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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.