Was the Socorro incident an elaborate hoax ?

[psyche101]

[/i]

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

LINK

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.

Aren't the documents we are dealing with a form of hearsay though? And I have to admit, how did this get so incredibly widespread so quickly? It indicates possible pre-emption.

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.

Well, there is a terrestrial explanation, wether one believes it is valid or not is another story. And again I allude to the mystery airships of the lat 1890's We have strange things happening in the skies that befuddle people and a long history of enigmatic appearances that are certainly not alien, as such, I feel there simply has to be more to understand as opposed to discover.

You say that it definitely was not a balloon, I don't suppose you would like to elaborate further on your own reasons? I have looked into that and according to all documentation from the time frame and find it is a pretty decent explanation to be honest. It falls down in some of the revised versions, but from the official documents, I have seen nobody ever post a good reason to discount them, and if that did exist, surely we would not even be discussing balloons?

Cheers.

[psyche101]

I'm listening.

Sadly, I find that hard to believe. I think you should try to understand the people you are speaking to before chastising or making ignorant flippant remarks. You were rather rude to Jim OBerg IMHO as well.

I gave this link to Kludge, as you seem to have overlooked the information in Tim's post perhaps it is best I repeat the link for fear you will miss it. - LINK

How do you know I didn't?

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 how.

[psyche101]

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.

Would you mind elaborating on what points you find ludicrous so that they can be discussed? That statement is a bit broad brushed.

[psyche101]

What i am trying to tell you here is man is flawed so are most of hes creation, even thou people see weird things in the sky still doesn't mean they are witnessing something of earthly design... You can't know neither does your corupt goverment, nobody does like once psyche said...

Gidday Nuke

Thanks for the mention, I will keep saying that too, the mystery airships of the 1890's insiste there is more to this conundrum than we can currently fathom.

Cheers

[psyche101]

First off, all governments are corrupt. It's the nature of the beast and, to a degree, is necessary for them to function.

Indeed, and I think this is proof that a global ET CT is not plausible.

[Kludge808]

LINK

Cool, thanks. I shall peruse as time allows.

Aren't the documents we are dealing with a form of hearsay though? And I have to admit, how did this get so incredibly widespread so quickly? It indicates possible pre-emption.

Let me respond in two parts. First off, all documents are hearsay of one order or another. One major difference is that documents remain stable over time as a rule while word of mouth changes, perhaps not intentionally but it still changes. Memory slips and it can be misinterpreted. This is one reason documents stand up in court where hearsay doesn't.

The spread is easy. The story was published in the local paper and put on the wire. Media outlets love anything sensational and that event was, to say the least, sensational. UFOs were and I guess still are major news. (I haven't seen a newspaper or watched/listened to the news since I got here. That's part of what I was so intent on escaping from although I was only partially successful.) Add to that people wanting to tell Great Aunt Millie in Debuque who will spread the story via gossip and you have a second method for it to spread. The we add in the UFO folks, the curious and the souvenir collectors for their versions which also spread out via an assortment of means. All in all, it would be difficult to contain something like that. The situation at Socorro was not like that at Roswell where the number of eye witnesses was, contrary to the ever growing number, extremely limited and limited to a controllable group. Socorro was uncontrolled until the federal level presence and by the time the feds - including the military - got there it was uncontrollable. The best they could do was spin management ... kind of like Kelly Johnson's "lenticular clouds."

Well, there is a terrestrial explanation, wether one believes it is valid or not is another story. And again I allude to the mystery airships of the lat 1890's

I mentioned Ezekial's Wheel on another thread and, yes, the source documents for that are somewhat suspect but it's a good starting point. Unexplainable things have been seen in the sky and reported in one form or another at least since then and possibly before.

This is pure speculation but bear with me. Coming into more modern times, da Vinci invented several flying machines, several of which have since been shown to actually work, and the manned hot air and hydrogen balloons came into being in the late 1700s. The first known manned, powered and steerable dirigible was built in 1852. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffard_dirigible ) Practical steam power has been known to some degree or another since 1600 or so and paddle wheels since well before that as was the screw, more importantly including the air screw (propellor.) It is therefore very possible that someone beat Giffard but wasn't so well known. In any event, it's entirely possible that those mystery airships were quite terrestrial and man made.

We have strange things happening in the skies that befuddle people and a long history of enigmatic appearances that are certainly not alien, as such, I feel there simply has to be more to understand as opposed to discover.

This is a good part of my reasoning behind preferring UAP over UFO. It allows room for atmospheric anomalies of which we have little if any understanding. We don't know everything about our own world which means we can't discount the possibility that what has been observed isn't natural.

