"The Roswell Dream Team Nightmare"

[Muadib]

You don't owe any apologies. It's part of the game.

As one of my favorite TV characters of all time says "It's all in the game."

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

What about the physical evidence from the site? The metal scrapings, the vitrified quartz within the rock samples, the pieces of paper w/ the microscopic burnt holes, the footprints? The other witnesses?
Plus, Stanford has a shot of Hynek snapping a photograph at the "landing" site, and Stanford snapped his own shot at the same instant with Hynek in the foreground. Ray has ID'd what appear to be two anomalous aerial objects along w/ a high flying jet in BOTH his and Hynek's photographs. Instead of putting credence in an aside confided by a scoffing skeptic, my suggestion would be re-read Soccoro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry and reacquaint yourself with this important case.

 

[Frank Stalter]

What about the physical evidence from the site? The metal scrapings, the vitrified quartz within the rock samples, the pieces of paper w/ the microscopic burnt holes, the footprints? The other witnesses?
Plus, Stanford has a shot of Hynek snapping a photograph at the "landing" site, and Stanford snapped his own shot at the same instant with Hynek in the foreground. Ray has ID'd what appear to be two anomalous aerial objects along w/ a high flying jet in BOTH his and Hynek's photographs. Instead of putting credence in an aside confided by a scoffing skeptic, my suggestion would be re-read Soccoro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry and reacquaint yourself with this important case.

It's getting late here in the East Chris. Will answer in detail tomorrow.

 

[Randall]

As one of my favorite TV characters of all time says "It's all in the game."

As you can see in the image supplied by Frank the part in question is Colgate's hand written response to Pauling that is scribbled in the bottom margin. Although it's possible that Colgate did write that response, and return the letter back to Pauling, I'm not sure it's 100% safe to assume that he did. Doesn't anyone else find it odd that someone would write a response back to someone on the same piece of paper the sender had used? This was before the days of email and I had never seen it done before this example. That's not to claim it was never done. Just that it seems unusual.

Where's Colgate's original letter? Why didn't Pauling scribble his thanks back on that too? How much of this has been authenticated? Where's the postmarked envelopes? Are there reliable living witnesses to this exchange? On the surface it all seems fairly straight forward, but I don't think it's safe to take it all for granted. I'm not claiming the document is a forgery ( though it could be ), but I do claim that it's far from sufficient to conclude that it's all 100% genuine or that the Socorro Landing incident was a hoax. As always, I'm open to considering more evidence ( if there is any ).

NOTE: I've read Bragalia's 2009 Blog and there is no copy of Colgate's complete email response. What is written does not indicate that Colgate was asked if he recognized and could confirm that the handwritten note was his. He was not asked how he knows the incident was a hoax. In fact his response indicates no firsthand knowledge ( which means hearsay ) and as such isn't evidence of anything other than unsubstantiated rumors.

BTW: Pauling was IMO a genius, and a serious scientist who had a genuine interest in UFOs, so I can see why he might ask for Colgate's opinion on the Socorro case. My feeling is that the document is probably genuine, but it still doesn't amount to anything substantial.

 

[Muadib]

As you can see in the image supplied by Frank the part in question is Colgate's hand written response to Pauling that is scribbled in the bottom margin. Although it's possible that Colgate did write that response, and return the letter back to Pauling, I'm not sure it's 100% safe to assume that he did. Doesn't anyone else find it odd that someone would write a response back to someone on the same piece of paper the sender had used? This was before the days of email and I had never seen it done before this example. That's not to claim it was never done. Just that it seems unusual.

Where's Colgate's original letter? Why didn't Pauling scribble his thanks back on that too? How much of this has been authenticated? Where's the postmarked envelopes? Are there reliable living witnesses to this exchange? On the surface it all seems fairly straight forward, but I don't think it's safe to take it all for granted. I'm not claiming the document is a forgery ( though it could be ), but I do claim that it's far from sufficient to conclude that it's all 100% genuine or that the Socorro Landing incident was a hoax. As always, I'm open to considering more evidence ( if there is any ).

NOTE: I've read Bragalia's 2009 Blog and there is no copy of Colgate's complete email response. What is written does not indicate that Colgate was asked if he recognized and could confirm that the handwritten note was his. He was not asked how he knows the incident was a hoax. In fact his response indicates no firsthand knowledge ( which means hearsay ) and as such isn't evidence of anything other than unsubstantiated rumors.

BTW: Pauling was IMO a genius, and a serious scientist who had a genuine interest in UFOs, so I can see why he might ask for Colgate's opinion on the Socorro case. My feeling is that the document is probably genuine, but it still doesn't amount to anything substantial.

Right, I made the same point earlier in the thread, at best it's incomplete second hand information and I don't think that's enough to label a case solved, we need more and there are many issues that are still awaiting explanation in regards to this case. However, what you're asking about, though interesting, it is mostly minutiae, the bottom line for me is that Colgate hasn't come out and repudiated these statements and according to everyone who has looked into this (Frank made a list) this is the real deal. If the skeptics found out that he claimed to not have written the letters, it would be the first thing we would hear about. I suspect that this particular letter was in the public domain, part of a package, if you will, of his various correspondence and notes probably kept as part of his files from when he was the head honcho at the school. I doubt very much that Tony was on a first name basis with this guy prior to all of this brouhaha over the Soccoro case and I also don't see him digging through Colgate's trash to find this letter, I'm sure it was publicly available and that's probably why there's no envelope. What I would like to see is the follow up letter that Frank has alluded to seeing where Colgate confirms the accuracy of Tony's reporting, I think Frank said it was available on the website, I haven't checked because I honestly don't think it matters that much. No matter what they think over there at UFO Iconoclast, this case is far from solved and will remain so until Colgate outs the students who did this and explains exactly how it was done. Until then, this is mere window dressing. It's interesting, but it isn't sufficient to call this case solved.

