November 5, 2017 — Kevin D. Randle

[marduk]

I don't have Stanford's book. I should get a copy sometime. However it's not necessary in order to address this issue. I have reviewed the CUFOs case files which you might be interested in because they include copies of original correspondence between Stanford and Richard Hall at NICAP, plus Zamora's report and a variety of other clips. Maybe I overlooked it, but in none of that documentation did I see anything that mentions flames "knifing into the ground", and as already stated, there's no way to be certain that is an accurate observation given the variables involved anyway.

Just bounced a quick note off of Ray, and he's confirming the description is accurate, and he went into it in some detail with Zamora. The flame appeared to go into the ground, leaving no hole when it left.

That's what Zamora said he saw, at any rate.

 

[Randall]

Just bounced a quick note off of Ray, and he's confirming the description is accurate, and he went into it in some detail with Zamora. The flame appeared to go into the ground, leaving no hole when it left. That's what Zamora said he saw, at any rate.

Thanks for that. It confirms what I had assumed. You might want to go back to this post here to review some of the original case files. They quite clearly describe a situation in which Zamora would not have been able to be sure he was accurately recalling that particular detail. To quote from the original report.

"At same time as roar, saw flame. Flame was under the obJect. Object was starting to go
straight up - slowly-up! Object slowly rose straight up. Flame was light blue and at
bottom was sort of orange color. From this angle saw what be the side of object
( not end, as first noted ). Difficult to describe flame. Thought from roar, it might
blow up. Flame might have come from underside of object, at middle, possibly a four
foot area -- very rough guess. Cannot describe flame further except blue and orange.
No smoke except dust in immediate area."​

• Difficult to describe flame
• might have come from,
• very rough guess
• Cannot describe flame further
• dust in immediate area.

"As soon as saw flame and heard roar, turned away, ran away from object but did turn
head towards object. Bumped leg on car -- back fender area."​

See how on further reflection this rock solid description is actually quite nebulous and how sometime later when being questioned his mind might not have accurately recalled what really happened and just filled in a few details? We use the car accident analogy all the time to illustrate how such details aren't reliable. He even thought it was an overturned car at first, so his mind was already trying to fill in the blanks to identify the craft. Plus we know the flame must have spread out due to the burned vegetation around the LZ. Logically therefore, this recollection as Chris describes it cannot be the way it really happened. It just appeared that way to Zamora in his mind's reconstruction.

Also, as soon as he heard the roar he says he turned away, which means he may not have actually seen the engine igniting, or if he did, it would have been for a spilt second, in which case it would not have been at full power, so it's not surprising it didn't make a big spread out blaze, and then he ran for it, glancing back as he retreated, seeing the craft rise slowly, but he fell, and his glasses came off. Which means he was also wearing sunglasses which would have had an effect on the brightness of the flame, plus he had prescription glasses, which is another layer of glass, plus they came off too, and his unaided vision wasn't all that great. Do I really need to go on?

 

[marduk]

Thanks for that. It confirms what I had assumed. You might want to go back to this post here to review some of the original case files. They quite clearly describe a situation in which Zamora would not have been able to be sure he was accurately recalling that particular detail. To quote from the original report.

"At same time as roar, saw flame. Flame was under the obJect. Object was starting to go
straight up - slowly-up! Object slowly rose straight up. Flame was light blue and at
bottom was sort of orange color. From this angle saw what be the side of object
( not end, as first noted ). Difficult to describe flame. Thought from roar, it might
blow up. Flame might have come from underside of object, at middle, possibly a four
foot area -- very rough guess. Cannot describe flame further except blue and orange.
No smoke except dust in immediate area."​

• Difficult to describe flame
• might have come from,
• very rough guess
• Cannot describe flame further
• dust in immediate area.

"As soon as saw flame and heard roar, turned away, ran away from object but did turn
head towards object. Bumped leg on car -- back fender area."​

See how on further reflection this rock solid description is actually quite nebulous and how sometime later when being questioned his mind might not have accurately recalled what really happened and just filled in a few details? We use the car accident analogy all the time to illustrate how such details aren't reliable. He even thought it was an overturned car at first, so his mind was already trying to fill in the blanks to identify the craft. Plus we know the flame must have spread out due to the burned vegetation around the LZ. Logically therefore, this recollection as Chris describes it cannot be the way it really happened. It just appeared that way to Zamora in his mind's reconstruction.

