Dec 10 2008
|
|
UFOs Spitting Flames
Most close UFO sightings (close encounters of the first and second kinds) witnesses have reported that the objects seen often emitted sounds. Most describe a humming or buzzing, which either rises in pitch or gets louder (or both) when the UFO is leaving.
In a couple of famous cases, witnesses observed craft which emitted a rocket-like blast. Policeman Lonnie Zamora heard a “roar” while patrolling near Soccorro, New Mexico on April 24, 1964. He left the highway to investigate and came upon an oval object sitting on the ground with two figures standing next to it, which quickly disappeared and apparently entered the object. Zamora heard a few “metallic thumps” and then a loud rocket-like sound as the object lifted off the ground, spitting blue flames:
Noise was a roar, not a blast. Not like a jet. Changed from high frequency to low frequency and then stopped. Roar lasted possibly 10 seconds was going towards it at that time on the rough gravel road… At same time as roar, saw flame. Flame was under the object. Object was starting to go straight up slowly up… Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color… Thought, from roar, it might blow up…” When the roar stopped, he heard a whining sound going from high tone to low tone, which lasted about a second. “Then,” he said, “there was complete silence… It appeared to go in [a] straight line and at same [constant] height, possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet… Object was traveling very fast. It seemed to rise up, and take off immediately across country.
Why did this UFO need to use a rocket engine to rise up just 10 or 15 feet? Zamora described nothing that sounds like a nozzle or other device that would be used to direct the thrust (unless it was enclosed in the body of the object.)
The December 29, 1980 sighting known as the Cash-Landrum incident also involved an unknown object with a rocket-like blast. The three witnesses were driving along an isolated road near Houston, Texas. From ufocasebook:
…the three began to see a light in the distance, and in a few short minutes this light became a glowing object, slowly crossing the tops of the tall pine trees. The area that they were in was densely occupied by pine and oak trees, surrounded by occasional swamps and small lakes. As they proceeded along their way, their initial thought was that the object was an airplane or helicopter from one of the airfields not too distant from their location. Suddenly, ahead of them loomed an immense diamond-shaped craft, which was hovering over the road ahead of them. At regular, fast intervals, the object would shoot down a stream of reddish-orange flames.
Witnesses Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum recalled that the craft would sink down towards the road and then let out a blast of exhaust, which appeared to raise it up again. The thing also emitted a loud beeping sound. Jerome Clark, quoted at wikipedia, wrote:
Small blue lights ringed the center, and periodically over the next few minutes flames shot out of the bottom, flaring outward, creating the effect of a large cone. Every time the fire dissipated, the UFO floated a few feet downwards toward the road. But when the flames blasted out again, the object rose about the same distance.
The Soccorro case remains unidentified, although it has been explained as everything from a hot air balloon to an attempt to create publicity for tourism. As for the Cash-Landrum incident, there are compelling reasons that point to some sort of military operation involving a secret aircraft, since the primary witnesses (as well as others) described a group of 23 military helicopters that arrived soon after the craft was sighted and appeared to “herd” it away. There are many more details in the case, such as symptoms of ionozing radiation experienced by Landrum and especially Cash, who got out of the car during the sighting, and a later encounter with a helicopter pilot who seemed to panic when Landrum mentioned that she was one of the people who saw the operation.
A few years ago, I was told that the two women (and Landrum’s seven-year-old grandson, who was also in the car that night) had actually seen a test of an atomic-powered aircraft that had run into trouble on a test flight. The pilots (there were two) had lost their video monitors, which was apparently the only way they had of seeing where they were going. The system was required to keep the occupants safe from the radiation generated by the craft. Of course, government agents can tell us anything they want–off the record. This also begs the question of just what was keeping the craft airborne when the rocket motor was shut off.
Zamora reported the flame jetting out from the bottom of the object as bluish, with an orange border. This compares favorably with observations of burning rocket fuel, whether it be liquid hydrogen, kerosene, or hydrazine, all of which were operational in the mid 1960s.
Regarding the Texas case, some atomic rockets work by pumping liquid hydrogen through a small nuclear reactor, and of course produces an exhaust plume. This process creates radionuclides, which emit ionizing radiation.
