Famous UFO Sighting Depicted in New Mural

A Socorro business owner believes that the city of Socorro could attract more tourists by promoting a local UFO sighting. On April 24, 1964, Socorro police officer Lonnie Zamora reported seeing an unidentified flying object. The sighting was

By Cathy El Defensor Chieftain 4-27-23

subsequently reported by El Defensor Chieftain and investigated by U.S. Air Force Project Blue Book personnel.

[...]

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

	Egg-Shaped UFO Lands and Takes Off, Reports City Policeman, Lonnie Zamora | SOCORRO UFO INCIDENT – 50th ANNIVERSARY
	'Metal Scrapings' From Socorro Craft Collected From Landing Site | UFO CHRONICLE – 1964
	The Socorro UFO Incident – Facts vs Fiction

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

'Metal Scrapings' From Socorro Craft Collected From Landing Site | UFO CHRONICLE – 1964

Physical evidence of the UFO seen at close range by New Mexico policeman Lonnie Zamora is in the possession of NICAP and plans are underway to have it analyzed by a high-ranking metallurgist in the laboratories of a Government scientific agency in the Washington area.

By The UFO Investigator NICAP July - August, 1964

Metal scrapings, reportedly left by one of the landing gears of the object, were taken from the scene by Ray Stanford, Phoenix, Ariz., a NICAP member authorized to investigate this case.

[...]

See Also:

The Socorro UFO Incident – Facts vs Fiction

The Socorro UFO Case – Two More 'Smoking Guns'

The Lost Socorro UFO Footage – Found? | VIDEO

Update on the ‘Search for the Socorro UFO (Case) Footage’

Egg-Shaped UFO Lands and Takes Off, Reports City Policeman, Lonnie Zamora | SOCORRO UFO INCIDENT – 50th ANNIVERSARY

- click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge -

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Socorro: The UFO Landing Heard Around the World

To exemplify the definition of the term, "when all hell broke loose," we need only remember April 24, 1964, the day when patrolman Lonnie Zamora allegedly had a somewhat close encounter with a landed UFO in Socorro, New Mexico. A roughly egg-shaped object with strange markings on the side, small beings on the ground who scurried back inside, a terrific roar and flame as the thing ascended quickly and shot out of sight, apparently just missing a dynamite shack, and landing marks on the ground where vegetation continued to burn 24 hours after the event -- this incident had it all. National news headlines could barely hold the volatility of this incredible report

By Robert Barrow robert-barrow.blogspot.com 5-2-07

as details exploded and shot like missiles to news agencies all over the world.

The Socorro event was hardly an isolated incident, however, as NICAP and other organizations, began receiving sighting -- and encounter -- reports nonstop. In response, as May, 1964 arrived, NICAP issued to members an alert about the Socorro case, and also dispatched postcards intended to capitalize on media attention. NICAP, we must realize, was very much a lobbying organization, in addition to serving as a profoundly effective UFO investigative entity, and when UFO publicity was high on the public mind there was no better time to "strike while the iron is hot" to increase public, and especially, Congressional attention.

Also mentioned is NICAP'S The UFO Evidence, an amazing 1964 report on the verge of publication, under assistant director Richard Hall's brilliant editorial supervision, which would be sent to every member of Congress in 1964. Filled abundantly with important military, government, airline pilot and other UFO reports to confound conventional scientific explanations, this NICAP document remains one of the top publications ever released about the UFO enigma.

For more on the Socorro incident, consult the nicap.org website and other reliable sources. Note, too, that Wendy Connors' Faded Discs (see link above) project offers digital recordings containing audio recordings of principal players in major UFO cases such as the Socorro incident.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

The Socorro UFO Incident – Facts vs Fiction

The Socorro UFO Case – Two More 'Smoking Guns'

The Lost Socorro UFO Footage – Found? | VIDEO

Update on the ‘Search for the Socorro UFO (Case) Footage’

Egg-Shaped UFO Lands and Takes Off, Reports City Policeman, Lonnie Zamora | SOCORRO UFO INCIDENT – 50th ANNIVERSARY

New Information Surfaces Re Famous Socorro UFO Case

New Revelations Re Socorro UFO Incident
– Pt 2 –

- click and or right click to enlarge image(s) -

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

The Socorro UFO Incident – Facts vs Fiction

Recently, after the authors recent visit to Socorro, New Mexico, important new information has come to light that we wanted to share with the readers of www.TheUfoChronicles.Com

By Ben Moss and Tony Angiola The UFO Chronicles 7-10-18

First, we must put to rest the poorly researched idea that this event was a hoax. Our documentation will easily dismiss these rumors, but we felt compelled to take the hoax theory apart piece by piece, in order to finally move past the fiction to the truth.

This will be discussed in the first part of this article.

Second, having just returning from our second visit to Socorro, there are more details concerning this very important case, still listed as an "Unknown" by Project Blue Book, that need to be told. This will be discussed in the second part of this article.

Tony Angiola and I, with the excellent assistance of Ray Stanford, the original NICAP investigator of the Socorro UFO incident, have been looking into and researching this case for the last 4 years. We have been able to gather new comprehensive data, as well as investigate what was already known about this famous April 24, 1964 incident in the desert town of Socorro New Mexico.

Our extensive investigation, along with Ray Stanford’s excellent book "Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry", show that a very unusual event occurred in the early evening of April 1964.

Everything we have found indicates that an ellipsoid shaped object landed displaying 4 struts, or landing gear. Two small bipedal figures were seen next to the object, before seemingly retreating back into the craft. The craft then took off, leaving important physical evidences behind. Suffice it to say that the details of this event can be found online, and do not need to be repeated here.

Instead, our focus is on the newly gathered information, and a point by point refutation of online armchair speculation and conjecture, promoted by individuals who have never been to the site itself.

Many factual errors of this case are still promoted by armchair bloggers, and the hoax story seems to be cobbled together using poor or non-existent research, and leaps of faith.

Imagine, as a detective, trying to solve a murder, but saying that part of your investigation does not require you to visit the scene of the crime to get a ‘lay of the land’. You would not be a detective for long, and I doubt you would ever solve a case.

The point we feel compelled to make, with regards to speculation that this event was a hoax, is that poor research, conjecture, and changing known facts to fit your own theory is what has hurt and continues to muddle Ufology’s most prominent cases. That has been true with regards to the Socorro Incident, one of the most evidential and important UFO landing cases ever to occur in the USA. We will set the record straight here now.

