Public's interest in UFOs (TV/Radio/Books/Magazines)

[Schuyler]

Once again, Trajanus, you ignore evidence that DOES exist while insist on evidence that does NOT exist. Thus, the state of UFO research.

You are unable to explain how someone could judge a height difference measured in inches from 150 yards away, so you continue to ignore it. Rather than sit in my armchair I actually went out and measured 150 yards and even showed you a picture of what something 150 yards away looks like.

Regarding footprints, I actually looked up the original source material. You vaguely state that someone else said the footprints were small, but you really have no idea where they got that information. My guess is they got it from exactly the same place I cited, in which case they are simply repeating it. If they are repeating it, it does not add value to the case. If they have original information that they researched themselves, by all means cite it. So far you have been unable to do that.

I have already shown you how the footprint evidence is extremely weak for a number of reasons. I needn't repeat what I already proved.

If that's your best shot, you've got a whole lot of nothing.

 

[Trajanus]

You are unable to explain how someone could judge a height difference measured in inches from 150 yards away....Regarding footprints, I actually looked up the original source material. You vaguely state that someone else said the footprints were small, but you really have no idea where they got that information. My guess is they got it from exactly the same place I cited, in which case they are simply repeating it. If they are repeating it, it does not add value to the case.

But if it accurately repeats what the original said i.e. if the footprints were indeed small, it's relevant, and would tend to corroborate Zamora's view regarding size. But even if Zamora's impression of the figures' height was off, and even if the footprint evidence is no help, that is not evidence against an ET interpretation of the case, because not all reported UFO entities are small. What matters is the overall case for/against a human as opposed to an ET explanation. The Socorro object was obviously not a balloon, nor a copter, nor a jet (nor something psychological). The prank notion isn't credible, and was publicized because no other prosaic explanation has ever cut it for half a century.

 

[Schuyler]

But if it accurately repeats what the original said i.e. if the footprints were indeed small, it's relevant, and would tend to corroborate Zamora's view regarding size.

No, it wouldn't. If Coral Lorenzen or anybody else said, "The footprints were small" based solely on the passage in "A Socorro Saucer in the Pentagon Pantry" then this is in no way corroborative evidence. It's simply passing a rumor along. The original investigators 'forgot' or failed to take any physical evidence AT ALL. All we have is one patrol officer's testimony AFTER he had discussed the case with Zamora where Zamora had already instilled the idea of 'small' into the account. As I have already shown, a cowboy boot heel is 'small,' too, but the boot itself is not. The terrain (full of scrub grass) was not 100% conducive to making prints, so the prints themselves were not easy to identify.

But even if Zamora's impression of the figures' height was off, and even if the footprint evidence is no help, that is not evidence against an ET interpretation of the case, because not all reported UFO entities are small. What matters is the overall case for/against a human as opposed to an ET explanation. The Socorro object was obviously not a balloon, nor a copter, nor a jet (nor something psychological). The prank notion isn't credible, and was publicized because no other prosaic explanation has ever cut it for half a century.

Nor is it evidence against a human origin. Indeed, take out the 'smallness factor' and the human origin possibility is more likely, and a prosaic explanation that absolutely HAS been around for half a century. It's not new. The only other bit of 'evidence' we have is some red writing on the vehicle itself, yet no one has been able to say how this could be clearly seen at 150 yards. My rock I pointed out above has writing on it in a contrasting color. It says "Koura Farm" after the name of the development. You can't read it that far away. You MIGHT be able to read it with a good pair of binoculars.

To my knowledge, no one has ever before paced out 150 yards and questioned the ability of anyone to accurately interpret what was seen at that distance. This must be taken into account in any explanation of the sighting. You cannot avoid this point.

The most likely interpretation of this event is that it was a craft of earthly origins piloted by normal human beings. There is no credible evidence otherwise. None.

 

[Trajanus]

The most likely interpretation of this event is that it was a craft of earthly origins piloted by normal human beings.