Peru, 1952
Does this mean that Soccorro, and indeed any other reports of flame and smoke-spewing UFOs should be placed in the “secret aircraft” category? No one seemed to see rocketlike UFOs until after the dawn of the popular awareness of rocketry, which began after WWII. Is this an indication of our collective unconscious influencing what we think we see, or does it go deeper?
If there is an intelligence behind the UFO enigma, it may use our preconceptions as a template. This is of course not a new idea. Perhaps the most important factor in UFO sightings may be an interaction between what we think we see and what is causing it, maybe to the point that a camera sees it as well (hence the Peruvian photo above.) As popular ideas of what flying saucers should look and sound like entered the cultural lexicon, sightings may have conformed to the script. A survey of this variety of sighting, concentrating on the frequency and year of occurrence, may be in order.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008 at 4:30 am and is filed under Eyewitness Accounts, Government Projects, UFOlogy, UFOmystic Exclusive, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- UFOMystic in 2008 »
- Flaming, Turquoise-Colored UFO Crashes, Picked Up By Helicopter »
- Cigar UFOs »
- UFOs As A Cosmic Art Exhibit »
- From The UFO Archives 3 »
- Retired Policeman Sees UFO »
- Tunguska 100 »
- Don’t Believe Too Much »
- UFOs & Water »
- Florida UFOs Weekly »
|
December 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
According to the Wikipedia entry for Lonnie Zamora, there’s a blurb about how investigators tested the site for radiation and none was found. This jives in my mind that it likely couldn’t be an early atomic powered VTOL aircraft. From what I’ve seen on the net, early efforts at atomic powered aircraft (circa 1957) focused on conventional aircraft. These aircraft were heavy — 64 tons! Majority of the weight consigned to the massive radiation shielding rigs weighing in at 30 tons.
Sources:
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/x/USAF-X.htm#Convair%20X-6
http://www.megazone.org/ANP/atomair.shtml
December 11th, 2008 at 4:05 am
Its these smattering of cases that
keep me leaning to the ETH as an
explanation for some sightings.
Though the most convincing alternative
explanation for the Zamora sighting
is Mars probe test, the presence of
the ‘figures’ entering the craft kind
of rule it out for me, at least.
My major objection to the “Secret (US)
Goverment Craft” is that, in the more
than forty years since the Zamora
sighting, and the nearly thirty since
Cash-Landrum case, nothing remotely
similar has surfaced in aviation
literature. Now while absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence,
I can’t think of a singel instance
of a weapon system being kept so
secret that it was never, ever
deployed…
December 11th, 2008 at 5:07 am
awdsmirk,
I didn’t mean to imply that the Soccorro case was an atomic rocket (although it was discussed in the same paragraph (now fixed.)
December 11th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Craig,
I bet I can if I look for it. Also, If a weapons system was kept secret (and still is) and never deployed, how would we know about it?
December 11th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Can you imagine the weenie-greenies reaction if the US military acknowledged that it has been operating a fission/nuclear fueled single-stage to orbit aerospace craft for 30-40 years? They would be apoplectic with self-righteous indignation. Not to mention the reaction from the Russsians and Chinese. Americans would be pissed,too because of the billions wasted in the Space Shuttle program. Such a vehicle was technically feasible back in the 1950’s and I’m fairly certain that the military would hardly pass up such a huge advantage as a suborbital-orbital manned weapons or recon platform disguised as UFO.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Greg-
I’ll take that bet, as long as its not
more than ten bucks : ) To your second
remark ” Also, If a weapons system was kept secret (and still is) and never deployed, how would we know about it?”
A weapon, any weapon, is first a threat, and second, a deterrent. A
weapon that remains completely unknown
serves neither purpose. Following this
logic, lets speculate on, say, a hypothetical
American program, begun in the late
forties, and continued into the sixties.
In all that time, no other first world
country shows a hint of attempting
anything comparable, or even of
being alarmed at American efforts…
I can belive we might have kept a lid
on our British cousins, but would the French have remained silent? The
Russians? The Indians? Science and
technological advancement don’t happen
in a vaccuum, and I simply cannot
believe that some concrete evidence
would not have surfaced long before this. Put it in another context-consider
what crgintx says above-would
we have “…wasted billions in the
Space Shuttle program” ( Altered
slighty for narrative flow ) if we
did have such a system? I’m
perfectly willing to believe that
our goverment, among others, is happy to
keep its embarrassing skeletons well
buried, but I simply can’t believe that
such a technological leap as is implied
by some UFO sightings could or would
be kept so completely secret, for so long a time.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity….. anything you can imagine we already know how to do.”
Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works
Of course I think the source for this quote is … wait for it … Steven Greer.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Craig, we just spent a trillion dollars to ‘liberate’ a certain Middle East country which posed no military threat whatsoever to the US. We’ve spent another trillion or so on nuke weapons which have never been used and are now being turned into fuel for reactors. Our gov’t and political leadership have no qualms about blowing through a few billions of taxpayer’s dollars as long as they could claim to have brought home some federal pork tax dollars to spread out amongst the 50 states. Every state in the nation receives some form of tax dollars from the NASA Space program. Likely the same with any black budget nuclear craft. As long as somebody’s get some tax kickback money to their district, none of the poly-tickians are going to look too closely as to where it goes.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
These two cases show similarity in the sparsity to which the exhaust flames were used by the crafts to stay airborne.
So after the Socorro object acquired a certain altitude, something else kicked in and gave the object ‘escape velocity’.
And the way the Cash-Landrum object behaved, it almost seems like it was a lighter-than-air craft.
Either that, or we have to enter the even more speculative terrain of anti-gravitational physics. Because the problem with all kinds of rockets (chemical or atomic) is that they eventually run out of propellant. And there’s only so much fuel you can carry.
December 14th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Let me describe for you what Lonnie Zamora said he saw (see http://www.geocities.com/youcreatedcosmos/zamorareport.html for his original report). When Zamora radioed Nep Lopez for confirmation of the sighting, Zamora said, “It looks like a balloon”. He did not say it looked like a UFO. Zamora described the object as, “O in shape”. The object had a clean burning, orange to bluish flame that roared whenever it was engaged, but the flame was usually only engaged for about ten seconds at a time. The object gently descended and ascended, taking six seconds just to rise from the ground to an altitude of about 25 feet.
Coincidentally, a hot air balloon is often described as O in shape. Hot air balloons typically also use the clean burning, orange to bluish flame of a propane torch, that roars loudly whenever it is turned all the way up. The flame is rarely used continuously but rather in intermittent bursts of ten seconds or so. Hot air balloons gently descend and ascend and it would not be impossible to imagine a hot air balloon taking about six seconds to rise from the ground to an altitude of 25 feet. So if it looked like a hot air balloon, sounded like a hot air balloon, and acted like a hot air balloon…then it was a hot air balloon. Duh!
The Wikipedia article on Lonnie Zamora, laughably estimates the hot air balloon’s peak speed at 2160 MPH (average of 1080 MPH), having supposedly traveled six miles in under twenty seconds, and then offers this misrepresented fact as “evidence” that the object was not a balloon but rather something out-of-this-world. If the author of that article had even bothered to pay attention or actually read Zamora’s report, at the point their estimate is being made, Zamora had said this was only when he had seen the “object [a] second time”, and estimated that this second sighting lasted only maybe twenty seconds. This implies Zamora had lost sight of the object for an indeterminate amount of time after the first time he sighted it, and who knows how far it could have drifted by then? Also, the Six Mile Mountain Canyon was not six miles away from Zamora, it was six miles away from Socorro. Since Zamora was at least half-a-mile outside of the outskirts of Socorro, and the object disappeared BEFORE it reached Six Mile Canyon, having disappeared behind a mountain that was BETWEEN Six Mile Canyon and Box Canyon. So the total distance the balloon drifted was not even close to being six miles, but was much less, and the time taken to drift that distance was much greater than twenty seconds, therefore the ludicrous Wikipedia estimate is based on a somewhat distant and already moving object. Furthermore, other alleged “witnesses” to this event all described the object as slowly floating, not as moving at anywhere from Mach 1 to Mach 3.
I find it curious how all of the drawings of what Zamora saw are drawn incorrectly and not according to what Zamora described in his report. Drawing it the correct way would make it look more like a hot air balloon — and we wouldn’t want anyone to mistake what Zamora saw for a mundane hot air balloon now, would we now? This incident is a case of seeing and hearing only what you want to see and hear or is an example of how the typical person does not know how to pay attention to the obvious details?
