The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Ufologists are a sloppy lot

Many of you know how much I denigrate the so-called “research” or investigational acumen of UFO devotees.

My plaint derives from how cavalier UFO writers and self-appointed “ufologists” are when it comes to recounting or providing details about UFO sightings.

For instance, in Harold E. Burt’s “Flying Saucers 101” [A UFO Book, published by UFO Magazine, Inc. 2000], Mr. Burt, in his account of the Lonnie Zamora/Socorro sighting, writes this:

“… the flame stopped and the craft drifted slowly over the mountains and disappeared.” [Page 284]

That statement would seem to support Anthony Bragalia’s NMIT Balloon/Hoax Theory.

But that’s not what Lonnie Zamora reported, as provided in Officer Zamora’s verbatim account, found in The Hynek UFO Report [Barnes & Noble, NY, 1997] where we find this, from Officer Zamora:

“Object was traveling very fast … The object seemed to lift up slowly and to get small in the distance very fast.” [Page 218]

And in that same transcript, Office Zamora said:

"After fell by the car and glasses fell off, kept running...Object was traveling very fast...I ran back to my car and as I ran back, I kept an eye on the object. I picked up my glasses (I left the sunglasses on the ground), got into the car..." [Page 218]

Some “ufologists” ignore this statement, which indicates that Officer Zamora saw the object leaving without wearing his prescriptive lenses, so his observation is beclouded by that fact.

David Rudiak, a doctor of Optometry, failed to note this for many years until I broached the matter at UFO UpDates in 2004.

 Then there is the significant early description of the “beings” that allegedly abducted Betty and Barney Hill.

Mrs. Hill initially said they had noses like famous comedian/actor Jimmy Durante – a large proboscis.


Her statement is always ignored, replaced by “ufologists” who want her beings to conform to the no nose physiognomy of their ET visitors, The Greys.

There are other gaffes or deliberate misrepresentations, many in the debris stories now being addressed at various blogs and in anticipation of a disclosure about what the Dee Proctor relatives are said to holding (from the 1947 Roswell crash).

Yes, as French über-skeptic Gilles Fernandez often writes: “That’s ufology.”

N.B. David Rudiak caught my errant syntax in the Zamora eyeglass account and I thank him. I've emended the copy above to make my point correctly.

RR

41 Comments:

  • Yes ufologists are 'a sloppy lot'. At least some of them are.

    Example is the Mantell Incident, so much talked about by the early writers, Keyhoe et al. Huge unidentified object, baffled everyone, even the AF guys. At least that is what we were led to believe.

    Yet the answer was there all along, in the NEW YORK TIMES the very next day. How many of the early writers even mention this? How many even knew the answer was there, in black & white, almost as soon as it happened?

    OK I know you should never take what the newspapers say as gospel, but maybe, just maybe, they are correct sometimes.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • Rich

    But with the dee proctor case, weve heard not one piece of information from the team that they have access to the debris.

    This has only come from your hints, as youve told me on here, is this rumour true? as its more profound than slides if it is.

    Bragalia did a piece on dee proctor collecting debris an passing on to relatives but makes no mention of the team ever contacting any of them to ascertain if they have the debris, so how do you know they supposedly have?

    I read the aforementioned Bragalia piece before to check.

    By Blogger Al12, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • AI12,

    You're taking us off-topic here.

    Just let me say that the Proctor matter is discussed fully at our private UFO web-site.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • May I include a few examples from Roswell writers?

    Schmitt and Carey in Witness to Roswell and in The Roswell Incident: An Eyewitness Account inform us that Hollis Wilson was Mac Brazel's uncle (so, of course it is all over the web).

    Which reminds me, since Hollis -- Mac's brother-in-law, and Bill's uncle -- was the one who first informed Brazel about the flying discs, he would be a great subject for an interview, being actually mentioned in the 1947 newspapers. He died in the early 1990s, so there was a decade at least that this very important surviving 1947-named witness could have been interviewed? Where is the interview?

    From Kevin Randle's blog, March 19, 2014:

    Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit Summary - July 22, 1947


    "In fact, I can date it even better than that because it does mention Mogul and no one was talking about Mogul until the early 1990s. It is unlikely that a report created in 1947 would refer to the balloon project by that name [my emphasis]. It probably would have referred to it as the New York University balloon project or the constant level balloons rather than Mogul, if mentioned it at all. More likely it would have just mentioned weather balloons if it was felt necessary to make that connection. All that does is allow us to date the time of creation for the document and point to another flaw in it."

