• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Ray Stanford has a photo of the Socorro craft & Martin Willis has seen it and is impressed but...

Free versions of recent episodes:

Zamora did not say people.
This online account is quoting Lonnie Zamora's report as a word for word transcript with quotations. Are you suggesting this is a fabrication? Disinformation?

"Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat."

At this time I started moving my car towards them quickly, with idea to help. [...]

"The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at the object. I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids."
 
You got that right. We do this on our own dime as all Mufon investigators do. We would not ask for nor accept money for any evidence we present or uncover.
I beg to differ. Once upon a time I was considering joining MUFON, but was on a very limited budget and asked if I could access their database of UFO reports for personal research reasons. I was told that I couldn't have anything unless I joined MUFON and paid a membership and then after that some sighting reports could be copied and sent to me for a price ( I don't recall what at the moment ). Currently to read the e-journals you need to be a member, which costs $35 a year. The Field Investigator's Manual is $75, and while it's true some info is available at no charge these days, I don't know what it would cost to access the other historical files. I doubt that it would be free. They also want donations to build a database, and have yet to respond to my question about who will have access to it and how much will it cost ( if anything ).
 
I wouldn't say the managers of the forum are 'dictatorial'
Sure they are. They're just friendlier than most ... LOL.
... but rather that they do not follow heated controversial threads closely enough to observe when personal provocations begin and by whom, and how often they continue.
I suspect you're right about that.
I flagged one of DS's earlier assaults on Ben Moss in this thread, which might have been expected to trigger a moderator's examination of the exchange and a recognition of who was generating the increasing combativeness of the thread. As I recall, Moss maintained his cool longer than most people have under the fire of continuous provocation by DS. I take it Moss is a human being and like any of us will finally draw the line and begin to reply in kind. Then it became a pile-on with others joining DS. It should not have been allowed to go so far.
Sorry, but I wasn't paying attention to that either.
 
I beg to differ. Once upon a time I was considering joining MUFON, but was on a very limited budget and asked if I could access their database of UFO reports for personal research reasons. I was told that I couldn't have anything unless I joined MUFON and paid a membership and then after that some sighting reports could be copied and sent to me for a price ( I don't recall what at the moment ). Currently to read the e-journals you need to be a member, which costs $35 a year. The Field Investigator's Manual is $75, and while it's true some info is available at no charge these days, I don't know what it would cost to access the other historical files. I doubt that it would be free. They also want donations to build a database, and have yet to respond to my question about who will have access to it and how much will it cost ( if anything ).
I was referring to the hundreds of hours spent in the field, the travel, gas, purchasing our own equipment, etc.
 
Burnt you could not be more wrong and your knowledge of photo's is lame. You have no idea what your talking about. The dot is only a dot on the initial inage
It resolves quite well when zoomed in. I will continue to chew and you are also wrong about the importance of Socorro. We also have an as yet unseen Hynek interview which will make your point moot.
Well I've spent enough time in a dark room, worked with various film formats and done quite a bit of enlarging and scanning of negatives to know that I'm fairly confident in what I speak of. But you have yet to mention the film speed and appear to be guessing as far as your optical knowledge goes. You also appear to be very convinced by Ray's work but until the goods are shown then we might as well be talking about a Bigfoot suit stuffed with raw animal entrails. The many previous points and comparisons stand as does the criticism of your version of Ufology. This particular case is interesting but limited in confirmed evidence. It is sensational because of the symbol and its primary narrative value is based primarily on witness testimony. But beyond that it stands alongside many a piece of law enforcement ufo witness testimony. All the talk of promises of what is to come is just talk, is bad form in general and does not bode well for the future of Ufology.
 
You may be right, but I tend to be fairly picky about what I put together. Below is a sketch made under Zamora's direction:
Zamora was obviously totally manipulated by the press and military/MIC multiple times once these PTB intelligence types became involved. Nothing should be believed beyond the first account IF taken properly by a neutral interview without managing Zamora about what to say, how to say it, and what words to use. Once Zamora changed his story, then you either should dismiss everything or hold onto what is likely accurate at the beginning BEFORE changes. Obviously, a fanatic UFO 26 year old named Ray Stanford cannot be trusted, IMO.