Let’s examine the main claims that have been made by so called ‘researchers’, whose investigation consist of trolling through the Internet, making one or two phone calls, and then creating an imaginative yet laughable tale to fit their convoluted theories.

In 1968, a letter to Dr. Sterling Colgate, from Dr. Linus Pauling inquiring about the Socorro sighting, Colgate had replied with the simple scribble saying:

"I have a good indication of the student who engineered the hoax. Student has left. Cheers, Sterling."

This is almost the entire basis for the hoax theory. What follows from this ONE letter appears to be speculation, urban myth, and the musings of a scientist who simply believed that since no Aliens can get here from wherever, that 'It had to be a student hoax'. There is no proof, there is only rumor, hyperbole, and fabrication. Let’s go deeper...

As with most people who debunk the Socorro event, MOST HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN TO THE LANDING SITE IN SOCORRO. Let that sink in for a minute. Any researcher or investigator working on a case would certainly visit the site of the event, if only to get a feel for the topology, lines of sight, remoteness of the area, and to understand what is and what is not possible in said environment.

As a UFO Investigator that (not physically visiting the location in question) is a huge red flag. How can you debate an event like this but not even know your way around ground zero? More on this point later.

Imagine students pulling off a hoax that is heard around the world! It fools the Project Blue Book investigators (as well as the Air Force, FBI, and CIA) yet never brag about it, or tell several friends and family, even today when there would be no repercussions. Remember, this occurred within a month of final exams, in a remote area of the desert. There is ZERO evidence that students liked to play around in this location in the desert as has been stated. Of course, if any of these bloggers had been to the landing site, they would understand how ridiculous that sounds.

One imagined reason for the hoax was because Lonnie 'hounded' tech students during that time. While in Socorro, we found no evidence of this. In fact, Lonnie "was usually very lenient and let students off with warnings “often. This shows you what anyone in Socorro knows to be true; Lonnie was a nice guy, fairly quiet, not a man to anger quickly.

And this is an important point, as many hoax supporters’ reports about Lonnie are contrary to what each and every person who knew him stated.

While in Socorro in April of 2018, we spoke with several people who were there in 1964, and who were close to the event and Lonnie Zamora, the police officer who witnessed this UFO landing. Not a single one of them believes the hoax tale. In fact, we were told by a town official who was there in 1964 that students rarely ventured into Socorro, and certainly did not wander around in the desert. As the locals reminded us, you have to watch out for Cactus, holes, rocks, snakes and various other dangerous things that inhabit the desert. This is not a place to 'play hide and seek' nor ‘hangout’ as quoted by armchair bloggers.

Students from 1964 have come forward and said that their pranks were usually small local events on campus, and the worse that anyone would have done to Lonnie was flatten his tires. But because of Lonnie’s good nature, we cannot find reports of anything out of the ordinary directed at him or his tires.

The enrollment at New Mexico Tech was small and a prank of this nature would have required planning, sophisticated equipment, and a lot time that your average student just did not have access to. Several pranks did occur on the campus, and the perpetrators were always known shortly after, as young students are usually too happy to tell their peers how 'they fooled the man'. To actually pull off something like what occurred at Socorro, is virtually still impossible today, unless your last name is Spielberg. This is a valid point, as debunkers have consistently changed their version of the hoax to accommodate how it was done, which of course, has never been completely explained. One of the most ignored points by hoax theorists is THAT NOBODY CAN SHOW OR SAY HOW THEY DID IT, NOR CAN ANY REPLICATE IT, USING 1964 OR CURRENT MATERIALS.

Now let’s look at Colgate’s letter stating how it was done:

In the exact words of the university president himself, the craft itself consisted of:

"A candle in a balloon.” Not sophisticated."

This is where the hoax theory begins to crumble, and has been ignored by many. The object departed into a stiff 30-35MPH wind, which was constant even when we were there. We have the documented weather from this exact day and location. Also, imagine a candle in a balloon fooling anyone. First, where are the students when this balloon (which would have vanished in the opposite direction in a matter of seconds) was released? Again, this points to the fact that armchair debunkers have no idea of the site, its difficulty to reach, and the fact that there in nowhere to hide or run to without being seen especially where Lonnie stopped his car. You can only fully understand this by visiting the site yourself.

When I had an email exchange with one of these debunkers fairly recently, he said that perhaps a balloon was towed on a wire by a car. Again, this tells you THAT HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT ITS LIKE ON SITE. You can barely get there in a modern car, much less a car from 1964. You CANNOT drive in that arroyo, there are bushes, cactus, depressions and rocks everywhere. There is NOWHERE TO HIDE. In several follow up post, one blogger keeps substituting different balloons in an attempt to match the description, yet Colgate said it 'was a candle in a balloon'. This small balloon was then 'maybe a Helium balloon’, which balloonist would say is wrong as they are launched in the early hours of the day when conditions are better, and certainly not at around 5:40 in the evening into a wind gusting up to 40MPH. The balloon was 'probably towed with a cable’. Huh? A cable attached to what, pulled by what? You begin to see that this tall tale is being changed to try and fit the research that shows all of these scenarios to be untenable.

Other more glaring distortions of the known facts include:

"Footprints from teenagers" were found at the site by government investigators immediately after Zamora's encounter."

That statement is 100% false. Sargent Chavez was there in 2 minutes, and later White Sands up range commander Captain Holder also was on scene with several other people. The official report says that there were no footprints at all, only the 4 landing gear indentations, and a few circular depressions possibly made by a ladder that the beings came down and up from and to the craft. There we have a couple of marks that may have been left by the beings themselves, and Captain Holder included those in his drawing of the event.

About one day later, the locals found the site and that's when the footprints were laid down (all after the fact).

Holder can be seen below with his description of his investigation:

"Burned brush that was seen at the site was caused by "pyrotechnic ignition" according to experts.”

This is another complete fabrication. Captain Holder said there was no indication of any combustibles, fireworks, nothing. This is all also in the official Blue Book files. A review of the Air Force Materials Laboratory Analysis of the soil samples gathered at the landing site concluded that 'there was no foreign residue. Analysis of the burned bush revealed no chemicals that could have been propellant residue, and there was no evidence of any pyrotechnics on site."

They were the experts on the scene. No one can produce these 'phantom experts' mentioned in one post, because they do not exist. One must begin to wonder, with so many factual errors, if these debunkers are simply trying to put a square peg in a round hole, or if they are just inept researchers. Since most have not been on site, my hunch is both.