As soon as he heard the roar he says he turned away, which means he may not have actually seen the engine igniting, or if he did, it would have been for a spilt second, in which case it would not have been at full power, so it's not surprising it didn't make a big spread out blaze, and then he ran for it, glancing back as he retreated, seeing the craft rise slowly, but he fell, and his glasses came off. Which means he was also wearing sunglasses which would have had an effect on the brightness of the flame, plus he had prescription glasses, which is another layer of glass, plus they came off too, and his unaided vision wasn't all that great. Do I really need to go on?

I think what he's not sure about is where the flame came from, which if you think about it makes sense given the angle between him and the craft.

However, I'm not sure what the emphasis on what Zamora saw or didn't see regarding the flame, unless you're proposing a hypothesis regarding said flame.

Given that no human technology available at the time could actually replicate what this thing did I'm not sure what the point is. I think the flame doing that - if it did that - is an interesting point but doesn't add or subtract from the rest of the available data.

 

[marduk]

The ground test conditions for the LEM ( or whichever acronym you prefer ) are entirely different than the conditions for the actual space mission. The LEM did just fine in space, so there was no need to make it super tough like you're suggesting. On the other hand, if there was a VTOL project for Earth based use, it would have to be tough like you're suggesting, and it just so happens that White Sands was a place where design and testing for the LEM was going on, which is a related technology, so it's not so far fetched to think some other project may have been in the works there as well that Oberg knows nothing about, and nobody else will ever know anything about because it's all been scrapped and destroyed.

But even if it's nothing from White Sands, it could still be from some other terrestrial source because there's nothing about the craft or the report that gives us sufficient reason to class it as something alien. In other words, even if we didn't build it, we could have built something like it if we had wanted to bad enough, and therefore there's insufficient reason to think it's from some advanced interstellar shipyard. It's just not that amazing a vehicle compared to the ones where there is just no way it could have been ours.

Not sure I agree about their being another terrestrial source for this thing. Fuel:thrust ratio at the time was a giant problem especially given how heavy things were back then. It's still a problem now, even though material science has progressed to provide much better fuel:thrust ratios.

 

[Randall]

I think what he's not sure about is where the flame came from, which if you think about it makes sense given the angle between him and the craft. However, I'm not sure what the emphasis on what Zamora saw or didn't see regarding the flame, unless you're proposing a hypothesis regarding said flame. Given that no human technology available at the time could actually replicate what this thing did I'm not sure what the point is. I think the flame doing that - if it did that - is an interesting point but doesn't add or subtract from the rest of the available data.

I'm not so certain no human technology could have replicated what the craft did. Rocket or jet technology was available and VTOL research was being done. Therefore the technology to build it was there if someone had wanted to build one bad enough. We just don't know whether or not anyone actually did. So in the absence of that evidence, jumping to the conclusion it must have been aliens seems to be not only unsubstantiated but ill-advised.

 

[marduk]

I'm not so certain no human technology could have replicated what the craft did. Rocket or jet technology was available and VTOL research was being done. Therefore the technology to build it was there if someone had wanted to build one bad enough. We just don't know whether or not anyone actually did. So in the absence of that evidence, jumping to the conclusion it must have been aliens seems to be unsubstantiated.

What I'm pointing at is the volume of the craft, the size of the craft, and the hypothetical weight of the fuel required to make it all go - plus have a cabin for two people to sit in and and fly the thing. Plus no propellant residue was found at the location.

ccording to Stanford's reconstruction of the event from on-site interviews with Zamora, the time was probably no more than 20 seconds from when the object went to silent operation, rapidly accelerated towards the perlite mill at the base of the nearby mountains, and then rose rapidly, a distance of about 2 miles (3.2 km).[7]:34Assuming constant acceleration, these numbers can be used to estimate the object's acceleration, average speed, and final speed. Assuming constant acceleration, the acceleration would be given by 2d/t^2, where d is the distance of 2 miles (3.2 km) or about 3200 meters, and t is the time of 20 seconds. The final speed would be 2d/t and the average speed d/2. This works out to a final speed of 720 miles/hour, an average speed of 360 miles/hour, and an acceleration of 16 meters/sec^2, or about 1.7 times Earth gravity of 9.8 meters/sec^2.

These high values rule out many conventional explanations, such as a helicopter or balloon. A high-performance jet aircraft or rocket propulsion could conceivably produce the acceleration and near-supersonic speed, but neither forms of propulsion are silent. The Air Force report on the incident also said that they analyzed the soil and found no evidence of chemical propellants, as might be expected from a jet or most rocket engines. Further, no contemporary craft was capable of vertical take-off and such high speeds. The oval object described by Zamora also lacked any wings or other external structures that might have provided lift.

