Wednesday, June 04, 2014

New Information Surfaces Re Famous Socorro UFO Case

Bookmark and Share

Socorro Craft

Ray Stanford By Ray Stanford
The UFO Chronicles

     On October 23, 2012, I received unsolicited contact by Richard T. Holder, Jr., son of Captain Richard T. Holder who was Up-Range Commander at the White Sands Proving Ground on Friday, April 24, 1964, when the Socorro CE III case occurred.

My habit usually is, if I respond to unsolicited correspondence at all, to seek confirmation of who the writer might really be. Well, at my request, Captain Holder's son, provided me very good evidence of his identity. He confirmed that I was correct, telling me that his father, Captain Holder, had suggested to Lonnie Zamora that he publicly conceal the actual red 'insignia' he had seen and substitute another. I wrote about this in Appendix A of my 1976 Socorro book [In the USA edition of Socorro Saucer in A pentagon Pantry, pages 206 - 211. Blueapple Books] and my subsequent statements (following Lonnie Zamora's passing).

To his credit, Captain Holder's eldest son was unhappy with the 'flack' I was receiving from certain noisy but ignorant-of-the-facts-of-the-Socorro-case internet loudmouths, and he wanted to set the record straight.

I told him that I wanted to send him a signed copy of my Socorro book, and asked that I send two copies, so that he (Richard) could sign one personally for me with a statement in his own handwriting, confirming that his father told him of suggesting to Lonnie Zamora that he not reveal publicly the actual shape he saw in red on the object's side, and that Lonnie complied, substituting a different one.

Richard T. Holder, Jr., returned the extra copy of my book with his hand-written statement of the facts inside it, signed and dated on March 3, 2013.

Rather than publish that long, hand-written (with a very fine-pointed pen) statement and have it be difficult to read when most internet sites using it will reduce its resolution for reasons of web-page practicality, I've asked Richard to just print, in nice-size type, a statement with his hand-written signature and date, so below is his statement, in his own words, with absolutely no coaching by me:

Letter To Ray Stanford From Richard T. Holder, Jr 4-21-14

I sincerely commend Richard T. Holder, Jr, for the courage to come forth and provide us confirmation of what I learned in my very first visit to Socorro (April 28 - 30, 1964), by telling us what he learned from his father. Of course, I cannot speak for Richard's late father, Captain Richard Terry Holder, but -- from what I've learned about the dedicated family man who became a pharmacist after retiring from the army -- I suspect he would be proud of his son's stepping forth to finally 'close the book' on the question in the minds of some, as to whether the red 'insignia' was obfuscated, and how and why that happened.

THANKS, Richard T. Holder, Jr, not only from me, but on behalf of any and all interested in the Socorro case, who love the truth above the myths about what happened in Socorro, New Mexico, on April 24, 1964, and in the hours immediately following that well-documented CE III encounter.

The reader's continued interest in understanding the Socorro case is appreciated.

* Special Thanks To Ray Stanford


  1. Dear Editor & Readers: in trying to follow your guidelines for making 'comment,' without making a 'vitriolic attack,' please allow a constructive observation. To wit: the concealing of the actual shape of the 'insignia' on the aka 'space ship.' Why should that simple point be withheld and then replaced with a fictitious one? Therein is where these ignorant, "internet loudmouths" have the fodder to flame their fires of disbelief. Why would both men, the late Mr. Zamora and Capt. Holder, produce a form of deceit on an insignia? Did they feel the actual one revealed something the public should not know of? All I saw in the drawing was a bottomless triangle with a line coming down the top middle section. What design did they come up with? We don't know, unless we buy Mr. Stanford's book as he sites the pages. Why not tell us in this post? By changing the actual insignia and replacing it with an incorrect one is to falsify the report. Yet another black eye for ufology when people come forward to tell of a sighting and then make their own changes to the reality. Of course, had there been a photo or film of the object, then we would know what the insignia looked like. It sounds like these men have tried to create blooming interest in a fact that is not the truth. Correct? I don't believe this comment is harsh or a vitriolic attack when I am simply stating a fact about withholding a fact. Yes? Regards, Jason Greywolf Leigh

  2. Hi Jason,

    Thanks for taking time to make comment. The answer to your questions can be found in Ray's 2nd part: New Revelations Re Socorro UFO Incident
    – Pt 2 –



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, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW


Mutual UFO Network Logo