 

[Frank Stalter]

What about the physical evidence from the site? The metal scrapings, the vitrified quartz within the rock samples, the pieces of paper w/ the microscopic burnt holes, the footprints? The other witnesses?
Plus, Stanford has a shot of Hynek snapping a photograph at the "landing" site, and Stanford snapped his own shot at the same instant with Hynek in the foreground. Ray has ID'd what appear to be two anomalous aerial objects along w/ a high flying jet in BOTH his and Hynek's photographs. Instead of putting credence in an aside confided by a scoffing skeptic, my suggestion would be re-read Soccoro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry and reacquaint yourself with this important case.

The hoaxers were students at The NM Institute of Mining and Technology. They had not just access but easy access to any of the material found at the site. There aren't any other witnesses to Zamora's specific encounter. If there are UFO photos taken in the area in the general time frame, that's great! Let's see them. It still doesn't change Zamora's encounter.

 

[Randall]

No matter what they think over there at UFO Iconoclast, this case is far from solved and will remain so until Colgate outs the students who did this and explains exactly how it was done. Until then, this is mere window dressing. It's interesting, but it isn't sufficient to call this case solved.

True. I guess we must be getting desperate for things to discuss when it comes down to whether or not some odd scribbling on the bottom of a letter over 40 years old is recognized by an 84 year old man as being his own.

 

[Frank Stalter]

As you can see in the image supplied by Frank the part in question is Colgate's hand written response to Pauling that is scribbled in the bottom margin. Although it's possible that Colgate did write that response, and return the letter back to Pauling, I'm not sure it's 100% safe to assume that he did. Doesn't anyone else find it odd that someone would write a response back to someone on the same piece of paper the sender had used? This was before the days of email and I had never seen it done before this example. That's not to claim it was never done. Just that it seems unusual.

Where's Colgate's original letter? Why didn't Pauling scribble his thanks back on that too? How much of this has been authenticated? Where's the postmarked envelopes? Are there reliable living witnesses to this exchange? On the surface it all seems fairly straight forward, but I don't think it's safe to take it all for granted. I'm not claiming the document is a forgery ( though it could be ), but I do claim that it's far from sufficient to conclude that it's all 100% genuine or that the Socorro Landing incident was a hoax. As always, I'm open to considering more evidence ( if there is any ).

NOTE: I've read Bragalia's 2009 Blog and there is no copy of Colgate's complete email response. What is written does not indicate that Colgate was asked if he recognized and could confirm that the handwritten note was his. He was not asked how he knows the incident was a hoax. In fact his response indicates no firsthand knowledge ( which means hearsay ) and as such isn't evidence of anything other than unsubstantiated rumors.

BTW: Pauling was IMO a genius, and a serious scientist who had a genuine interest in UFOs, so I can see why he might ask for Colgate's opinion on the Socorro case. My feeling is that the document is probably genuine, but it still doesn't amount to anything substantial.

Colgate took several days to reply to me. In his email, Colgate answered very cryptically and sparingly:

- To the question, "Do you still know this to be a hoax? His reply was simple: "Yes."
- When asked, "Today, decades later, can you expand on what you wrote to Pauling about the event?" He wrote: "I will ask a friend, but he and other students did not want their cover blown."
- He offered that the hoax, "was a no-brainer."
- When asked "Specifically how did they do it?" He just answered, "Will ask."

I don't know what part of this you're not getting.

 

[Randall]

I don't know what part of this you're not getting.

Don't start with the typical innuendo we see when someone questions a position with valid counterpoint. The email exchange you quoted proves nothing. We don't even know if Colgate himself actually replied in person. The question shouldn't have been: "Do you still know this to be a hoax?" ( a leading question that puts words into the mouth of a man in his mid 80s 40 years after the fact ). Rather the handwritten portion should have been copied and separated from the letter and sent alone, and the following questions should have been asked?

• Is this your handwriting?
• If yes: Do you recall when it was written and what it was about?
• If yes: Please tell us when it was written and what you remember it being about?
• If the story matches: What did you mean by, "good indication"?
• And so on in a methodical fashion.

It's obvious from the scribbled note itself that even if the note is genuine, Colgate's knowledge about the incident at the time was based on vague hearsay. So the letter itself is what's called "multiple hearsay" ( Pauling said Colgate said someone gave him a "good indication" of someone ( allegedly a student ) who engineered a hoax ). Please ... This evidence that is so weak it would be tossed out of court and laughed at. On the other hand Zamora's ( a police officer who was a firsthand witness ) wouldn't have been.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Don't start with the typical innuendo we see when someone questions a position with valid counterpoint. The email exchange you quoted proves nothing. We don't even know if Colgate himself actually replied in person. The question shouldn't have been: "Do you still know this to be a hoax?" ( a leading question that puts words into the mouth of a man in his mid 80s 40 years after the fact ). Rather the handwritten portion should have been copied and separated from the letter and sent alone, and the following questions should have been asked?

• Is this your handwriting?
• If yes: Do you recall when it was written and what it was about?
• If yes: Please tell us when it was written and what you remember it being about?
• If the story matches: What did you mean by, "good indication"?
• And so on in a methodical fashion.

It's obvious from the scribbled note itself that even if the note is genuine, Colgate's knowledge about the incident at the time was based on vague hearsay. So the letter itself is what's called "multiple hearsay" ( Pauling said Colgate said someone gave him a "good indication" of someone ( allegedly a student ) who engineered a hoax ). Please ... This evidence that is so weak it would be tossed out of court and laughed at. On the other hand Zamora's ( a police officer who was a firsthand witness ) wouldn't have been.

It's not a valid argument. Nobody is questioning the veracity of the correspondence, including the guy who actually wrote it, but you and you back up your specious claim with nothing. Just speculation, something you railed against just a few posts back. It makes you not only a shoddy researcher but a hypocrite. Instead of manning up and admitting you made a mistake and didn't do your homework on the case before running off at the mouth, now you're weaseling, trying to change the subject.

