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

[Schuyler]

Ray Stanford was there and participated in the original investigation. You were not. You are a johnny-come-lately to the case, having researched it, you say yourself, for a whopping two months. You still have provided no evidence one way or another.

Let the original hoaxers step up to the plate explain how they did it. Until that happens, you've got nothing.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Ray Stanford was there and participated in the original investigation. You were not. You are a johnny-come-lately to the case, having researched it, you say yourself, for a whopping two months. You still have provided no evidence one way or another.

Let the original hoaxers step up to the plate explain how they did it. Until that happens, you've got nothing.

Absolute nonsense. The evidence is there for all to read.

I'm not going to rewrite everything already written on the subject for your benefit because you're apparently too lazy to read it yourself, but here's a bit from Sgt. David Moody's report that clearly evidences advanced preparation of the site, which means hoax:

"Sgt Chavez then went to the area where the craft or thing was supposedly sighted and found four fresh indentations in the ground and several charred or burned bushes. Smoke appeared to come from the bush and he assumed that it was burning, however no coals were visible and the charred portions of the bush were cold to the touch."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/7/801376/-Saturday-Night-Uforia:-Death-of-a-legend

 

[Schuyler]

Absolute nonsense. The evidence is there for all to read.

Of course you don't want to rewrite everything and have to prove it all over again. So, once again, I'll help you (and others) out do you don;t have to do any work. Here's the link to Frank's blog:

The UFO Partisan: How The Socorro UFO Hoaxers Did It!

Please do read, as well as the comments. Like this one from David Rudiak.

As mentioned in a previous post, Frank Stalters’ location for the landing site is highly erroneous, and hence all things he claims to deduce from this erroneous site are erroneous as well.

Stalter can't be entirely blamed for this, because most information on the Net about the landing site is bogus as well. The Air Force map he uses is an inaccurate, improperly scaled schematic (even Hynek commented on how bad it was). The map in Stanford’s book is also inaccurate and wrongly scaled (not strictly Stanford’s fault since it was drawn by the book’s publisher and illustrator John Lucas).

In addition, phony landing sites have sprung up, including one put up by the Chamber of Commerce, much closer to the highway than the real site. This corresponds to roughly where Stalter put his site, but he is way off.

The real site is about half a mile up the arroyo from the highway (Stalter is off by over a 1000 feet). To see where the real site is and discussion of the false sites, see Socorro historian Paul Hardin's article that appeared in the Socorro El Defensor Chieftain, August 2, 2008:

http://www.caminorealheritage.org/PH/0808_socorro_ufo.pdf

Stalter would like to pretend here that this whole thing is a slam dunk. In fact, his whole shtick is questionable. I find it fascinating that I'm the one who has to produce his own evidence for him and that he is too lazy to even provide a link to 'substantiate' his claims.

You'll notice in his write up that he falls into the same trap as others and speculates. They 'might have' used cardboard for the landing gear and simply carried it off with them. Pure speculation. No real evidence.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Of course you don't want to rewrite everything and have to prove it all over again. So, once again, I'll help you (and others) out do you don;t have to do any work. Here's the link to Frank's blog:

The UFO Partisan: How The Socorro UFO Hoaxers Did It!

Please do read, as well as the comments. Like this one from David Rudiak.



Stalter would like to pretend here that this whole thing is a slam dunk. In fact, his whole shtick is questionable. I find it fascinating that I'm the one who has to produce his own evidence for him and that he is too lazy to even provide a link to 'substantiate' his claims.

I posted the links a few pages back . . . if you had read the thread you'd know that. :

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/publics-interest-in-ufos-tv-radio-books-magazines-t5772p2.html

Duh . . . . . .

 

[Schuyler]

I posted the links a few pages back . . . if you had read the thread you'd know that. :

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/publics-interest-in-ufos-tv-radio-books-magazines-t5772p2.html

Duh . . . . . .

I wasn't really paying much attention to you, so duh yourself. I see now even more reason to pay no attention to you.