December 15th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Sigh. And a Merry Christmas to you, too, The Sage.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I appreciate Sage’s Occam’s razor approach to the case. However, his description of Zamora’s police report only tells part of the story. Again, referencing the Wikipedia article, it is clearly documented that fused sand and burned brush was observed and collected at the landing site. I’m not aware of how the burner for a hot air balloon (whose flames typically point upwards or sideways), could be directed downwards where one would expect the gondola to be attached. In addition, it is quite unusual that an alleged balloon sighting would merit investigations from the FBI, Air Force, and Dr. J. Allen Hynek. If it looked like an unidentified flying object, sounded like an unidentified flying object, and acted like an unidentified flying object…then it was an unidentified flying object. I find it difficult to believe that a police office and former aircraft mechanic of 7 years would have trouble identifying something as mundane as a hot air balloon.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“Referencing the Wikipedia article, it is clearly documented that fused sand and burned brush was observed and collected at the landing site”
So the object that clearly acted like a balloon on one hand, also was like a UFO on the other hand, because fused sand and burned bushes can only be created by UFOs? You are going to need more than fused sand and burned bushes to make a case for a slowly floating balloon-like to become classified as an ultra-high technology UFO.
The hot air balloon as described by Zamora was clearly in distress and therefore it is very probable and reasonable to presume that when the balloon crashed landed, that the basket tipped over to its side as well. Now if a bush happens to get in the way of the burner while the basket is on its side, it might get a little signed, don’t you think? So that easily and easily explains the burned bush, and it does not contradict that other evidence clearly pointing to the object being a hot air balloon.
So all you have is fused sand as evidence of a UFO and it completely contradicts all the other evidence that the object was merely a hot air balloon. That is what we call, “grasping at straws”. Besides, how do we know that the fused sand didn’t pre-exist at the site prior to this incident and was caused by something else just as mundane as the balloon? What if fused sand was the part of the payload of the hot air balloon and it spilled out onto the ground when the basket tipped over? Did the fused sand samples even exist at all, since it wasn’t in the one report we know we can trust, the one by Zamora? We don’t any of these things because it wasn’t documented properly and the actual alleged evidence is nowhere to be found today. All we have left in this regards is hearsay and meresay. That hardly counts as “clearly documented” evidence.
“It is quite unusual that an alleged balloon sighting would merit investigations from the FBI, Air Force, and Dr. J. Allen Hynek”
No it isn’t, just look at Project Bluebook if you want hundreds of examples.
“I find it difficult to believe that a police office and former aircraft mechanic of 7 years would have trouble identifying something as mundane as a hot air balloon”
Hot air balloons were still something of a novelty back then, especially close up in a back water town. If you have no trouble believing in UFOs, despite the complete and utter lack of evidence for their existence, you should have no trouble believing in hot air balloons, which are very well documented as existing, am I right?
December 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
“You are going to need more than fused sand and burned bushes to make a case for a slowly floating balloon-like to become classified as an ultra-high technology UFO.”
Speaking only for myself, I have never asserted that the object in question was an “ultra-high technology UFO”. I’m only stating that your opinion that it was a hot air balloon is not likely. It thus remains an unidentified flying object in the most conventional non/alien sense of the phrase/acronym.
From the Zamora report:
“in the sky to southwest some distance away — possibly a 1/2 mile or a mile…Flame about twice as wide at bottom as top, and about four times as high as top was wide. ***Did not notice any object at top,*** dit not note if top of flame was level.”
If this were a balloon, would it not be obvious in the daylight that there was an “o” shaped object at the top of the flame?
“it is very probable and reasonable to presume that when the balloon crashed landed, that the basket tipped over to its side as well. Now if a bush happens to get in the way of the burner while the basket is on its side, it might get a little signed, don’t you think? So that easily and easily explains the burned bush”
According to witnesses, the brush at the landing site was more than just singed. From the Zamora report:
“Went down to where the object had been and I noted the brush was burning in several places.”
” I asked the Sgt. to see what I saw, and that was the burning brush.”
From the followup investigations:
“[Police Officer]Jordan would later comment, “The flame from that damn thing just sliced that greasewood bush in half, just burned it off clean like a blade of fire had cut right through it.”"