He also described it as car-sized - which makes fuel storage a big problem. Cars can get away with it because they stay on the ground. This thing couldn't - so 90+% of the volume and weight of the object would have to have been fuel alone. So it would have had to been sitting there fully fuelled, and took off, likely expending all of it's fuel again before it could land. Probably a distressing thought to the two occupants.

Someone could run the numbers here for me, but that's my gut feel of the math behind it.

 

[Randall]

What I'm pointing at is the volume of the craft, the size of the craft, and the hypothetical weight of the fuel required to make it all go - plus have a cabin for two people to sit in and and fly the thing. Plus no propellant residue was found at the location.

If it was run on a hydrogen/oxygen fuel there would have been no residue, but it should be pointed out that a white substance was noted around the landing marks.

He also described it as car-sized - which makes fuel storage a big problem. Cars can get away with it because they stay on the ground. This thing couldn't - so 90+% of the volume and weight of the object would have to have been fuel alone. So it would have had to been sitting there fully fuelled, and took off, likely expending all of it's fuel again before it could land. Probably a distressing thought to the two occupants.

The thing wasn't all that big and therefore may not have been as heavy as assumed, and given the description of the flame, and the sound, there's little doubt that it was some sort of combustion propulsion. Add to that the high efficiency of compressed hydrogen/oxygen as a fuel and it's conceivable that there may have been enough fuel to do the job. Evidently, if the story is true, it did do the job.

 

[marduk]

If it was run on a hydrogen/oxygen fuel there would have been no residue, but it should be pointed out that a white substance was noted around the landing marks.
The thing wasn't all that big and therefore may not have been as heavy as assumed, and given the description of the flame, and the sound, there's little doubt that it was some sort of combustion propulsion. Add to that the high efficiency of compressed hydrogen/oxygen as a fuel and it's conceivable that there may have been enough fuel to do the job. Evidently, if the story is true, it did do the job.

Ok, you've called my bluff, let's do some math.

I'll use this for some reference:

I'm going to make it a 3m diameter sphere to make the math easy because I'm feeling lazy.

So the volume of the object would be about 15m3, give or take.

Let's say the hull of the thing was 1/2 aluminum. I mean, it's 1964 right? It's what they made the tanks out of on the Saturn 5s. So that would weigh... 28m2... about a third of a square meter... so about 1000kg? Plus say 100kg for the occupants, and another 100kg for controls, life support, etc. Stuff. Add another 100kg for the rocket motor, nozzle, etc.

Call the whole thing 1300kg dry.

Now let's add the fuel.

I'm going to say it's about 13m3 of fuel, and I'll use water ('cause H and O2 make water and again I'm lazy). So that's 13,000kg of fuel. So a total fully loaded weight of the vehicle would be about 14,300kg.

Using this gives me a problem:

The LH2-LOX propellant has the highest specific impulse of any commonly used rocket fuel, and the incredibly efficient RS-25 engine gets great gas mileage out of an already efficient fuel.

But even though LH2 has the highest specific impulse, because of its low density, carrying enough LH2 to fuel the reaction needed to leave Earth’s surface would require a tank too big, too heavy and with too much insulation protecting the cryogenic propellant to be practical.

liquid hydrogen – Rocketology: NASA’s Space Launch System

Ignoring that, what kind of flight time would a 14,300 kg device have with 13m3 of fuel?

Using this:
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation - Wikipedia

And this:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/app-b8.htm

Yield a delta-v of... 4400m/s x ln 14,300/1300... 32.38 m/s. About the speed of a car going down the highway. Straight up mind you. For some reference, the delta-v of a saturn 5 was about 18000m/s.

And it would hit that delta-v in about... and I'm eyeballing here based on this: Ideal Rocket Equation

Yields a burn time something around 10seconds or so. Even if my math is an order of magnitude off, that's very slow and very quick to run out of gas.

 

[Randall]

Ok, you've called my bluff, let's do some math.

I'll use this for some reference:

I'm going to make it a 3m diameter sphere to make the math easy because I'm feeling lazy.

So the volume of the object would be about 15m3, give or take.

Let's say the hull of the thing was 1/2 aluminum. I mean, it's 1964 right? It's what they made the tanks out of on the Saturn 5s. So that would weigh... 28m2... about a third of a square meter... so about 1000kg? Plus say 100kg for the occupants, and another 100kg for controls, life support, etc. Stuff. Add another 100kg for the rocket motor, nozzle, etc.

Call the whole thing 1300kg dry.

Now let's add the fuel.

I'm going to say it's about 13m3 of fuel, and I'll use water ('cause H and O2 make water and again I'm lazy). So that's 13,000kg of fuel. So a total fully loaded weight of the vehicle would be about 14,300kg.

