Famous Socorro landing case a hoax?

reply to post by chunder


I agree.

I think the hoax claim is more of a hoax, rather than the actual incident, because there are too many variables to account for.

reply to post by chunder


It's only a matter of time before the NMIMT student hoaxers are identified. The closer you look at the case, the more sense it makes. Have a good look at the actual site. Notice the proximity to the NMIMT campus.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/71136e7e595a.jpg[/atsimg]

Zamora was driving on the S shaped road. I'm going to assume the housing development wasn't there in 1964, but the gulleys were. Notice the second one behind where Zamora saw the vehicle. Very easy for two suited figures to disappear behind some pyrotechnics down the hill to a waiting vehicle and gone like a stage magician.

Originally posted by fls13

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Whatthehell?
This particular letter seems phony to me as well. It appears a genuine letter has had some writing added to it.

Since the letter is the only real tangible evidence in this case other than hearsay witness accounts, I suspect the letter will be further investigated for authenticity. I'm not sure the letter is authentic but right now I have no reason to doubt it. Hopefully some researchers will take a closer look at the letter and make a determination of authenticity one way or the other.

But the fact that it has writing added to it doesn't detract from its credibility, things like that happened before the advent of the internet and electronic communication.

I think the fact that Colgate confirmed what was written in the Pauling letter to Bragalia locks that part of the story down.

Remember the Phoenix Lights? Was it the governor or mayor who paraded a guy in a goofy alien suit and mocked the witnesses? Any politician who dared ask questions was quickly shut down.

Now that same man is claiming that he too saw what he believes to have been some sort of craft. He says he was just lying before because "it seemed the right thing at the time". WTH?

All I'm suggesting is that when it comes to strange (classified) things flying around in southwest we have a history of men from universities, politics, and media who make it their business to poo-poo whatever it was witnesses say they saw.

Zamora saw something and I'm sure there is a down-to-earth explanation for this one, but I'm doubtful that this sketchy claim is the answer.

There's no proof of the case being a hoax. Where are the students? The explanation for not having the students responsible come forward "because they don't want their cover blown" is a BS excuse. I also find it interesting that the actual reply, in blue ink, was added TO THE LETTER and not sent as a separate letter. To me, "the reply" looks like a later addition in an attempt to debunk the case.

[edit on 9/29/2009 by DarkElvis]

Originally posted by DarkElvis
To me, "the reply" looks like a later addition as an attempt to debunk the case.

OK what about the interview where they asked the college president if who supposedly wrote that note if it was a hoax and he said "yes"? Doesn't that confirm what he wrote on the letter?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
However the college president seems less uncertain in the interview from the piece linked in the OP:

- To the question, "Do you still know this to be a hoax? His reply was simple: "Yes."

So at least it confirms the president THINKS it's a hoax. It doesn't confirm it is in fact a hoax. But I think the questions about the letter are dispelled by the interview unless you think the interview didn't really happen.

Seems to me that the biggest hole in the hoax theory is this: Why wait so long to expose a hoax?

The satisfaction of a hoax is getting one over on people. Hardly seems worth the effort to never get the credit for such an elaborate prank...which it would have had to be.

Also, there is the physical evidence to contend with.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not...a hoax seems to be a poor explanation for this sighting. And I never really bought into the Zamora case as being one of the "best" examples...there are plenty of other sightings cases with minimal physical evidence, and by seemingly credible witnesses.

From an old TV series.





This series does such a good job on the Roswell re enactment you
can see how it was acted out to begin with.
I'll have to see this video now and see if the UFO crew were
diminutive of stature and non human.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Seems to me that the biggest hole in the hoax theory is this: Why wait so long to expose a hoax?

I think the answer to that question, is they didn't wait so long to expose it. From what I gather the exposure was somewhat accidental based on someone going through the belongings of Linus Pauling. Perhaps nobody ever intended to expose it and the letter to Pauling was just thought to be a private communication that wouldn't be shared with the public.

The satisfaction of a hoax is getting one over on people. Hardly seems worth the effort to never get the credit for such an elaborate prank...which it would have had to be.

Well it sounds like Zamora reacted to the event so that may have had its own satisfaction without fessing up ot taking credit.

I had some really strange ideas when I was in college too that I look back on and think "what was I thinking" so I don't know if we can always predict what is going through the mind of a college student, like whether they would feel motivated to take credit or whether the deed itself was enough satisfaction.

But as I said before, there's no real proof it was a hoax, only proof a college president and a few other credible people think it was a hoax.