If the intensity of the heat used to burn the brush was enough to warrant that type of description, then it is reasonable to envision that a balloon gondola on its side, with burner at full blast would not only burn brush, but would also burn balloon material. Go search for images of 60’s era balloons, you will note in all cases, the burner assemblies are in close proximity to the balloon material. And although precautions in various balloon designs of the time mitigate the fire hazard to the material, they do not render the balloon fireproof.
“Besides, how do we know that the fused sand didn’t pre-exist at the site prior to this incident and was caused by something else just as mundane as the balloon? What if fused sand was the part of the payload of the hot air balloon and it spilled out onto the ground when the basket tipped over?”
Wow…now that is what I call “Grasping at straws”…
If all that’s still not enough for you…then attempt to understand this:
I agree that in 1964 the hot air balloon was a novelty, but this does not detract from the fact that in subsequent years Lonnie Zamora never indicated that what he saw back in ‘64 was a hot air balloon. In point of fact: A rare interview with the man himself on Unsolved Mysteries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6MwRbZ5mp0
At the 5:50 mark Lonnie tells you that he doesn’t care if you believe him or not that what he saw was indeed an unidentified flying object and not a balloon.
“Major Hector Quantanilla, then director of Project Blue Book, told CIA journal readers:
“There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora’s reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic.”
So much for your balloon theory.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“If this were a balloon, would it not be obvious in the daylight that there was an ‘o’ shaped object at the top of the flame?”
Zamora’s exact words were, “Flame might have come from underside of object, at middle, possibly a four feet area”. That sounds pretty obvious to me. Besides, is it such a big surprise to you to find out that the first thing Zamora noticed from the corner of his eye while in the middle of a high speed chase was the flame of a hot air balloon? It was only after he slowed down, and turned around to give the object his FULL attention did he finally notice it was “like a balloon” and “O shaped” with a flame in the middle.
“According to witnesses, the brush at the landing site was more than just singed”
What happened to that brush was no different then what can be done with the propane torch of a hot air balloon.
“If the intensity of the heat used to burn the brush was enough to warrant that type of description”
A propane torch is considered an intense flame, more intense than greasewood brush would normally encounter in the wild, and greasewood is not fireproof, so yes, the propane torch of a hot air balloon would easily warrant that type of description…at least it would if it came from a COMPETENT investigator.
“…they do not render the balloon fireproof”
And hot air balloons, just like the one Zamora saw, do not normally catch on fire, even when they crash land…your point was?
“Wow…now that is what I call ‘Grasping at straws’”
You really shouldn’t use terms you clearly do not understand. I think this is just your way of dodging and evading my question, so in the interest of trying to keep you honest, once again, please tell us why the fused sand could only come from a UFO and nowhere else?
“If all that’s still not enough for you..”
You aren’t even close. You have yet to explain away why Zamora choose to describe the object as looking “like a balloon” or why it was “O in shape” or why a UFO would need to light a propane torch for ten seconds before it could ascending 25 feet in six seconds flat. Hot air balloons are very much like that, and not at all UFO like. So whatever other facts you try to isolate in your mad attempt to find something — anything — that even remotely sounds UFO like in this incident, you cannot ignore those numerous other facts that sound very much like a hot air balloon.
“…A rare interview with the man himself on Unsolved Mysteries…”
What you are talking about here is entertainment, not peer reviewed science.
“At the 5:50 mark Lonnie tells you that he doesn’t care if you believe him or not that what he saw was indeed an unidentified flying object and not a balloon”
Zamora can call a rose by any other name, or believe a rose is a UFO, but that won’t stop it from being a rose will it? What is important is not what Zamora believes or does not believe he saw, nor is it important how other people misinterpret what Zamora wrote in his report, what matters is the facts and Zamora’s or your beliefs are not facts, they are just beliefs. Apparently you cannot tell the difference between a belief and a fact.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“so in the interest of trying to keep you honest, once again, please tell us why the fused sand could only come from a UFO and nowhere else?”
Again, I never asserted that fused sand cannot come from anywhere but a UFO. I’ve been stating that fused sand cannot likely come from the burner of a hot air balloon since the burner typically always points upwards or sideways and never downwards–even in your fanciful balloon crash landing scenario. Understand however, that I am not proposing that what Zamora saw was an ETH based UFO.
