription glasses the color of the insignia – red, according to Zamora – would be altered and detail lost because of the distance from eyes to the insignia.

Forensically, the eyeglasses and Zamora’s eyesight has to be determined, specifically, but it has never been.

The chemical make-up of the flame(s) that Zamora saw at several different times of his sighting should have been considered by investigators.

An evaluation of those chemical colors could determine what propulsion fuel the object employed.

The noise from the object – the roar and the whines that the object emitted over the duration of the sighting -- should have been scrutinized, even going so far as to having Officer Zamora compare noises made by aircraft at the various bases close to Socorro.

Drawings of the imprints left by the object and the Hynek account, among others, indicate hat four (4) impression were left at the spot where Zamora said the object rested.

But he said he saw two legs, not four. Why the discrepancy? Did the object rise up and resettle, or were there four legs not two? What does this say about Zamora’s observation (and eyesight)?

Scorch marks and burnt residue were allegedly found at the site, some reports saying “fused sand” was found, and others saying that the residue was sap.

No serious investigation of the trace material was undertaken, or if it was, it hasn’t appeared anywhere.

A forensic study would have surely gathered plants and soil/sand samples from the reported landing site. This was not done hat April 24th day, or anytime thereafter, not specifically anyway.

As you can see, deficiencies of investigation were rampant at the time of the Zamora sighting, and they remain so even to this day, with some ufologists, however, still making a blanket statement that Zamora’s sighting was and is one of the best in the flying saucer/UFO annals.

But a symbolic forensic evaluation shows that Zamora’s sighting is replete with discrepancies and anomalies that belie the UFO scenario.

And the Socorro incident is not the only UFO account so flawed.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

UFO Forensics: Socorro, April 24, 1964

Forensic ufology doesn’t solve UFO mysteries but, rather, examines UFO sightings (new and old) for subliminal or obscure aspects that might provide a clue or clues to what the enigma may be.

For instance, the April 24th Socorro/Lonnie Zamora sighting is considered by many ufologists (Jerry Clark, David Rudiak, the late J. Allen Hynek, et al.) as one of the best examples of a bona fide sighting of something not exactly normal.


But investigation of the sighting was botched from the beginning (as many UFO sightings have been) by inept scrutiny of the locale and, more importantly, Lonnie Zamora’s account, in his own words, at the time.

Here are some aspects of the Socorro episode that have been shirked, overlooked, or dismissed by UFO researchers……from Lloyd Mallan’s rendition in Science and Mechanics magazine [Volume 37, Number 12, December 1966, “The Mysterious 12” on Page 58] using quotes from Zamora’s description of what he experienced at the time:

“…I heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to the southwest, some distance away – possibly a half-mile or a mile…

Flame was bluish and sort of orange too. Could not tell size of the flame. Sort of a motionless flame, slowly descending. I was driving the car and couldn’t pay too much attention to the flame. It was a narrow type of flame. It was like a ‘stream down’ – a funnel type – narrower at the top than at the bottom. Flame was possibly three degrees in width – not wide.

Flame was about twice as wide at bottom as at top and about four times as high as top was wide. I did not notice any object at top, did not notice if top of flame was level. Sun was to the west and did not help my vision. Had on green sunglasses over my prescription glasses. Could not see bottom of flame because it was behind a hill. No smoke noted. Noted some ‘commotion’ at bottom – dust? Possibly from windy day --wind was blowing hard. Clear sunny day otherwise…

Noise I heard was a roar, not a blast, not like a jet. It changed from high frequency to low frequency and then stopped. The roar lasted possibly 10 seconds…Saw flame for about as long as I heard the sound. Flame was same color…The sound was distinctly from high to low until it disappeared. My car windows were both down…

After the roar and flame, I did not note anything while going up the somewhat steep rough hill – had to back up and try again, two more times. Got about halfway the first time…the roar was still going on…While beginning the third time…the noise and flame were not noted.

After I got to the top, I traveled slowly on the gravel road westward…

Suddenly I noted a shiny-type object to the south about 150 to 200 yards. It was off the road…It looked, at first, like a car turned upside down…Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled – seemed to quickly jump somewhat…

The object was like aluminum – it was whitish against the moss background, but not chrome. Seemed like it was oblong in shape…

The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, possibly for two seconds or so, to glance at the object. I don’t recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape – but possibly they were small adults or large kids…

Stopped my car…got out…and started to go down to where I knew the object was.

Hardly turned around from my car when I heard a roar, a very loud roar. It was not like a jet, not exactly a blast. It started at low frequency quickly, then it rose in frequency to a higher tone and rose in loudness – from loud to very loud. At the same time as I heard the roar, I saw the flame. The flame was under the object. The object was starting to go straight up – slowly up. Flame was light blue and at the bottom it was sort of an orange color. From this angle I saw what might be the side of the object (not end, as first noted). From the flame and roar, I thought it might blow up. The flame might have come from the underside of the object at its middle, possible a four foot area there – this is a very rough guess. There was no smoke, only dust in the immediate area.

The object was smooth – no windows or doors (visible). As roar started, it was still on or near the ground. I noted red lettering of some type, like an insignia, about 2¼ inches high and about two inches wide. Insignia was in the middle of object.

Noted object to rise to about level of my car, about 20 to 25 feet, I guess – and it appeared about directly over the place where it rose from.”

Mallan writes (and Hynek’s report states) that “Police Officer Zamora had started to run in great fear. He stumbled, bumped himself, and lost his glasses. He jumped over the hill…Just then the roaring sound ceased and he heard a sharp toned whine, which started at a high pitch and fell to a lower pitch.”

Mallan continues with Zamora’s own words…

“At the end of this roar was this whine and the whine lasted maybe a second. Then there was complete silence about he object. That’s when I lifted my head and saw the object going away from me. It appeared to go in a straight line and at the same height – possibly 10 to 15 feet from the ground, and it cleared [a] dynamite shack by about three feet. The shack is about eight feet high. The object was traveling very fast. It seemed to rise up and take off immediately across country. The object seemed to lift up slowly and to get small in the distance very fast. It disappeared as it went over Mile Canyon Mountain. It had no flame whatsoever as it was traveling over the ground – and no smoke or noise.

Noted no odors. Noted no sound other than (those) described…”

Mallan writes, “The UFO had left strong physical impressions in the ground. Police Officer Zamora had an explanation for this:

‘When I first saw the object…I saw what appeared to be two legs of some type from the object to the ground…I didn’t pay much attention to the two legs. The two legs were at the bottom of the object, slanted outwards to the ground. The object might have been about three-and-a-half feet from the ground at that time. I just glanced at it.

…when I got out of the car, I heard two or three loud thumps, like someone possibly opening or shutting a door hard. These thumps were possibly a second or less apart. This was just before the roar. The persons were not seen by me when I got up to the scene area.’

Mallan writes, “Officer Zamora is suggesting that the ‘thumps’ were caused by the ‘two persons’ entering a vehicle and slamming the hatches closed after them – although no doors or windows were observed.”

The italics above are ours, showing what a forensic study should consider.

We have suggested, elsewhere, what we think and know to have happened, but a more thorough study needs o be undertaken, of the Socorro case and other sightings that have been given only cursory examination by ufologists.

We’ll provide a forensic exegesis of Socorro upcoming, along with other sightings that need a serious perusal.