I do encourage everyone to go there: The UFO Partisan: How The Socorro UFO Hoaxers Did It! It is a fascinating account, particularly the comments. No need to rehash that here. Statler has his facts wrong, his locations wrong, and his conclusions wrong. He thrives on innenendo, half-truths, and abject speculation. He doesn't even have the landing site in the right place. Yet after two month's of armchair speculation, suddenly he considers himself an 'expert.'

"How ufo hoaxers did it" is the title of his post. Pure speculation. He has no idea at all.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I wasn't really paying much attention to you, so duh yourself. I see now even more reason to pay no attention to you.

I do encourage everyone to go there: The UFO Partisan: How The Socorro UFO Hoaxers Did It! It is a fascinating account, particularly the comments. No need to rehash that here. Statler has his facts wrong, his locations wrong, and his conclusions wrong. He thrives on innenendo, half-truths, and abject speculation. He doesn't even have the landing site in the right place. Yet after two month's of armchair speculation, suddenly he considers himself an 'expert.'

"How ufo hoaxers did it" is the title of his post. Pure speculation. He has no idea at all.

Thanks for the advertising!

I'd also like to mention the story I'm actually proudest of: My archival discovery of the documented meeting at the White House involving Harry Truman regarding the 1952 DC UFO incident. Even though nobody's heard of me, it doesn't mean I don't find great UFO stuff.

http://ufopartisan.blogspot.com/2009/10/trumans-white-house-meeting-on-1952-dc.html

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So far Frank you've provided no real evidence for a prank only your opinion that there was a prank. Where are the pranksters? Who were the pranksters? You, Braglia and anyone else for that matter have not provided names, details or any evidence for these people other than what you think may have happened as evidenced from this extract from your blog:

"It was a magic trick so good that it's fooling people who didn't even see it almost half a century after it was executed. We don't know just yet who the pranksters were, but that doesn't matter to me. If there's a riot on Main Street and I walk down Main Street and see a busted out storefront window, I don't need to know specifically who did it to be pretty certain that rioter were responsible. I do think that if the actual pranksters are identified at least one of them will have a deep interest or background in stage magicianship"

Well it matters to us who the pranksters were!!! Because somebody said that pranksters were responsible for the Soccorro sighting with no names given or even anyone owning up to the alleged prank you are willing to base your whole line of thinking on that???!!!
The evidence for a prank/hoax is incredibly thin versus the reams of documented evidence and testimony by the participants and the investigators.
As for the secret government craft test theory, there has been no evidence that any agency has admitted to a test in that area, at that time. The only shred of so called evidence there is that the logo described by Zamora matches one by AstroPower. Do we know when they started using that logo? Were they using it in 1964?
You seem like you are just another de-bunker using flimsy personal opinion to try and shoot down a very well documented case.

 

[Frank Stalter]

You seem like you are just another de-bunker using flimsy personal opinion to try and shoot down a very well documented case.

The physical, circumstantial and sourced evidence plus the documented accounts of those there, including the only witness, is significant. It all points to hoax. There's nothing significant pointing in any other direction unless you want to believe Ray Stanford's fairy tales. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine with me. You can interpret the facts however you like.

 

[Schuyler]

The only shred of so called evidence there is that the logo described by Zamora matches one by AstroPower. Do we know when they started using that logo? Were they using it in 1964?
You seem like you are just another de-bunker using flimsy personal opinion to try and shoot down a very well documented case.

Along those lines, today I got out of my armchair and tested that theory, too. The 'closeness' to the craft numbers vary and Zamora did move some, according to his own account, but the one stated is 150 yards. Above I posted a picture of what 150 yards away looks like, along with a rock that was 150 yards away from where I took a picture in the snow.

Today I took a pair of binoculars with me, stood 150 yards way from that rock and tried to read the printing on the side, which consists of 10" high letters etched into the rock in a contrasting color.

At 150 yards, the stated distance, I could not read the letters on the rock with just my vision With 7 x 35 (bird) binoculars I could make out the 'smear' but not read it.

