106 replies to this topic

[Saru]

Anthony Bragalia has been investigating the famous case of Officer Lonnie Zamora's UFO encounter.

The Bragalia Files said:

For over four and a half decades many around the world have wondered about the true nature of the sighting of a landed unidentified flying object that was reported on the ground and then taking off by Officer Lonnie Zamora in Socorro, NM in 1964. In the fall of 2009 this author’s investigation disclosed that the Officer had been victim to a hoax that was perpetrated by students at the New Mexico Institute of Technology.

Read more...

[zoser]

Saru, on 14 August 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Anthony Bragalia has been investigating the famous case of Officer Lonnie Zamora's UFO encounter.

It was no hoax.  The clip mentions another witness who saw the craft fly away.  Zamora had too much to lose and nothing to gain.

The clip is here:

http://www.unexplain...5

Some interesting artefacts here:

http://www.unexplain...7

[Golly Buster]

The craft was a just balloon with a candle in it?

Haha. Very funny.

Apart from contradicting the known facts of the case, Bragalia's hoax explanation is based solely on hearsay and an assurance to the reader that Zamora was basically a blind, confused idiot.

Fail.

[Kludge808]

Golly Buster, on 14 August 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Apart from contradicting the known facts of the case, Bragalia's hoax explanation is based solely on hearsay and an assurance to the reader that Zamora was basically a blind, confused idiot.

Zamora was a cop.  While some may take issue with this, police forces do not employ "blind confused idiots."  On the other hand, they do employ trained observers and Lonnie Zamora, even without his glasses, was still a trained observer.  Bragalia's version isn't merely a fail but rather an epic fail.

[Mantis914]

If these students were that good as the article is saying, they should not have been into science but rather in the theater department.  Police are trained observers even if they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.  I've seen interviews with Lonnie Zamora and he's never deviated from his original account and he definitely doesn't seem like he's joking or foolish.   There are several small details that don't add up though, for one, I remember reading that from the initial angle that Zamora was looking at the landing, he said he saw a few individuals with white coveralls.  When he got to the landing site, he was not visible from that angle only if he had been several feet taller would he have been visible so either these hoaxsters were standing on something and later hauled everything away along with all the sound and pyrotechnic equipment and we are talking 1960's technology which would not be an easy task and also without being seen by Zamora.  Another thing that was brought up in the comments section was that this balloon traversed a wind that was gusting out of the SW with just a candle or propane tank which ever the story goes.  You would think that these students would have a lot more to do than plot something like this just for the sake of a good laugh and then grow a conscience 50 years later?   Next thing you know, they will be saying that the markings on the hull of the "balloon" was from a packing slip saying This End Up...

[Sweetpumper]

Sounds like someone wants to sell a book.

[zoser]

Golly Buster, on 14 August 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

The craft was a just balloon with a candle in it?

Haha. Very funny.

Apart from contradicting the known facts of the case, Bragalia's hoax explanation is based solely on hearsay and an assurance to the reader that Zamora was basically a blind, confused idiot.

Fail.

Nicely expressed

[pallidin]

I want to sell a book, but my life is so uninteresting that I would have to lie.

[badeskov]

pallidin, on 14 August 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

I want to sell a book, but my life is so uninteresting that I would have to lie.

Oh, like the vast majority of authors selling in this field of study (I cringe at the word study in this respect).

Cheers,
Badeskov

[cenobite]

this does not sound plausible at all, shame on bragalia for peddling such rubbish.

[DBunker]

I look at it this way..... It is (at least) equally plausible that it was a hoax of some sort, than ET visiting the Earth.

We KNOW that hoaxes and misinterpretations exist, THATS A FACT...... Can we say the same about ETI!?

[zoser]

DBunker, on 14 August 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

I look at it this way..... It is (at least) equally plausible that it was a hoax of some sort, than ET visiting the Earth.

We KNOW that hoaxes and misinterpretations exist, THATS A FACT...... Can we say the same about ETI!?

Are you saying we are totally unique in this incredibly vast universe?  Impossible.  We know nothing about the planet we live on never mind about the vastness of space and the unknown dimensions that exist therein.

[DBunker]

zoser, on 14 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Are you saying we are totally unique in this incredibly vast universe?  Impossible.  We know nothing about the planet we live on never mind about the vastness of space and the unknown dimensions that exist therein.

No, Im saying that the evidence for ET visitation is crappy.

[zoser]

DBunker, on 14 August 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

No, Im saying that the evidence for ET visitation is crappy.

I asked Haz the same question and I would like to ask if you don't mind; do you have a favourite case, one that intrigues you the most?

[cenobite]

DBunker, on 14 August 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

I look at it this way..... It is (at least) equally plausible that it was a hoax of some sort, than ET visiting the Earth.

We KNOW that hoaxes and misinterpretations exist, THATS A FACT...... Can we say the same about ETI!?

i agree, i am a skeptic i just dont believe this story