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

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.)

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.

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.