Ray Stanford has a photo of the Socorro craft & Martin Willis has seen it and is impressed but...

[Randall]

Really? Is this a new policy? It certainly has not been the policy in force during the two or three years I've been here.

Sure it has. That's the cheap excuse they used to ban me last time, even though I hadn't actually "attacked" anyone "personally". In fact I was the one who was actually attacked personally. The other guy just didn't like what I had to say, took it personally, attacked me, and then whined to Gene. So it's my experience here that what constitutes a "personal attack", is based on the highly subjective opinions of the forum's PTB rather than an objective look at what's actually being said. But let's not forget: That's nothing new when it comes to forum managers, and there are plenty of forums far more dictatorial than this one.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Sure it has. That's the cheap excuse they used to ban me last time, even though I hadn't actually "attacked" anyone "personally". In fact I was the one who was actually attacked personally. The other guy just didn't like what I had to say, took it personally, attacked me, and then whined to Gene. So it's my experience here that what constitutes a "personal attack" here, is based on the highly subjective opinions of the forum's PTB rather than an objective look at what's actually being said. But let's not forget: That's nothing new when it comes to forum managers, and there are plenty of forums far more dictatorial than this one.

I like the cut of your jib, sir!

 

[Constance]

I wouldn't say the managers of the forum are 'dictatorial' but rather that they do not follow heated controversial threads closely enough to observe when personal provocations begin and by whom, and how often they continue. I flagged one of DS's earlier assaults on Ben Moss in this thread, which might have been expected to trigger a moderator's examination of the exchange and a recognition of who was generating the increasing combativeness of the thread. As I recall, Moss maintained his cool longer than most people have under the fire of continuous provocation by DS. I take it Moss is a human being and like any of us will finally draw the line and begin to reply in kind. Then it became a pile-on with others joining DS. It should not have been allowed to go so far.

 

[Ben Moss]

You got that right. We do this on our own dime as all Mufon investigators do. We would not ask for nor accept money for any evidence we present or uncover. The Roswell disaster was doomed as soon as it became a money making event. I asked Tom and Don to help with the release knowing I might be able to see the picture. If that has happened I would have raised a red flag as my first impression on seeing the picture was 'museum.'

 

[EQ42]

Gene and Chris have surely not been dictatorial when it comes to this thread. Quite the opposite in fact- I think they've let quite a bit slide. There have been some pretty outrageous and unhinged attacks on Ray and the folks from MUFON.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Here's what Zamora initially reported:

Quoting Zamora: He [Nep Lopez] asked what is it? I answered "It looks like a balloon." I don't know if he saw it. If Nep looked out of his window, which faces north, he couldn't have seen it. I did not tell him at the moment which window to look out of.
-------------------------------------------------

How many here have witnessed many Hot Air Balloon launches??? Hot Air Balloons are Oval/Egg Shaped, it could look like an upturned car at 200-300 yards distance when Zamora saw it initially for 2 SECONDS before approaching closer, so this established the object is VERTICAL in length EXACTLY like a Hot Air Balloon would be oriented.

The roar of a Hot Air Balloon is EXACTLY the sound Zamora was describing, because it is loud but not matching exactly a jet engine. The Hot Air Balloon burner flames are ORANGE to BLUE in color. EXACTLY how Zamora describes it! WTF, he called it as he saw it: Balloon!

Bring in the ET-UFO FREAKS and you get something entirely different! The typical UFO Circus ensues that is pure fantasy!

It looked liked a balloon shape, it lifted initially EXACTLY how Hot Air Balloons move, it sounded EXACTLY like the roar of burners do, and its flame had the right matching colors!!! WTF.

Alright, it was probably a classified experimental craft that was unusual. For some reason it torched the plant life, but there is CLEARLY NO BLAST AREA blowing the ground away in two different films I saw of the ground surface. That means NO ENGINE or ROCKET blast. IT MEANS HOT AIR BALLOON. PERIOD. IMO.