Something I should add is that as a once upon a time pilot, what I shared airspace with was of prime importance to me. If ET was in my airspace, I wanted to know about it. It still is a concern even though I don't fly anymore simply because others still do. Have I seen things in the air I couldn't identify while I was flying? Yep. And a few times I got on the radio to see if ATC had anything on radar. Sometimes they did and had a positive ID and other times not so much. A couple times they asked if I wanted to report anything and I answered that I had no idea what I was looking at so hadn't a clue what to report. They seemed rather relieved at that response.

You say that it definitely was not a balloon, I don't suppose you would like to elaborate further on your own reasons? I have looked into that and according to all documentation from the time frame and find it is a pretty decent explanation to be honest.

First, let's look at the wind and the object's path. It rose vertically approximately 20' then traveled horizontally against the wind, accelerating as it did. David Rudiak did the legwork on that and the link to it - http://www.roswellproof.com/SocorroWinds_April_24_1964.html . I have to agree with his assessment of the wind conditions and note they agree with witness statements including Officer Zamora's. With the last part of the visible flight being again upward at a rapid pace, without any downwind component, the balloon concept becomes difficult to buy.

Second is identification. Officer Zamora was close enough to the object to be able to see what it was - or wasn't. If it had been a balloon, it would have been terribly obvious at the less than 50' distance between him and it. Note that at this point he was still wearing his glasses so Bragalia's continuous inference that he was unable to see fails. In fact the only time Officer Zamora was without his glasses was one time around 15-30 seconds from when he stumbled on the way past his car to when he returned to it after the object went silent. Further, another set of witnesses, tourists at a gas station, also saw the object pass at low altitude and commented on the "low flying aircraft".

Third is the flame. It was blue on top and yellow on the bottom plus formed a very narrow cone. Every flame I have ever seen used to do anything like lift a Chinese lantern or, in this case, balloon had the hot part - the blue part - at the bottom. The coolest part is red fading to infrared then orange then yellow - which is the part most visible - then green then blue etc which is the hottest region. (Side note: "Red hot" is somewhat a misnomer. "White hot" would be significantly closer to really truly hottity hot.) The shape of the flame is telling as well. It's typical of one coming from a well designed nozzle. Assuming something like a propane burner as a heat source (Very little else would be able to handle the volume.), the flame goes up and is pretty ragged with its only purpose being to provide heat. And then there's the heat. An experiment was done to find out how much heat and for how long to fuse the sand where the object had taken off from. At 2200 deg F, it took 25 minutes. That's about the heat from a propane flame.

Sooo ... Did they aim the burner down through a rather impressive venturi (nozzle) for that long to heat the air in the balloon and, as a side benefit, cause some of the sand to fuse with a good portion of their heat being lost due to the wind as well as the flame being kicked around then do a final burn just long enough to get it aloft and figure out a way to get it to travel several miles against the wind then cut it loose to escape vertically? Or would the simpler answer of an unknown object of equally unknown origin that left trace similar to other events be the better choice?

Also, on chasing down added information, it turns out the school in question is pretty small plus anything that elaborate would have required more than 3-6 students. Several students who were there at the time flat out said it wasn't one of their pranks.

It falls down in some of the revised versions, but from the official documents, I have seen nobody ever post a good reason to discount them, and if that did exist, surely we would not even be discussing balloons?

We're discussing balloons because Bragalia claims it was a balloon and apparently he's the Lord High Executioner of Socorro.

[Just Dave]

Just so you know i made up that event so i could see how people would react see you go mentionting paintings why? Because many of those had indeed weird flying things pictured all over but that was chinese lanters they didn't know back then what it was so they pictured something that flies, hell they didn't even had a flying machines back then, yet they pictured them, like they witness some flying object or a weather anomaly but then again anomaly stands for a RARE phenomena not a every second day phenomena... But that is not the case that i am trying to have... the case is you don't know what they saw,experience but you do make claims... How can doubt or support an event you weren't there... It is like saying it is hot on the moon... i know i wasn't there but i know...Until you give evidence for or agaisnt ,even theory works, it is just rubbish...

[zoser]

Sadly, I find that hard to believe. I think you should try to understand the people you are speaking to before chastising or making ignorant flippant remarks. You were rather rude to Jim OBerg IMHO as well.

I gave this link to Kludge, as you seem to have overlooked the information in Tim's post perhaps it is best I repeat the link for fear you will miss it. - LINK

That's how.

If I were to be honest with you psyche, I don't have a lot of time for people who set themselves up as professional UFO debunkers, that hang their coats on their university PHD's. I find attempts at debunking by such people difficult to follow, highly intellectualised to the point of non-comprehension, largely baseless, and full of more fantasy than any ET hypothesis could ever hope to have.

