Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Saru

Was the Socorro incident an elaborate hoax ?

112 posts in this topic

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

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228276&st=30&p=4330985entry4330985

Some interesting artefacts here:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228276&st=585&p=4361717entry4361717

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... :rolleyes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone wants to sell a book.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Not really. I think that there is something else going one here. Man-made..... natural phenomenon.....deliberate hoaxes..... wack jobs..... misinterpretations..... fantasy prone personalities...... to many science fiction movies..... drugs....

My guess is all of these has been "ET" to someone at one time or another .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Would you agree that evidence that would be convincing has been suppressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you agree that evidence that would be convincing has been suppressed?

Thats the ultimate UFOology get out of jail free card.

- Im sorry I cant show you good evidence because the Men In Black (CIA-FBI-NSA-NASA bla bla bla) came and took it away.

:whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Ah, bade, we meet again! :tsu:

There is one notable difference between this case and Everyone's Favorite, Roswell. This one was documented "cradle to grave" by everyone and the family dog, and that documentation is consistent within tolerable limits - ie, variations due to individual perceptions pretty much like witness statements to any event. When someone like Bragalia comes along with a story that is so out of line with that documentation it is way too obvious fiction - and not real good fiction at that.

You probably remember from previous threads I tend to sit on the fence, neither a believer nor a non-believer. This, however, is one of those rare events that comes along that adds weight to the "ET is here" (or at least stops by occasionally) side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the ultimate UFOology get out of jail free card.

- Im sorry I cant show you good evidence because the Men In Black (CIA-FBI-NSA-NASA bla bla bla) came and took it away.

:whistle:

It's a shame I can only like this once. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the ultimate UFOology get out of jail free card.

- Im sorry I cant show you good evidence because the Men In Black (CIA-FBI-NSA-NASA bla bla bla) came and took it away.

:whistle:

That's also the ultimate get out of jail free card for the debunkers in saying that there's only crappy evidence and no one has stepped up to prove anything.

I wasn't talking about the feds coming down and doing a Men in Black or whatever I was talking about the intimidation and shame effect that would deter someone from reporting or showing evidence that may be out there. Who would want to put forth good evidence when there's people out there that are ready to judge others on evidence that they've found by shouting "Photoshop" or "Pareidolia" or just outright questioning a their sanity. Look what's happened to people like Jesse Marcel, Chief Greenhaw, along with countless others that have had their lives turned upside down due to what they saw. I'm sure they couldn't wait for the opposition that faced them all for the sake of fame, right? Pssh, please...

This is probably your vision of what every person that says otherwise looks like...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's also the ultimate get out of jail free card for the debunkers in saying that there's only crappy evidence and no one has stepped up to prove anything.

:unsure2:

Proved what exactly? I havent seen anyone skeptical of the ETH claiming anything. All we see here are people asking for better evidence. Its the one making a claim that has the burden of proof, not those who find the evidence dubious..

Sure there is a lot of stigma in this field and people should be careful before comming out claiming something as factual without real evidence.

That goes without saying.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure2:

Proved what exactly? I havent seen anyone skeptical of the ETH claiming anything. All we see here are people asking for better evidence. Its the one making a claim that has the burden of proof, not those who find the evidence dubious..

Sure there is a lot of stigma in this field and people should be careful before comming out claiming something as factual without real evidence.

That goes without saying.

Can this go any futher ? we are still waiting for the real evidence right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. we dont noe wat they are so we'll call them UFOs for now. so when UFO "researchers" find a photo of and unidentified object, they can say, "I know for sure that this is a UFO!" in other words, "I noe for sure i dont noe wat this is but its flying!" am i right? oda

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, bade, we meet again! :tsu:

Kludge, old buddy - good to see you around this area of UM :tsu:

There is one notable difference between this case and Everyone's Favorite, Roswell. This one was documented "cradle to grave" by everyone and the family dog, and that documentation is consistent within tolerable limits - ie, variations due to individual perceptions pretty much like witness statements to any event.

Agreed.

When someone like Bragalia comes along with a story that is so out of line with that documentation it is way too obvious fiction - and not real good fiction at that.

Seems like Mr. Bragalia has a real knack for making things up. Have commented on a couple of his essays here and he actually ended up joining himself to argue his case - needless to say that that didn't end up so well for him :-*

You probably remember from previous threads I tend to sit on the fence, neither a believer nor a non-believer. This, however, is one of those rare events that comes along that adds weight to the "ET is here" (or at least stops by occasionally) side.

I am not sure I would give it that much weight, but intriguing it sure is.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.