106 replies to this topic

[DBunker]

If I post a video of a UFO and just leave it at that.... thats not making a claim. If I cant debunk it, the only thing that really meens is that I dont have enough information to identify it.

[zoser]

DBunker, on 15 August 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

If I post a video of a UFO and just leave it at that.... thats not making a claim. If I cant debunk it, the only thing that really meens is that I dont have enough information to identify it.

Take a look at the last post in 'Tantalising Testimony'.  It's a real scorcher. The Gosford UFO.  Let me know what you think.

Edited by zoser, 15 August 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[zoser]

Tim Hebert, on 15 August 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

Socorro is a little off the beaten path for my usual interest, but Tony Bragalia's article caught my attention.  BTW, this is not Tony's first foray into the Socorro hoax meme, I believe he proposed a hoax of some fashion back in 2009.

What's somewhat humorous is the reaction from the "faithful" as Tony tends to be pro-UFO.  One acolyte posted on Kevin Randle's blog that Tony was a mere debunker attempting to make money off of Socorro with a potential book.  So if one strays off of the UFO reservation then he is classified as a debunker?....Priceless!  That term is usually devoted to people such as...me.

Bragalia's new hoax angle appears to hinge on an email conversation with Dr. Stirling Colgate who, according to Tony, confirms the hoax and how it was perpetrated.  Supposedly, the questions will be again put to Colgate once he returns back to New Mexico, a week or two from today, this coming from a heated discussion between Tim Printy and Bragalia over at Robert Scheaffer's BAD UFO blog.  So we shall see how this plays out...or not.

BTW, the "old guard" on UFO Updates appear to be experiencing what tantamount to an epileptic seizure over Bragalia's hoax article.  If the legend of Socorro falls...

Regardless of how this plays out, Tony should be given kudos for attempting to think out side of the box rather than repeating the same old mantra time after time.

Has anyone actually asked why anyone would want to perpetrate a hoax in a desert?  How could they guarantee anyone would even be there to see it?  Surely a small residential area would have been better.  This fails on all accounts.

[Tim Hebert]

Zoser:  "Has anyone actually asked why anyone would want to perpetrate a hoax in a desert?  How could they guarantee anyone would even be there to see it?  Surely a small residential area would have been better.  This fails on all accounts."

That's a fair question.  Per Bragalia, Zamora could have been lured to the site by the speeding car which he was chasing (the driver being a confederate of the hoaxers).  The implication is that Zamora was targeted for the prank as he was allegedly a little too firm with the students at the college. Again, as I had posted, Dr. Colgate (the college president back in 1964) may shed more light on this version of the alleged hoax within the coming weeks.  Yet, there's no guarantee that will actually happen...will have to wait and see.   Whether this "fails on all accounts" remains to be seen.  

Edited by Tim Hebert, 15 August 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[Tesla II]

Right so in 1964 students made a hoax which couldn't been executed on military scale, see that's why i don't like sceptics they make up things so it has more down to the earth explanation...

[DBunker]

I get it, I really do.

Its waaaay more exciting to speculate about UFOs beeing ET crafts. But lets be realistic, nukem..... to this date none of the UFOs has been shown beyond all doubt to be made by ET.

[Kludge808]

One of the reasons I dislike using "UFO" is the connotation with ET.  As a result, I prefer UAP - Unknown Aerial Phenomenon.  One added advantage is that it allows room for atmospheric anomalies by removing the word "object".

[zoser]

Tim Hebert, on 15 August 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Zoser:  "Has anyone actually asked why anyone would want to perpetrate a hoax in a desert?  How could they guarantee anyone would even be there to see it?  Surely a small residential area would have been better.  This fails on all accounts."

That's a fair question.  Per Bragalia, Zamora could have been lured to the site by the speeding car which he was chasing (the driver being a confederate of the hoaxers).  The implication is that Zamora was targeted for the prank as he was allegedly a little too firm with the students at the college. Again, as I had posted, Dr. Colgate (the college president back in 1964) may shed more light on this version of the alleged hoax within the coming weeks.  Yet, there's no guarantee that will actually happen...will have to wait and see.   Whether this "fails on all accounts" remains to be seen.  

Sure

DBunker, on 15 August 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

I get it, I really do.

Its waaaay more exciting to speculate about UFOs beeing ET crafts. But lets be realistic, nukem..... to this date none of the UFOs has been shown beyond all doubt to be made by ET.

Check out the Gosford UFO on Tantalising Testimony.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 15 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Sure

Do you know who Tim is Zoser? sigh

Whilst I personally find Anthony Bragalia a very biased source, and I openly admit to having preconceptions of his investigation methods, which is why I have had so little participation in this thread, but if Tim says it is worth a closer look, then by gum I am going to take a better look at the specifics.
You have to find an alien Zoser, not wish one into existence. That is where you are going wrong.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 15 August 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Has anyone actually asked why anyone would want to perpetrate a hoax in a desert?  How could they guarantee anyone would even be there to see it?  Surely a small residential area would have been better.  This fails on all accounts.

You should have read the article. Crikey Zoser, you discount without reading, and expect everyone to read your posts. That's a bit over the top isn't it? The reason is stated in the first link in the article.

[Tim Hebert]

psyche101, on 15 August 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

You should have read the article. Crikey Zoser, you discount without reading, and expect everyone to read your posts. That's a bit over the top isn't it? The reason is stated in the first link in the article.

Hey Psyche,

I guess my main points were somewhat lost in the noise.  Per Bragalia, the former president of the college (Dr. Stirling Colgate), New Mexico Institute of  Technology, told him that the event was an elaborate hoax that was designed by and implemented by a few students with the knowledge of some of the faculty members.  Supposedly, Colgate alluded to the targeting of Zamora with the use of basically a large Chinese lantern-balloon.  The rest of Tony's story is his take.  He may be spot on or totally in left field, but his article does merit a close look and given due consideration.

Usually I avoid subjects like Socorro and Roswell because they tend to be Ufology's version of the Vietnam War...a quagmire with no exit strategy.

[Kludge808]

psyche101, on 15 August 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

Do you know who Tim is Zoser? sigh

Er, could you educate the geat unwashed, Psyche?  (That would, of course, be me. )

Quote

You have to find an alien Zoser, not wish one into existence. That is where you are going wrong.

It doesn't require wanting aliens to take issue with Bragalia's account.  It is inconsistent with documented evidence and statements but rather is based on hearsay.

Much as I would love this to be ET, it is an "Unknown" as far as I can see.  Even though there is no known terrestrial explanation, it doesn't automatically say ET has arrived much as the pro-UFO camp would like to claim it does.  For example, the Evil Gummint had black projects even in 1964 and this could have been one of them.  And, yes, I know it falls in line with at least one CT but it has no less merit than aliens while both have significantly more than Bragalia's fun 'n games.  One thing it definitely was not was a balloon.

[IamsSon]

The Zamora case is one of the most thoroughly investigated close encounter cases because of the main witness's credibility, and the fact that at least one other person, from a different position saw the craft take off.  The idea that it was a hoax, especially the way it is explained in the article is ludicrous.

[zoser]

psyche101, on 15 August 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

Do you know who Tim is Zoser? sigh

I'm listening.

[zoser]

psyche101, on 15 August 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

You should have read the article. Crikey Zoser, you discount without reading, and expect everyone to read your posts. That's a bit over the top isn't it? The reason is stated in the first link in the article.

How do you know I didn't?