At 100 yards I could see the difference in color, but not resolve the letters themselves with plain vision. With some strain I could barely make out the letters with the binoculars.

At 75 yards I could more or less make out the letters, with some guesses, and I could read the letters with the binoculars.

I wear bifocals, but have 20/20 corrected vision.

My contention here is that at 150 yards Zamora would not have been able to make out whether figures were 'boys' or not because he was too far away, and unless the logo were huge, he would not have been able to resolve it.

 

[Schuyler]

The physical, circumstantial and sourced evidence plus the documented accounts of those there, including the only witness, is significant. It all points to hoax. There's nothing significant pointing in any other direction unless you want to believe Ray Stanford's fairy tales. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine with me. You can interpret the facts however you like.

You're acting as if you have evidence, but when people actually read what you wrote they will see you have nothing but conjecture and hearsay. That's why I want people to read your original stuff; they will quickly see your research is empty. If you want to be seen as a good researcher, you will actually have to do some research rather than pass off what you wrote as definitive. Your so-called evidence would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat. You seem to be pretty cocky and proud of yourself. It's misplaced hubris. What you really have is a truck full of flaming shit. It make look pretty spectacular at first glance, but it still smells like what it is.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So you say.
How was the hoax perpetrated? What methods did they use. Why were there no tracks other than Zamora's tyre tracks found at the scene.
Also for a hoax to be effective you have to tell someone about it and then produce evidence of how you did it.
Forty five years later and still no-one has come forward to lay claim to this and to tell us how.

The physical, circumstantial and sourced evidence plus the documented accounts of those there

At no time did any of the main investigators claim there was a hoax/prank. These are the people who were there at the time. Hard nosed Air Force and Police investigators (hardly likely to be jumping on the UFO bandwagon) none of who claimed that it was staged. And yet 45 years later along come the de-bunkers with no evidence at all , who weren't even there saying that it was a prank

 

[Frank Stalter]

You're acting as if you have evidence, but when people actually read what you wrote they will see you have nothing but conjecture and hearsay. That's why I want people to read your original stuff; they will quickly see your research is empty. If you want to be seen as a good researcher, you will actually have to do some research rather than pass off what you wrote as definitive. Your so-called evidence would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat. You seem to be pretty cocky and proud of yourself. It's misplaced hubris. What you really have is a truck full of flaming shit. It make look pretty spectacular at first glance, but it still smells like what it is.

It is evidence and it comes straight from the source . . . .

Read my stuff . . . read Bragalia's . . . read the Daily Kos article. No one argues that Zamora didn't see something. There are only so many reasonable explanations and, yes, I'll accept an alien visit as a reasonable explanation. When you look at the facts, they point in one direction and that's hoax.

Hynek: ". . . the burning seemed to be sporadic. Clumps of grass in close proximity to the burned ones were untouched, while others just a short distance away from the unburned ones were again burned."

Evidence of human randomness.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

It is evidence and it comes straight from the source . . . .

Read my stuff . . . read Bragalia's . . . read the Daily Kos article. No one argues that Zamora didn't see something. There are only so many reasonable explanations and, yes, I'll accept an alien visit as a reasonable explanation. When you look at the facts, they point in one direction and that's hoax.

Hynek: ". . . the burning seemed to be sporadic. Clumps of grass in close proximity to the burned ones were untouched, while others just a short distance away from the unburned ones were again burned."

Evidence of human randomness.

Laughable. No tracks were found in that vicinity to show any human involvement. In fact nothing was found there that indicated human involvement.

• How was it hoaxed?
• Who perpetrated the hoax?
• What methods did they employ?
• How many were involved?
• Where is the trace evidence of humans being involved?

Please answer these questions for us as you keep saying it all points to a hoax but fail to provide any evidence or method for it.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Laughable. No tracks were found in that vicinity to show any human involvement. In fact nothing was found there that indicated human involvement.

• How was it hoaxed?
• Who perpetrated the hoax?
• What methods did they employ?
• How many were involved?
• Where is the trace evidence of humans being involved?