Using this gives me a problem:


liquid hydrogen – Rocketology: NASA’s Space Launch System

Ignoring that, what kind of flight time would a 14,300 kg device have with 13m3 of fuel?

Using this:
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation - Wikipedia

And this:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/app-b8.htm

Yield a delta-v of... 4400m/s x ln 14,300/1300... 32.38 m/s. About the speed of a car going down the highway. Straight up mind you. For some reference, the delta-v of a saturn 5 was about 18000m/s.

And it would hit that delta-v in about... and I'm eyeballing here based on this: Ideal Rocket Equation

Yields a burn time something around 10seconds or so. Even if my math is an order of magnitude off, that's very slow and very quick to run out of gas.

Sure. That all seems to be very logical. So let's play along. I'm going to skip the math and refer you directly to the X-13 Vertijet, built and flown in the 1950s ( prior to the Zamora sighting ). It was a VTOL aircraft only 23 ft 5 in long ( not all that much longer than a large car and without the wings, much narrower ). For all practical purposes of comparison the materials for the X-13 could be reconfigured to the approximate shape and size of the Socorro craft ( well within a reasonable margin of error anyway ). Fully loaded it weighed 6,730 lbs. and had a range of 192 miles. Is it so inconceivable that a decade later some other experimental VTOL craft was developed that resembles the Socorro object?

X-13 VTOL Film ( mid 1950s )

So whatever we think of the math, we know technology existed well before the sighting that could conceivably explain it. The alternative is to assume that the flame and the roar weren't some sort of combustion engine, which seems very unlikely. But if we're to assume it was something alien and the flame and the roar really had nothing to do with propulsion, but were just some sort of diversion, is installing a fake rocket engine onto the craft really the most sensible solution? Where would they get it? How would they have fuelled it? None of that line of reasoning makes any sense. Have another look at the X-13 video. That makes a lot of sense.

Not really all that much larger than a large car.​

​

 

[Sand]

For all practical purposes of comparison the materials for the X-13 could be reconfigured to the approximate shape and size of the Socorro craft

The object described at Socorro was not a VTOL aircraft. It was not at all the same technology as the X-13. If the X-13 had been reconfigured into the approximate shape of the Socorro craft it would have flown right into the ground. A VTOL aircraft briefly relies on its engine(s) for lift. Once it transitions to horizontal flight it is dependent on its wings for lift. This is why it can stay aloft for a practical distance without burning through its fuel. Even today Harrier jets will not stay in hover for more than a few minutes because of the cost of burning fuel and the heating of its engines.

The Socorro object had no wings or tail. I would think you would agree that we cannot cherry pick the facts we like and ignore equally valid facts we don’t want (a practice often favored by debunkers). If we rely on Zamora’s report of the flame as a basis for arguing it was terrestrial, we must also accept his report of a smooth wingless oval shaped craft.

It the Socorro object was terrestrial there are other technical issues. If we accept there was a jet or rocket engine to provide lift, we need second propulsion source to provide the forward horizontal movement. If this was a second engine (which wasn’t seen) this would add more weight and require more fuel. Also, without wings and a tail, how did it navigate and maintain stability? This isn’t even addressing Zamora’s report that it went silent when it began its horizontal movement.

 

[Randall]

The object described at Socorro was not a VTOL aircraft. It was not at all the same technology as the X-13. If the X-13 had been reconfigured into the approximate shape of the Socorro craft it would have flown right into the ground. A VTOL aircraft briefly relies on its engine(s) for lift. Once it transitions to horizontal flight it is dependent on its wings for lift. This is why it can stay aloft for a practical distance without burning through its fuel. Even today Harrier jets will not stay in hover for more than a few minutes because of the cost of burning fuel and the heating of its engines.

I realize that. However consider it this way: You can plainly see the X-13 moving horizontally in the video before transitioning to horizontal flight, so there's no reason to assume that if it were reconfigured to a spheroid that it couldn't do the same thing, perhaps even better because in the vertical position the X-13 has all that wing surface area facing the wrong way. A spheroid wouldn't have that resistance in any particular direction. Yes the fuel consumption would be high, but all that means is that instead of a 192 mile range, maybe it only had 90 miles. It's also conceivable that the spheroid shape was slightly flattened on the bottom which would give it some lift in horizontal flight.

The Socorro object had no wings or tail. I would think you would agree that we cannot cherry pick the facts we like and ignore equally valid facts we don’t want (a practice often favored by debunkers). If we rely on Zamora’s report of the flame as a basis for arguing it was terrestrial, we must also accept his report of a smooth wingless oval shaped craft.

