• 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!

November 5, 2017 — Kevin D. Randle


Great show! I like the shows when you delve into a particular case and get into the weeds because then I actually learn something. I'm actually tired of the ET vs. non-ET hypothesis debate, which gets nowhere. I'd rather review cases in detail and their evidence and see what might have happened in that particular case rather than discuss generalities (not to say that this debate doesn't have value; I've just heard all the arguments many times and rarely is there anything new added).
 
Great show! I like the shows when you delve into a particular case and get into the weeds because then I actually learn something. I'm actually tired of the ET vs. non-ET hypothesis debate, which gets nowhere. I'd rather review cases in detail and their evidence and see what might have happened in that particular case rather than discuss generalities (not to say that this debate doesn't have value; I've just heard all the arguments many times and rarely is there anything new added).


AMEN!!!!
 
Kevin supplies a plausible case that the Socorro incident was possibly extraterrestrial. Maybe this episode will draw Usual Suspect out of hiding.
LOL. Thanks for noticing. I just listened to this episode and Quintanilla, although unable to find confirmation that the Socorro object was some sort of LEM, remained of the opinion that it was, even after his retirement. So it's a bit misleading to say that he looked but couldn't find any proof for his theory, and leave us to conclude that he therefore had changed his mind. It's also possible it was some sort of secret VTOL program, and that being so focused on the LEM it was overlooked, and that after the program ended, all the evidence for the program was destroyed. They did that with the Northrop flying wing. The only reason we know about it is because it had already been in production.

We've also been through this case someplace on the forum already, and for every argument against it being something terrestrial there's better counterpoint ( IMO ) that it was. Without more evidence to the contrary, there's insufficient reason ( IMO ) to assume the Socorro object was alien. Technically the description fits that of unknown but terrestrial technology. If it was an experimental VTOL platform, then it would fall under the category of "unknown aircraft", which according to AFR-200-2 did not fall under the USAF definition of a UFO.
 
I'm also curious o know if Usual Suspect has any thoughts about Mufon Case 74282 (a Canadian case)?
That would be this case: DoD Whistleblower Scientist Reports Baffling ‘Blue Plasma’ UFO Sighting — MUFON Rates Witness ‘Extremely Credible’ [Video]

I have to say that I'm not confident in MUFON's reliability when it comes to vetting witnesses. I've seen a State Director claim a star was actually a UFO even when the telescope was aimed directly at the exact coordinates of the star in question. So if that's the care they take with one of their own Directors, why assume they did any vetting of the witness to confirm credibility? The anonymity of the witness and the just plain irritating screened video with garbled sound, does absolutely nothing to convince me that the story is worthy of serious attention. US President ( Carter ) himself filed a UFO report. If the Commander and Chief can do it, so can anyone else.

That doesn't mean it's not a real experience by some overly paranoid witness, but the whole thing smacks of theatricality. To make it believable get both the witnesses to come out independently in the open with verifiable documentation of who they are along with some evidence that they were actually in the area at the time, visit the sighting area, and then do an analysis and a comparison of the stories, and then do some follow-up questioning. That's all just basic investigative procedure. Instead we've got one guy on a blackout screen with a garbled voice telling us a UFO story.

Unless there's more to the story I've missed, or some further evidence comes out about it, it doesn't seem to deserve a very high confidence rating. What sort of impression do you have? Have I missed anything?

 
LOL. Thanks for noticing. I just listened to this episode and Quintanilla, although unable to find confirmation that the Socorro object was some sort of LEM, remained of the opinion that it was, even after his retirement. So it's a bit misleading to say that he looked but couldn't find any proof for his theory, and leave us to conclude that he therefore had changed his mind. It's also possible it was some sort of secret VTOL program, and that being so focused on the LEM it was overlooked, and that after the program ended, all the evidence for the program was destroyed. They did that with the Northrop flying wing. The only reason we know about it is because it had already been in production.

We've also been through this case someplace on the forum already, and for every argument against it being something terrestrial there's better counterpoint ( IMO ) that it was. Without more evidence to the contrary, there's insufficient reason ( IMO ) to assume the Socorro object was alien. Technically the description fits that of unknown but terrestrial technology. If it was an experimental VTOL platform, then it would fall under the category of "unknown aircraft", which according to AFR-200-2 did not fall under the USAF definition of a UFO.
What's a LEM?
 
Instead of being deflected by the ground and spaying out like your garden variety rocket fuel flame, the flame on the Socorro object knifed directly into the ground. This description suggested to Stanford and Hynek that a highly advanced propulsion system that may operate on a sub-atomic level.
 
Instead of being deflected by the ground and spaying out like your garden variety rocket fuel flame, the flame on the Socorro object knifed directly into the ground. This description suggested to Stanford and Hynek that a highly advanced propulsion system that may operate on a sub-atomic level.
Ya, I chatted with Ray about that for a bit, but I don't think anybody found a hole in the ground - is that right?
If so, it's quite odd.
 
No hole, no indication that any heat hit the ground, except the rocks w/ the vitrified crystals—one of rocks Ray was able to hang onto. He wants to get it tested w/ a mass spectrometer, (if I remember correctly) to see if anything can be determined, etc...
 
No hole, no indication that any heat hit the ground, except the rocks w/ the vitrified crystals—one of rocks Ray was able to hang onto. He wants to get it tested w/ a mass spectrometer, (if I remember correctly) to see if anything can be determined, etc...
Ya, as he described it, it almost sounded holographic to me. Like there was an image of a jet of flame shooting down, but it didn't actually interact with anything.

Wonder if it was theatrical?
 
