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

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.

As I mentioned to bade, I'm a fence sitter looking for overwhelming evidence from either side. Would I like there to be an ET presence here? Yes, I would. (If nothing else, it would explain a few things like politicians and Paris Hilton.) This incident weighs on that side since the range of other possibilities is vanishingly small.

This is as opposed to Kecksburg, which was a completely terrestrial object that had nothing to do with ET. I saw the object as it passed South* to where it came down and later talked to people who lived there at the time. They laughed at the ET versions and said they didn't come up until the "Ufologists" came to town and twisted statements to satisfy their own pet theories. There were no death threats and, while people were asked not to discuss the event, it was much like at a traffic accident where witnesses are asked not to discuss among themselves what happened until all the statements are taken after which they can talk about it freely. The state police and I believe the FBI were both involved in that but neither cared about who said what to whom after they had the statements.

* My boss and I were both ex-Navy and both trained observers having both been lookouts as part of our assigned duties. We were 17 miles North of Pittsburgh along US Rte 19 when it passed East of us low on the horizon but still over the power lines on the other side of the highway. It appeared as an overly bright meteor passing North to South on a near horizontal path which was only part of the path made from when it first appeared over Canada to its final resting place at Kecksburg. We both reported it as did a few others who saw it from both our shop and the Howard Johnson's next door and we all were interviewed by a couple of cops over the next few days as part of the "dot the Ts and cross the Is" detaily stuff. One told me that they must have really ticked someone off to have gotten that detail but it beat chasing bad guys. :yes:

Edited by Kludge808
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What elaborate technology ? 1964 ,and they outwitted a cop,and other witnesses,with a balloon and a candle.

Yah,ok ....look at any UFO movie from the same time frame. If that's the technology Hollywood had at the time,you really think a bunch of students did better ? Without editing to boot .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

You know I couldn't stay away, right? :P

Now if Boony and the rest of the gang show up ... :clap:

Agreed.

It's one of the reasons I'm rather interested in this case. The fact that the CTists et al have a problem creating something out of it without making obvious errors plus it matches other events (Three? Four? I forget.) at least from the markings in the ground suggests to me that there is something to it.

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 :-*

*snicker* ... I love how that works. Isn't it amazing how people like that never learn their lessons.

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

It's pretty generally agreed that something happened there out of the ordinary. What it was is still open for discussion but that discussion has to remain within the limits of what was documented first hand. At the same time, it can't omit any as Mr. Bragalia did. There aren't many - if any - terrestrial explanations that can satisfy those requirements. This doesn't say that it definitely was an ET event but it does add weight to that possibility.

Cheers,

Badeskov

And to you as well, old friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Is not refuting something presented making a claim also? If someone is just presenting a film or a photograph and saying they don't know what it is but they captured it that's not really making a claim. If they come out and initially call it an extraterrestrial craft having just a photograph or film then of course there will be some clearing of the throat and raising of eyebrows at that.

By the way, just so you'll know, I, myself, have yet to see any viable evidence supporting the idea that we are being visited by something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :alien:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure :alien:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know who Tim is Zoser? sigh

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know who Tim is Zoser? sigh

I'm listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And you know that from the comfort of your chair... so mister i knoweverythingabouteverything tell me 150 years ago in Italy at st.peters church was was the flying machine the town witnessed? Oh i know it was an airplane ow wait a hot air ballon neither because no one was there from us who are commenting on this stuff... So if youtube or some US scientist will tell you a theory which he made up you will belive it as it was the law.... Even thou our history changes because people/scientist didn't guessed right many many things even till this day you still belive a man... He wrote a bible in there he wrote mankind was created by "god" so you will belive that even thou our flawed history says it was evolution..

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you know that from the comfort of your chair... so mister i knoweverythingabouteverything tell me 150 years ago in Italy at st.peters church was was the flying machine the town witnessed?

Let me guess, there is an old painting of the event?

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.

Yes, thats quite possible, & to date the facts would seem to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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

Second, separating this from the religious aspects, 'not being of earthly design' does not by necessity mean the ETH is in effect since it does not exclude atmospheric anomalies, some of which we still don't understand. Also, Leonardo da Vinci preceded that event by some 350 years and he invented a few flying machines. Is there any evidence that someone didn't carry on from his designs and make something that worked? (Several have since been shown to be workable, by the way.) I'm definitely not saying this is the case but one can't exclude it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Psyche,

Hello Tim

Pleasure to see you here again.

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.

Indeed, not sure if it was noise though, Zoser tends to plug his ears until someone utters ET then he has plenty to say. I think even if one does not believe the claim it is not out of the ordinary for college students to play a prank on someone they have a common ground against, even in mirth. The rest of the story I would like to see more on, I have just found that in the past Tony has been willing to extend to some rather long odds in order to get a story across.

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.

I could not blame you, I have been debating Roswell too long and too seriously, so I tend to get sucked into these debates too easily.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

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.