 

[Randall]

It's not a valid argument. Nobody is questioning the veracity of the correspondence, including the guy who actually wrote it, but you and you back up your specious claim with nothing. Just speculation, something you railed against just a few posts back. It makes you not only a shoddy researcher but a hypocrite. Instead of manning up and admitting you made a mistake and didn't do your homework on the case before running off at the mouth, now you're weaseling, trying to change the subject.

So now instead of addressing the points made, you start in with the typical proclamations and ad hominem remarks. The fact is that contrary to what you are saying, I've made no claim other than that the evidence presented would be thrown out of court because it's multiple hearsay, which is obvious from just looking at it. Though I would admit that this whole Socorro issue has derailed the Roswell Dream Team Nightmare topic. What subject were you thinking I was trying to divert you from?

 

[Frank Stalter]

So now instead of addressing the points made, you start in with the typical proclamations and ad hominem remarks. The fact is that contrary to what you are saying, I've made no claim other than that the evidence presented would be thrown out of court because it's multiple hearsay, which is obvious from just looking at it. Though I would admit that this whole Socorro issue has derailed the Roswell Dream Team Nightmare topic. What subject were you thinking I was trying to divert you from?

You've made no points, that's the point. You're trying to walk away from a specious claim the correspondence is a hoax. You've been proved wrong about that. If you have some actual evidence, present it . . . but I know you don't because there isn't any, so keep on tap dancing and lying about what you yourself wrote. My attacks are accurate.

Here I am doing your work for you and arch-skeptic Printy's independent corroboration:

Thomas informed me that he has been unable to get Dr. Colgate to elaborate about the comments made in the Pauling letter. However, in an effort to help correct the situation, Thomas offered to Colgate and Bragalia to act as a go-between, which is where the situation stands right now.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite1_4.pdf

 

[Randall]

You've made no points, that's the point. You're trying to walk away from a specious claim the correspondence is a hoax.

I've made no claim that the correspondence ( Colgate's alleged note ) is a hoax. I've only suggested that it could be via the word "if", which is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, which as I've already mentioned involve an unusual format on a letter that turned up decades after the fact and has not been adequately corroborated or authenticated. You might also want to note that despite these shortcomings, I did mention that Pauling appears to have had a genuine interest in UFOs and that those circumstances lend some general credibility to the issue. Also you're making a much bigger deal out of "if" question than I did. In my write-up it's simply a passing remark meant only to cast marginal doubt and make people think rather than assume it's all the way it's been presented. You're the one blowing it out of proportion. My position is still that it's a small "if" and the document is probably genuine.

You've been proved wrong about that. If you have some actual evidence, present it . . . but I know you don't because there isn't any, so keep on tap dancing and lying about what you yourself wrote. My attacks are accurate.

Your "attacks"? What "attacks"? Do you perceive that you're "attacking" me? I'll I've seen you do is make some unfounded remarks, possibly out of some misplaced belief that this Pauling/Colgate correspondence represents substantial evidence. It doesn't. Try to accept it graciously and you'll come out ahead on this.

Here I am doing your work for you and arch-skeptic Printy's independent corroboration ...

I get Printy's SUNlite regularly. I was introduced to him over on the JREF. I don't know what you think Printy "corroborated". His comments are pretty much the same as mine ( ironically ). May I speak frankly, Frank ( sorry I couldn't resist ), I appreciate good skepticism and the Pauling/Colgate connection is an interesting bit of research. I'm not your typical "UFO believer" who fails to acknowledge the evidence one way or another, and personally, I seriously doubt that the Socorro landing incident involved an alien craft ( UFO ). However that doesn't automatically give the hoax theory a pass. Quintanilla was convinced that it was some sort of prototype related to the moon lander, and although the moon lander itself is a stretch, some sort of secret rocket powered craft from White Sands is IMO still more reasonable than the hoax theory. Do either of us know what it really was? No. So how about we both just admit that ( pending more definitive evidence ) and shake hands on it for now?

 

[Frank Stalter]

I've made no claim that the correspondence ( Colgate's alleged note ) is a hoax. I've only suggested that it could be via the word "if", which is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, which as I've already mentioned involve an unusual format on a letter that turned up decades after the fact and has not been adequately corroborated or authenticated. You might also want to note that despite these shortcomings, I did mention that Pauling appears to have had a genuine interest in UFOs and that those circumstances lend some general credibility to the issue. Also you're making a much bigger deal out of "if" question than I did. In my write-up it's simply a passing remark meant only to cast marginal doubt and make people think rather than assume it's all the way it's been presented. You're the one blowing it out of proportion. My position is still that it's a small "if" and the document is probably genuine.

Your "attacks"? What "attacks"? Do you perceive that you're "attacking" me? I'll I've seen you do is make some unfounded remarks, possibly out of some misplaced belief that this Pauling/Colgate correspondence represents substantial evidence. It doesn't. Try to accept it graciously and you'll come out ahead on this.

I get Printy's SUNlite regularly. I was introduced to him over on the JREF. I don't know what you think Printy "corroborated". His comments are pretty much the same as mine ( ironically ). May I speak frankly, Frank ( sorry I couldn't resist ), I appreciate good skepticism and the Pauling/Colgate connection is an interesting bit of research. I'm not your typical "UFO believer" who fails to acknowledge the evidence one way or another, and personally, I seriously doubt that the Socorro landing incident involved an alien craft ( UFO ). However that doesn't automatically give the hoax theory a pass. Quintanilla was convinced that it was some sort of prototype related to the moon lander, and although the moon lander itself is a stretch, some sort of secret rocket powered craft from White Sands is IMO still more reasonable than the hoax theory. Do either of us know what it really was? No. So how about we both just admit that ( pending more definitive evidence ) and shake hands on it for now?