Anyone that has been to a balloon festival CLEARLY KNOWS Hot Air Balloons can and do take-on all kinds of exotic shapes. It's like Disney Land full of fantasy shapes and colors.

The Socorro Hot Air Balloon rose EXACTLY like Hot Air Balloons do. The original report says NOTHING about going in some low horizontal movement for some super long distance before rising fast in the air. Zamora's description, again, fits the rise and movement of a Hot Air Balloon because wind conditions vary at low altitudes, including DIRECTION SHIFTS, and thermals that lift air upwards can be tremendously strong especially in the afternoon. Thermals can lift air straight up at far more than 2,000 feet PER MINUTE when lift conditions are very strong. I KNOW. I've flown gliders and know all about thermal lift. Big deal, the friggin balloon was encompassed in a fast rising column of rising air. It happens everywhere in such hot desert conditions, etc. It was perfectly natural for a Hot Air Balloon to move EXACTLY this way with what Zamora said quoting: "It appeared to go in straight line and at same height--possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet. Shack about eight feet high." It is absolutely STUPID to suggest the balloon went against the wind, because the weather report for the area indicated otherwise. Wind conditions do vary near ground levels and often shift directions and change directions at different altitudes too! This is a FACT. So, when UFO people start suggesting otherwise, they are conducting either willful disinformation and/or don't even deserve to be an investigator for not knowing the FACTS. ET-BS.

It is Ray Stanford's book that is far out of bounds with NOT matching Zamora's initial report, so I will NEVER accept the story of a 26 year old that sees ET-UFO's and ET's in so many outlandish sightings that are simply and clearly UNBELIEVABLE. Adamski taught Ray Stanford well. Ray knew full well people will believe almost anything you can write or say with UFO believers. He learned at a very early age how to read to entertain crowds about UFO's. By age 16 he was organizing an active UFO club in Corpus Christi. Ray is entertaining to listen to, but he does not fit reality within the realm of possibility with Socorro and a VAST NUMBER of all his other stories too! IMO.

That said, Ray's motives don't seem at the level of committing willful fraud, but I definitely have the impression of a highly, if not overly, focused and fanatically driven person since the 1947 UFO wave at age 9. That type of history can lead someone down a lot of dead end paths, though they may be entirely convinced by their personal experiences and outside the box education and background.

 

[Ben Moss]

We can take it. Its easy to attack on a blog. When people meet me in person they are very cordial. But I am not a small guy.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

When we finally do see Ray's photo's and video's I assume we are going to see something on the order of this (as far as it being clear, structured, and daytime; and not a smudge, blur, or light. This is a good thing because it wipes out all the other usual excuses of UFO's (birds, swamp gas, airplane, etc.) and leaves us with two possibilities. It's either a real craft or a hoax. I can't wait to see.

You obviously don't know the first thing about true AAO/UAPs. Like most people who rely on the media to give them their "UFO" reality view, you are obviously stuck in '50s Hollywood sci-fi schlock world of youtube detritus and parking lot lamps.

 

[Burnt State]

The 4 dots comment could not be more wrong. 2 pictures produces parallax. Both pictures have objects that are easily discernible after enlargement. Many of these comments I understand are because you have not seen the data or know the film and camera type. Once released after careful analysis you will understand. There is no duck. (Jeez) When released it will be open for all to do their own work on but we will not stream it live, charge a fee or rent a room. It is not a mummy. It is not a toy, a hoax or a flying pig. It is not staged, nor hoaxed. But of course many will not believe any of this even after it is out. Be patient we want to do it right.

Chris O'Brien, who saw the alleged photo, identified it as four dots. And when you enlarge four dots in the distance that are not the focus of the photo, even with exceptional depth of field, you will only have four more distorted dots. So let's please not talk about this image as if it's evidence of anything, as that's optically impossible. And they certainly would not be more discernible from ducks if they were ducks because dots are dots and not even close to being photographic evidence. Parallax...yes, and so what?These photos were not taken in tandem with exact distances from a parallel line of sight or with identical distance, focus or framing so there's nothing worth talking about there at all. Regardless of how fine a grain or how fine a camera, dots are just dots and nothing else. On a clear sunny day with a large format camera focusing on objects in the distance you might get some details but not much. I understand that these are 35mm though, and so these remain useless dots.