So I would say right now the biggest hole is that none of the students who did it have come forward since it has been exposed, but it's still fresh so that could still happen. We'll see.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think the answer to that question, is they didn't wait so long to expose it. From what I gather the exposure was somewhat accidental based on someone going through the belongings of Linus Pauling. Perhaps nobody ever intended to expose it and the letter to Pauling was just thought to be a private communication that wouldn't be shared with the public.

That's exactly how it all came about. A complete fluke and no agenda going in. Anthony took a little bit of archival information I tipped him off to and he turned it into something big and NMIMT student hoax is the right answer to this case.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


That was some take off.
Well now we know what that was and you can tell Lonnie.
On the way down currents going into the craft are lighting up.
Electrostatic currents known only to Tesla and the UFO makers.

Tremendous current from the ground lifted up the craft.
Also dug out the hole and cast dirt all around and created
the force of the wind and burnt the bush.

Interesting it went to a certain height and moved on.

The little men were special crew to confuse observers.
Although I wonder if all the crew wears aluminum suits
and full face goggles to protect against any internal effects.

Originally posted by fls13
reply to post by jkrog08

 

So many much better cases to look at than this one to begin with. The hoax explanation works on so many levels.

Easy to say a "hoax" when you overlook two important aspects. First, the police officer reported precisely that the craft flew off!

Second, so some students threw together a craft-shaped thing, got some white coveralls and ....they flew off in their craft! Thus, we have a lying police officer and some ingenious student inventors that should have been at MIT rather than some podunk New Mexico school.

About the best explanation offered (elsewhere) is that thing was a prototype craft and those guys were good ol' American test pilots stopping for, oh, maybe a potty stop in the desert? That happens a lot out in those wide-open spaces.

Originally posted by Aliensun
Second, so some students threw together a craft-shaped thing, got some white coveralls and ....they flew off in their craft! Thus, we have a lying police officer and some ingenious student inventors that should have been at MIT rather than some podunk New Mexico school.

Perhaps one of the most amazing things about this case is that Zamora reported something so incredible but I have yet to see one person who thinks Zamora was lying!!! And I don't think he was lying either. Your comments about him lying I believe shows a misunderstanding on your part of the hoax theory.

Here is what Zamora said:

en.wikipedia.org...

Zamora went back to his car and contacted the Sheriff's office by radio:

“ I picked up my glasses (I left the sun glasses on ground), got into the car, and radioed to Nep Lopez, radio operator, to "look out of the window, to see if you could see an object." He 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. ”

He then watched the object fly away, swiftly but silently and without flame

So he said it looks like a balloon, the hoax theory says it was a balloon, how does that make him a liar?

Secondly, the hoax theory doesn't hold that the students flew off in the craft (Zamora never reported that they did right? Only that the craft flew off and the small humans vanished). Since it's a hilly area they could have just run over the hill. Zamora said his sunglasses fell off and he never picked them up so I presume he couldn't see very clearly after that happened until he got back to his car to get his regular glasses.

So would the students be clever to do this? Sure but I don't agree it necessarily shows MIT cleverness.

Originally posted by Aliensun
Second, so some students threw together a craft-shaped thing, got some white coveralls and ....they flew off in their craft! Thus, we have a lying police officer and some ingenious student inventors that should have been at MIT rather than some podunk New Mexico school.

They didn't fly off in their craft, they ran down a hill. The cop didn't lie.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
From an old TV series.

Around 6 minutes into this video I found an interesting inconsistency. The eyewitness who came to the site right after it happened says the landing foot depressions were 9" by 8". But the photograph of the foot impression and the sketch of the landing foot shape at this site show the length is about twice the width:

www.thewhyfiles.net...

That's no small discrepancy. But I'm not sure what to make of it except that it seems they can't both be right. I'd like to see photos of all 4 impressions but I only found that one photo. Could the footpad depressions have been different sizes?

In the part 2 video the state trooper who took videos said his camera was confiscated by the military but apparently somebody got photographic evidence, probably later.

thanks for posting that teslaandlyne, it was interesting to hear the eyewitness testimony in those videos.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

I saw one of those History Channel UFO Hunter shows one time. They went to the site where it landed - with Zamora. If I remember correctly he pointed out where the depressions were - and apparently some evidence is still there according to the show.
Might be good to watch that episode again.