If you did your homework on the case before commenting, which you clearly did not, you wouldn't have made such an unfounded claim. All I asked to begin with was what you based it on. You haven't responded other than to claim you didn't write what you wrote. Printy absolutely corroborated that the letter was legitimate. Like I wrote before, no one but you thought it was anything other than what it was, a legitimate document found in the archives of a Nobel prize winning scientist. Even the suggestion of it being otherwise was completely irresponsible and out of bounds . . . . unless you provided some evidence for why you wrote what you did. You haven't despite multiple opportunities. You persisted in holding on to your thoughtless position.

 

[Randall]

If you did your homework on the case before commenting, which you clearly did not, you wouldn't have made such an unfounded claim. All I asked to begin with was what you based it on. You haven't responded other than to claim you didn't write what you wrote. Printy absolutely corroborated that the letter was legitimate. Like I wrote before, no one but you thought it was anything other than what it was, a legitimate document found in the archives of a Nobel prize winning scientist. Even the suggestion of it being otherwise was completely irresponsible and out of bounds . . . . unless you provided some evidence for why you wrote what you did. You haven't despite multiple opportunities. You persisted in holding on to your thoughtless position.

OK Frank, whatever. There's enough here now for anyone who is interested to see who's being reasonable and who's not, and I'm not going to continue providing counterpoint that you simply ignore or dismiss. I have other things I need to attend to and/or find more interesting and productive. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[Decker]

For any of you that might be interested ... I have Kevin Randle on Dark Matters Radio on Tuesday October 1, 2013 to discuss the entire Dream Team and Kodak Slide issue. I spoke with him today and he is very interested in dealing with this issue ASAP.

Here is some more information.

Trouble in Paradise with "The Dream Team" | The Paracast Community Forums

Decker

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Sounds good Don and after reading Nick piece makes you wonder?? Always like Dr Randle's work and could ask him a question Don as I have prior commitments different time zones.

Q.1 Lt Col Kevin Randle your thoughts on Greg Valdes book 'Dulce Base' (2013) and the possibility of any connection to the Roswell Case regarding smoke screen to cover advance technologies?

Q.2 Lt Col Kevin Randle thought's on Dr Joseph Farrell's work on Roswell Case and possibility it being a secret technology offshoot from Nazi war trophies rather than out of this world ET ?

Q.3 Thoughts on Mr Nick Cook book about antigravity technologies and your thoughts of possible early so called UFO crashes prior to Roswell??

Thanks for your service.

Cheers,
Blowfish

 

[drudiak]

Zamora's is one of those cases where I don't think anyone disagrees that he saw essentially what he said he saw, so it had to be something. The ideas I've seen floated are: some sort of experimental lander, either government or commercial, an ET vehicle or the student hoax. I can't really think of anything else it might have been. Dave Rudiak's wind information is fair and presents a problem if Zamora was accurate about that portion of the incident.

Here we go again! So my wind information is "fair" and "presents a problem", but only "if Zamora was accurate about that portion of the incident". What a bunch of usual Stalter doubletalk!

Here's the basic problem. Zamora described four major landmarks, all of which point to a WSW departure direction for the object: 1) It went up the arroyo, not down it ("up" is to the WSW); 2) It seemed to pass directly over a nearby dynamite shack on the edge of the arroyo (again up the arroyo to the WSW); 3) It headed straight for the nearby mountains and a very prominent mine at the base of the mountains only 2 miles away (yawn, need I mention this is again to the WSW?); and seemed to fade out near 6-mile or Box Canyon (6 miles from town to the WSW). There was NO ambiguity in any of Zamora’s description which direction the object headed. Please explain how Zamora could have been “inaccurate” about any of this.

But when I pulled up historical wind records from wunderground.com and NOAA, the wind was unambiguously coming out of the South to Southwest, probably the SSW. Wind data from nearly three dozen weather stations over 600-700 miles outline a very obvious large LOW pressure system circulating in a CCW direction. E.g., the nearest weather stations at Albuquerque, Truth or Consequences, and Stallion Station AAF at the north edge of White Sands (only about 20 miles from Socorro) all had winds from the South to Southwest at the time.

SocorroWinds_April_24_1964

This is also exactly what the N.M. newspapers were reporting. A large, powerful, low pressure system was creating a late winter storm, with gusty winds kicking up dust throughout the state.

Policeman Zamora at the time likewise spoke of gusty winds out of the SW kicking up dust when he went to investigate. Hynek variously placed the wind out of the South or Southwest.

So ALL data unambiguously points to the object having to depart INTO a very stiff headwind. Stalter and Bragalia will try to sell you that all Zamora saw was a hoax balloon (specifically a flimsy Chinese lantern "powered" by candles), but BALLOONS CAN'T FLY INTO THE WIND. Nor can a "balloon" possibly fly in an unwavering straight line hugging the terrain until it reached the base of the mountains, when it suddenly seemed to go into a very steep, high-speed climb up the side of the mountains, another key part of Zamora’s testimony.

This isn't speculation; this is pure science. The "balloon" explanation is simply impossible. BALLOONS CAN'T FLY INTO THE WIND! Yet here we are four years after Bragalia first tried to sell the student hoax nonsense based strictly on nothing but hearsay and speculation from one Sterling Colgate. Four years, and still not a single name of a hoaxer or any remotely plausible explanation of how this alleged hoax was pulled off. Trying to pretend a “Chinese lantern” can explain all this doesn’t even rise to the level of absurd.

Zamora was self-admittedly haziest about that segment of the incident. Read his original account. The explosion scared the daylights out of him. He said so and those who saw him right after said the same.

Again Stalter playing semantic games. Where does Zamora "self-admittedly" say he was "haziest" about "this segment". Saying he was scared is not the same as being "hazy". In REALITY, Zamora still gave a very DETAILED description of what happened after the object took off with a loud roar. He was probably within 50 feet of the thing at the time. He got a very good look.