What this means is that this 10 page thread and counting has absolutely nothing to do with evidence per se and this is purely a discussion about personality. Comparisons to Dyer, the supposed Roswell Slides and Billy Meier are entirely applicable, as we are talking about unseen evidence or about those who have conviction about the unproven great evidence that on the face of what is being told just can not possibly add up to much of anything. If you want to know all about what's wrong with Ufology this thread is turning into an exceptional example. Again, to be clear we're talking about dots and individual belief and promotion without evidence - nothing important at all. But it is the subject of focus. Trying to chew on the Socorro case further, which is a decent enough case on its own, but is still not a hard core central case for Ufology, will not go much further than the facts of the case as they are known. If anything, this discussion on photographic evidence weakens reputations and instigates the exact same conflict as seen on the Roswell slide thread.

No one should bother coming forward to talk about the "big show" if you're not going to release the big show at the same time. This road has been travelled many times before. Doing things right means not talking about the evidence until the due diligence is done and the release happens. This is just mocking the idea of studying Ufology as a science.

 

[DissectionStalker]

A Composite Graphic of the Socorro Incident Craft Taking Off
Assembled from witness description and a local landscape image.

BTW: Still not sure the Socorro craft was alien.
More likely some sort of secret
military project.​

This photo is oriented in the wrong direction, IMO. It needs to be vertical according to what Zamora reported initially:

"Seemed like O in shape and I at first glance took it to be overturned white car. Car appeared to be up on radiator or on trunk, this first glance. "

ALSO, Zamora himself reported it to be a balloon. That's what it looked like to Zamora once he had his glasses back on that he needed for seeing well at distance.

I'm certain Zamora would have seen large balloons, such as weather balloons, to use these words for description purposes in Blue Book. That almost certainly confirms the Egg/Oval MOVED like balloons do too, otherwise Zamora would have said otherwise in his Blue Book Report. Also, Hynek would have gone out of his way to get Zamora to describe movements in the Blue Book report that would not match seeing a balloon once Zamora used that word to describe the object. Nothing in that BB report indicates a balloon could not move that way, IMO.

Zamora was in an older television show with a mock-up that also was Egg shaped in the vertical position just as a balloon looks and is oriented. AND, the action shots in that TV show, can be seen on youtube, ALSO used a balloon with Zamora seeing the object. I am certain the TV crew did at least get that right by confirming this with Zamora too! IF the TV crew could have used a more traditional ET-UFO saucer or oval shaped craft, then you can be certain they would chose to do the "traditional UFO" rather than a balloon that is Egg shaped.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

You obviously don't know the first thing about true AAO/UAPs. Like most people who rely on the media to give them their "UFO" reality view, you are obviously stuck in '50s Hollywood sci-fi schlock world of youtube detritus and parking lot lamps.

And congrats, cause you missed my entire point. My point wasn't the shape of the UFO/object, it was the clarity. I already know that the supposed Stanford UFO's are not your typical flying saucer like shape. Again, my point was the close up, daylight, clarity. NOT the shape.

 

[DissectionStalker]

I do not think that Lonnie would be the object of a psy ops mission. That is ludicrous.

I do not think Zamora was specifically targeted, because of the other sightings within 32 hours of Socorro. BUT. It is NOT beyond the realm of possibility to attract anyone happening by if that was a launch site. By that I mean this is a Human made craft vs it being ET.