This drawing is an obvious UFO Cult type joke image. IMO. Soooo, so, typical. It does NOT match Zamora's initial account according to the quotations I found. Also, four legs on the craft PROVE how bogus it is. Only three landing marks were on the ground. [Edit: apparently four landing marks were noted elsewhere, so that could very well be correct. Though it seems three landing marks were indicated in two different Socorro films I saw. One was taken in April 1964 just after the sighting occurred.]
 
Last edited:
What a minute Mr. Moss...
Is that link above in reply to this post of mine??? I don't want to read again about Ray Stanford's ideas, and it does NOT answer my question you were asked just below.
Zamora did not say people.
This online account is quoting Lonnie Zamora's official report as a word for word transcript with quotations. Are you suggesting this is a fabrication? Disinformation?

"Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat."

At this time I started moving my car towards them quickly, with idea to help. [...]

"The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at the object. I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids."
==========================================

So, Ben Moss, did Lonnie Zamora not say those quotations attributed to him just above?
 
Last edited:
I did not start this conversation and my replies were not made 'in bad form'. I know all the photo data, camera etc. The picture speaks for itself as Chris mentioned. Just because you have not seen it does not mean it is not a good image and it does show an egg shaped craft with landing gear deployed. So despite your time in a dark room you cannot sit back and pontificate on what the picture does and does not show. We will have real experts on it and not self proclaimed dark room experts on a blog.
 
DS do you honestly think that it was a ballon? No match for the balloon story where did the two people go?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
I was referring to the hundreds of hours spent in the field, the travel, gas, purchasing our own equipment, etc.
I hear ya on that level. I've been funding USI out of my own pocket for over 20 years. Davenport at NUFORC does the same. Chris here has mostly been doing the same, but recently got some donations too ( which I think is great ). A lot of us do our own thing at our own expense.
 
Zamora was obviously totally manipulated by the press and military/MIC multiple times once these PTB intelligence types became involved. Nothing should be believed beyond the first account IF taken properly by a neutral interview without managing Zamora about what to say, how to say it, and what words to use. Once Zamora changed his story, then you either should dismiss everything or hold onto what is likely accurate at the beginning BEFORE changes. Obviously, a fanatic UFO 26 year old named Ray Stanford cannot be trusted, IMO.

This drawing is an obvious UFO Cult type joke image. IMO. Soooo, so, typical. It does NOT match Zamora's initial account according to the quotations I found. Also, four legs on the craft PROVE how bogus it is. Only three landing marks were on the ground.
You'll notice my illustration has neither the markings nor the legs. Just the ovoid shape with the long blue orange flame exhaust. How close it is to what was actually there ( if anything ), I cannot say with any certanty.
 
I did not start this conversation and my replies were not made 'in bad form'. I know all the photo data, camera etc. The picture speaks for itself as Chris mentioned. Just because you have not seen it does not mean it is not a good image and it does show an egg shaped craft with landing gear deployed. So despite your time in a dark room you cannot sit back and pontificate on what the picture does and does not show. We will have real experts on it and not self proclaimed dark room experts on a blog.
Well I wish you luck on your journey and eagerly await your so called evidence. But what you have described so far promises to be more of the same ho hum. In your post above Ray mentions Hynek' s photo - a Polaroid? Is that the "parallax photo" then as that has no resolution to work with at all. I will predict though that getting to see this outstanding evidence will continue to be delayed as will the talk of Ray's Ufological photographic expertise be ongoing.

BTW you can be dismissive all you like as a newcomer to this forum, but underestimating the expertise of those who post here is a misstep at best.
 
I personally think I have hit it out of the park on this topic. If you really want to read a sensible position on Ray Stanford re-read my posts.

Simply put Ray Stanford needs to put up or shut up. If he has all this evidence, he needs to bring it forward. If he is serious about UFO research or adding weight to the Zamora case, then he needs to release his film showing a "day light flying saucer shoot a plasma beam at him." If Stanford's evidence is as groundbreaking as his devotee's claim, then it will go a long way in helping all UFO cases and cementing Stanford's reputation among real scientist, something he is very proud of with his Dino bones.