I don't have a problem with a smooth wingless spheroid, and I wouldn't say that matching the capabilities of existing technology to various aspects of a sighing is "cherry picking" because cherry picking can be perfectly legitimate provided that the context is consistent with the issue in question. In fact, selectively ignoring information in favor of other information is more like cherry picking. I'm not dismissing the case happened or that it was unusual or offhandedly dismissing good evidence in favor of a pet theory. Remember I'm one of the believers here. But if I don't consider wider possibilities for the most rational and likely explanation, then I would be guilty of confirmation bias, and my credibility would suffer. We need to be able to set our preferences aside and think critically even if it contradicts the conclusions we might prefer.

It the Socorro object was terrestrial there are other technical issues. If we accept there was a jet or rocket engine to provide lift, we need second propulsion source to provide the forward horizontal movement. If this was a second engine (which wasn’t seen) this would add more weight and require more fuel. Also, without wings and a tail, how did it navigate and maintain stability? This isn’t even addressing Zamora’s report that it went silent when it began its horizontal movement.

Again,as you can see in the video, at one point the X-13 is moving horizontally quite well while still in a highly vertical orientation, and if anything, the wings and aerodynamic control surfaces are a hindrance to performance in that mode, and therefore a smooth ovoid would actually facilitate horizontal motion better. Tilt the craft only a few degrees or vector the engine exhaust and you would have horizontal movement. No second engine required. Make the bottom a bit flatter than the top and you'd get some lift too. Throw in gyroscopic stabilizers and that should facilitate both orientation and directional control.

On the issue of the craft going silent. The initial ignition and takeoff would require the highest power and be the loudest and Zamora did indicate that the roar was very loud. The human ear when exposed to sudden very loud noises has a a protective mechanism that briefly results in temporary hearing loss, so it's entirely possible that Zamaora was temporarily deafened by the loudness when the craft initially took off, and then the engine throttled back some, reducing the noise, making it seem silent to Zamora when it wasn't. Then as Zamora's hearing returned, it would be normal for him to hear the high pitched whine, which is the result of hearing damage, combined with the sound of the engines receding off into the distance and becoming rapidly inaudible ( again ).

So sure it's interesting and unusual, but I still don't see how we need to invoke aliens for this case. I mean yes, I'm admittedly reaching for answers based on circumstantial ( but real evidence ) and speculation ( but not unreasonable or uninformed ). Compare that to assuming it must be aliens from Zeta Reticuli. All things considered I think we have to concede to the more mundane possible explanations before we go there. Still, I admit that perhaps the craft was alien and all my rational thinking is steering me in the wrong direction, but I'm prepared to live with that in this case pending more convincing evidence in favor of an alien craft.

 

[marduk]

The object described at Socorro was not a VTOL aircraft. It was not at all the same technology as the X-13. If the X-13 had been reconfigured into the approximate shape of the Socorro craft it would have flown right into the ground. A VTOL aircraft briefly relies on its engine(s) for lift. Once it transitions to horizontal flight it is dependent on its wings for lift. This is why it can stay aloft for a practical distance without burning through its fuel. Even today Harrier jets will not stay in hover for more than a few minutes because of the cost of burning fuel and the heating of its engines.

The Socorro object had no wings or tail. I would think you would agree that we cannot cherry pick the facts we like and ignore equally valid facts we don’t want (a practice often favored by debunkers). If we rely on Zamora’s report of the flame as a basis for arguing it was terrestrial, we must also accept his report of a smooth wingless oval shaped craft.

It the Socorro object was terrestrial there are other technical issues. If we accept there was a jet or rocket engine to provide lift, we need second propulsion source to provide the forward horizontal movement. If this was a second engine (which wasn’t seen) this would add more weight and require more fuel. Also, without wings and a tail, how did it navigate and maintain stability? This isn’t even addressing Zamora’s report that it went silent when it began its horizontal movement.

Took the words out of my mouth.

It was also supposedly silent, or at least not loud.

 

[mike]

Pure speculation on my part but perhaps it was some kind of antigrav lifter with a JATO for emergency's ie fast getaway.

Sadly its one of those cases so old we may never know.

 

[Randall]

Took the words out of my mouth. It was also supposedly silent, or at least not loud.

Good point. I wonder why nobody thought to address those issues? Oh look! I found one. I know you'll like it because, well, you already said so : November 5, 2017 — Kevin D. Randle

 

[marduk]

Good point. I wonder why nobody thought to address those issues? Oh look! I found one. I know you'll like it because, well, you already said so : November 5, 2017 — Kevin D. Randle

I knew you were going to pull that out!