'The "whining frequencies" heard by Zamora may have come from novel, sound-producing pyrotechnics.'

Again, no proof at all of this, another fabrication.

"The landing impression were 'dug' by students."

Another fabrication. The estimated weight of the object able to penetrate the still moist soil and leave this quadrangle of 4 depressions was approx. 9 TONS. The soil was pushed in a direction that indicated it came in at an angle. Who would have thought of that detail? If it was a hoax. The depressions were made by a wedge shaped landing gear, and the thruster producing the blue orange exhaust (4 times longer than wide), that sliced a creosote bush in half with radiant heat, was in the exact center place in the quadrangle that it had to be for the struts to balance this object. This was noted by Dr. Hynek and Ray Stanford when they were measuring the distance between the impressions, and the distance that Lonnie was when closest to the vehicle (35 Feet), with his glasses still on.

“Students in lab coats were the 'beings seen”.

On one website of the loudest debunker, as of today 07-06-18, still shows a picture of students in lab coats with the caption "Early Photo of Physics Lab Techies.” That picture is NOT FROM NEW MEXICO, but from Caltech, and he knows this but is still insinuating it as from New Mexico Tech. Wow, can we find more fabrications? Why yes, we can...

"Lonnie had impaired vision and required corrective lenses, which he lost.”

Here he forgets to mention that Lonnie’s glasses fell off AFTER he had seen the craft from only 35 feet. Lonnie’s daughter told us they were not corrective lenses at all, but more like readers.

"LONNIE DRANK, AND STUDENTS PRANKED".

This I find is the most disturbing fabrication of all, and is indicative of the type of dubious lack of research that has occurred, which appears to consist of Google, and a phone call or 2. While in Socorro this April, we found that the bartender from the local pub, called The Capitol Bar, was still around, and in fact he had just retired as a professor from New Mexico Tech. He said that 'Lonnie was in the bar at least 4 times to break up fights, not to drink.' He was not known as a heavy drinker, and when being questioned after the event he stated that he had 'a few beers several months ago'. Locals we spoke with, who knew Lonnie well, said he was just the opposite, and expressed great anger that this is being promoted by remote ‘talking heads’. The flimsy evidence behind this ludicrous claim, is on a debunkers web site that post anonymous people’s comments as fact, and that reminds me the common practice of going on Yelp and posting great things about your own business using false names, to promote your company. Again, we have no first hand witness testimony, as we have gathered on site, to support these farcical claims.

Paul Harden, President of the Socorro Historical Society and a staff member of the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in Socorro, whom I spoke with for 2 hours last month, mentioned that 'most people from 1962 are still here in Socorro.' We found that to be true as we had no trouble finding original witnesses, and no need to embellish this story as one would who has not visited the site and taken the time to talk to those who know this story best.

I found Paul to be a very conversational and kind. He clearly knew Lonnie quite well, and was very familiar with almost all of the people associated with this event. He shared many details from 1964 that challenged our ability to write down all of the important points that he was covering.

In fact, when discussing the integrity of Lonnie, it is important to quote the real 'experts' who were involved in this seminal case.

Hector Quintanilla, the head of Project Blue Book in 1964, had this to say in the CIA publication "Studies in Intelligence" released in 1966:

The brief was called “Policeman’s Report.”

“There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora’s reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we.

“This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic.”

This is where the subject of a “named so called student hoaxers” came into the debunkers world, but not surprisingly, this pool of students vanished like a light rain on a hot summer day in the desert.

In an email, one of the debunkers asked if I knew who the names of the students who were in on the hoax. I did not at the time, but he said, “does one of them have the initials JC?” Well, while in Socorro, I found out quite easily who JC was. Apparently, Sterling Colgate provided 2 names of the known hoaxers.

This is counter to an email between a debunker and Colgate where Colgate stated that he ‘did not know the names of the students”. I will not divulge these names to protect them from further harassment, but we will be digging deeper on this.

I did speak with a very good friend of one of the so called hoaxers, and he said that the former student was very upset with Colgate for naming him, and wondered what he did that made Colgate LIE about his involvement as a hoaxer and throw him under the bus. This is different from what debunkers have related on various websites, that this same person did not deny being a part of a hoax. In fact, he indicated that a debunker was trying to get him to say things to conform to what he (the debunker) believes. This is called leading the witness.

Mmm, somebody has their story wrong, and I think I know who. We will find out very soon. The other student, who just retired, said he was not even in classes with the others, and he also denied being a part of the hoax. He was a Geologist. Both said that hoaxes are fun to do, but not in the week leading up to finals week. So, in summation, all of the so called hoaxers have both indicated that they had no part of a hoax. It appears that Colgate really liked the limelight, but got caught up in something that became bigger than his small circle of friends. Another point is that this letter surfaced AFTER Lonnie had passed away. Then it became more public AFTER Colgate passed away.

Also, in our interviews with several former students and people that knew Colgate we find that Colgate had an affinity to party with students while enjoying libations besides alcohol. This memory kept coming up from several past students. I point this out for 2 reasons (and not to disparage Colgate), because debunkers imply that Lonnie was a drunk and thus his story cannot be trusted. Can not the same also be said of Colgate? Also, because someone is brilliant and has multiple degrees, that does not mean they do not have flaws and the capacity to promote false truths. If you started a rumor based on second or third hand testimony, and to save face wanted to defend that rumor, then you would have what is now seen as the ridiculous unsubstantiated claims by Colgate, and his true believers.

So, the crux of this impossible to reproduce hoax theory is based on fabrication, speculation, and bad investigation.

Lonnie Zamora, over the many years since 1964, never changed, nor embellished his story. There is another important point to make about Lonnie’s character. Our investigation shows how much he was liked by all of the people who spoke so well of him. In April of 1964, Lonnie’s patrol car was only one week old, and it was shared by another officer. In our first visit to the site in 2016, we drove a new rental car to the site, and beat it up pretty good, bottoming out on rocks every few feet. As a proud police officer, in a new car, the only reason that makes sense for Lonnie to drive into this difficult area was to see if there was someone in trouble, perhaps a crashed plane. That tells you the nature of Lonnie, that he would risk a brand new car driving into a difficult area, because he felt IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IF SOMEONE WAS IN TROUBLE.