Here's an image of what Zamora saw from around 50 feet away, where I've inserted a 3D Google Sketch-up model (based on Zamora's description and measured on-site distances of landing impressions) into Google Earth, and superimposed this model on a photo of the actual site I took in 2012:

Soccorro UFO Zamora viewpoint

Do you think you couldn't recognize a "Chinese lantern" from this distance, nor see the necessary people wrangling it, trying to keep it from flying away in a stiff wind? (Never mind that the wind direction was completely wrong.) And where did they disappear to, leaving no physical evidence of their presence behind? It's open country out there with no place to hide. Look at the picture.

More Zamora "hazy" details: When the object started its loud takeoff, Zamora described a "flame" coming from an opening in the bottom of the object as blue, but orange at the edges. It didn't bounce off the soil like a rocket or jet engine would but seemed to penetrate into the soil (an important clue--also left no crater behind, but charred/melted the soil underneath and burned grass on the ground and cut a greasewood bush in half). He said he hit the dirt fearing it might explode.

Then he got up and ran back to his car a short distance away, trying to put his car between himself and the object in case it did explode. He hit the rear bumper and TEMPORARILY lost his glasses and sunglasses. He kept running, all the time shooting glances back over his shoulder, then dove to the ground again. At this point he was 100-200 feet away. He saw the object rise maybe 20-25 feet, then it went completely SILENT, after going from a high pitch sound to a low, and departed quickly UP THE ARROYO to the WSW, over the dynamite shack, straight for the prominent Perlite mine at the base of the mountains, raced up the mountainside, etc.

As soon as the object went silent and departed the area, he ran back to his car, picked up his glasses, put them on, went to his radio and called for backup while watching the departure WITH HIS GLASSES ON, at which time time he told the dispatcher it looked LIKE a balloon because he hoped the dispatcher would be able to look out his window and see what he was seeing. The dispatcher asked him what to look for, and it was then Zamora said “It looks LIKE a balloon.” NEVER, EVER DID ZAMORA EVER SAY HE THOUGHT HE WITNESSED AN ACTUAL BALLOON.

When he first sighted the object with two small “people” next to it, he had radioed his friend State Policeman Sam Chavez for backup. Zamora would later say he could see Chavez overlooking the scene as the object was disappearing in the distance. Chavez was probably there at his side within a minute after the object took off. If there were hoaxers anywhere around running off, Chavez and Zamora BOTH would have seen them, particularly Chavez from his higher vantage point overlooking the scene..

This, according to Stalter, is Zamora's "hazy" description of what happened after he became "scared." Bragalia sank much lower, using an anonymous witness claiming Zamora was a "drinking man," known to drink on the job, insinuating he was seriously drunk at the time.

Curiously State Policeman Chavez, almost immediately at Zamora's side and for hours afterward failed to notice alcohol on Zamora's breath or the tell-tale signs of serious intoxication, like slurred speech, staggering, disorientation, etc. Neither did half the Socorro police force, on the scene within 10 minutes. Nor did the FBI agent there within 2 hours. Also Chavez, Zamora's good friend and mentor, urged Zamora to report what he had seen, rather strange to do to a friend if he is falling-down drunk and can't tell up from down, which is exactly what Stalter and Bragalia are trying to do to discredit Zamora's testimony, which makes a "balloon" scenario physically IMPOSSIBLE.

It's a problem but looking at it from the other side, which account best fits his description, which I think under the circumstances was pretty damn good . . . . "It looks like a balloon"

"It looks LIKE a balloon," NOT, "It WAS a balloon". Learn how to read English. This was nothing but Zamora using metaphor to compare to a familiar object when the dispatcher asked him what to look for. Zamora also compared the shape to an egg. “I saw this white, egg, like egg-shaped looking object... from that distance... it looked like an egg to me...” Does that make the object an egg?

Again, NEVER did Zamora ever say he thought he was viewing an actual balloon.

. . . along with the details that led him to the site, the site itself,

More Stalter nonsense. Supposedly a student speeder lured Zamora out in the direction of the site. But what made Zamora turn off the highway onto the dirt road leading out to to the site was seeing a very bright, descending, cone-shaped light and a loud roar. Zamora thought that maybe the dynamite shack had blown up.

As for the "site itself", Chavez immediately turned it into a crime scene, looking for evidence of human hoaxers. The police plus FBI agent plus USAF range officer combed the area and never found any tracks or hoaxing paraphernalia that would NECESSARILY be left behind by hoaxers. The ground and plants were still smoking when Chavez quickly arrived, and the Socorro police minutes afterward. How did "hoaxers" freshly burn things and leave not a shred of evidence behind of how they did it? They would have had to be right there when Zamora approached within 50 feet. Where were they hiding? Again, I've been there; Stalter and Bragalia have not. It's open country (again, see my photo of the site) with no place to hide, no place to run, no way not to leave physical evidence behind of your presence when you pull something off right under the nose of the witness and his backup overlooking the site from a high vantage point.

Hynek and even the debunking Air Force (Quintanilla) realized that there was ZERO evidence of any sort of hoax. The Air Force tested for chemical accelerants that might explain the burning and couldn't find anything. Zamora himself said he saw no smoke when the object took off, only a little dust. Dr. James McDonald later investigated and learned that the soil in the main burn area had been fused. The Deputy Sheriff who started taking pictures within 10 minutes was later told that his pictures had been fogged by radiation, whereas photos taken the next morning came out fine. So the radiation was short-lived, a detail virtually impossible to hoax. (The alleged hoaxing students would have needed access to a particle accelerator to generate any short-lived radioactive isotopes. What would have even been the point?)

the accounts of the site via Chavez, Hynek and David Moody, the private Colgate/Pauling correspondence never meant for public inspection and Colgate's follow up with Tony.
Colgate,

Colgate wasn't there, never investigated, can't name a single name of a hoaxer, can't tell you how it could possibly have been done, and four years have passed since Bragalia contacted him. Pauling merely asked Colgate what he thought, but didn't know anything, never even expressed an opinion.