It wasn't a balloon, a helicopter, or a jet, nor is there any documentation of a flight there at the time, nor any testimony from pilots, engineers or relatives for 50 years. Col. Jonckheere said they investigated the possibility of some experimental craft at great length and came up empty. The AF and Hynek would've debunked this sighting long ago had there been any real evidence of an earthly aircraft, or prank.

There is no credible evidence otherwise. None.

Aside from the initial flame as the craft rose, it flew without any visible source of power--highly suggestive of other UFO reports, or a technology not of this earth.

 

[Schuyler]

It wasn't a balloon, a helicopter, or a jet, nor is there any documentation of a flight there at the time, nor any testimony from pilots, engineers or relatives for 50 years. Col. Jonckheere said they investigated the possibility of some experimental craft at great length and came up empty. The AF and Hynek would've debunked this sighting long ago had there been any real evidence of an earthly aircraft, or prank.

Is that right? No documentation of the flight, you say? Was there documentation of the SR-71, kept secret for many years? Sure, but they didn't show it to you. So one guy, Col. Jonckherre (citation, please), came up short, THEREFORE there is no real evidence of earthly aircraft.

Aside from the initial flame as the craft rose, it flew without any visible source of power--highly suggestive of other UFO reports, or a technology not of this earth.

Or a technology of this earth developed in secret that they haven't told you about.

BTW, with UFOs you often get this 'pop out of existence immediately' report. Zamora specifically stated the craft 'disappeared normally,' i.e.: he could no longer see it because of the distance it had traveled.

Earthly origin is a VERY viable option here. You needn't invent space aliens to explain it.

 

[Trajanus]

Is that right? No documentation of the flight, you say? Was there documentation of the SR-71, kept secret for many years? Sure, but they didn't show it to you.

Kept secret for many years but already known in the '70s. Socorro was half a century ago, and there is still absolutely no evidence it was a military or experimental craft. To my knowledge, absolutely nobody, not even some second hand source like a relative of a pilot or project engineer, ever came forward, to verify its presence at Socorro or indeed the very existence of a craft which can satisfactorily account for the affair.

So one guy, Col. Jonckherre (citation, please), came up short, THEREFORE there is no real evidence of earthly aircraft.

I read it in KDR's blog. He was referring to military investigation not his own personal effort.

Or a technology of this earth developed in secret that they haven't told you about.

Considering the great advantages of a technology like that, it would be amazing if even after all the years since Socorro it hasn't even become standard in the military.

BTW, with UFOs you often get this 'pop out of existence immediately' report. Zamora specifically stated the craft 'disappeared normally,' i.e.: he could no longer see it because of the distance it had traveled.

Many UFOs appear to fly away not just disappear.

Earthly origin is a VERY viable option here. You needn't invent space aliens to explain it.

Until or unless actual evidence of an earthly craft turns up--which almost certainly would've happened long ago had that been the answer--there's no alternative but space aliens (which are not imaginary but observed in association with strange craft on countles occasions for several decades if not longer).

 

[Schuyler]

Kept secret for many years but already known in the '70s. Socorro was half a century ago, and there is still absolutely no evidence it was a military or experimental craft. To my knowledge, absolutely nobody, not even some second hand source like a relative of a pilot or project engineer, ever came forward, to verify its presence at Socorro or indeed the very existence of a craft which can satisfactorily account for the affair.

Which proves absolutely nothing. That's a whole lot of nothing right there.

I read it in KDR's blog. He was referring to military investigation not his own personal effort.

Whatever, Trajanus, but you have a disturbing lack of citations when you talk about this stuff. You can't expect people to take your word just because you spew it from your armchair. Your references are 'dead.' They don't go anywhere. you can't get to the source.

Considering the great advantages of a technology like that, it would be amazing if even after all the years since Socorro it hasn't even become standard in the military.

Many people would disagree with you there. Richard Dolan, for example, makes the case that such advanced technology was never intended for conventional military use at all. His conspiracy theory suggests a very secret and almost separate culture using craft such as these for vastly different purposes than merely to fight a conventional war.

You also have to ask yourself how this small, ungainly, grasshopper like egg-shaped craft could give you an advantage in military use. Aircraft are used to take people, cameras, or ordnance somewhere advantageous. This thing could do none of those well. We already have stealth fighters that can knock out ALL the competition. It's just that we haven't had worthy enough adversary to prove the point. This craft could have been experimental and its advantages incorporated into advanced fighter technology we do have.