The explanations stem in the main from a fear of the unknown, coupled with a perceived threat to what they consider to be established scientific paradigms.

When you have UFO cases backed in some instances by hundreds of witnesses and then one self appointed scientific hero trying to ridicule those people by drawing their attention to questionable not fully understood scientific principles then that is what I call disrespectful.

Think; there is even debate raging today about what causes gravity! What chance a debunking scientist trying to explain away the UFO phenomena. It's laughable.

[Hazzard]

What chance a debunking scientist trying to explain away the UFO phenomena. It's laughable.

Few of the "evil UFO debunkers" are trying to debunk the UFO phenomenon. What would be the point!? Its a very real phenomenon. Everybody knows this.

What the "evil debunkers" are questioning though is the evidence presented by you (and others), and the claim, that some of the UFOs are made by ET.

[zoser]

Few of the "evil UFO debunkers" are trying to debunk the UFO phenomenon. What would be the point!? Its a very real phenomenon. Everybody knows this.

What the "evil debunkers" are questioning though is the evidence presented by you (and others), and the claim, that some of the UFOs are made by ET.

So are we arguing about words here? If I called them interdimensional travelers would that help?

[Tim Hebert]

Zoser: "If I were to be honest with you psyche, I don't have a lot of time for people who set themselves up as professional UFO debunkers, that hang their coats on their university PHD's. I find attempts at debunking by such people difficult to follow, highly intellectualised to the point of non-comprehension, largely baseless, and full of more fantasy than any ET hypothesis could ever hope to have."

I'm assuming that this is a jab at Olberg? As far as hanging our coats on university degrees, I happen to have 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters degree...all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Rather broad brush that's being painted on people that happen to look at the topic in a different way. As far as some of our views as being "largely baseless, and full of more fantasy...", I would respectfully ask that you provide examples of such. It's rather easy to roll off a list of examples as you've done on your "Tantalizing" thread and leaving most of those examples twisting in the wind without any meaningful discourse with your fellow forum members...regardless of their POV.

I can respect someone that is passionate with his/her opinion on the UFO phenomena and brings good ideas to the table. You tend to show total disdain and contempt towards this process, and frankly its telling...

Zoser: "The explanations stem in the main from a fear of the unknown, coupled with a perceived threat to what they consider to be established scientific paradigms."

This is total abject nonsense. And perhaps you can clarify this statement a little further? Its the "unkown" that sparks interest in any subject that makes it worthwhile, otherwise, why delve into it? Perhaps you "fear" the responsibility to present your views in a concise and meaningful way that portends clarity.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Tim Hebert

[TheMacGuffin]

I'm assuming that this is a jab at Olberg? As far as hanging our coats on university degrees, I happen to have 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters degree...all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Rather broad brush that's being painted on people that happen to look at the topic in a different way. As far as some of our views as being "largely baseless, and full of more fantasy...", I would respectfully ask that you provide examples of such. It's rather easy to roll off a list of examples as you've done on your "Tantalizing" thread and leaving most of those examples twisting in the wind without any meaningful discourse with your fellow forum members...regardless of their POV.

Well, Tim, I have FOUR university degrees, two undergraduate and two graduate, and while I agree that doesn't automatically make me an expert on everything outside my field, I also like to think that I'm no dummy. I know what I saw, and I know what evidence was shown to me while I was in the military, so a million people posting in here telling me that none of it is "real evidence" is ever going to change my mind about that. I know know what I know and that's it.

Some of these UFOs really so represent a technology far in advance of anything known to us, while others seem to be only slightly ahead of current developments, but in any event, no one will ever convince me that none of this is real, no matter how many intellectual parlor tricks they have up their sleeves. It doesn't matter.

[TheMacGuffin]

Indeed, and I think this is proof that a global ET CT is not plausible.

I think this "anarchy" in the international system makes it more likely that UFO information would be kept secret, to deny the other side an advantage, while using intelligence agencies to find out what their rivals really know. We know that the U.S. and the Soviets were doing this when it came to UFOs. We also know that they were both worried about UFO reports that might trigger false alarms and the mistaken belief that the other side was launching an attack. I think we have good evidence that they agreed to share information about that, at least just enough to show that the UFOs were something else and not part of some sneak attack.

In the Cold War, they were rivals and competitors, but they always had to be careful that they didn't push things so far that they would blow up the world and kill everyone. That's why the nuclear weapons basically deterred everyone and tended to cancel each other out, at least until they started making agreements to mutually freeze and start reducing the number of these things.