Hynek, who actually investigated on-site, spoke to Zamora, etc., NEVER believed it to be a hoax. In fact, Socorro was a tipping point for Hynek since it was such a nuts-and-bolts UFO case full of physical evidence that couldn't be hoaxed. I roasted Stalter good on his blog for grossly misquoting Hynek, just as he is doing here with Zamora, claiming Zamora was “self-admittedly” “hazy” on the details because he was scared or that Zamora thought he had seen a balloon.

The student hoax fits best far and away.

Only if you can't think critically and ignore the actual evidence. Start with the historical wind data that PROVE without a doubt that whatever Zamora saw, it couldn't have possibly been a balloon. Balloons don't fly into the wind Frank.

If you don't accept that, what's left? An experimental vehicle, that looked like a balloon, that never materialized in the almost 50 years since, or ET, or what? Nothing happened at all? Of course something happened. It's a process of elimination exercise and you can't eliminate all of the explanations. One has to be right, problematic or not.

You can eliminate student hoax, because it was IMPOSSIBLE to pull off given all the ACTUAL details of the case (which Stalter pretends don’t exist, like the incorrect wind or fresh burning or lack of trace evidence of hoaxers being present).

If it was an experimental craft, indeed nobody can remotely find any evidence that it existed. What experimental craft could depart the area like that in DEAD SILENCE (another key part of Zamora’s testimony)? Even AF debunker Quintanilla ruled that out after extensively checking for such a craft and drawing blanks. Something clearly physical happened (burns, landing impressions, radiation, fused soil, loud noise heard by many residents in town). In my book, that leaves probable “ET” by the process of elimination.

If I had to bet $1, I'd bet hoax.

Why not do a real bet and bet a $1000, showing us EXACTLY how ALL aspects (and I do mean ALL) of this "student hoax" were carried out and leaving no physical evidence behind of your presence seconds after you carry out the hoax, leaving no time to clean up after yourself? That was the actual situation with Socorro. On-site investigators then got that, even the debunking ones. Hoax not possible. Modern arm-chair debunkers still don’t get it.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Firstly, it looks like you and your Roswell investgation partners have really come up with something so congratulations on that.
Secondly, I can't believe this thread has devolved into a Socorro debate.

Here we go again! So my wind information is "fair" and "presents a problem", but only "if Zamora was accurate about that portion of the incident". What a bunch of usual Stalter doubletalk!
Here's the basic problem. Zamora described four major landmarks, all of which point to a WSW departure direction for the object: 1) It went up the arroyo, not down it ("up" is to the WSW); 2) It seemed to pass directly over a nearby dynamite shack on the edge of the arroyo (again up the arroyo to the WSW); 3) It headed straight for the nearby mountains and a very prominent mine at the base of the mountains only 2 miles away (yawn, need I mention this is again to the WSW?); and seemed to fade out near 6-mile or Box Canyon (6 miles from town to the WSW). There was NO ambiguity in any of Zamora’s description which direction the object headed. Please explain how Zamora could have been “inaccurate” about any of this.
But when I pulled up historical wind records from wunderground.com and NOAA, the wind was unambiguously coming out of the South to Southwest, probably the SSW. Wind data from nearly three dozen weather stations over 600-700 miles outline a very obvious large LOW pressure system circulating in a CCW direction. E.g., the nearest weather stations at Albuquerque, Truth or Consequences, and Stallion Station AAF at the north edge of White Sands (only about 20 miles from Socorro) all had winds from the South to Southwest at the time.
SocorroWinds_April_24_1964
This is also exactly what the N.M. newspapers were reporting. A large, powerful, low pressure system was creating a late winter storm, with gusty winds kicking up dust throughout the state.
Policeman Zamora at the time likewise spoke of gusty winds out of the SW kicking up dust when he went to investigate. Hynek variously placed the wind out of the South or Southwest.
So ALL data unambiguously points to the object having to depart INTO a very stiff headwind. Stalter and Bragalia will try to sell you that all Zamora saw was a hoax balloon (specifically a flimsy Chinese lantern "powered" by candles), but BALLOONS CAN'T FLY INTO THE WIND. Nor can a "balloon" possibly fly in an unwavering straight line hugging the terrain until it reached the base of the mountains, when it suddenly seemed to go into a very steep, high-speed climb up the side of the mountains, another key part of Zamora’s testimony.
This isn't speculation; this is pure science. The "balloon" explanation is simply impossible. BALLOONS CAN'T FLY INTO THE WIND! Yet here we are four years after Bragalia first tried to sell the student hoax nonsense based strictly on nothing but hearsay and speculation from one Sterling Colgate. Four years, and still not a single name of a hoaxer or any remotely plausible explanation of how this alleged hoax was pulled off. Trying to pretend a “Chinese lantern” can explain all this doesn’t even rise to the level of absurd.
Again Stalter playing semantic games. Where does Zamora "self-admittedly" say he was "haziest" about "this segment". Saying he was scared is not the same as being "hazy". In REALITY, Zamora still gave a very DETAILED description of what happened after the object took off with a loud roar. He was probably within 50 feet of the thing at the time. He got a very good look.
Here's an image of what Zamora saw from around 50 feet away, where I've inserted a 3D Google Sketch-up model (based on Zamora's description and measured on-site distances of landing impressions) into Google Earth, and superimposed this model on a photo of the actual site I took in 2012:
Soccorro UFO Zamora viewpoint
Do you think you couldn't recognize a "Chinese lantern" from this distance, nor see the necessary people wrangling it, trying to keep it from flying away in a stiff wind? (Never mind that the wind direction was completely wrong.) And where did they disappear to, leaving no physical evidence of their presence behind? It's open country out there with no place to hide. Look at the picture.
More Zamora "hazy" details: When the object started its loud takeoff, Zamora described a "flame" coming from an opening in the bottom of the object as blue, but orange at the edges. It didn't bounce off the soil like a rocket or jet engine would but seemed to penetrate into the soil (an important clue--also left no crater behind, but charred/melted the soil underneath and burned grass on the ground and cut a greasewood bush in half). He said he hit the dirt fearing it might explode.