Finally, O'Brian needs to stop talking about Ray and giving the guy a format to speak from. Chris is really starting to sound like Tom Carrey and Don Schmitt regarding the Roswell Slides. He goes on and on about how good the evidence is, yet can provide nothing. He also needs to look in the mirror and realize that for months he and others on the Paracast chastised the Roswell Slide holders and criticized their research methodology. The hosts of the Paracast and others formed a big pow-wow and hammered the Roswell Slide people for "insulating their evidence from experts and only showing it to true believers." They also laughed when amateurs were able to solve the case in a few hours. Do they not see the hypocrisy here? Stanford is doing exactly what the Roswell Slide promoters were rightfully attacked for. Stanford is akin to the Roswell Slide people. He appears all over hyping his material but will only show it his devotees who act as his online attack dogs.

Finally, this notion that mainstream academia doesn't want to "tarnish their reputation" dealing with "UFO stuff" is totally wrong. As much crap as Steven Greer gets on the Paracast (it is endless). He at least had the balls to take his little desert "alien" and submit it to none other than...wait for it...STANFORD UNIVERSITY for testing. Not only did Stanford University do the testing, their doctor participated in Greer's documentary! So stop hiding behind this fake objection that universities won't seriously look at this topic. They will if you have the balls to submit it.

I am tired of hearing of Ray Stanford on multiple podcasts talk about his unfounded "evidence." With every appearance he has a new "mother ship" photo or some day light film. Until a major university has looked at it, he along with his attack dog devotees need to quiet down. As I stated before, the fact we hear about Stanford's evidence on fringe UFO podcasts like "Paracast" and "Martin Willis" speaks volumes about its worth.
 
DS do you honestly think that it was a ballon? No match for the balloon story where did the two people go?
The Humans had easy cover to get away from the area on foot based on Zamora's own account. Hot Air Balloons can easily lift many normal sized Humans too. IF this was a launch site, then it is PSYOPS and a hoax of some kind.

Here is the alleged Lonnie Zamora reported transcript. PLEASE read it, and then come back here and please post why it can NOT be a high tech Hot Air Balloon of some type.

Lonnie Zamora Project Blue Book Report

____, Socorro NM, _____, Officer Socorro PD about 5 years, office phone 835-0941, now on 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. shift.
About 5:45 P.M. 4/24/64 while in Socorro 2 Police Car (64 Pontiac white) started to chase a car due south from west side of Court House. Car was apparently speeding, and was about 3 blocks in front.

At point on Old Rodeo Street (extension of Park St. south) near George Morillo residence (about 1/8 mile south of Spring Street, the _____ chased car was going straight ahead toward rodeo grounds. Car chased was a new black Chevrolet (it might have been _____ boy about seventeen). Chased car still about three blocks ahead. _____ alone.`

At this time heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to southwest some distance away--possibly a 1/2 mile or a mile. Came to mind that a dynamite shack in that area had blown up, decided to leave chased car go.

Flame was bluish and sort of orange too. Could not tell size of flame. Sort of motionless flame, slowly descending. Was still driving car and could not pay too much attention to the flame. It was a narrow type of flame. It was like a "stream down"--a funnel type--narrower at top than at bottom. Flame possibly 3 degrees or so in width--not wide.

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, did not note if top of flame was level. Sun was to west and did not help vision. Had green sun glasses over prescription glasses. Could not see bottom of flame because it was behind the hill. no smoke noted.

Noted some "commotion" at bottom--dust? Possibly from windy day--wind was blowing hard. Clear sunny sky otherwise--just a few clouds scattered over area.

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 toward it at that time on the rough gravel road. Saw flame about as long as heard the sound. Flame same color as best as recall. Sound disctinctly from high to low until it disappeared. Windows both were down.

No other spectators noted--no traffic except the car in front--and car in front might have heard it but possibly did not see it because car in front was too close to hill in front, to see the flame.