The standard mode for debunkers these days is to demonstrate that with available materials (21st Century standards at that!) they can reproduce the event. Having done so they sit back, pat their belly and utter, 'See? If I can reproduce it, it must be a hoax.' I suppose that allows some of those scared children to sleep at night knowing their world's reality isn't being upset by such things as 'aliens'. The same thing was done with the controversial Patterson Bigfoot film. (example: Looky! I have a Bigfoot costume that's been laying around for over 40 years and if I put it on and run around the forest I look like the Patterson film. Of course, no one has explained how the material the suit is made out of managed to survive the ravages of age. If rubber, it should shows some signs of rot.)
No, Zamora has not changed his story. This happened in the early '60s, folks. Over 40 years later someone comes clean?! >scoff scoff<

An amazing re enactment.
Perhaps the only witnessed landing and take off.
That we know about.
No wonder he was excited.
Lost his glasses and hat from the wind.

The landing and take off looked exactly as if by a rocket engine.
And we know that is quite difficult.
Only done on the moon a number of times.
Perhaps with slight differences.
I often wonder if people actually involved with the saucer handlers
have input to some of the early graphics work.

Interesting landing gear, perhaps not symmetrical as if a
tripod with an unequal leg. Perhaps meant to confuse.
Definitely a metal ship round, oval and flat all at the same time.

Greetings All,

The following is my rebuttal to Tony Bragalia's piece on Socorro:

One way to raise the hackles of the UFO faithful . . . to stir the proverbial pot, is to take a well-documented case and decree it false in some form or fashion; for example, stating that Kenneth Arnold witnessed “pelicans” on that fateful day in June of ’47; or the never-ending weather balloon argument for Roswell by well known debunkers; or the infamous “swamp gas” statement uttered by Allen Hynek while investigating the notable Michigan sightings of 1966, which precipitated then Congressman Gerald Ford to formally request a congressional investigation into the mysterious UFOs. When such instances occur it sends mild shockwaves throughout the UFO community, and evokes immediate and sometimes harsh responses.

Generally when these actions take place, the names of the perpetrators are very familiar to Ufologists; their ideologies are cemented in anti-Ufology rhetoric and the behavior is a component of what I call “cognitive bias” in the best examples, and just plain ignorance in the worst-case scenarios.

In that vein, it was quite a surprise to most when an article was published—not by the usual debunkers, but from a noted Ufologist, pronouncing a very prestigious case in UFO history a hoax! The case was The Socorro Incident, and the Ufologist is Tony Bragalia . . .

The rest of the story . .

Cheers,
Frank

This was the only lunar lander style vehicle, that was being tested at the time of the Socorro sighting. Hardly *egg shaped* is it? Plus no cockpit so the pilot, note single person, is clearly visible..

As a side note. I've come across the *student prank * explanation before. It was used to explain the *alien transmission* on prime time TV across the South of England. When the claim was further investigated, it was found to be total and utter hogwash. No students were ever charged or appeared in court, as was claimed by several *official sources* anywhere in Britain for the offense.

Their is a huge credibility gap wih the prank explanation for one simple reason. The dynamic of a prank is to publically enjoy the humiliation the pranked, has been put through, as soon as possible and with the maximum amount of embarrassment for the pranked.

No where do i see anyone saying. "Well we pranked him, but cos of the fall out we bottled it and kept quiet"..

Surely, the publicity the prank garnered would have merely increased the level of schadenfreude the pranksters would have enjoyed? if he was that much of a pain surely this could have forced him out of his job, if it were shown just what a fool the guy actually was?

lets understand this properly. These guys go to unbelievable lengths to get even with a guy and then say nothing, even now. Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. if I'd done that to someone I'd still be dining out on it now. The very nature of pranksters, on that level, is form of narcissistic display by proxy. You don;t go to those lengths and then simply keep quiet about it.

The truth is. Human nature is such that. Anyone perpetrating such world famous prank would have told others, even if in confidence and they would have told someone else. Inside a couple of years there would be 100s of people who knew it was a prank. yet, we are meant to believe that human nature, in these particular pranksters cases, was totally ignored?

This is not some closed circuit, as in the Loch Ness *surgeons photo*, where only 1 or 2 people knew the truth. Given what needed to be organised there must have been at least half a dozen involved, either directly or indirectly.

I have mentioned before on here. I have a friend who makes crop circles. The truth is there are 100s of people who know he does., even though, he has only probably only told a dozen people directly.

So for my part, I am sorry, until someone can provide guilt edged proof they faked the landing, it seems to me, this is just another attempted hoax to deflect attention away from something that did happen the way it was originally reported.

Oh, and as far as i know, Black powder burns at about 1700C.. to turn sand into glass it needs to be 2000C.. So I'm not sure how the fireworks explanation works.