Zamora never said he saw an exhaust opening in the bottom of the craft. He never said he saw an exit hatch or saw the two individuals getting into or out of the vehicle. He never said he saw flame penetrate into the soil. That's your imagination.

Then he got up and ran back to his car a short distance away, trying to put his car between himself and the object in case it did explode. He hit the rear bumper and TEMPORARILY lost his glasses and sunglasses. He kept running, all the time shooting glances back over his shoulder, then dove to the ground again. At this point he was 100-200 feet away. He saw the object rise maybe 20-25 feet, then it went completely SILENT, after going from a high pitch sound to a low, and departed quickly UP THE ARROYO to the WSW, over the dynamite shack, straight for the prominent Perlite mine at the base of the mountains, raced up the mountainside, etc.
As soon as the object went silent and departed the area, he ran back to his car, picked up his glasses, put them on, went to his radio and called for backup while watching the departure WITH HIS GLASSES ON, at which time time he told the dispatcher it looked LIKE a balloon because he hoped the dispatcher would be able to look out his window and see what he was seeing. The dispatcher asked him what to look for, and it was then Zamora said “It looks LIKE a balloon.” NEVER, EVER DID ZAMORA EVER SAY HE THOUGHT HE WITNESSED AN ACTUAL BALLOON.

At least you accept the fact that he did say it looked like a balloon and Colgate confirmed it was a balloon.

When he first sighted the object with two small “people” next to it, he had radioed his friend State Policeman Sam Chavez for backup. Zamora would later say he could see Chavez overlooking the scene as the object was disappearing in the distance. Chavez was probably there at his side within a minute after the object took off. If there were hoaxers anywhere around running off, Chavez and Zamora BOTH would have seen them, particularly Chavez from his higher vantage point overlooking the scene..
This, according to Stalter, is Zamora's "hazy" description of what happened after he became "scared." Bragalia sank much lower, using an anonymous witness claiming Zamora was a "drinking man," known to drink on the job, insinuating he was seriously drunk at the time.
Curiously State Policeman Chavez, almost immediately at Zamora's side and for hours afterward failed to notice alcohol on Zamora's breath or the tell-tale signs of serious intoxication, like slurred speech, staggering, disorientation, etc. Neither did half the Socorro police force, on the scene within 10 minutes. Nor did the FBI agent there within 2 hours. Also Chavez, Zamora's good friend and mentor, urged Zamora to report what he had seen, rather strange to do to a friend if he is falling-down drunk and can't tell up from down, which is exactly what Stalter and Bragalia are trying to do to discredit Zamora's testimony, which makes a "balloon" scenario physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Appreantly, there was something of an alcohol issue at some point regarding Zamora, he specifically mentioned he hadn't had a drink in more than a month in his report. I consider it a non-issue in relation to this incident. I've always said, I think he was a darn good witness under extreme circumstances.

"It looks LIKE a balloon," NOT, "It WAS a balloon". Learn how to read English. This was nothing but Zamora using metaphor to compare to a familiar object when the dispatcher asked him what to look for. Zamora also compared the shape to an egg. “I saw this white, egg, like egg-shaped looking object... from that distance... it looked like an egg to me...” Does that make the object an egg?
Again, NEVER did Zamora ever say he thought he was viewing an actual balloon.
More Stalter nonsense. Supposedly a student speeder lured Zamora out in the direction of the site. But what made Zamora turn off the highway onto the dirt road leading out to to the site was seeing a very bright, descending, cone-shaped light and a loud roar. Zamora thought that maybe the dynamite shack had blown up.

He said he saw a flame, not any type of craft. I don't doubt it was descending . . . . you have heard of gravity. It's been a thing for quite some time now. Here's an example:

As for the "site itself", Chavez immediately turned it into a crime scene, looking for evidence of human hoaxers. The police plus FBI agent plus USAF range officer combed the area and never found any tracks or hoaxing paraphernalia that would NECESSARILY be left behind by hoaxers. The ground and plants were still smoking when Chavez quickly arrived, and the Socorro police minutes afterward. How did "hoaxers" freshly burn things and leave not a shred of evidence behind of how they did it? They would have had to be right there when Zamora approached within 50 feet. Where were they hiding? Again, I've been there; Stalter and Bragalia have not. It's open country (again, see my photo of the site) with no place to hide, no place to run, no way not to leave physical evidence behind of your presence when you pull something off right under the nose of the witness and his backup overlooking the site from a high vantage point.

No place to hide? . . . the area is hilly as hell. Arroyos are flat as a pool table? The road Zamora drove on to get up close was seperated from the arroyo by a hill. He couldn't see what was going on down in the arroyo as he drove closer after seeing the craft and two individuals.

Hynek and even the debunking Air Force (Quintanilla) realized that there was ZERO evidence of any sort of hoax. The Air Force tested for chemical accelerants that might explain the burning and couldn't find anything. Zamora himself said he saw no smoke when the object took off, only a little dust. Dr. James McDonald later investigated and learned that the soil in the main burn area had been fused. The Deputy Sheriff who started taking pictures within 10 minutes was later told that his pictures had been fogged by radiation, whereas photos taken the next morning came out fine. So the radiation was short-lived, a detail virtually impossible to hoax. (The alleged hoaxing students would have needed access to a particle accelerator to generate any short-lived radioactive isotopes. What would have even been the point?)
Colgate wasn't there, never investigated, can't name a single name of a hoaxer, can't tell you how it could possibly have been done, and four years have passed since Bragalia contacted him. Pauling merely asked Colgate what he thought, but didn't know anything, never even expressed an opinion.