After the roar and flame, did not note anything, while going up the somewhat steep rough hill--had to back up and try again, two more times. Got up about halfway first time, wheels started skidding, roar still going on, had to back down and try twice and rock. While beginning third time, noise and flame not noted.

After got to top, traveled slowly on the gravel road westwardly. Noted nothing for awhile. . .for possibly 10 or 15 seconds, went slow, looking around for the shack--did not recall exactly where the dynamite shack was.

Suddenly noted a shiny type object to south about 150 to 200 yards. It was off the road. At first glance, stopped. It looked, at first, like a car turned upside down. Thought some kids might have turned over.

Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat.

At this time I started moving my car towards them quickly, with idea to help. Had stopped about only a couple seconds. Object was like aluminum--it was whitish against the mesa background, but not chrome.

Seemed like O in shape and I at first glance took it to be overturned white car. Car appeared to be up on radiator or on trunk, this first glance.

The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at the object. I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.

Then paid attention to road while drove towards scene. Radioed to sheriff's office "Socorro 2 to Socorro, possible 10-44 (accident), I'll be 10-6 (busy) out of the car, checking the car down in the arroyo."

Stopped car, was still talking on radio, started to get out, mike fell down, reached back to put up mike, then replaced radio mike in slot, got out of car and started to go down to where I knew the object (car) was.

Hardly turned around from car, when heard roar (was not exactly a blast), very loud roar--at that close was real loud. Not like a jet--knows what jets sound like. Started low frequency quickly, then roar rose in frequency (higher tone) and in loudness--from loud to very loud. At same time as roar saw flame.

Flame was under the object. Object was starting to go straight up--slowly up. Object slowly rose stright up. Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color From this angle, saw the side of object (not end, as first noted).

Difficult to describe flame. Thought, from roar, it might blow up. Flame might have come from underside of object, at middle, possibly a four feet area--very rough guess. Cannot describe flame further except blue and orange. No smoke, except dust in immediate area.

As soon as saw flame and heard roar, turned away, ran away from object but did turn head toward object. Bumped leg on car--back Fender area. Car facing southwest. Glasses fell to ground, left them there. ran to north--car between him and object.

Object was oval, in shape. It was smooth--no windows or doors. As roar started, it was still on or near ground. Noted red lettering of some type (see illustration). Insignia was about 2 1/2' high and about 2' wide I guess. Was in middle of object. . .Object still like aluminum-white.

After fell by car and glasses fell off, kept running to north, with car between me and object. Glanced back couple of times. Noted object to rise to about level of car, about 20 to 25 feet guess--took I guess about six seconds when object started to rise and I glanced back. I ran I guess about halfway to where I ducked down--about fifty feet from the car is where I ducked down, just over edge of hill.

I guess I had run about 25 feet when I glanced back and saw the object level with the car and it appeared about directly over the place where it rose from.

I was still running and I jumped just over the hill--I stopped because I did not hear the roar. I was scared of the roar, and I had planned to continue running down the hill. I turned around toward the object and at same time put my head toward ground, covering my face with my arms. Being that there was no roar, I looked up, and I saw the object going away from me. It did not come any closer to me.

It appeared to go in straight line and at same height--possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet. Shack about eight feet high.

Object was traveling very fast. It seemed to rise up, and take off immediately across country. 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 sun glasses on ground), got into the car, and radioed to Nep Lopez, radio operator, to "look out of the window, to see if you could see an object."

He asked what is it? I answered "It looks like a balloon." I don't know if he saw it. If Nep looked out of his window, which faces north, he couldn't have seen it. I did not tell him at the moment which window to look out of.

As I was calling Nep, I could still see the object. The object seemed to lift up slowly, and to "get small" in the distance very fast. It seemed to just clear the Box Canyon or Six Mile Canyon Mountain. It disappeared as it went over the mountain. It had no flame whatsoever as it was traveling over the ground, and no smoke or noise.

Feeling in good health. Last drink--two or three beers--was over a month ago. Noted no odors. Noted no sounds other than described. Gave directions to Nep Lopez at radio and to Sergeant M.S. Chavez to get there. Went down to where the object had been and I noted the brush was burning in several places.