    "Project Mogul", as Nick Redfern at least knows, was available in clear in Bluebook files from the summer of 1947, which were in the public domain in the 1980s.

    There's more. I may just be warming up to the task.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • RRR wrote about the Zamora incident:
    “ I picked up my glasses [which had fallen off when he tripped] (I left the sunglasses on the ground). [Page 218]

    Some “ufologists” ignore the parenthetical statement, “I left the sunglasses on the ground)” which indicates that Officer Zamora saw the object leaving without wearing his prescriptive lenses, so his observation is beclouded by that fact.

    David Rudiak, a doctor of Optometry, failed to note this for many years until I broached the matter at UFO UpDates in 2004.


    Yes, Rich, some "Ufologists" are indeed "sloppy", such as those who quote something and then interpret it wrongly in order to give someone else another poke in the eye (without their prescription glasses on).

    Zamora said he picked up his PRESCRIPTION glasses but left his clip-on sunglasses on the ground, thus he DID watch the rest of the departure with his PRESCRIPTION glasses on. The clip-ons were not prescription. Get it?

    And except for the 10-20 second period when he TEMPORARILY lost his glasses & sunglasses while running away from the initially roaring object, the entire REST OF THE SIGHTING before that (approximately two minutes) was with BOTH his prescription glasses and clip-on sunglasses, including his view of the object and adjacent beings from a distance and when he approached to probably only 50 feet on the ground and got a good look close-up at both the object and symbol on it.

    It was a certain sloppy "Ufologist" (who I won't mention, but not "Rudiak") who instead tried to insinuate Zamora said he lost his glasses, period, and therefore the whole incident was somehow marred by him not having his prescription glasses on (not mentioning this to be very temporary), what that "sloppy" optometrist "Rudiak" supposedly failed to mention.

    Rudiak "failed" to mention this because it would have been a total misrepresentation of what Zamora really said happened. "Sloppy" Rudiak instead has asked fellow sloppy unnamed Ufologist what part of the Zamora report was significantly compromised by his TEMPORARY loss of glasses. Unnamed Ufologist does not respond. In fact, the big significant thing that Zamora did report doing the short no-glasses period had nothing to do with his vision but his hearing. Zamora said the initial loud roar disappeared after the object rose and the object then departed the scene in total silence (against the wind), ruling out propulsion by rocket, jet engine, internal combustion engine, or anything else conventional.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • Hi Rich,

    Betty's description of a Jimmy Durante nose isn't that surprising when we read lots of CE4 accounts.

    Some abductee/experiencers have noted an entity will appear a certain way (human, non-threatening looking) and then, usually to their horror, they see it for what it is (it's actual form?). There may be a control mechanism which affects how CE4 experiencers see their captors.



    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • David:

    My remarks needed more context.

    In the transript, Zamora lost his glasses as the craft was flying away.

    He picked them up (but left his sunglasses).

    He didn't have his prescription glasses on during the essential departure.

    I was unclear and apologize but that was my point, messy as it is.

    The passage read:

    "After fell by the car and glasses fell off, kept running...Object was traveling very fast...I ran back to my car and as I ran back, I kept an eye on the object. I picked up my glasses (I left the sunglasses on the ground), got into the car..."

    I'll emend my copy noting that you caught my errant prose syntax.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • Rich is correct that Zamora didn't state he put on his glasses, only that he picked them up and left the clip-ons on the ground.

    Let me guess. No one who interviewed him asked him if he put his glasses back on his face.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • Perhaps Don is being satirical and I'm being tone-deaf. But Lance also brought this up years ago, thus I rant on.

    So Zamora bothered to stop to pick up his prescription glasses (one would presume he would bother because he wanted to see better), ignored for the moment the clip-on sunglasses (unnecessary for seeing clearer, except maybe sun glare, so why spend the time to find and retrieve them when the object was shooting away and you want to observe it as much as you can?).

    After all that, he failed to put on his glasses? How many nitpicking, unnecessary things did the man have to be asked? Mentioning he lost his glasses, then picked them up again clearly implied that the reason he did so was so he could put them back on. Zamora could have left the whole lost glasses thing out of his narrative and no one would have been the wiser, but the man was being detailed and complete as to what happened.

    As was caustically commented on UFO Updates when this was brought up, nobody asked him if he crapped his pants either. (Unnecessary, if not a bit tacky.)

    Further, if this was purely a visual sighting, questions of his eyesight would have assumed more importance. But none of the investigators doubted that he had seen something there close-up with the clear physical evidence left behind, including still smoldering ground and bushes and fresh ground impressions.