Not can''t . . . . won't. There's a difference. It might be shocking to some folks, but some other folks just don't care about UFOs or solving old cases even if they were directly involved.

Hynek, who actually investigated on-site, spoke to Zamora, etc., NEVER believed it to be a hoax. In fact, Socorro was a tipping point for Hynek since it was such a nuts-and-bolts UFO case full of physical evidence that couldn't be hoaxed. I roasted Stalter good on his blog for grossly misquoting Hynek, just as he is doing here with Zamora, claiming Zamora was “self-admittedly” “hazy” on the details because he was scared or that Zamora thought he had seen a balloon.

Hynek did consider hoax, but unwisely rejected it.

The hoax hypothesis is, of course, one that suggests itself immediately. It is Quintanilla's and my opinion that both Chavez and FBI agent Byrnes must have been in on the hoax if we adopt the hoax hypothesis. They testified that there were not tracks in the immediate neighborhood and so that the hoaxsters must themselves have arrived and left by balloon! Had it been a hoax, certainly some paraphernalia should have been left around if the pranksters beat a hasty retreat. These gentlemen said that nothing of that short [sic] was found.
Furthermore, I doubt very much whether a hoax could have been kept secret this long. If a hoax comes off well, perpetrators like to gloat a bit, and there would have been no point about getting even with Zamora if they couldn't have gotten some kudos out of it. La Paz once told me of an instance in which some college students wanted to get even with a geology professor so they planted a "meteorite" and contrived an explosion at some distant part of the state, and had this poor professor running around ragged chasing a meteorite. The perpetrators, however, were caught and expelled from school because they simply couldn't keep their secret. They "confided" to friends who in turn confided to others, and there you are.

Only if you can't think critically and ignore the actual evidence. Start with the historical wind data that PROVE without a doubt that whatever Zamora saw, it couldn't have possibly been a balloon. Balloons don't fly into the wind Frank.
You can eliminate student hoax, because it was IMPOSSIBLE to pull off given all the ACTUAL details of the case (which Stalter pretends don’t exist, like the incorrect wind or fresh burning or lack of trace evidence of hoaxers being present).

They had all damn day to prepare the site, seed the area with any manner of material and what did they need to carry away with them? An empty propane tank?

If it was an experimental craft, indeed nobody can remotely find any evidence that it existed. What experimental craft could depart the area like that in DEAD SILENCE (another key part of Zamora’s testimony)? Even AF debunker Quintanilla ruled that out after extensively checking for such a craft and drawing blanks. Something clearly physical happened (burns, landing impressions, radiation, fused soil, loud noise heard by many residents in town). In my book, that leaves probable “ET” by the process of elimination.
Why not do a real bet and bet a $1000, showing us EXACTLY how ALL aspects (and I do mean ALL) of this "student hoax" were carried out and leaving no physical evidence behind of your presence seconds after you carry out the hoax, leaving no time to clean up after yourself? That was the actual situation with Socorro. On-site investigators then got that, even the debunking ones. Hoax not possible. Modern arm-chair debunkers still don’t get it.

It was not any kind of experimental craft. We actually agree on that. I'd gladly cut you a check for a G if you can produce an extraterrestrial who says that it was him in Socorro that day. The entire event screams intelligent design, regardless of your wind data.

 

[Randall]

... If it was an experimental craft, indeed nobody can remotely find any evidence that it existed. What experimental craft could depart the area like that in DEAD SILENCE (another key part of Zamora’s testimony)? Even AF debunker Quintanilla ruled that out after extensively checking for such a craft and drawing blanks. Something clearly physical happened (burns, landing impressions, radiation, fused soil, loud noise heard by many residents in town). In my book, that leaves probable “ET” by the process of elimination ...

If I recall correctly, the craft wasn't dead silent and although Quintanilla couldn't find evidence to support his theory, he still remained convinced even in his retirement that it was a project similar to the LEM that he had no access to. A closer look at the report indicates that that the craft lifted off with a loud roar accompanied by a bluish-orange flame out of the bottom center of the craft. It was so loud Zamora had to take cover fearing it might explode, and as you mention above, it was even heard in town. The roar then reduced to a whine, and the object swiftly moved off in what seemed to be silence. I say seemed to be silence because when the human ear is exposed to very loud sudden noises, temporary hearing loss is completely normal. Rocket and jet engines are very loud and Zamora's unprotected ears could not possibly have been immune to this effect.

So what really seemed to have happened is that the craft blasted off with enough thrust to get quickly airborne, throttled back to flight mode, reducing the exhaust plume to transparent and reducing the noise substantially so that it seemed to go out, and then it moved off into the distance toward White Sands before Zamora's hearing returned to normal. Within a few minutes most of Zamora's hearing would have returned and in all the excitement this temporary perceptual phenomenon was probably overlooked.

As for an identical craft being discovered in some military archive, even if no identical craft has been found in any declassified documents, it doesn't mean there wasn't one. There were craft that worked exactly on these principles being designed and tested, and Socorro was in close proximity to White Sands ( a missile testing area ). The craft also departed to the southeast, which is the direction of White Sands. So If this were a lone prototype for a project that was abandoned, it may have well been destroyed along with all plans, molds, and information about it. This was done with the Northrop flying wing. The only reason we know about it is because it had already been in production and flown, so there was so much information about it spread around that some records and films survived anyway.

So the bottom line in this case is that we have what is described as an exotic rocket or jet engine powered object observed in the vicinity of an exotic rocket testing range. No incredible high speed, high angle maneuvers were observed. Given these factors we simply cannot safely assume that what Zamora observed was some kind of alien craft. That doesn't mean it wasn't. It just means that as a responsible ufologist, I cannot promote that theory when the evidence suggests otherwise ( as much as I would like to ) .