At that time I heard Sgt. Chavez (N.M. State Police at Socorro) calling me on radio for my location, and I returned to my car, told him he was looking at me. Then Sgt. Chavez came up, asked me what the trouble was, because I was sweating and he told me I was white, very pale. I asked the Sgt. to see what I saw, and that was the burning brush. Then Sgt. Chavez and I went to the spot, and Sgt. Chavez pointed out the tracks.

When I first saw the object (when I thought it might be a car) I saw what appeared to be two legs of some type from the object to the ground. At the time, I didn't pay much attention to what it was--I thought it was an accident--I saw the two persons.

I didn't pay any attention to the two "legs?" The two "legs" were at the bottom of the object, slanted outwards to the ground. The object might have been about three and a half feet from the ground at that time. I just glanced at it.

Can't tell how long saw object second time (the "close" time), possibly 20 seconds--just a guess--from time got out of car, glanced at object, ran from object, jumped over edge of hill, then got back to car and radio as object disappeared.

As my mike fell as I got out of car, at scene area, I heard about two or three loud "thumps," like someone possibly hammering or shutting a door or doors hard. These "thumps" were possibly a second or less apart. This was just before the roar. The persons were not seen when I drove to the scene area.

Just before Sgt. Chavez got to scene, I got my pen and drew a picture of the insignia on the object.
 
Last edited:
The description of the sound and the slow rise of the object seems to fit with the balloon hypothesis, as does Zamora's description of the object as "like a balloon."

I will admit that the part about the object "taking off immediately across country" makes a balloon seem unlikely, however, as does the suggestion that it cleared box canyon and the rest, moving without sound over the mountain. I don't see a balloon, advanced or otherwise, doing that, with or without a tow cable. But then, what the hell do I know. Very little.

That is not to suggest that it couldn't be human made and human operated, however. The report even states two people had been present. Note: not humanoids, not human-like -- but people, persons, etc. That is to say, humans.
 
Last edited:
The description of the sound and the slow rise of the object seems to fit with the balloon hypothesis, as does Zamora's description of the object as "like a balloon."

I will admit that the part about the object "taking off immediately across country" makes a balloon seem unlikely, however, as does the suggestion that it cleared box canyon and the rest, moving without sound over the mountain. I don't see a balloon, advanced or otherwise, doing that, with or without a tow cable.

That is not to suggest that it couldn't be human made and human operated, however. The report even states that they were people, very clearly.
Just go to the initial report above. Quote ONLY from that report, and please explain why a Hot Air Balloon cannot do whatever you quote.
 
You'll notice my illustration has neither the markings nor the legs. Just the ovoid shape with the long blue orange flame exhaust. How close it is to what was actually there ( if anything ), I cannot say with any certanty.
Go look again about the post of yours I quoted. There are clearly four landing legs depicted.

Ray Stanford has a photo of the Socorro craft & Martin Willis has seen it and is impressed but...

Zamora said it looked like a BALLOON as it ascended with his glasses on. Why debate this point that Zamora said himself?

IF he said blimp then I would buy into the elongated horizontal orientation, but not when Zamora said he thought it was a balloon and O shaped or oval shaped. Just check his initial report above to verify my thinking about it. I think 'balloon' is the key word and idea as it ascended with his glasses on.

I think this is a moot point in many respects, and everyone is entitled to imagine what it might have looked like.

I really feel the absolute requirement to stick to Zamora's initial report in his words before he was manipulated [by Stanford too] about what to say, how to say it, and what words to use or not use. He could have easily already been coached how to describe the object too! There is PROOF Zamora changed his story and that the MIC Intelligence types were monitoring his public statements with escorts to the radio station and elsewhere. And, that IS weird, intimidating, and controlling too.

Did Zamora complain? No, Zamora was a "yes sir", whatever you say sir, because they appealed to his patriotic duty and military background too, National Security, etc. He walked their line and followed their directions. 1964 was a different era and doing one's patriotic duty, especially, as a policeman and veteran was a totally different mindset.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top