    Being a policeman also meant he had to pass police physicals, which include vision checks (like airline pilots or you and me seeking driver's licenses). Policemen still have to function effectively if they lose their glasses or a contact lens. Therefore any vision reduction sans prescription must be very modest.

    Even assuming WORST-CASE vision reduction for a vision-screened policeman, even if he did not have his glasses on, Zamora still could easily have seen the direction of the object's departure (critical in the discussion of what the object could have been, since something like a balloon would have had to fly into a stiff wind). He should also have been able to track it into the distance for up to a mile, at least.

    Again, that is assuming worst case. Details, as described by Zamora, made it clear he was visually tracking the object at much further distances, at least clear to the mountains 2 miles away.

    Further, as I mentioned, the real super-critical detail of the departure (other than direction) was the dead silence of it, which didn't involve his vision at all.

    No, nobody brought up how good his hearing was either, but he was immediately talking on the police radio after running back to his car and watching the object fade rapidly in the distance. That alone is a very good indication that he still had very good hearing even after the loud roar.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • Everyone knows or should that I consider Officer Zamora to be an impeccable UFO witness, maybe the best, as I've posted here often.

    The gripe is that ufologists still often exclude and have excluded that testimony indicating he wasn't wearing his prescription glasses as the craft departed.

    Yes, that may seem to be a minor detail but when it comes to UFOs, such details can't be or shouldn't be relegated to minor status.

    When I talked with Mrs. Zamora in 2005, by phone, she told me that her husband's eyesight was terrible and he needed glasses to see well.

    (She also told me that the insignia he drew and was the symbol that has been published and which we all have seen, was the insignia he saw, not that inverted V symbol, touted by Stanford and others.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • Having hiked the backcountry of
    Four Corners for nearly 20 years, and having lived there for 5 of those years, I've dropped my sunglasses on the ground lots, as well as camera lenses, in the desert. Sometimes I can just blow away with my breath the mica-like sand and put them back on and sometimes they're covered with sand and detritus. I use a soft brush and an air blower to clean them, and then wash them in some water, dry them, then put them on. You do not want to pick them up and wipe them on your shirt or with a bandana because it can grind in the sand and ruin them.

    If his glasses were clean, he could have just popped them on his face, and maybe they were and maybe he did, but we do not know.

    So, Rich is correct to say the issue is "beclouded". Whether it is significant, I do not know because I don't know anything about Zamora's eyes. If you two think it is significant, then finding out his prescription is what to do next.

    Rich, did you inquire further of Mrs Zamora about just what was terrible about his eyesight?

    David: "Perhaps Don is being satirical and I'm being tone-deaf."

    At the moment David, I am not in the best of moods, especially towards Roswell advocates. I'm hearing the banshees howling...

    That happens when I present material that I think supports the advocates position, and they transform themselves into skeptics putting forward the most stupid "plausible" arguments against me, which means against their own opinions and treat me like crap.

    Nothing personal towards you. But I've had it up to here with bullshit.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • Don:

    When I talked with Mrs. Zamora, I was hesitant to come off as a probing "ufologist" -- so I deferred to her pleasant accommodation.

    I didn't consider asking what Officer Zamora's eyesight was and I wouldn't know what it meant even if she were able to specify it, which I don't think she was able to.

    But David Rudiak could have found out, before Officer Zamora died, and David may have that info in his possession.

    He has everything else.

    The point is that Officer Zamora's observation of the craft's departure was compromised but that is a small matter in the context of his elaborate and excellent account otherwise.

    But for ufologists to insist that the departure was this or that, based upon Officer Zamora's rendition (in the eyeglass portion of his testimony), makes for sloppy research or investigational technique.

    CDA understands.

    Ufologists have been and continue to be cavalier with witness testimony.

    If I make a blunder, that's small potatoes.

    I'm only a UFO gadfly.

    But those presuming to be authentic researchers and authors (about UFOs)should be held to higher standards, as I see it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 10, 2014  

  • RRR wrote:

    When I talked with Mrs. Zamora in 2005, by phone, she told me that her husband's eyesight was terrible and he needed glasses to see well.

    Worthless statement as is that begs for clarification. "Terrible" in what way? Was she talking about her husband currently at age 72 or when the incident happened as a young man of 31? Did he need glasses for distance, near, both? Was he far-sighted, near-sighted, astigmatic?

    There are also many more likely pathologies at age 72 that can affect vision: Cataracts, macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetes, etc. But these are unlikely at age 31, and he likely wouldn't have passed a police physical if he had one of them.