Debunkers, on the other hand, have modified what Colgate originally said (a balloon with a candle) by trying to fit several different types of balloons into the picture, including a helium balloon, a weather balloon, and maybe a balloon towed by a rope. Yet, not one single person can provide any evidence of a hoax, nor how it was done. No one can answer the question of how Lonnie was lead to the site, if it was students, a quarter of a mile away, hoping to lure him to a SPECIFIC location. Lonnie heard a roar and spotted a glowing blue orange flame in the sky, which was descending BEFORE he crested the mesa and looked down into the arroyo. The landing site is several hundred feet from the road. That would have to be one magical balloon.

Now that the reader can see how the idea of a hoax is untenable and virtually impossible using 1964 technology and materials, let’s get to the events themselves and try to determine the real story of this incredible event.
In order to determine the facts of this event, the authors revisited Socorro for the second time in April of 2018 and dug even deeper into this fascinating mystery of a UFO landing in the New Mexico desert.

Many people that have heard of this case are not aware of the fact that several egg-shaped craft were witnessed by civilian and military personnel in this general area and time frame. This is an important thread to follow and expands this case from the one event in Socorro to a plethora of similar incidents that support a mini flap of such craft, which appeared in and around several military installations that are located throughout this area. In fact, New Mexico, for many years, has been a military crossroads for the United States.

As the Second World War began, the Albuquerque Army Air Field was training thousands of military personnel on the B-17 "Flying Fortress". The privately-owned Portair Field in Clovis became the Clovis Army Air Field and, just east of the White Sands Proving Grounds, the Alamogordo Army Air Base was established.

As the war raged, the B-29 Superfortress became an integral part in the Pacific Theater. Alamogordo aircraft saw more action, as did planes from Albuquerque and Clovis. In July 1945, the world changed forever as we entered the nuclear age with the detonation of the world's first atomic bomb at Trinity, located in the northern stretch of White Sands.

In September of 1947, the United States Air Force was officially established. By then, Albuquerque's base was re-named Kirtland, Clovis became Cannon Air Force Base and Alamogordo became Holloman.

Kirtland has stayed on the forefront of nuclear development for both war and peacetime applications, with many of the discoveries being tested south at White Sands Missile Range. But in 1964, with the Socorro UFO landing hitting the press in advance of the militaries ability to investigate it, we find that an extensive search of all of these bases yielded NO OBJECT that could account for the craft that Lonnie Zamora came upon while investigating what he thought may have been an explosion of the dynamite shack in the Socorro desert. This extensive and mostly secret investigation included Project Blue Book, the FBI, CIA and the Army, with inquires and interest from the White House and Joint Chiefs of Staff. The idea of a hoax was considered and dismissed after the facts came to light.

Upon digging deeper into the Project Blue Book reports and local newspaper archives some interesting cases were discovered:

–In 1957

Two military police units patrolling the Trinity site at White Sands, independently of each other, reported seeing an egg-shaped object hover over the desert. The object reportedly landed, leaving ‘footprints’, and then departed at high speed.

–April 26th, 1964 Albuquerque, NM

George Mitropolis was driving north on US 85 when he spotted an object ahead of him, appearing to come above the crest of the mountains and then drop back behind. He stopped his car and saw a luminous object, like an ‘inverted bathtub’ thirty feet in length, with a glow radiating beneath it.

–April 27th, 1964 El Paso, Texas

Eight children and several adult witnesses viewed a hovering egg-shaped UFO over 6 feet in height above the Crosby School.

–April 28th, 1964, Near Socorro NM

Two egg shaped objects were seen by a truck driver and his wife around 5:30PM, moving as fast as a jet plane. That same day, in Hobbs NM, (Police report) a group of children and 2 adults witnessed the same event: a white round object that hovered over the city and then departed to the Northeast.

Later the same day in Cheyanne, Wyoming, 3 women reported seeing an egg-shaped UFO with a trail streaking from it, followed by a second UFO.

–April 30th, 1964 Holloman AFB

Two military sources said there was an encounter between a B-57 and an ‘egg shaped white object’. The pilot reported to this to the mission controller at Holloman and was asked to ‘turn and re-encounter the object’. The pilot then radioed that the UFO had ‘landed on the ground’. When Coral Lorenzen, a UFO Investigator, published a press release on this sighting, brass at Holloman admitted the next day that they had “tracked 2 unknowns on radar”. In addition, there was another sighting on the same range by a guard, who was so frightened by what he saw that he ‘emptied his side arm at the object and then fled’ to base HQ, where he was subsequently hospitalized.

On the same day in 1964, at 10:22 in the morning, NICAP investigator Ray Stanford took 2 photographs of a glowing blue object while driving back to Phoenix from Socorro. What he saw and photographed was a compound object that appeared to shimmer an odd blue along with a delta shaped object.

–April 30th, 1964: Las Cruces

A state police officer and 4 employees of the Port of Entry Station on Interstate 10 south of the city reported sighting a luminous round object moving in jerky motions and changing direction. State patrolman Raul Arteche of Anthony also sighted the object moving northwest. This was also reported independently, by a private pilot at the same time.

–May 15th, Stallion Site, Holloman

Radar , including FP-16 radar at the Stallion site, tracked 2 objects ‘performing precise, perfect flight maneuvers, including side by side flight, separating, then rejoining in formation in up and down (pogo) maneuvers’. Visual confirmation was made by a trained radar operator who saw two objects, flying low, described as ‘brown and football shaped.’

What is very interesting about this report is that Ray Stanford, the original NICAP investigator at Socorro, reported filming similar objects performing these same feats, from a highway on the north edge of White Sands in the July 19th, 1978. He also obtained ELF magnetic recordings, as well as a sound recording.

These are just some of the many reports concerning egg or football shaped objects in the New Mexico area that lend credence to the Socorro UFO incident. A one off is one thing, but the data shows that this type of craft was operating in this area before and after Lonnie Zamora’s sighting, further supporting what Lonnie reported.

Ray Stanford, when interviewing the other Socorro police officers, was told that ‘they all saw object’s’ at various times but would never report it after seeing the way that Lonnie was being treated. We also uncovered a report of another ‘landing’, near the canal in Socorro. We wondered where this canal was, so we got in the car and found it, parallel to the river. This is a perfect, low lying area, leading into Socorro from Albuquerque.

While discussing this with several locals, we uncovered a story, spoken only to locals, that Mary (not her real name) was sitting on the porch of her house that faces the canal, and saw an egg shaped object coming along the canal from the direction of Albuquerque, and turning towards the area where the object was then spotted by the witness that stopped at Opal Grinders gas station. We reconnoitered the area, found the house, and the path that she described, and it all lines up with the witness reports. Remember that 3 independent witnesses called the Socorro dispatch from Albuquerque, reporting an object with a blue flame, heading to Socorro right before Lonnie spotted the craft.