Humans do weird sheeit with ET and UFO pranking and hoaxing, which in 1964 was already literally a UFO artform in those days. The roar of the Hot Air Balloon propane blowers/heaters would attract attention within several hundred yards/meters, easily within hearing range of the road, and scorching the plants could be intended to do willful trace evidence to mark its location with some real drama. Loud roaring, torching the area, then a dramatic lift-off is going to attract attention. It may be a tactic to keep anyone from approaching too close, but also to be easily found too. IF it was being launched there, then it is a psyops and/or hoax, IMO. It was stage managed for an audience and media attention, which it definitely got BIG TIME.

The 4 dots comment could not be more wrong. 2 pictures produces parallax. Both pictures have objects that are easily discernible after enlargement. Many of these comments I understand are because you have not seen the data or know the film and camera type.

ALL of us here want to know the camera and film type except for Constance. Wink.

Why can't that be known now along with the lens used too? What's the negative ASA rating and brand?

IF the objects are NOT being enlarged from the negatives, then I CALL HOAX and FRAUD -right now!!! No one should ever believe this crap if the enlargements are NOT being done from THE ORIGINAL negatives.

Also, we need very high resolution scans of the negatives in RAW TIFF format -NO COMPRESSED FORMAT. Not photo scans! WE NEED THE SCAN SPECIFICATIONS and equipment used.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

BTW - did we ever figure out where the first reports of the word "humanoids" came from? All the reports I read this morning said that Zamora said that they just looked like two people. Maybe children or small adults.

 

[Ben Moss]

Burnt you could not be more wrong and your knowledge of photo's is lame. You have no idea what your talking about. The dot is only a dot on the initial inage
It resolves quite well when zoomed in. I will continue to chew and you are also wrong about the importance of Socorro. We also have an as yet unseen Hynek interview which will make your point moot.

 

[Ben Moss]

Zamora did not say people.

 

[Ben Moss]

Zamora did not say people.

 

[Ben Moss]

The one point that has come from this thread is the whining from those who demand that THEY see the pictures
Sorry but your over thinking your importance. Again it will come but not on your timetable.

 

[Ben Moss]

Goodnight and have a pleasant tomorrow.

 

[Randall]

This photo is oriented in the wrong direction, IMO. It needs to be vertical according to what Zamora reported initially:

"Seemed like O in shape and I at first glance took it to be overturned white car. Car appeared to be up on radiator or on trunk, this first glance. "

ALSO, Zamora himself reported it to be a balloon. That's what it looked like to Zamora once he had his glasses back on that he needed for seeing well at distance.

I'm certain Zamora would have seen large balloons, such as weather balloons, to use these words for description purposes in Blue Book. That almost certainly confirms the Egg/Oval MOVED like balloons do too, otherwise Zamora would have said otherwise in his Blue Book Report. Also, Hynek would have gone out of his way to get Zamora to describe movements in the Blue Book report that would not match seeing a balloon once Zamora used that word to describe the object. Nothing in that BB report indicates a balloon could not move that way, IMO.

Zamora was in an older television show with a mock-up that also was Egg shaped in the vertical position just as a balloon looks and is oriented. AND, the action shots in that TV show, can be seen on youtube, ALSO used a balloon with Zamora seeing the object. I am certain the TV crew did at least get that right by confirming this with Zamora too! IF the TV crew could have used a more traditional ET-UFO saucer or oval shaped craft, then you can be certain they would chose to do the "traditional UFO" rather than a balloon that is Egg shaped.

You may be right, but I tend to be fairly picky about what I put together. Below is a sketch made under Zamora's direction:

​

If you should come across reliable info indicating a vertical orientation, by all means post it up. If it outweighs the above and the other info I went on, then I'll change the illustration accordingly. NOTE: The symbol indicated on the sketch, according to what I've been able to establish, appears to be the decoy version. I've considered adding the symbol to the illustration several times, but getting it to look just right is more of a challenge than it seems.

 

[Ben Moss]

The correct symbol is in the archives that Ray and James Fox photographed drawn the same day of the sighting by Zamora. An inverted V with 3 bars. The one in this picture was the one the army wanted out to the public. Zamora, as an ex army man, agreed to go along with this one.