    Again, the fact that he was an active policeman automatically tells us his vision could not have all that "terrible" without glasses, because police are expected to remain functional even if they lose their glasses so they continue to make observations, shoot back at the bad guy, etc. There are police vision standards about just how bad your vision can be and still pass a physical. They vary a little bit, but basically it amounts to mild impairment without corrective lenses.

    But what do I know about vision? I'm just a humble licensed optometrist.

    (She also told me that the insignia he drew and was the symbol that has been published and which we all have seen, was the insignia he saw, not that inverted V symbol, touted by Stanford and others.)

    The inverted V symbol with three bars through it was being publicly bandied about in the press before Stanford arrived in Socorro four days later. This included by Zamora himself, state policeman and first responder Sam Chavez, Hynek in the press, Hynek in a recorded interview done the day after he first interviewed Zamora, and Hynek's original notes of the Zamora interview recently uncovered in the National Archives by James Fox.

    Probably the day after the incident, Zamora was interviewed on Socorro radio station KSRC by Walter Shrode. Shrode brought up the inverted V symbol, but Zamora declined to comment, saying he had been told by "they" not to say anything about it. Shrode got it from somewhere, probably by interviewing people who had spoken to Zamora, such as fellow policemen. Stanford (again who arrived later) said every Socorro policman he spoke to said Zamora told them about the inverted V, not the other symbol.

    An illustration in a Texas newspaper April 30 showed the inverted V symbol on the artist's rendition of he object. The drawing was said to be based on "newspaper accounts".

    In fact, I am very hard pressed to think of a single instance where the other symbol was publicly brought up at all in those first few days.

    So at best, the evidence is ambiguous as to which was the "real" symbol Zamora saw.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

  • Ambiguous and sloppy. And Officer Zamoras lenses in his 1964 photos indicate more of an
    eyesight problem than Dr. Rudiak admits.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

  • The point is that Officer Zamora's observation of the craft's departure was compromised but that is a small matter in the context of his elaborate and excellent account otherwise.

    Again, I ask, please state exactly how Zamora's observation of the craft's departure was "compromised" by him TEMPORARILY losing his glasses.

    The initial part of the object's departure when he approached to within about 50 feet, he had his glasses on. So what was "compromised" here? That, for example, is when he made his observations of the symbol and the "flames" seeming to penetrate into the ground instead of bouncing off like a normal flame.

    When the object started to take off with a loud roar and shooting out "flames", he ran away, bumped the rear of his car and lost his glasses. But up to that point his glasses were on. He ran further away, putting about 100-150 feet between himself and the object. At that distance, could he still see a ~15 foot object with worst-case police-standard vision? Yes, super-easy.

    Then he noted the object went silent and departed the scene, heading west-southwest toward the mountains, going over the dynamite shack ~550 feet away up the arroyo and straight for the base of the mountains 2 miles away and a large, prominent mine.

    Two critical observations were made by Zamora here, the departure in total silence that had nothing to do with his vision, and the direction of departure when the object was STILL CLOSE, again something which would have been super-easy to observe accurately even assuming worst-case police vision without glasses.

    Then he ran back to his car, stopped to pick up his glasses (but not his clip-on sunglasses), and did what with them? Not put them on or put them on after stopping to get them? I bet if you polled 100 people, 99 of them would infer that the reason Zamora stopped to get his glasses was so that he could put them on to see better.

    Could his glasses have had dust on them? Maybe, but even if they had, he could have wiped them in 2 or 3 seconds. Did his subsequent descriptions of what he observed suggest he didn't put his glasses on or had dirty lenses? No, not at all, instead indicating someone with very keen vision, someone who said he could see the object far in the distance rising extremely rapidly against the mountain backdrop and fading out against the sky in the vicinity of a landmark 6 miles away. Immediately afterward, Chavez called on the police radio and asked him where he was. Zamora saw him atop the previous mesa (a distance of 800 to 1000 feet) overlooking the scene and told Chavez he was looking right at him, again an indication that Zamora's vision was NOT seriously impaired.

    But let us assume he didn't put on his glasses or they were filthy. This would have affected his estimates of where the object faded out, hence affected estimates of how fast the object was going. But it wouldn't have affected his observations of silent departure or direction of departure, both critical in ruling out what it couldn't be. (Such as a balloon, since it would have had to fly into a stiff wind, or a conventionally powered aircraft of some kind, thus no secret government craft.)

    But for ufologists to insist that the departure was this or that, based upon Officer Zamora's rendition (in the eyeglass portion of his testimony), makes for sloppy research or investigational technique.