Please answer these questions for us as you keep saying it all points to a hoax but fail to provide any evidence or method for it.

It's been written about, the links are available.

 

[Schuyler]

It is evidence and it comes straight from the source . . . .

Read my stuff

Did. Speculative and factually flawed. No evidence whatsoever and nothing 'straight from the source.' It's just a truck full of flaming shit--lovely to look at (from a distance).

. . . read Bragalia's

Did. More speculation. A guy told a guy told a guy.

. . . read the Daily Kos article

Now THERE'S an unbiased source! If I want a laugh I'll read the Denver Daily Examiner. At least that's entertaining.

When you read the facts they point in one direction and that's hoax.

No, they don't. When you read the facts there is no evidence of a hoax. Your facts aren't facts. They're hearsay and third party speculation. You speculate on how a hoaxer MIGHT have done the deed with no real evidence that they did so in such a manner then proceed to tell us your speculations are 'facts' that prove the hoax. Your argument is strictly a straw man. You can't even get the landing in the right place.

Look, this has been fun. But we're going round and round with no forward momentum. At least with Trajanus we made some progress. Speaking of! Where's Trajanus in all this? Trajanus!! Aren't you going to fly the alien flag here?? I do encourage you all to visit the newbie's site and take a look at his (cough) 'research.' Make your own decision. If it works for you, great.

Carry on. 8)

 

[Frank Stalter]

Now THERE'S an unbiased source! If I want a laugh I'll read the Denver Daily Examiner. At least that's entertaining.

Except it contains photocopies of Hynek and Moody's reports . . . . which contain evidence that points to hoax. Ignore facts all you want. It's pretty clear you make up your mind and ignore what doesn't fit with your preconceived notions . . . which are what exactly? You don't man up and offer any explanation for Socorro at all. What's stopping you? I'd rather be wrong than lame.

 

[dyingsun]

Except it contains photocopies of Hynek and Moody's reports . . . . which contain evidence that points to hoax. Ignore facts all you want. It's pretty clear you make up your mind and ignore what doesn't fit with your preconceived notions . . . which are what exactly? You don't man up and offer any explanation for Socorro at all. What's stopping you? I'd rather be wrong than lame.

Mr. Stalter, have you actually read Mr. Schuylers posts at all ?

 

[Frank Stalter]

Mr. Stalter, have you actually read Mr. Schuylers posts at all ?

I have. He seems to be of the opinion that's there's no evidence anything happened.

 

[dyingsun]

I have. He seems to be of the opinion that's there's no evidence anything happened.

Well, thats one way to put it.

 

[Schuyler]

Except it contains photocopies of Hynek and Moody's reports . . . . which contain evidence that points to hoax. Ignore facts all you want. It's pretty clear you make up your mind and ignore what doesn't fit with your preconceived notions . . . which are what exactly? You don't man up and offer any explanation for Socorro at all. What's stopping you? I'd rather be wrong than lame.

Now it's you who are not paying attention. Trajanus and I had a very lively discussion on the evidence several pages back. My explanation is that it was probably a terrestrial craft, but I give Trajanus his due and admit that it was possibly extra-terrestrial and, for that matter, possibly a hoax. Trajanus is as inflexible as you are in insisting it was aliens. I'm more flexible than that. I don't know for sure.

Look, I have to give you points for persistence, but it's your research that is lame. You misunderstand what constitutes evidence. Reports of third party conversations are not evidence. Hearsay is not evidence. Conjecture is not evidence. And that's all you've got and all you've done. You're loud about it, but that doesn't make it good research. Any lawyer would tear you into little tiny pieces on the witness stand.

A good book on teaching students how to actually DO research is "The Modern Researcher" by Jacques Barzun and Henry Graff, both of Columbia University. (Wadsworth Publishing, 6th edition, 336 pages) Highly recommended. But you consider yourself so smart I don't expect you to take advantage of it.

I suggest that you have shown no evidence you know how to do research at all. I give you a "D" grade so far--and that's a gift. Complain to the Dean if you want.