I also think that an unacknowledged aspect of all the Star Wars type programs has been directed against out unearthly visitors, although as usual all that is shrouded in mystery and disinformation. In general, the investigation of UFOs has been one part of the space program going right back to the beginning, including the military space program, such as sending up rocket planes to get pictures of them.

The military realized very early on that certain activities always attracted UFOs, including anything to do with rockets, spacecraft or nuclear weapons. They knew this even back in the 1940s and 1950s, just judging by all the documents that have been declassified.

[zoser]

Zoser: "If I were to be honest with you psyche, I don't have a lot of time for people who set themselves up as professional UFO debunkers, that hang their coats on their university PHD's. I find attempts at debunking by such people difficult to follow, highly intellectualised to the point of non-comprehension, largely baseless, and full of more fantasy than any ET hypothesis could ever hope to have."

I'm assuming that this is a jab at Olberg? As far as hanging our coats on university degrees, I happen to have 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters degree...all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Rather broad brush that's being painted on people that happen to look at the topic in a different way. As far as some of our views as being "largely baseless, and full of more fantasy...", I would respectfully ask that you provide examples of such. It's rather easy to roll off a list of examples as you've done on your "Tantalizing" thread and leaving most of those examples twisting in the wind without any meaningful discourse with your fellow forum members...regardless of their POV.

I can respect someone that is passionate with his/her opinion on the UFO phenomena and brings good ideas to the table. You tend to show total disdain and contempt towards this process, and frankly its telling...

Zoser: "The explanations stem in the main from a fear of the unknown, coupled with a perceived threat to what they consider to be established scientific paradigms."

This is total abject nonsense. And perhaps you can clarify this statement a little further? Its the "unkown" that sparks interest in any subject that makes it worthwhile, otherwise, why delve into it? Perhaps you "fear" the responsibility to present your views in a concise and meaningful way that portends clarity.

Well done on your degrees. What do you know about UFO's?

Edited August 18, 2012 by zoser

[Tim Hebert]

Zoser: "Well done on your degrees. What do you know about UFO's?"

My, my...Zoser, the point of my degrees is to personally demonstrate that they have no major bearing on this topic, as you appeared to castigate those with. I'm assuming that Mac understood this with his reply.

As far as my knowledge of UFOs? Unidentified Flying Objects, that is these objects may be initially unidentified, but most can be looked at from a rationale point of view. Noticed that I said MOST, not all. I'm rather open mined about the subject, but hold that the default position of every sighting and experience is not always of the ET variety. I look at probability vs possibility. BTW that tends to fit for quite a few who post here.

Now, Zoser, my fine friend, what do you know of UFOs?

[zoser]

Zoser: "Well done on your degrees. What do you know about UFO's?"

My, my...Zoser, the point of my degrees is to personally demonstrate that they have no major bearing on this topic, as you appeared to castigate those with. I'm assuming that Mac understood this with his reply.

As far as my knowledge of UFOs? Unidentified Flying Objects, that is these objects may be initially unidentified, but most can be looked at from a rationale point of view. Noticed that I said MOST, not all. I'm rather open mined about the subject, but hold that the default position of every sighting and experience is not always of the ET variety. I look at probability vs possibility. BTW that tends to fit for quite a few who post here.

Now, Zoser, my fine friend, what do you know of UFOs?

I agree that Ufology makes a level playing field. Ufologists are bound to be the people to listen to because most of them research the issue full time. They may not have degrees at the institute but the well known names sure know their stuff.

What I object to is the casual enquirer, who brandishes his or her reputation or qualifications like a credit card in a restaurant, claiming to be an authority on the subject after looking into one solitary case. Before you shout foul, I am not talking about any individual, and Mac's post was not about JO. To make it clear, I am talking about scientist type debunkers generally.

What do I know about UFO's? That the shear number of testimonies is overwhelmingly pointing to the conclusion that a large number of them are not of earthly origin.

If people on this forum were genuinely scientific, then this juvenile question would have been resolved years ago. People should be looking into more important questions instead by now.

[TheMacGuffin]

Zoser: "Well done on your degrees. What do you know about UFO's?"

My, my...Zoser, the point of my degrees is to personally demonstrate that they have no major bearing on this topic, as you appeared to castigate those with. I'm assuming that Mac understood this with his reply.

There's no such thing as a university degree in UFOs, of course, although plenty of people with university degrees take the subject very seriously--Richard Dolan, Kevin Randle and J. Allen Hynek come to mind. Dolan has made a very good case just based on historical evidence that some of the UFOs are interplanetary, or at least from a civilization more advanced than our own, and that many people in the government and the military reached that same conclusion over the years.

If anyone has any more details about what they are and where they really come from that is being closely held, along with any information about "contacts" with them, but I am quite satisfied with the evidence I have seen that a certain percentage of these flying objects are indeed real and represent some type of technology that is beyond ours.

[TheMacGuffin]

I have sometimes thought that the best way to disclose the reality of UFOs would be for someone handling the real UFO investigation to make contact with our "visitors" and have them come in for a landing where all the world media could see them.

Most people would be genuinely surprised by that show, while those who weren't would at least act surprised. LOL.

I would definitely not be among the genuinely surprised group.

[zoser]

There's no such thing as a university degree in UFOs, of course, although plenty of people with university degrees take the subject very seriously--Richard Dolan, Kevin Randle and J. Allen Hynek come to mind. Dolan has made a very good case just based on historical evidence that some of the UFOs are interplanetary, or at least from a civilization more advanced than our own, and that many people in the government and the military reached that same conclusion over the years.

If anyone has any more details about what they are and where they really come from that is being closely held, along with any information about "contacts" with them, but I am quite satisfied with the evidence I have seen that a certain percentage of these flying objects are indeed real and represent some type of technology that is beyond ours.

I do wonder if the information is being closely held? What has leaked out (assuming it to be genuine) seems banal, and ranges from using the earth as a refueling terminal, to a source of genetic material for populating other planets, to trying to stop ourselves from wrecking the environment, to trying to uplift a spiritually bereft human race.

Edited August 18, 2012 by zoser

[zoser]

I have sometimes thought that the best way to disclose the reality of UFOs would be for someone handling the real UFO investigation to make contact with our "visitors" and have them come in for a landing where all the world media could see them.

Most people would be genuinely surprised by that show, while those who weren't would at least act surprised. LOL.

I would definitely not be among the genuinely surprised group.

Then there is the question; does any one strain of ET represent the others? If one strain landed, and disclosed their intentions would that tell us much? I have the feeling that if they (the people in the know) really spilled the beans we may be surprised by what they don't know.

[TheMacGuffin]

I do wonder if the information is being closely held? What has leaked out (assuming it to be genuine) seems banal, and ranges from using the earth as a refueling terminal, to a source of genetic material for populating other planets, to trying to stop ourselves from wrecking the environment, to trying to uplift a spiritually bereft human race.

Some of our visitors seem to have a long-term interest in earth, for whatever reason, and may very well be based here--or nearby. They are lots of places they could be, such as remote areas, underwater, under mountains and so on, rather than traveling across vast distances in relatively small craft. The more I have thought about this, the more likely it seems that at least some of them are based on earth or very close by, and in the last 60-70 years we have just got much better at detecting them.

I really believe that some of them also like to put on shows that are bound to attract our attention in such a way that even the village idiot could not fail to notice them.

[TheMacGuffin]

Then there is the question; does any one strain of ET represent the others? If one strain landed, and disclosed their intentions would that tell us much? I have the feeling that if they (the people in the know) really spilled the beans we may be surprised by what they don't know.

I suspect that if one group did, then they all would, and we would suddenly find ourselves in the middle of a UFO convention.

[zoser]

Some of our visitors seem to have a long-term interest in earth, for whatever reason, and may very well be based here--or nearby. They are lots of places they could be, such as remote areas, underwater, under mountains and so on, rather than traveling across vast distances in relatively small craft. The more I have thought about this, the more likely it seems that at least some of them are based on earth or very close by, and in the last 60-70 years we have just got much better at detecting them.

I really believe that some of them also like to put on shows that are bound to attract our attention in such a way that even the village idiot could not fail to notice them.

I agree with this totally. The Russian Navy clip I posted a couple of days ago that showed huge craft disappearing into the sea really makes you think. Also I know there have been a few suspected frauds disgorging information about S4, but there have been a lot of them telling a similar story.

That the place is riddled with tunnels, some man made others not, that house ET craft. As you say the earth is a base whether we like it or not; do they get on with their business regardless of human activity I wonder or do they have an influence?

I suspect that if one group did, then they all would, and we would suddenly find ourselves in the middle of a UFO convention.

I wonder if psyche would attend that?

Edited August 18, 2012 by zoser

[DONTEATUS]

THis topic reminds me of so many oldies songs from our past ! "Dream a Little Dreamer Dream" , "Some Where over the Rain Bow ", Fat Bottom Girls ? Well that ones a bit of a Long Shot !

[zoser]

THis topic reminds me of so many oldies songs from our past ! "Dream a Little Dreamer Dream" , "Some Where over the Rain Bow ", Fat Bottom Girls ? Well that ones a bit of a Long Shot !

Not really; if you check out my video clips, it would all be as real as a Texas steer.