Another new and interesting piece of information was shared with us, by 2 independent people, that something was recovered on the ground, supposedly from this craft. We are looking further into this information, and recently, we got corroboration that another Investigator heard the same story, from 2 ADDITIONAL witnesses.

While speaking with a few of Lonnie’s close friends, and his daughter, we were impressed by the fact that Lonnie’s fright was way beyond what was apparently reported. According to a close friend, Lonnie was so frightened by what he saw, that he spent 3 hours talking with his priest that first night. When Lonnie asked him what he should do, the priest said “Do one of 2 things. Shut up or tell the truth”. Lonnie decided on the truth, and he never wavered nor embellished it. According to his close friend, Lonnie knew when to ‘begin and end the story’. We got the impression that Lonnie, who went from saying he saw 2 small figures to talking only about ‘something white coveralls’, saw 2 entities that he knew were not human and shattered his view of the world.

New Mexico State Policeman Sergeant Samuel Chavez, the first person Lonnie called after the event, arrived and said that Lonnie was white as a sheet and looked like ‘he had seen the devil.’ Lonnie responded with ‘Maybe I have’. Harold Baca told us that ‘my dad got there within 5 minutes and Lonnie was still hiding behind his car when they got there.’

Ray Stanford, when onsite a few days later in 1964 with Dr. Hynek and Lonnie, said that Lonnie stood in front of the creosote bush, and held his hand about 4 feet off the ground in front of the bush, to indicate their size.

Over the years, everyone that was close to Lonnie said that he was ‘never the same’. Most friends would not bring up the encounter, but occasionally Lonnie would just need to talk about it. Towards the end of his life, he was admitting that ‘the creatures’, when asked what they were, did not ‘come from around here’. He did not know what they were, but he wished he had never seen nor talked about them. The Airforce, from the first day of their investigation, told him to not mention any occupants.

We believe, that in that moment of terror, that Lonnie knew that they were not men of Earth, and as a devout Catholic, his first thought was that he had witnessed a demon.

This part of the story has become a lot more interesting, as we have indications, hinted at by Paul Hardin and others, that Lonnie had a much closer encounter with the 2 beings, and that this is the point that Lonnie realized that he was confronting 2 non-human creatures, not a couple of kids at the scene of an accident. Further documentation of this encounter is coming soon, and we cannot elaborate further until a fellow friend and researcher releases more of this material.

While discussing the extent of Lonnie’s fright with Ray Stanford, we agreed that there must have been some details that Lonnie left out that caused him to react so strongly, and be so afraid of what he encountered. As Paul Hardin mentioned, Lonnie knew when ‘to start and stop the story’, and this, we believe, is directly related to his close encounter with non-human entities, perhaps as close as 50 feet away. If Lonnie had a much better, and probably closer look at the 2 occupants, this would account for the fact that what he saw changed his life forever.

The authors do not know what landed in Socorro, nor the origin of said object. Our investigation has shown that all of the uncovered data points to the landing of a non-human craft with very small occupants. Despite the attempts by all of the investigative branches of the military, they could never find a company nor organization that said they constructed this craft. When you put all of the facts together, what we found is that a very strange event occurred, and the mystery of what actually landed in Socorro in 1964 will remain a mystery, probably forever.

Lonnie was never the same, and we doubt that a balloon, or any type of a hoax, would have fooled this Army and Police veteran to the point of abject terror.

Instead, the evidence leads us to believe that Lonnie was a witness to the great unknown, and the weight of this knowledge was so heavy, that it forever affected Lonnie to his last day on Earth.

Thanks to the friendly and fine people of Socorro, New Mexico, for allowing us access to files, newspaper articles, and witnesses to this April 24th, 1964 event.

See Also:

The Socorro UFO Case – Two More 'Smoking Guns'

The Lost Socorro UFO Footage – Found? | VIDEO

Update on the ‘Search for the Socorro UFO (Case) Footage’

Egg-Shaped UFO Lands and Takes Off, Reports City Policeman, Lonnie Zamora | SOCORRO UFO INCIDENT – 50th ANNIVERSARY

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Lost UFO Films: Socorro and Frank Stranges

The Reverend Frank E. Stranges passed on in 2008, but he is fondly remembered.

By Curt Collins thesaucersthattimeforgot.blogspot.com 12-8-17

"No one knows this more than Dr. Frank E. Stranges. This erudite, holding degrees in Theology, Criminology and Psychology, has dedicated his life to the study of the Bible and other sacred texts in relationship to spiritual growth and understanding not only of our planet and its people, but also of those from other worlds."

So says his bio/obit at ISUIS. Dr. Stranges also made a few UFO film projects, but it's the missing ones that may matter the most. Here's a news item on his lecture promoting his UFO documentary Phenomena 7.7 from the Redlands Daily Facts (CA) March 5, 1965:

Saucers—Fact or Fiction ... announcing a lecture by Dr. Frank E. Stranges, president of the International Evangelism Crusades... Frank Stranges has just completed work on a color documentary film entitled, "Phenomena 7.7." It will be released to movie and television shortly... Versed in many fields of interest. Dr. Stranges will lecture on flying saucers.

[...]

Phenomena 7.7 included a rare filmed segment on one of the most compelling unexplained UFO sightings of all time, the 1964 Lonnie Zamora encounter in Socorro, New Mexico.

[...]

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

The Lost Socorro UFO Footage – Found!| VIDEO

The Lost Saucer of 'Forbidden Planet' Reappears

UFOs and Nukes Documentary Now Available On Amazon Prime

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

MJ-12 and 1985 [and Roswell]

By Kevin Randle A Different Perspective 12-30-14

      While I know that many people are tired of the arguments about the authenticity of MJ-12, and while I really don’t want to open up another assault on my integrity based on my objections to MJ-12 documents, I have discovered something about them that hasn’t been reported. It suggests, once again, who might have had a hand in creating the documents, and it reinforces the idea that these documents were created in the mid-1980s for personal gain and not in 1952 for the President-elect.