    As you describe yourself, you are a gadfly, not a vision expert. Again, I ask, what critical part of Zamora's testimony was seriously "compromised" by his temporary loss of glasses? I've gone through the various scenarios and there aren't any. Picking nits for the sake of picking nits is itself a form of sloppy research and technique.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

  • I wouldn't presume to call myself a UFO researcher...critic, msybe, but that's about it.
    Dr. Rudiak defends Officer Zamora's testimony as if it were a lost book of the Bible.
    It isn't that, although it is exemplary. But it is marred by a flawed eyesight, no matter how insignificant. Dr. Rudiak goes overboard to keep UFO accounts in the realm of the ET scenario. Nice, but not objective.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

  • Does anyone know if it was common practice for corporations working on secret government or military projects to place their logos on those secret projects while they were secret? Wouldn't that violate the secrecy they signed onto?

    On eyesight, David has the expertise, and his opinion should be taken seriously.

    On Zamora's eyesight, may I suggest talking to (I believe his name is) Phil Hardin in Socorro to see if he knows? I recall he is Socorro's town historian (or something like that) who did an interesting slide/lecture presentation on the event.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

  • Rudiak commands the facts of many UFO cases, unfortunately, in many cases the facts are not enough for a dyed in the wool believer like him.

    The presumptions and assumptions he makes are often comically biased towards the saucer solution that he holds so dear.

    In the Socorro case, Rudiak has made a good argument that the weather doesn't work for the testimony as given. The eyesight stuff, not so much. Rudiak styles it as though never in history has anyone picked up a drooped pair of glasses without then putting them on.

    This is simply the way he works.

    Again, the dumb asses who "investigated" the case could have cleared this up sometime but they are all hindered by their pious belief. They often miss the critical questions.

    That all said, I don't think the presumed poor eyesight factor is enough to hurt Zamoras story of the departure of the UFO. If the thing was a balloon, I don't think it could have headed off into the wind . If Zamora didn't have his glasses it still seems unlikely that he would have misidentified the departure direction so completely.

    If it was a balloon, Zamora's testimony just has to be wrong in my book, innocently or intentionally. And we don't have enough info to say that it was wrong at this time (or likely ever).

    So that is where I think it stands. We don't have enough the answer the questions. When people like Rudiak feel the need to gin up the data, knowing the many UFO believers are baffled by bullshit and dazzled by numbers, we don't get any further ahead.


    Best,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

  • Since there is an agreement that Zamora was a good witness when wearing his glasses, then identify the object he saw when we are certain he was wearing them.

    Then, it doesn't matter whether Zamora was blind as a bat without them.

    You will know what The Departure looked like without his statement, which will no
    longer be needed, there not being any issue in doubt.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

  • > Mrs. Hill initially said they had noses like famous comedian/actor Jimmy Durante – a large proboscis.

    To be fair, this is what she saw in her dreams, which of course should never be taken as a verbatim memory. Also, it's problematic to compare dream testimony with hypnotic testimony (which has its own credibility issues).

    So I would caution skeptics before they cite the Durante noses and shout "Aha!" I would also warn proponents not to invent alien technology to account for discrepancies in dream/hypnotic testimony. It's embarrassing.

    If anyone comes across any consciously recalled Hill testimony about alien noses, let me know. I haven't found any yet.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Since no one has made a reasonable (it is unlikely to have been a medieval mason's mark) identification of either of the two "insignia", I suggest forgetting them.

    What they have in common is that they are not random...not shadows, scratches, peeled paint, or dents. They are symmetrical, artificial, "man made".

    Once the object is id'd, we'll know which one it was, if either.

    We know it was approximately the size and shape of an automobile, say a 4 door or station wagon of the era, colored white, resting at an angle on legs or in a cradle. That's something strange, that it settled down at an angle (and apparently with a "leg" configuration to do just that).

    We can exclude a commercial vehicle because it would have more "logos" than one on it. We can exclude a secret vehicle, unless it was common practice to tag secret craft with an identifying logo in 1964.

    What about the flame? Was it a flame or 'flame like'? Zamora describes its size, shape, and color -- 'flame like' blue and orange, which indicates a gradient, the blue hotter than the orange.

    It is not simply a flame, but it kicks up sand (Zamora said he didn't think it was smoke, I believe); it burns and singes. There are also marks on the ground, giving indications of size and weight.

    After 50 years, with not one likely candidate for the object, I wouldn't turn up my nose to the ETH. If you don't like the ETH, then work harder and identify it. Either that or prove it didn't fly into the wind.