Until or unless actual evidence of an earthly craft turns up--which almost certainly would've happened long ago had that been the answer--there's no alternative but space aliens

To say space aliens is the ONLY answer is being dogmatic and ridiculous.

Until or unless actual evidence of space aliens turns up--which almost certainly would've happened long ago had that been the answer--there's no alternative but an earthly craft.

 

[Frank Stalter]

5:45 in the afternoon on a Friday. The date was April 24. Two maybe three weeks before college finals?

The coincidences you have to accept for anything other than a hoax are just too much, certainly much more than any coincidences you have to accept to accept hoax. There is a loose end, maybe two, with the hoax/prank explanation but that's what happened.

 

[Schuyler]

5:45 in the afternoon on a Friday. The date was April 24. Two maybe three weeks before college finals?

The coincidences you have to accept for anything other than a hoax are just too much, certainly much more than any coincidences you have to accept to accept hoax. There is a loose end, maybe two, with the hoax/prank explanation but that's what happened.

Is that a fact? And you base this on the DATE it happened? And these college pranksters managed to take this hoax off and fly right over Zamora's head and shoot off into the distance until it disappeared?

OK. And Bentwaters was a truck load of flaming shit. And a perfect Mandelbrot set crop circle was created by two old geezers in the dark of night with a 2 x 4 (Metric equivalent for the UK).

OK. Gotcha! That explains it. Thanks! We can all go home now. Gene, you wanna shut down the board? No reason we should be discussing this stuff.

 

[David Biedny]

Schuyler, you genuinely make me smile.

dB

 

[Frank Stalter]

Is that a fact? And you base this on the DATE it happened? And these college pranksters managed to take this hoax off and fly right over Zamora's head and shoot off into the distance until it disappeared?

OK. And Bentwaters was a truck load of flaming shit. And a perfect Mandelbrot set crop circle was created by two old geezers in the dark of night with a 2 x 4 (Metric equivalent for the UK).

OK. Gotcha! That explains it. Thanks! We can all go home now. Gene, you wanna shut down the board? No reason we should be discussing this stuff.

You think that's all there is?

 

[Schuyler]

You think that's all there is?

I don't know what you mean here, but you and Trajanus really crack me up. You are just so sure of yourselves, so dogmatic that YOUR answer is the ONLY possible one there is. You're taking fundamentalist points of view here: Your way or the highway. Yet neither one of you has done any but armchair research on the issue. You never cite your sources, and you never get off your butts and actually check out the feasibility of what is being claimed. Yet you actually expect to be taken seriously.

Unless you can bring more to the table than just your opinions, no matter how vaulted you think your own opinions to be, then your statements are just about useless. The fact that neither one of you is willing to entertain the possibility of alternative explanations speaks volumes. You two deserve each other.

 

[Artyom]

I think at this point the discussion has carried away from the original topic, which is a public interest in UFO and I would even broad it up a bit - Fortean stuff at all. I think, there isn't anything specific about these topics, which makes a situation any different in comparing with others - when the economy becomes tougher your brain becomes more and more focused on supplying your stomach

I'm reading 'Why UFOs: operation Trojan Horse' by J.Keel now and it's interesting to see UFO flaps from 60s and and historical parallels with 19-th century and even earlier.

Speaking of 60s I think there is one more thing which has to be taken into account plus the economy situation - it's the number of us on this planet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but before 60s there were only 3 billions of us scratching our heads on this planet, now it's http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&q=the+earth+population and I think this factor has a tremendous influence on what we, as human beings, think / take care of / act in our daily lives.

 

[Frank Stalter]

You're taking fundamentalist points of view here: Your way or the highway.

I've been working on this case for two months now. I'm the guy who found the Colgate/Pauling letter. It's not a point of view. It's not a belief system. It was a hoax.

 

[Schuyler]

I've been working on this case for two months now. I'm the guy who found the Colgate/Pauling letter. It's not a point of view. It's not a belief system. It was a hoax.