I was searching for another file, when I noticed one that was out of place. I opened it out of curiosity and found some notes that related to MJ-12. What this told me was that at the UFO Expo West in Los Angeles on May 11, 1991, Jaime Shandera was lecturing about the Plains of San Agustin. He had this to say:

The people that supposedly found stuff in Socorro did not find stuff in Socorro. The party of archaeological people and the Barney Barnett part of the story; they were at the Corona site, not in Socorro [Plains of San Agustin]. I know [this is] the way you understand it because it’s the way it’s always been written and even the way it was written in The Roswell Incident. That’s wrong. There is new evidence that it was all in the Corona site. The way it happened was this – there were not two sites that were more than one hundred miles or so apart … and the so-called Roswell site was just outside of Corona. The archaeologists and Barney Barnett part of it, that was over in Corona. There was no person that found anything in San Agustin.

Remember, this was in May 1991, and had nothing to do with what Don Schmitt and I had written in our book, UFO Crash at Roswell, that would be published in July 1991, though we had come to the same conclusion. Barnett was not over on the Plains. In May 1991, no one had seen Ruth Barnett’s diary, which, of course, ended the discussion. Karl Pflock and I would publish an article some ten years later that not only suggested that Barnett had not seen the object on the Plains, but that his story had nothing at all to do with Roswell crash.

On that same day, that is May 11, 1991, Antonio Huneeus and Javier Sierra interviewed Bill Moore about some of the things that Shandera had said earlier. Moore was talking about the Gerald Anderson tale and why he did not accept it as authentic. (Interestingly, one of the reasons he rejected it was because the military was segregated in 1947, not realizing that white officers commanded the black units, so one of his reasons for rejecting the tale is false, but that doesn’t matter here.) He confirmed that he was on board with Shandera about the Plains, saying, “There is no reason to believe anything occurred on the Plains of San Agustin on that particular date.…”

Which is, of course, what I and many others have been saying for years. Nothing happened on the Plains. But then Moore said the thing that is quite revelatory. He said, “The original hypothesis was that the object had come down in two places, the first being the Brazel site, the second being the Plains of San Agustin, and that in 1985 I abandoned [it] simply because the only witness who put the thing in the Plains of San Agustin at all was Barnett’s boss, Danley, [who] it turned out, was not sure of the place, and it turned out that Barnett could have been up at the Brazel site…”

Here’s what we know now. According to the documentation supplied by Moore in various arenas, Shandera received the Eisenhower Briefing Document on December 11, 1984. This is based on their displaying of a mailing envelope with a December 1984 date on it (postmarked from Albuquerque, which I mention simply because if I don’t someone will criticize the lack of my noting it) but we have no way of knowing if that envelope actually contained the film. There is nothing to tie it to the film and the EBD. We can document the first public mention of the EBD by a London newspaper on May 3, 1987, though Just Cause did publish a list of members of MJ-12 in December 1985 but not the documents themselves. Prior to that, we have nothing that is reliable about the EBD. We can accept the December 11, 1984, date as reliable, or we can reject it. It actually means little because it is impossible to prove that the date is accurate.

Now, based on the 1991 interview, we have Moore’s statement that he had rejected the idea of a Plains of San Agustin crash in 1985 which, as I noted, is interesting. He tells us that he has rejected it because Danley couldn’t actually provide a location or date for Barnett’s story. This is something that I had noticed when I interviewed “Fleck” Danley in October 1990. It was clear that he couldn’t remember much about what Barnett had said and had I been of a mind, I could have convinced him of almost anything. I realized that his information was severely compromised.

But here’s the thing. Moore, in 1991, was saying that he rejected the Plains of San Agustin in 1985, not because he had in his hand the EBD which mentioned nothing of a crash there, but because he found the Danley information to be wanting. It would seem to me that if I was in possession of a document which gave me precise information about a UFO crash and that had been prepared for the man who would be taking over as President in a few months, that would be the most important source for a change in the basic story. If the Plains was left out of the briefing that would tell me that the information about the Plains was inaccurate and that would be a better source than that of a witness who was easily confused. Or, in other words, I would have said I have a document that tells me the Plains story is no good.

That is, unless I know something about the EBD that others don’t know. If I know the source of the EBD, and I know the document can’t be trusted, then I don’t use it to suggest there was no crash on the Plains. I say something about the lack of reliability of Danley’s testimony.

The other side of this is that we can trace the EBD back to Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera and no further. They are the sources for this document and it seems that they, or at least Moore, are not confident enough in it to use is as source material for his analysis of the situation in 1947. That tells us something very important about the EBD. It tells us that Moore finds the EBD unreliable, and if he has no confidence in it, why should the rest of us?

I will say one other thing. The information contained in the EBD was the best available in the mid-1980s. This is proved once again by Moore’s comment that he abandoned the Plains idea in 1985. He is telling us quite a bit in that one short statement. We should all listen to what he had to say about this because it does answer a couple of burning questions.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

Project Pounce and MJ-12

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

MJ-12, CIA, NSA, Secrecy & UFOs

Ryan Wood and the Majestic Documents

MAJESTIC FOUND !

The Majestic Documents: A Forensic Linguistic Report (Pt 1)

MJ-12: The Only Fiction is The Majestic 12 Documents, Declares, Randle

MJ-12: No Proof that TF, CT, or EBD Documents are Fraudulent, Argues Friedman

Roger Wescott, Roscoe Hillenkoetter and MJ-12

MJ-12: The Hoax That Quickly Became a Disinformation Operation

MJ-12 Debate Continues: Alejandro Rojas Rebukes Stanton Friedman

MJ-12 Debate Continues: Kevin Randle's Final Word on The Matter?

MJ-12 Debate Continues: Stanton Friedman Counters

MJ-12 Debate Continues: Kevin Randle Queries Stanton Friedman

MJ-12: Stanton Friedman Fires Back; The Disputation with Kevin Randle Continues ...

MJ-12: Kevin Randle Rails Against Stanton Friedman's Rebuttal

MJ-12: Alejandro Rojas Accepts Stanton Friedman's Debate Challenge

MJ-12: Renowned Ufologist, Stanton Friedman Issues Debate Challenge To Naysayers

More False Claims About Majestic 12

The Myth of MJ-12: Appendix A –Pt 1

The Myth of MJ-12: Appendix A –Pt 2

The Myth of MJ-12: Appendix A –Pt 3

"Appendix A: The Myth of MJ-12" An Annotated Commentary By Barry Greenwood

Operation Bird Droppings
The MJ-12 Saga Continues:

UPDATE 1:
Operation Bird Droppings
The MJ-12 Saga Continues:

Bird Droppings and MJ-12, Stanton Friedman Responds . . .

