• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

THE SOCORRO HOAX EXPOSED! (Famous 1964 sighting was a college prank)

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

That would be the ideal, a debate between Bragalia and Standford. I don't know much about the Socorro case, always I heard a lot of that case. But we must be fair, this is anecdotical evidence, and should be treated like what it is. But we don't have even a name. This seems weird. I don't saying that Zamora saw an UFO, but they are claiming that this case is genuine hoax, then, they must probe their claims, righ?
 
It would be pointless to have Bragalia in a debate with Stanford. Why should we care what he has to say? Hes just a "researcher" who draws unfounded conclusions from tenuous links.

Honestly, it would be a waste of time IMO.
 
Trajanus said:
Right, it's obvious he doesn't have a case.
Click to expand...

A debate doesn't really accomplish anything. The winner of a debate is not neccessarily the holder of truth and that is what we are looking for. I wasn't requesting any kind of debate, I was just basically saying let's get all the available information together and hash it out. It is a at least interesting what Bragalia has found. Whats the harm in getting the two together to discuss?? Bragalia was interested in hearing about Stanfords new evidence although I'm now wondering why such evidence has been withholded for so long. We'll see Sunday right??

We often times look at testimony from witnesses that is second hand or anecdotal as interesting and perhaps informative. Especially when the person has seemingly nothing to gain. This seems to be the case with the people in Bragalia's expose. Why not hear it out?? We hear everything else out. I think there is some resistance to anything countering a prosaic explanation for Soccoro. Why??

I'll be honest. When I first saw this article I was saying "Oh man, say it isn't so!!". Because I feel Soccoro is a very strong case. But after reading it, I can't fathom how such a hoax could have been done. I just don't see it. But that certainly shouldn't stop me from at least listening. We should never stop listening and evaluating evidence even if it counters our beliefs. Why should this be any different?? The same kind of evidence that we often accept as true is rejected when it doesn't go along with our current thoughts on any particular subject. This is just wrong IMO. Talk about having your mind made up.

I still think Soccoro is strong and think there was some kind of craft there. What kind of craft?? I don't know. Could it have been conventional or experimental?? Maybe. What other cases do we have the same type of thing occuring?? None that I can think of. But I do not think it was a hoax. However that is provisional, because if it can be demonstrated then well,.... you know, it's possible.

But I don't understand the resistance to alternative theories. When we say keep your mind open this goes both ways. This includes accepting the potential for elaborate hoaxes or "out of this world" craft. I sure hope this isn't some "Bragalia is an idiot", "crush him Stanford!!" show. I am very intersted in hearing this one. I just hope it is level headed, which I'm sure it will be.

I mean, are we calling Bragalia a liar?? Is that the deal?? Or Colgate?? I would hope that we would examine it with open ears and minds and evaluate it accordingly. Still right now, I think something quite strange happened out there in the desert.
 
TClaeys said:
I still think Soccoro is strong and think there was some kind of craft there. What kind of craft?? I don't know. Could it have been conventional or experimental?? Maybe.
Click to expand...

Had it been that, somebody would've come forward long ago--a former pilot, engineer or someone related to them. The AF or government would love to debunk Socorro. Had there been documentation or anything else enabling them to do so, it would've happened long ago.
 
David Rudiak has posted a response to Kevin Randle's blog that very much mirrors my own thinking regarding this whole affair. It goes like this:

The principle "witness" produced by Bragalia is Sterling Colgate. As to Colgate's motives in declaring it a "hoax", Ray Stanford's observations on theparacast.com the other day are highly relevant.

It turns out Colgate was declaring the whole incident a hoax to reporters within only days of the incident. When pressed by reporters why it was a hoax, Colgate answered that he knew as an astrophysicist that interstellar travel was impossible, therefore it couldn't have been an alien craft, therefore it must have been a hoax perpetrated by his own students.

When pressed further about which students were involved, Colgate said he suspected one student in particular.

Colgate is still telling the same vague story. He made up the whole hoax claim in his own mind and attributed it to his students because he is one of these "scientific" skeptibunker types who thinks he can determine from first principles that alien visitation is impossible. (In reality, this is about as unscientific a statement as one can make.)

So it seems that what we have here is a "witness" who didn't investigate, doesn't really know anything, and made up the whole hoax claim, including the alleged students because of a personal belief system. Colgate won't name the alleged student perpetrators because they never existed. He can't provide details of how the "hoax" was carried out, because there was no hoax. He never _knew_ anything, only _believed_ that it must be a hoax and his students were behind it.

Bragalia will never hear back from Colgate with names of the students and details of how they carried it out because there is nothing there.

The bottom line is Colgate's hoax claim is itself a hoax.

David Rudiak
Click to expand...

This is similar to my second comment that I posted to Bragalia's first piece (Writing as "Sean") but is worded better than my entry and also benefits from the revelation by Stanford that Colgate was expressing this student prank theory from the very beginning (I didn't know about that at the time.). I also made the mistake of going on for too long in my reply, ha ha, as the first paragraph really summed it all up. But at any rate I am of the opinion that this is what is really going on here, that Colgate created an assumption based on his skepticism and then presented that hypothesis as fact when it was anything but.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
So when Colgate says he knows he hoaxer, you feel that's not true?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I think it is possible there might be somebody he has in mind that he "suspects" is the hoaxer. But I don't think he has any actual confirmation of anything which is probably why he is ignoring Bragalia's emails. It seems to me that this whole thing is nothing more than a theory wrongly packaged as certainty by a guy who considers himself intellectually superior to saucer kooks. To Colgate interstellar visitation is impossible so it couldn't have been that but college pranks are possible so that MUST be the correct explanation.
 
Back
Top