Sep 23 2009
|
|
Socorro Hoaxed?
This is one of those issues that is likely to run and run – and, of course, provoke furious debate (but, hey, there’s nothing wrong with that)!
Could it be that one of the most famous of all UFO cases actually had nothing to do with real UFOs at all?
Decide for yourself by checking out Anthony Bragalia’s post – titled The Socorro UFO Hoax Exposed! – which can be found over at The UFO Iconoclast(s) blog.
As Tony states: “After 45 years the truth is now revealed- one of the most famous UFO sightings in history was a hoax. The recent confession of an elderly College President -and a newly discovered document- indicate that the 1964 sighting of a landed UFO by Socorro, NM policeman Lonnie Zamora was the result of an elaborate school prank. This incredible story is publicly recounted for the first time ever by individuals who have held the secret of Socorro for decades.”
Shock? Horror? Nope, just another UFO case that – maybe – we can forget about and move on from.
Now, before you reject the story, read the article carefully. There are names, people, documents and more that collectively suggest, at the very least, there is something to all this.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this all develops…
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm and is filed under Alien Encounters, Beliefs, Breaking News, Close Encounters, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, History, Hoaxes, Humorous, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
- Related News Stories:
- Socorro: The Latest »
- Policing the UFO… »
- Lonnie Zamora 1933-2009 »
- (UFO and Weird) Collector’s Corner #2 »
- Socorro: The Battle Heats Up! »
- UFOMystic at BoA »
- Greg’s Occasional Pic of the Moment #2 »
- Circular Arguments »
- Ray Stanford On Radio Misterioso Sunday »
- Interview on “The Joiner Report” »
|
September 24th, 2009 at 3:46 am
So, it was a college prank — they say.
It’s another hear-say story, as plausible and credible as the stories of Werner Von Braun telling someone about the Roswell Saucer crash.
If it indeed was a helium balloon concocted with fireworks (kind of a dangerous mix), then we’d still have to explain how “The object traveled very fast (emphasis mine) over [Zamora], and then just three feet above a nearby shack- and finally out of view over another hill.”
Also, it wasn’t only Zamora the fooled, but also Dr. Allen Hynek. That doesn’t mean that Hynek wasn’t impervious to be fooled, of course.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:48 am
There are names, people, documents…
Yes. Someone who knew someone who knew someone else … utterly convincing. My friend has a cousin whose friend totally found her Doberman choking on a burglar’s finger, too!
And I can’t help noting, in the end, how it all comes down to the classic debunker ploy of calling Lonny Zamora a dumb Mexican.
I certainly don’t believe the hoax explanation is impossible, if anyone was actually convinced by this presentation, I have some Iraqi WMDs to sell them.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:49 am
And, obviously, a run-on sentence.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Bragalia’s post appeals to authority (scientists) as unimpeachable and makes many assumptions about how the hoax could be pulled off. I found myself thinking that the scientists he consulted may have heard rumors of a prank and pounced on them to dismiss the Socorro case.
I don’t know what Zamora saw, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a balloon and students in lab coats. The hot air balloon explanation holds more water than this, yet it still doesn’t explain the flame shooting down as witnessed, as a propane burner would blow the flame up (into the balloon envelope.)
September 24th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Nick,
This will come and go in a few days, simply because, as with his Roswell stuff, Bragalia is just spinning a story, with no actual proof.
It’s bad when someone tries to convince you that ET landed based on hearsay and a complete lack of hard evidence. It’s just as bad when they use the same things to assert the contrary.
But that seems to be Bragalia’s M.O. – make some sensational claims about well-known cases in order to get some publicity.
Paul