“You have yet to explain away why Zamora choose to describe the object as looking “like a balloon” or why it was “O in shape” or why a UFO would need to light a propane torch”
Try to keep up here: Zamora’s statement of “like a ballon” does not equate to “is a balloon”. Apparently you do not know what a simile is.
At this stage you are also assuming that the described blue and orange flame is propane based. Please tell us why blue and orange flames could only come from a propane torch and nowhere else?
“What you are talking about here is entertainment, not peer reviewed science.”
Laughable! As you and I both know, the field of UFO studies (and this most wonderful website!) are utterly bereft of peer reviewed science. The link to the video was to serve as a simple proof to my comment that Zamora never indicated that what he saw back in ‘64 was a hot air balloon as you are so weakly attempting to prove otherwise. You previously stated:
“the one report we know we can trust, the one by Zamora”
“Zamora can call a rose by any other name, or believe a rose is a UFO, but that won’t stop it from being a rose will it?”
“what matters is the facts and Zamora’s or your beliefs are not facts”
Nice one Shakespeare. I find it odd that you would put so much stock in the original report written *by Zamora* and yet completely disregard the man’s own words telling you that what he witnessed was not a conventional aircraft (balloon or otherwise).
“nor is it important how other people misinterpret what Zamora wrote in his report”
And with that precious little gem, I bid all the “other people” (which includes you and I of course), good night… I dare say however that you will have the last word, as you’ve proven that no one will dissuade you from your air-headed balloon crash landing theory.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:51 am
“I never asserted that fused sand cannot come from anywhere but a UFO. I’ve been stating that fused sand cannot likely come from the burner of a hot air balloon”
Irrelevant since I never asserted that the fused sand came from the burner.
“Zamora’s statement of ‘like a ballon’ does not equate to ‘is a balloon’”
Irrelevant since I never asserted that it did.
What I have been saying, if you would only pay attention to what you are reading for once, is that all of the descriptions (including Zamora’s two similes) can only be reasonably interpreted as a hot air balloon. Do you have any better interpretation? Of course not! Let us go over those descriptions again and see what we can reasonably come up with:
1. It looked like a balloon
2. It was O shaped
3. It looked like a car upended on its radiator
4. It ascended and descended gently, taking six seconds to rise 25 feet
5. It had a propane flame
The propane-like flame:
6. Was somewhere in the middle of the balloon
8. Burned some brush
7. Was engaged in short bursts instead of continuously like a rocket engine would be
9. Someone found some fused sand at the alleged landing site
It does not sound like a UFO, look like a UFO, or act like a UFO, therefore it cannot be a UFO. It does not sound like a flying saucer, look like a flying saucer, or act like a flying saucer, therefore it cannot be a flying saucer. It does not sound like it is out-of-this-world, look like it is out-of-this-world, or act like it is out-of-this-world, therefore it cannot be out-of-this-world. But it does sound like a hot air balloon, look like a hot air balloon, and act like a hot air balloon, therefore the most reasonable interpretation is that it must be a hot air balloon. The only thing that doesn’t fit the description is the fused sand, but instead of illogically throwing out the baby with the bath water and say item nine negates each and every other item, it would be more reasonable to presume that the fused sand is incidental to the sighting and was already there due to some other cause, was a payload spilled by the object, or they weren’t even at the landing site like they thought they were. Does that elementary logic still escape you? It probably does. You are probably sitting there thinking, hot air balloons are not balloon-like or O shaped, hot air balloons don’t have propane torches, and hot air balloons don’t gently ascend and descend, therefore it must have been an UFO. Clearly logic is not one of your strong points, is it?
As long as you continue to be completely unable to demonstrate any logic or facts that you can list that demonstrate that what Zamora saw was a UFO and that items 1-8 cannot and do not reasonably describe a hot air balloon, there is no point in continuing this thread with you because you have no case and cannot understand the simple logic used to tie those facts together. You are obviously just being a sore loser. Besides, I’m not going to sit here and trade insults with you. That isn’t scientific or logical, and while that might be entertaining to some, unlike you, I am more interested in the pursuit of truth instead of the pursuit of my opinions.