Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.
I’m sorry to regurgitate the Lonnie Zamora/Socorro sighting of 1964 but it keeps rearing its head, even when we attempt to take only an element from it – the insignia that Officer Zamora said he saw.
Steve Sawyer, a “ufologist” on the fringe of the UFO community, without blog or web-site, who parasitically attached bromides to others’ sites and blogs or inserts infrequent commentary at UFO UpDates, insists that the Stanford “mythology” that Officer Zamora was induced to draw an insiginia/symbol that was different from what he actually observed.
We’ve addressed the issue over and over again, as have others who visit here.
And we concluded that the story of a concocted symbol, to thwart hoaxers from duplicating Zamora’s observation, was a shill by the Air Force, Hynek, and ultimately Ray Stanford’s treating it as real occurrence, to throw off UFO investigators; that is, the disinformers wished to side-track UFO researchers, because the symbol is the vital clue as to what Zamora actually saw.
Mr. Sawyer perpetuates, or tries to, the concocted mythology, because he’s an intrepid supporter of the views held by the UFO old-guard, and wishes to remain in their good graces for some obtuse reason, not quite clear to me and others.
Here’s Zamora’s quoted observation:
That aside – we dismiss Mr. Sawyer’s sad attempts to keep the UFO phenomenon attuned to the ET scenario as espoused by UFO geezers – let’s see what we have experienced of late about Socorro…
Anthony Bragalia bludgeoned me yesterday [2/7/12] with his litany of circumstantial “evidence” that Officer Zamora was “punked” – Bragalia’s word.
Mr. Bragalia says that Officer Zamora was a cop who hassled New Mexico Institute of Technology students so they set out to create a UFO hoax to get back at him.
Mr. Bragalia has marshaled, I admit, some intriguing material that indicates a hoax may be a possibility.
And a hoax has been on the Socorro table since the sighting (in 1964).
We, like others – David Rudiak among them – dismiss the hoax hypothesis as ludicrous.
The observation by other witnesses takes Bragalia’s pyrotechnics and balloon scenario out of the reach of possibility.
Moreover, Mr. Bragalia hasn’t got a confession from any hoaxer, even after much diligence to find one.
He has found hints, but no one will admit to hoaxing the 1964 event, even after forty-eight years.
Mr. Bragalia’s “theory” is exquisite in its wayward presentation but too convoluted to pass muster with sensible people.
It is a fiction hoping to pass as fact.
Then we have those who think that Zamora observed an extraterrestrial craft, which is supported by other observations in the same time-frame: La Madera et cetera.
I accept the possibility but have leaned toward the idea that Officer Zamora observed a Hughes prototypical lunar lander that went astray, as explained by this man:
From the History Channel
Our hypothesis can be found earlier here, at this blog,, and at our RRRGroup blog, among other places, for those still interested at this point.
There was an Indiana University engineer who recalled a story he read in a magazine, in the 60s, about a balloon escapade by a paper company, a balloon excursion that went awry and came down in New Mexico.
We looked for that magazine article fro a very long time, and everywhere – internet archives, library archives, et cetera – to no avail, although some paper company logos do look like Zamora’s symbol -- the one he drew – the real one!
(In that vein, a contributor to our blog – Matthew Gilleece – found Hughes logos that also looked like the Zamora symbol drawing.)
My point here is that a seminal UFO sighting is rife for interpretation and debate still, after all thse years.
And why? Because it has elements that can be seen to support a number of explanations.
The ET explanation isn’t easily ruled out, in context of other sightings at the time.
The hoax scenario is a possibility and has been one since 1964, supported by much circumstantial material found by Anthony Bragalia recently.
The IU engineer’s balloon tale is still slightly open as I see it.
And my Hughes Aircraft/Toolco/CIA/Raven prototype misadventure remains viable for those who really understand what was going on the New Mexico area in 1964 pertaining to space adventures and experimentation.
But the bottom line for me has been that symbol - - that insignia that Lonnie Zamora saw and drew.
The problem is that the drawing has been compromised by the Stanford story and its promotion by such peripheral UFO stalwarts as Steve Sawyer.
If we can agree on what the actual symbol was, we might be able to trace it back to its originators: ET, NMIT hoaxers, a paper company, or Howard Hughes….