A whole TWO MONTHS!!!!! WOW!!!!! And you found a LETTER, and that proves EVERYTHING!!!!

 

[Frank Stalter]

A whole TWO MONTHS!!!!! WOW!!!!! And you found a LETTER, and that proves EVERYTHING!!!!

No, the letter was just a jumping off point. An initial clue that got the ball rolling.

Oh, and do continue with the ALL CAPS responses . . . it makes you seem so very intelligent.

 

[Schuyler]

No, the letter was just a jumping off point. An initial clue that got the ball rolling.

Oh, and do continue with the ALL CAPS responses . . . it makes you seem so very intelligent.

My rep will be what it is. <shrug> Few people would call me unintelligent. No one has ever heard of you. Prove it, Frank. Prove it was a hoax. You might want to start a new thread as it's true this one has gone astray.

 

[Frank Stalter]

My rep will be what it is. <shrug> Few people would call me unintelligent. No one has ever heard of you. Prove it, Frank. Prove it was a hoax. You might want to start a new thread as it's true this one has gone astray.

I contributed to the thread as it was started. The subject got changed, I didn't change it. I did comment when it became clear that you need to brush up on the facts of the case after you posted this:

</shrug>

And these college pranksters managed to take this hoax off and fly right over Zamora's head and shoot off into the distance until it disappeared?

That most certainly did not happen. Have you read Zamora's official report?

 

[Schuyler]

That most certainly did not happen. Have you read Zamora's official report?

Excuse me? I don't know who you think you are, but you just got here and you've not proven a damn thing. You question whether I know the case? You haven't been paying attention. I remember when the case happened. Please read "Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry' by Ray Stanford (Blue Apple Books, 1976, 211pp) for a complete description, by Zamora himself, of what happened and the subsequent investigation, particularly pages 17-31.

Now, what's your evidence? Here, let me help you: The UFO Iconoclast(s): THE SOCORRO UFO HOAX EXPOSED! (Famous 1964 sighting was a college prank) by Anthony Bragalia. This is 'the case for a hoax.' It amounts to some cryptic notes sent to Dr. Linus Pauling at Oregon State suggesting a hoax, and some third party recountings of conversations. In other words, so far, the story is this: "A guy told a guy who told a guy who told a guy." This is hearsay evidence, which means it's no evidence at all.

As Paul Kimball stated in the comments (You DO know of Paul Kimball, I trust):

I have always thought that there was probably a prosaic explanation for the Socorro case, but CDA is quite right - as with Bragalia's Roswell material, there is nothing definitive here, and certainly nothing that would stand up in a court of law, much less the "court" of science. Until the supposed hoaxers come forward - and after so many years, I see no reason whatsoever as to why they would not - and explain how they did it, this is just another story, no more or less convincing than the ET narrative in my books.

Be sure and read the comments. Ray Stanford himself also weights in there. When you read the accounts, what you see is lots of innuendo and speculation, statements like, "the pranksters MAY HAVE incorporated a helium balloon" (emphasis added. Sorry it was caps, there, bro.) or "perhaps Colgate was stunned that the Pauling letter was ever discovered- and knows that he has already said too much."

Or "perhaps" not. These are simply speculative statements. If you can get the guys who supposedly did this to come forth and say, "We did it, and this is how we did it, and here's the proof." Then Okay. Good job. Thanks.

Until you can actually do that, all you've got is another story; and, like the truck full of flaming shit, without any corroboration, it's still a story like all the others.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Excuse me? I don't know who you think you are, but you just got here and you've not proven a damn thing. You question whether I know the case?

I don't care how much you think you know about the case, you're wrong on your facts and if you want to use Ray Stanford for a source on anything I have to question your judgment too.

Now, what's your evidence?

There are three blogs by Bragalia, one by me and one over at the Daily Kos. All articles contribute significant evidence far beyond hearsay. Evidence that points to hoax.

As Paul Kimball stated in the comments (You DO know of Paul Kimball, I trust):

I have communicated with Paul on a variety of subjects. I'll give him his due . . . he was right about my Phillies not being able to beat the Yankees.