    I got interested in Socorro when I learned La Paz had come forward to commend Zamora and that Zamora had once been "calibrated" by him. Considering La Paz avoided any association with the saucers, I can say he "came forward" in good Roswell style.

    Because of that, anything Zamora reported is significant. Zamora did not say anything about putting on his glasses. I conclude, it wasn't an issue whether he had them on or not. He didn't think so.

    He did however note that he did not pick up the sunglasses. I note as well, the object travelled to the west, and at that time and place the sun was low in the sky.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Don:

    I've covered the Zamora testimony amply here often.

    His report is superb and his observations also.

    No one is attacking Officer Zamora.

    My plaint is about how cavalier UFo researchers have been regarding the insgnia/symbol (also covered amply here and at our other blogs) and ufologists tendency to fudge other observations by Officer Zamora (as noted in my posting above).

    Rudiak takes queries about some of those sloppy reportings or remarks as a personal insult, he identifying with the UFO witnesses.

    Terry is a Betty Hill supporter I'm guessing.

    Her tale is rife with inconsistencies not clarified by ufologists.

    What she reported was always in oneiric remembrances or hypnotic suggestion.

    All of that can be discounted.

    Her conscious recall was marred by the dream content and hypnotic blur.

    We all like Mrs. Hill. She was a gracious lady who became a little dotty in her later years but still a pleasant enough individual.

    One doesn't want to think she was hoaxing or lying, or even hallucinating.

    But no "ufologist" has cleaned up her abduction story in a way that makes sense.

    The same is true with Socorro.

    No one has determined, for sure, what Insignia Officer Zamora saw; the insignia being the smoking gun of that sighting.

    (I take Mrs. Zamora's statement as valid.)

    As for Officer Zamora's eyesight, that doesn't matter much, in the context of his total transcript and report, as David Rudiak explains.

    But it is a detail that should be forensically clarified, if one wants to really settle the issue; that is, if one really wants to assume the epithet "UFO Researcher."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Rich, I understand your issue with the quality of the investigations conducted by ufologists or ufo writers. I have the same criticism.

    Several years ago on a ufo writer's blog I mentioned some questions that ought to have been asked. The response with scathing sarcasm was an 'apology' for not having asked the questions I would have asked.

    My point, though, was the specific questions ought to have been asked by any investigator. They weren't my questions. They are simply the questions: who, what, when, where.

    Over decades, the consistent absence of simple necessary detail in these "investigations" implies very strongly an agenda of deliberate obscurity.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Yes, Don...

    And I think Kevin Randle had an epiphany and is trying to make amends now, with his blog and current books to offset or correct his research and the slovenly research of his UFO pals.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Just to correct my shockingly badly written post above...I meant to say that Rudiak presented a good case that the wind precludes a balloon explanation (if the testimony is correct).

    And with witness testimony, Don, I think it should be seen as what it is:imperfect. In so many cases, including scientific studies and recollections of events that are well documented, we see that witnesses get things spectacularly wrong. The bullshit moniker "highly reliable witness" has proven to be meaningless, much like the "seems sincere" and "has no reason to lie" description often attached to the worst liars and frauds prior to exposure.

    The Roswell "memories" should be seen, having been obtained decades after the supposed event, as extra dubious.

    I am reading a book by Dick Cavett and he describes how folks regularly and often come up to him to describe watching the Cavett show in which one of the panelists died. It did happen. But the show never aired and the tape has never been seen (except by a few folks who work on the show the next day). Yet many many folks believe that they saw it.

    It does no good to explain this kind of thing to the UFO believer...

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Lance: "And with witness testimony, Don, I think it should be seen as what it is:imperfect."

    Skeptics keep saying that and no one disagrees. I repeat what I said to Gilles here years ago, if you think that is relevant to any particular witness or case, then demonstrate it.

    Since we are humans we know all about human frailties. We don't need skeptics to tell us that.

    And a good skeptic must be skeptical of his or her own opinion. let me add.

    Remember, too, you don't know what you don't know. I just had my opinion changed by Kevin Randle about some things Marcel is reported to have said in B&M and a story Rickett told. Kevin wrote Marcel was the A2 at the RAAF. It changed my understanding of the relationship of Marcel and the CIC agents. Seemingly inexplicable behaviors become coherent. Randle has expertise in military matters I don't. I accept it as true, until proven otherwise.