An Historical Curio re "MJ-12"

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

New Revelations Re Socorro UFO Incident – Pt 2 –

Tweet

By Ray Stanford The UFO Chronicles 6-4-14

     Ever since the death of the principal Socorro witness, Lonnie Zamora, after which I could then (without embarrassing Lonnie) tell of his agreement with Captain Richard T. Holder to substitute a fake red 'insignia' for what he actually saw, I have been accused by certain internet loudmouths of anything from being an outright liar trying for unexplained reasons to conceal what Zamora actually saw, to being totally deluded either by my own mind or by unnamed covert operatives out to deceive me and the world. But, if one looks closely as their statements and totally baseless claims, it should not surprise any intelligent, objective person that unfounded speculation and even paranoia is rampant among some internet persons pretending to make UFO-related revelations without due research, while using the internet as a playground.

You learned in my mass-mailed letter of yesterday, that Captain Holder's son was often told by his father that he obtained Zamora's agreement to not divulge the real 'insignia' he saw in red on the observed vehicle, so a bogus one was substituted.

My purpose today is NOT to tell you that I know exactly what Zamora really saw in red on the side of the ellipsoidal object he saw. I cannot accomplish that simply because I don't know for sure exactly what he saw in red on the object's side. So let me be clear what my purpose is. I intend to simply show that the alleged red 'insignia' Zamora began describing only after his talk with Captain Richard T. Holder on the evening of Friday, April 24, 1964, that iswas NOT what he really saw, but is the substitution he decided to describe after talking with Captain Holder.

As to how the red 'insignia' Zamora actually saw might have looked, David Rudiak's totally objective and honest search for the reality contrasts beautifully against the internet 'rif-raf-rattle' of those who had rather publish unfounded speculation instead of doing due research on this matter.

There was even one internet-published speculation that I made up the story of the inverted V with three lines beneath it. Ignorant people can be awfully ridiculous at times.

Rather that rewrite all I have written years ago about that matter, let me provide you the assemblage of facts David Rudiak very kindly sent me recently, with the links he provided attached.

He very accurately reported:

The inverted V with three bars through it was being reported in the media before Ray even got to Socorro four days later and finally questioned Zamora (as I recall) on day 5. So despite some nonsense on the Net, Ray certainly did NOT invent that insignia, somehow getting Zamora to change his story. Examples of the media mentioning the symbol in the days immediately following:

1. Zamora interviewed by Walter Shrode on KSRC, I think the day after the incident. Transcript at my website and link to recording.


SHRODE: And someone said that the markings that you saw was an upside down “V” with three lines running through it.

ZAMORA: No sir, I couldn’t tell you that, because they still don’t want me to say nothing about the markings.

2. Walter Shrode interviewing Hynek had him saying it (maybe April 29, after Hynek arrived at about the same time as Ray the evening of April 28), my transcript and link to recording:

SHRODE: Well, about this marking, can you tell us how he described this marking and what the marking was?

HYNEK: Yes, I see no reason why not. He described it to me as an inverted “V” with a sort of a bar across it...

3. AP quoted Hynek saying it:

AP Story, April 30 (e.g. Frederick MD News)
“The scientist [Hynek] also discussed the markings that Zamora said he saw on the side of the object, a red, inverted V with bars through it.”

4. First responder and Zamora's friend Sgt. Sam Chavez was quoted saying it:

Hobbs NM Daily News, April 28, front page
“State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez said he was told by Socorro policeman Lonnie Zamora that the UFO he saw Friday… had red markings on its silvery side. Chavez said Zamora told him the design was an inverted V with three bars crossing it, but that the Air Force had told him not to discuss the markings.”

5. AP attributed the description directly to Zamora himself:

AP Story, April 29 (e.g., San Antonio TX Light, Danville VA Bee)
“Officer Lonnie Zamora said the object he saw last Friday was a brilliant white. He said there was a red marking on it like an upside down V with three lines across the top, through the middle and at the bottom.” (San Antonio paper also showed a drawing of the object with the symbol, said to be based on "newspaper accounts")

6. Ray has a recording of Socorro police dispatcher Mike Martinez saying it. As Ray notes in his book: "Martinez quoted Zamora in Spanish, "...un 'V' invertido, con tres líneas debajo," meaning exactly what it says, "an inverted 'V' with three lines beneath it"


In fact, I haven't been able to find a similar description of what became known as the real symbol in this early reporting. That seems to have appeared later.

Thank you Dave Rudiak.

In the National Archive's files on the Socorro case, one sees contradictory drawings of the red 'insignia' Zamora allegedly saw, but there may be several rational explanations for those, including the fact that at least two of them look as though they conceivably might have been drawing experiments made by Captain Holder and/or Zamora. That might have been done either with Zamora just trying, by drawing it, to figure out what he saw in those rushed moments of observation, or maybe drawings made when he and Holder were trying to decide on the substitute 'insignia' Zamora would, thereafter, publicly claim he saw. It seems conceivable that Holder mistakenly left them in the report, and that slip-up might have been induced by the long interview that went on into the night.

As you will see below, when movie producer James Fox and I were at the National Archive on August 3, 2013, just as James had predicted in coaxing me to go back to the Archive with him for a second day, I made a discovery that thrilled me and filled me with great satisfaction, because the document basically confirms what I had been saying for fifty years, and it should show any realistic person that theZamora began (on the April 25, 1964) drawing (in any of its slight variations) and telling the media and independent investigators he saw, was a bogus substitute instead of what he really observed.

Look above (top image): James Fox asked to take that photo of me holding an important Hynek letter I had just discovered in the Archive's Socorro files, because he wanted to record for posterity the satisfaction on my face, that was a obvious as it could be. I've set into James' photo, above, another document found in the Archive's Socorro files. It's Allen Hynek's Polaroid photo (and its enlargement, at upper-left) of me standing beside the SW Socorro object landing pad imprint. Lonnie Zamora is at left, and N.M. State Police Sergeant Samuel Chavez, stands between Lonnie and me at age 25 on the morning of Wednesday, April 29, 1964. Thankfully, Hynek, who had known me since 1959 insisted -- over Sergeant Chavez's objections -- that the Socorro police dispatcher Mike Martinez tell me I would be welcome to join them at the landing site during Hynek's on-site investigation. (See my Socorro book for details, pages 49 - 63.)

Proudly, the 'slide' below illustrates my fifty years and early involvement in the Socorro case. THANK YOU, James Fox, for the wonderful opportunity that the situation be photo documented in my 50th year on the case.

PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE WRITTEN TEXT IN EACH IMAGE THAT FOLLOWS.

O.K., now that you've seen in James fox's photo of my unconcealed satisfaction (top image), look closer at the letter I uncovered, as shown below. You can now understand my satisfaction, because it contains, in Allen Hynek's hand-written letter (while he was enjoying a badly needed vacation) to Major Hector Quintanilla at the United States Air Force's Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB, Hynek's own drawing of the 'insignia' Lonnie Zamora reported.

Was there a stamp thief at the National Archive or at the Air Force's FTD? ;o) We noticed immediately that the postage stamp Hynek had affixed had been cut out.:

The second page of Hynek's letter to the FTD contains only trivia, and is unrelated to the Socorro case, so although it's available on request, I don't want to cause this letter to be rejected by some systems because of large data content..

A closer look at Hynek's drawing of the 'insignia' he reports Zamora saw is included in the slide below, with its color changed to the red in which Zamora said he saw the 'insignia'. What you see as the background of that red enlargement is the advertisement which Hynek enclosed with his letter to FTD, for a very new company seeking employees, that used a logo somewhat resembling what Zamora had described. Notice, too, that their logo was black and NOT RED. The FTD was hoping to find a company on earth that might have created the Socorro vehicle, but as major Hector Quintanilla told the CIA later, they never did.

Please notice what I tell in the blue area of the slide about that company's status:

The USAF tried so desperately to locate a research facility that they hoped would explain what Zamora (and the other witnesses) saw, that they convened a highly classified conference at Holloman AFB, trying to find some terrestrial source for the high-performance object Zamora had seen within about 35 feet, with his glasses still ON, but they could find no source for the vehicle, and FTD's Major Hector Quintanilla told the CIA that despite all efforts, it was unexplained and unidentified. A copy of a declassified document concerning the secret Holloman meeting is in my files, from the National Archive visit with James Fox.

In closing, let me stress that I'm not trying to present the exact shape of the red 'insignia' Zamora saw on the side of the object. If you read my book, you know that all the persons to whom I spoke (including several law officers) told me the same thing, describing. And I have no doubt that the persons who told me that were actually told that before Lonnie had his interview with Captain Holder.

Well, Hynek drew the following for the Foreign Technology division:We plainly see that it is also an inverted V with three lines, but with some change in their lengths and placement. So whether Hynek's version was more accurate, or what first-arrivers at the landing site who talked to Zamora before he talked with Captain Holder said Zamora told them (and in at least one case drew) is more accurate, we can reasonably deduce that whatever the little variations might have been, it was the inverted V with three lines that Zamora saw and absolutely NOT theZamora described to all media persons and other investigators after his agreement with Holder to provide a substitute 'insignia'.

My point here, again, is simply that, for example, theRichard Hall of NICAP insisted on publishing for NICAP and asserted was what Zamora saw (despite my protests as their only on-site investigator) absolutely was NOT what he saw. it's only what he and Captain Holder agreed he would tell people after their meeting on the night of Friday, April 24, 1964.

I don't know whether Zamora saw thisor this, or even if it was perhaps some variation from either of those as, if I understand him correctly, Richard T. Holder, Jr. feels he recalls his dad showing him. However, as the only on-site-with-Hynek, Zamora, and Chavez investigator of the Socorro case, and the only living person who has studied the case in-depth for fifty years, and as the one who wrote the 211-page 1976 book of the case, I strongly recommend that the 'UFO community' realize thewas purposeful fiction, and that the red 'insignia' was actually some version of an inverted V with three lines.

There is more on the Socorro case which I hope to be sharing, and an important part of it is a video James Fox says will be in his forthcoming UFO movie, showing Hynek admitting to me something very significant about the Socorro case. And, by the way, if what Hynek tells me (in the interview) that the U.S. Air Force told him is true, it proves that a certain guy's pretense that the Socorro event was a student hoax is utter bilge (foolish or worthless claim).

The central proponent of the silly idea that the Socorro, multi-witness case was the result of a student hoax, has made numerous flimsy excuses for not debating me or others about his Nth-degree fictional extrapolation from one man's closed-minded fantasy about the case. Well, I've heard enough of his fiction which misrepresents a highly observant and intelligent man, Lonnie Zamora, as a blundering fool. Such misrepresentation of Lonnie Zamora are disgusting to anyone who really knew him, to his wife and children, and such claims are indefensible.

I CHALLENGE THE PRIMARY PROPONENT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE SOCORRO EVENT WAS TO RESULT OF A STUDENT HOAX TO DEBATE ME.

But, once again the primary proponent of that foolishness will surely not dare debate me, and likely (if he's still behaving as in the past) will hurl insulting excuses at me, as he did when I challenged him to debate me on Coast-to-Coast, and he chickened out.

I'm sick and tired of anyone trying to misrepresent the quiet but, intelligent, and highly observant Lonnie Zamora as some stupid, unobservant fool.

Well, back to my main purpose of this letter. Now you have Hynek's hitherto unpublished letter confirming the inverted V with three lines. I hope future illustrators will not show the fictional, substituted 'insignia' on the object's side when the Socorro object is illustrated. It was only because 'researchers' everywhere, including NICAP, had by 1976 convinced the public that the fictional 'insignia' was the real one, that, at my Socorro book editor's virtual insistence, we used the fictional 'insignia' on the side of the object on page 25 of the Socorro book. He said that, otherwise, people under the influence of organizations like NICAP and APRO would come across the book and reject it, saying that the author didn't even know what was really seen on the object. ;) For that reason, I wrote Appendix A: An Obfuscated Red "Insignia"?, pages 206 - 211, in the Socorro book's original Blueapple Books edition.

Now, fifty years after the Socorro event, I am happy to be able to set the record straight, yesterday with Richard T. Holder's important revelation, and, today, with J. Allen Hynek's letter to his employer, the Foreign Technology Division of the U.S. Air Force.

Still at it, after fifty years investigating what actually happened at Socorro on April 24, 1964,

See Also:

New Information Surfaces Re Famous Socorro UFO Case

Artist's Rendering of Symbol on UFO Craft (Redux) | SOCORRO UFO INCIDENT – 50th ANNIVERSARY

Socorro UFO Landing; 50 Years Ago Today (4-24-14)

What Zamora Really Saw And Reported To His Co-Workers And To Captain Richard T. Holder

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE