Friday, January 30, 2015

The Socorro UFO Case – Two More 'Smoking Guns'

Socorro UFO- Lonnie Zamora Hitting The Dirt

Ray Stanford By Ray Stanford
The UFO Chronicles
There was absolutely nothing to keep Zamora from very clearly discerning the red 'insignia' because he observed it it with his glasses on and from, first, only 50 feet, and, finally, about 35 feet. I know the distances accurately because I paced the distances off at Hynek's request, when Zamora showed Hynek and me his closest positions.

     Before I get into the two additional 'smoking guns' confirming that the red 'insignia' Zamora saw was actually an inverted V with three lines across it, please allow me to address another matter on which there have been consistent lies or distortions: WHERE ZAMORA 'HIT THE DIRT' in a prone position. Most all accounts say that Zamora didn't 'hit the dirt' until he was well on the north side of his patrol car, with the car between him and the object hovering about twenty feet above the ravine bottom. THAT IS NOT ONLY FALSE BUT ILLOGICAL.

Above is my personally water-colored (but here in B & W, except for the red 'insignia') version of the illustration on page 25 of the hard-cover edition of my Socorro book, with the CORRECT version of the red 'insignia' replacing the fake version Captain Richard T. Holder convinced Zamora to describe.

THAT is where Zamora 'hit the dirt' in a prone position, as he had been trained to in the Army, in case of explosion. The perspective is a little distorted, because it makes Zamora look a bit too close to his patrol car. Actually, his feet were about 15 feet from the car, AND ONLY ABOUT 35 feet from the mysterious object.

Notice that the red 'insignia' is rendered somewhat larger than the one shown in my book. That's because when the original drawing was done, we were under the impression that the size Zamora described after talking with Captain holder was correct, describing the 'insignia' as 12 to 18 inches across. THAT WAS FALSE, and conceivably had been changed to further enable recognition of 'copycat' hoaxes.

Zamora's original description of the size of the red 'insignia' was approximately TWICE that large, at 2 to 3 feet across. Being red on a whitish-looking background and 2 to 3 feet across, it was unmistakably clear to Zamora. And let no one lie to you. ZAMORA WAS WEARING HIS GLASSES, just as shown in my illustration. They didn't get knocked off until, when running back up the slope WHILE LOOKING BACK OVER HIS SHOULDER AT THE OBJECT WITH HIS GLASSES ON, he resultantly didn't realize how close the car was and bumped into the back end, knocking off his glasses.

Now, let me explain how wrong and illogical the claim that Zamora 'hit the dirt' after running around the car and while a considerable distance north of it. As illustrated above, HE HAD ALREADY HIT THE DIRT, but then, realizing the thing was not exploding, he got up and ran to then get the patrol car between himself and the object, which by that point had cut off the noise and was not nearly so threatening. There was no reason to then reduce his view of the object by throwing himself on the ground wherein the car would be blocking any view from such a disadvantageous position.

Now, as to the two additional 'smoking guys' that point to the inverted V with three lines cross it, as what Zamora actually saw:

What I am about to show you will neither be found in the National Archive, nor on Project Blue Book files as now available at The Black Vault website. I suspect that Blue Book would never have knowingly let anything out contradicting the fake red 'insignia' as presented (albeit sometimes a bit contradictorily) with help of Army Captain Holder's (and Zamora at Holder's suggestion) help. It was probably also encouraged (or at least surely approved) by FBI agent Arthur Byrnes, Jr., who constantly hovered over the long nocturnal interview with Holder and Zamora, lasting until about 1:00 am.

The two hand-written documents seen below are evidently telephone notes taken at Blue Book, reporting what seems to have been a result of Hynek's interview with New Mexico State Police Sergeant Sam Chavez earlier on the evening of Tuesday, April 28, 1964, before Zamora came off police duty and Hynek got to interview him. I had arrived in Socorro before Zamora got off duty, and while Hynek was still talking behind closed doors with Sergeant Chavez.

We have MUFON Ohio State SECTION Director Rob Mercer to thank for copies of the hand-written documents that follow. Mercer has thoroughly checked them out, verifying the background of their source, a U.S. Air force Project Blue Book officer whose name and official photo are in my possession, but who for now shall remain unnamed for protection of his privacy.

What you see below are among a large group of documents that Rob Mercer acquired from the retired Air Force officer, but because the two you see below were kept out of the Blue Book records at the National Archive and reveal what the first responder to the Socorro site after Zamora's police call WAS TOLD BY ZAMORA ABOUT THE RED 'INSIGNIA', they are of cardinal importance. They confirm the subsequent cover-up of how the red 'insignia' really looked, and they give us a highly credible description. (It's a description confirmed by every lawman in Socorro to whom I spoke. See Appendix A, An Obfuscated Red 'Insignia'?, pages 206-211 in the hard cover edition of my Socorro book.)

The description was provided by Sergeant Sam Chavez based on what Zamora told him immediately after his arrival at the site. The description was provided to Hynek only four days later, matching precisely what Socorro policemen told me on that same day and the next one.

Therefore, I must point out that Chavez's description, as provided us in these hitherto undisclosed blue book documents, is quite evidently ACCURATE, unlike the drawing in the notoriously forgetful Hynek's September 7, 1964 letter to Project Blue Book, where he seems a bit unsure just how to place the three lines relative to the inverted V, which Chavez has described to him over four months earlier, on the evening of April 28.

The first image you see below contains the initial Blue Book telephone notes, written rapidly and in the cursive, while the second image below appears to be a follow-up version of the phone notes, unquestionably written by the same Blue Book staffer, but this time it is very neat and in mostly block-letter hand printing. Those typed notes in the black areas are by me.

Image 1:

Initial Blue Book Telephone Notes Re Socorro - Red Marking

Notice that word "first" modifying the word sighting, in the second line. Note that it is REMOVED in the second, more neatly written version below, seemingly because it referred to the La Madera, N.M., landed-object claim (not credible, in my opinion), and absolutely NOT to a second Socorro sighting. The writer wisely wanted to make sure things would not be misinterpreted.

Image 2: The red type is by me.

Initial Blue Book Telephone Notes Re Socorro - Red Marking (2)

The note at the bottom is about Hynek's call on his way home to Chicago, following our 1;00 pm press conference in Socorro's El Rio Motel, as described in detail in my Socorro book, pages 64 - 72. (Hynek told me after reading that in the book that I had given him what he had coming to him for his intellectually dishonest antics at the press conference.) Hynek's call was at 2305 hours (11:05 pm), so although the call was before midnight on the 28th, the note was not written until the next day, April 29, 1964.

When you combine those two notes providing Sergeant Chavez' account of Zamora's description of the red 'insignia', with the statement from Richard T. Holder, Jr (Captain Holder's eldest son) about the cover-up, and with Hynek's September 7, 1964 letter, it strongly suggests (since the two above notes were kept out of Blue Book files) that the USAF was involved in the red 'insignia' cover-up instituted by a U.S. Army White Sands up-range officer.

But if you are one of those skeptics who still accuse me of making up the red 'insignia' cover-up story, and still don't accept what I was to only person to expose about the Socorro case, despite evidence strong enough to stand up in court, then I suggest you go back to your Ouija Board class of revelations, have a cup of tea, and seek more tea-leaf-reading confirmation of your messages from the Ouija Board.

Fortunately, most researchers prefer a higher class of evidence.

There is more interesting and exciting Socorro evidence waiting in the wings. I hope to be able to share more of it soon.


  1. Ray's information is absolutely correct. Rob and I traded some emails and around the same time I put him in touch with Ray Stanford. The article I wrote in the Mufon Journal about 'The Search for the Lost Socorro Footage' helped to bring all of us together. Ray knows more about Socorro than anybody, especially since he was there as the only civilian investigator. He uncovered 11 total witness's to this event and so much seems to have been forgotten or poorly researched by those who have tales of hoaxes or manufacture their own version of the Socorro landing. It's all in Ray's excellent book "Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry". In a side note I have found the lost socorro footage and will be sharing that soon on after Ray and some others view it.

  2. Good Day Ben,

    Thanks for your input.


  3. Your welcome Frank. I am glad to see your articles that state facts as opposed to the many 'opinions' about Socorro and other cases. Excited to see the Roswell slides also.

  4. Mornin' Ben,

    Ray's work on Socorro is unmatched, and many researchers and the bulk of the general public have either forgotten or don't realize that the case was investigated by the Air Force, Army Intelligence and the FBI; to this day, the case is unresolved.

    Re the Roswell Sides: sadly, the case is being mishandled and looks as if it's going the way of the Alien Autopsy, regardless of the veracity of the images.



Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum-FW