    So, we learn sometimes things we did not know and our opinion changes.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Don,

    I think skeptics have demonstrated this over and over again. And, it should go without saying but is often forgotten or willfully ignored by this crowd, the onus is NOT on skeptics to do anything. Someone making a claim about flying saucers from outer space (or whatever the pet theory) does not stand on the same ground as someone suggesting that a prosaic cause is more likely. It is folly and unsupportable to just accept such stuff until disproven.

    For example, with Roswell, Marcel's changing story about what we see in the famous photographs, which believers lamely rationalize away. This disconfirming evidence alone makes all of the learned discussion of tangential facts (like military designations and other minutia) superfluous.

    In the case of Zamora, I have said that we simply don't have enough information to do much more with the story except wonder what Zamora saw and hope that additional information comes along some day. Tony Bragalia has brought forward some good information but not enough to push the needle over to the hoax side.

    Don, I know that it rankles you that I often don't understand the points you try to make with your posts on Roswell minutia. As you mention above, it appears that the believers don't understand you either.
    I am certain that the problem lies in all of us but if you care to just plainly state your premise, I do enjoy and try to consider all facts that I can understand.

    Best,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Lance wrote:
    That all said, I don't think the presumed poor eyesight factor is enough to hurt Zamoras story of the departure of the UFO. If the thing was a balloon, I don't think it could have headed off into the wind . If Zamora didn't have his glasses it still seems unlikely that he would have misidentified the departure direction so completely.

    So Lance, we're again in basic agreement. (Hell hath frozen over again.) The winds preclude any sort of balloon (except for divine intervention to reverse a multi-state low-pressure storm system) and it was next to impossible for Zamora to get the basic departure direction wrong--towards the mountains only 2 miles away--that's all anyone needs to know. The only way he could have gotten that wrong would be if he needed a seeing eye dog to drive his patrol car.

    The only other critical part of his testimony was the departure in total silence, which had nothing to do with his eyesight. Any skeptic who thinks Socorro wasn't unconventional in nature MUST explain that. How could a conventional craft fly into the wind without making any noise?

    Investigators could have asked a million other irrelevant questions of Zamora 50 years ago (including whether he put his glasses back on after stopping to pick them up), and it still wouldn't have changed those fundamental puzzling facts of the case that need explaining. Those along with the clear physical trace evidence left behind proving something had indeed just been there, such as still-smouldering terrain.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • > Terry is a Betty Hill supporter I'm guessing.

    Just someone who likes accuracy (hard to find among either skeptics or believers).

    Your central points are correct. The Hills' testimony changed and improved over time (with some help from John Fuller). Proponents have smoothed and polished the account so it "confirms" later abduction lore.

    Betty Hill consistently said she'd never met the slender insectoid "greys," which she referred to as "movie aliens." She called her aliens "men" and described them as barrel-chested. Betty thought they could walk down the street without drawing much attention.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • "Don, I know that it rankles you that I often don't understand the points you try to make with your posts on Roswell minutia. As you mention above, it appears that the believers don't understand you either.
    I am certain that the problem lies in all of us but if you care to just plainly state your premise, I do enjoy and try to consider all facts that I can understand."

    Tell me what is obscure about this:

    According to the press release Brazel went the Chavez county sheriff office and told it something that motivated it to call A2 at the RAAF. Having heard the something, "immediately" the field sent A2 and a CIC detail off into the boonies, late in the day, to investigate, stay the night, apparently without provisions (by the way, just what did Brazel tell the Sheriff, A2, and the CIC detail?)

    Does that sound normal to you? Are you uncertain of my meaning? If it is not normal then I don't need Larry to go on at me for two posts describing normal procedure.

    It is not like I asked a difficult question like what happened to Brazel's dogs.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • > folks...come up to him to describe watching the Cavett show in which one of the panelists died. It did happen. But the show never aired

    Cavett responds to these people: "Maybe I described it so vividly the next night that you thought you actually saw it…"

    Cavett is reporting cases of source-monitoring error, where people are unable to distinguish narratives from experiences. Whatever doubt Barney Hill had about Betty's dreams (which he had heard repeated a few times), the suggestible state of hypnosis seems to have wiped away the line between fact and fantasy. And as Fuller noted in Interrupted Journey, even the Hills' conscious recall of pre-amnesia events was reconstructed using their hypnotic testimony! The Hill testimony is a right mess. (I use a spread sheet to keep track of who said what, when, and in what state.)

    Cavett tells his story here:
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/when-that-guy-died-on-my-show/

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Don, it doesn't sound either normal or abnormal. It just sounds like an excellent way of summarizing the events and considering facts that often aren't considered, I wish you would write a full length description including these interesting observations and ideas spoken plainly, without assuming knowledge folks like me lack!

