Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Was 1964 Zamora UFO a lunar lander ?


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

news icon rSomething strange happened in the desert near Socorro NM, on a spring night 42 years ago, and a State Police officer was there to report it. It has become known as the Zamora UFO Incident, named for officer Lonnie Zamora. While not as publicized as the legendary Roswell Incident, this UFO landing made national headlines at the time sparking intrigue and speculation ever since.

Experts who investigated the case have no doubt that he saw what he said he saw.

news icon View: Full Article | Source: KRQE News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • FireMoon

    3

  • smallpackage

    2

  • Carl Butters

    2

  • eggman

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

The obvous thing to do to test a Lunar lander that will be subject to a vacuum and 1/6th the Earth's gravity is to test it in a desert by the side of the freeway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only heard of this case briefly but wow, this should have been considered closed 20 years ago.

Sticking his head out the window, he saw what he described as a flying egg about the size of a car. Zamora also saw what looked like two people wearing white coveralls standing outside the mystery craft, and it appeared to be lifting off. “I went up close, about 200 feet from it and got out of the car when it started making noise and the flame under it,”

A car sized object with a blast and flames coming out from the bottom in the desert recently before the Apollo missions took place. Come on people.

Edited by smallpackage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with smallpackage, this case should have been closed decades ago.

If it wasn't a lunar lander prototype it was probably an Air Force experiment

of some kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is interesting considering the date of the SERPO exchange. There was a previous article on Serpo that a visit and exchange of some of our people with One Eben. (The name of ther people) Vist www.serpo.org for more information on what it is about, its some of the most convincing things based on the freedom of information act releasing things slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what do we have against him? I'll belive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but lets get this right... There was nothing particularly secret about the LEM. I do not see the NASA *testing* the LEM out on the desert with just a *couple* of blokes in white suits in attendance, We are talking of millions of dollars of investment with *just a couple of white suits* involved in a major testing programme?

Sorry but i just dont buy that. Why would the Air Force launch an investigation into a NASA programme when all they had to do was make a single phone call?? Why didn't NASA ,post 67, come out and say..*Oh that was us* and kill any specualtion?

Are we really to believe that NASA went from a sleek *Hi tec* egg looking object, that if memory serves me right, burned fuel that produced a blue flame to something that looked like it was built from meccano by a commitee of children and used a traditional fuel that burned orange.??

That's not to say it wasn't some secret test, but to say it was one of a lunar landing tests is an argument shot so full of holes it couldn't float in a dried up waterhole.

Given the *cause celebre* status of the Zamora incident ,and the time passed , if it was indeed a NASA dry run, how come the skeptics haven't managed to find a single shred of evidence to support the NASA theory.? Their abscence from the whole debate speaks volumes about how , in actual fact, the Zamora incident still has some legs in the pantheon of the truly unexplained.

It is no use at all to just say... OH well it was i around the time of NASA tests in an area they might have been using. You could just as easily turn it round and say.. Well using a ship that looks like somthing NASA might develop would be the perfect cover to study what was happening at close hand?

Edited by FireMoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying it we should consider the possibility of a somewhat futuristic egg shaped object with a rocket engine with two humans in white suits to be extraterrestrials?

If it was a secret government craft, do you really think the government is going to come out and end speculation after the incident? of course not.

About the Air Force launching an investigation; they could have released that report to act as if there was actually an unidentified craft to cover for the government craft under testing.

He was 200 feet away. That distance in the dark could make the lunar lander appear to be more rounded than it really was.

Edited by smallpackage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only heard of this case briefly but wow, this should have been considered closed 20 years ago.

A car sized object with a blast and flames coming out from the bottom in the desert recently before the Apollo missions took place. Come on people.

theres only one problem. zamora said that after it lifted off, and shut down its "jet engines", it hovered. unless nasa has the technology to allows us to defy gravity without blades and rockets, this case is still very open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What im saying is this.... It follows the pattern established in the 19th century that someone always appears one step ahead of us in terms of *hardware*. It is like it is a game of one upmanship and has been been since UFO reports began in the modren age circa 1850.

They almost always appear to be that little bit ahead of us. It was controllable *airships* when we only had balloons. It was aircraft that could fly in conditions we were grounded in in the 1920s.. It was *rockets* in the 1930s and in post war it has been a whole panoply of technology that is ahead of the game.

The fact is Zamora saw a craft that was *beyond the capabilities* of known science at the time he had his encounter. The LEM project was not secret, ,in actual fact ,in the propganda war with the USSR ,NASA was all too willing to show exactly what was going on. I ,as a child ,watched endless bulletins on TV about the latest designs , the latest ideas. So from that point of view the NASA test argument simply doesn't hold water.

The Zamora incident followed the classic UFO sighting category of fitting into the *just ahead of us* in appearance.

The theory of the everything is a govenrment project , by your own logic, has to be extended back to pre WW2 times.. A time when the USA secret service consisted of about 40 men and dog and had a budget of about 10 bucks a year. So they were flying the ariships?? They were flying aircraft over scandinavia in the 1920s??? they were flying rockets allover sweden in the 1903s??

Not one person has ever come forward to make any sort of claim as to being responsible for any of those incidents. There are no secret papers ever showed up to suggest any government was involved in them either,

Fact is , if I were some *other race* , who could just as easily be extra dimensional as they are extra terrestrial, and wanted to keep tabs on us, appearing to be just slighlty ahead of the game , technology wise, is the perfect cover for studying mankind because it is then easy for governments to say nothing and let others claim they are nothing more than secret government tests.

I can say all this having spoken privately to someone in the military who ,not only had the highest levels of security clearance ,but, actually took an active interest in the subject at the bequest of the govenrment. They told me face to face that *Some of the sightings reported during my tenure of command were craft not made by any government of this earth*. When i asked him about secret govermnet tests he smiled and simply said *i refer you to my previous statement*.

Now maybe he was feeding me B/S, but i know my body language, and his demeanour was not that of a person being deliberaetly dupilicitous.

Edited by FireMoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be the only way they no how to explain something they have not seen before .what I'm saying is you normally look at what you no works when explaining something :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be the only way they no how to explain something they have not seen before .what I'm saying is you normally look at what you no works when explaining something :rofl:

good point!!! i believe you hit the nail on the head eggman. good post :tu:

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.