    Considering the frenzy of discussion of disks in the newspapers at the time, many of them ending up having the same rough description as the junk Brazel found, I don't think it might be unusual to think that the sheriff might have thought that the described stuff could have been one of the disks. He could have called the base and gotten the response you describe above,

    I don't know anything about normal or abnormal procedures...it is precisely these kinds of suppositions that take us nowhere (not your question....just the learned claptrap that folks seem to offer about what someone would have done). I'm not sure there was a normal procedure for checking on flying disks.

    Best,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Actually, Lance, we do know there was a "normal procedure for checking on flying disks" at least after July 4, 1947 and implemented by July 9. There is this thing called Project Blue Book with that information.

    Note, too, that it wasn't a flying disk account then. The press release is relating something that occurred in the past. It was the July 8 noon announcement that first mentions flying discs or flying saucers. We don't know that Brazel told Wilcox or Marcel anything about flying discs.

    There is no direct quotation of Brazel that puts those words in his mouth.

    I've just spent four months untangling the procedures among A2/CIC and the FBI in the Rhodes case, and I've written about it on my website. There is more to add, as I've finally located just what the newspapers were referring to after the 8th when they reported the "clamp down" on the what we call "the 47 Wave". I'll be writing that up, too.

    Either the story in the press release is false or very inaccurate, or something Brazel said impressed the RAAF immensely. If true, I suspect right there in the Sheriff's office Wilcox, Brazel, and anyone else was informed the matter fell under the Espionage Act (and that is the minimum of what they might have said).

    The only comparable event I can think of in 1947 was Brown and Davidson immediately flying to Tacoma because of Arnold's phone call to Brown.

    "He could have called the base and gotten the response you describe above..."

    I think the field would have decided it could wait til morning. The junk wasn't going anywhere.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Lance, the only way the account could be "normal" is if the rancher really was a local rancher whose ranch was a few miles down a nice road from Roswell. Then the rancher (whoever he was) telling Wilcox makes sense. Then Marcel and a detail going out to the ranch immediately makes sense.

    Just not for Brazel and the Foster Ranch over in Lincoln county near Corona, unless Brazel's story was intensely interesting.

    Otherwise, I have to believe that just to check out some saucer story at no specifically known location (somewhere about 35 miles or so from Corona in some field), Marcel drove over poor to native surface roads during the summer monsoons in a Buick (with Cavitt bouncing along behind him in a jeep).

    That's the story.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Don, et al....

    Here's the problem, as I see it and keep harping about:

    Brazel's "debris" has nothing to do with the "Roswell incident."

    It's a side bar, and has become the red-herring focal point of the Roswell story.

    Ive explained my position here many times so I won't go over that old ground again.

    But smart people know that the Roswell incident is something quite different than what is discussed here and elsewhere.

    Forget Brazel and his debris, I implore you.

    It has nothing to do with what really happened near Roswell, and not at the Foster ranch.

    Sloppy Roswell investigation has led many to a wrong spot and wrong idea of what happened.

    I think only Nick Redfern understands this.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Rich: "Forget Brazel and his debris, I implore you.

    It has nothing to do with what really happened near Roswell, and not at the Foster ranch."

    I think that is correct. I don't have the information you have, and I am not 100% certain of it as are you, but that is the direction I'm being pointed to.

    I should email some stuff to Nick.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Don:

    Friedman's Corona book started out on the right track but got diverted by the very same things that have diverted sensible commentary about Roswell, still being batted around.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • I guess the difference between us on this, Rich, is you are certain the Lincoln county story is not the 'Roswell' event, while I can't work out how it could be 'Roswell', and that could be my fault, my flawed reasoning. Thus, my not 100% agreement with you.


    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • I gave the locale, Don, a few months back, based, in part, on the slide story.

    It's not Roswell but north of Roswell to the east of the Foster ranch.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Rich, I'll "implore" one thing of you. When I say according to the press release (or any other document in any other case), I am not referring to what might have really happened, but only what was written. So, with Roswell, I have to deal with Brazel because what was written refers to him. My opinion is that the story (the story in the press release) is very likely not true or is wildly inaccurate.

    I'm not trying to solve the Roswell case or any case. I'm just trying to understand how the 47 wave came to be, how it developed, and how it ended.

    Best Regards,

    Don


    By Blogger Don, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

  • Yes, Don...

    I understand your modus operandi.

    I don't really give a fig about Roswell although Paul Kimball would disagree, noting how often I bring it up here.

    It's all the caterwauling about it that intrigues me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 12, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home