No hole, no indication that any heat hit the ground, except the rocks w/ the vitrified crystals—one of rocks Ray was able to hang onto. He wants to get it tested w/ a mass spectrometer, (if I remember correctly) to see if anything can be determined, etc...
That doesn't match other accounts that describe some of the brush having caught fire. I think maybe what you meant to say is that no accelerants were detected in follow-up analysis. However there may be very little if any accelerant residue from a rocket or jet thruster, especially if it's main fuel is something like liquid oxygen. Even so, there's no doubt it was a curious craft. Just not curious enough to call it something alien, especially since we had the ability to create similar technology and the sighting took place right next to the place where similar technology was being developed.

"State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez, State
Policeman Ted Jordan, and Under sheriff James Luckie
responded. Chavez and Luckie said the burned clumps
of green grass and the greasewood were still hot when
they arrived. The military later took samples of the
burned earth for analysis."

"The clumps of green grass and two greasewood bushes
seemed to have been seared all at once by an extremely
hot flame. There were also broken branches on one
greasewood."

Source: http://socorro-history.org/HISTORY/PH_History/200808_socorro_ufo.pdf
 
Last edited:
That doesn't match other accounts that describe some of the brush having caught fire...
No, you are not hearing me. I never said there wasn't a heat event, I'm simply stating that Zamora said the flames from the exhaust did NOT splay out as if deflected by the ground, they knifed INTO the ground. Re-read your Stanford and pay attention to direct Zamora's quote.
 
That doesn't match other accounts that describe some of the brush having caught fire. I think maybe what you meant to say is that no accelerants were detected in follow-up analysis. However there may be very little if any accelerant residue from a rocket or jet thruster, especially if it's main fuel is something like liquid oxygen. Even so, there's no doubt it was a curious craft. Just not curious enough to call it something alien, especially since we had the ability to create similar technology and the sighting took place right next to the place where similar technology was being developed.

"State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez, State
Policeman Ted Jordan, and Under sheriff James Luckie
responded. Chavez and Luckie said the burned clumps
of green grass and the greasewood were still hot when
they arrived. The military later took samples of the
burned earth for analysis."

"The clumps of green grass and two greasewood bushes
seemed to have been seared all at once by an extremely
hot flame. There were also broken branches on one
greasewood."

Source: http://socorro-history.org/HISTORY/PH_History/200808_socorro_ufo.pdf

I'm pretty sure there's evidence that the brush caught fire which is evidence of heat - what I'm pointing at is the visual aspect of the flame going into the ground... but didn't leave a hole or a mark.

Sitting on the ground and taking off with a rocket-like propulsion should have done something like the following, with the exhaust hitting the ground and bouncing outward:
075.jpg


Instead it did something like this:
Progress_M-11M_spacecraft_launches_2_cropped.jpg


Only there was no hole in the ground for the flames to go into.

Interestingly, there was reported an area of fused sand that might have absorbed whatever heat was present:
Mayes also reported to McDonald an area of apparently "fused sand", where the sand had taken on a glassy appearance, near where the object had allegedly landed and then departed. The area of glassy sand was roughly triangular, measuring about 25 to 30 inches (760 mm) at its widest, though it gradually tapered down to about 1 inch wide; it seemed about a quarter of an inch thick. Mayes thought the glassy areas looked as if a "hot jet hit it." [21]:219

Lonnie Zamora incident - Wikipedia
 
since we had the ability to create similar technology and the sighting took place right next to the place where similar technology was being developed.

It’s likely a long shot that he’ll respond to this question, but noted UFO skeptic Jim Oberg does on occasion take a look at this forum. I would find it interesting to hear his opinion, as a space technology historian and former NASA engineer, on the specific question of whether a craft resembling the look and capabilities of the Socorro object would have existed in April 1964, and even if it did whether it would have been allowed to go winging its way across open public desert unaccompanied and unmonitored.

I suspect that no one here is saying the Socorro object was a test of the actual LM (which could not function in the earth’s gravity and atmosphere, and was not completed until over 3 years later) or that it was an LLRV/LLTV Lunar Lander Training Vehicle (which was not designed to fly any significant distance horizontally, did not carry sufficient fuel for the Socorro flight, would never have been allowed to fly off an AFB, was never flown without being observed by monitoring team, was not capable of flying silently, and did not make its first test flight until 6 months after Socorro).

If in April 1964 we had something as advanced as the Socorro object, it has never made sense to me that they would have allowed the astronauts in the late 1960s to be risking their lives in something as comparatively primitive, crude and dangerous as the Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (of the five built, three crashed)

It would be interesting for someone with the background and expertise on our technology of Jim Oberg to provide their opinion on what we were capable of having in April 1964, and whether that would had been allowed to go flying loose unaccompanied across the countryside.

The 1968 LLRV crash that almost killed Neil Armstrong.

 
No, you are not hearing me. I never said there wasn't a heat event,
You said, " no indication that any heat hit the ground ". So more like you not communicating than me not hearing. But that's fine if you want to clarify. I figured you must have meant something else anyway because the heat aspect was fairly well documented.
I'm simply stating that Zamora said the flames from the exhaust did NOT splay out as if deflected by the ground, they knifed INTO the ground.
I've seen no specifics about this in the documentation and given what is in the documentation it doesn't appear that all accounts are entirely harmonious or that given the situation we can be sure that simply because Zamora didn't see any flames splay out that they in fact didn't. Given the situation he may have simply not seen or registered that particular aspect due to the variables involved.
Re-read your Stanford and pay attention to direct Zamora's quote.
I don't have Stanford's book. I should get a copy sometime. However it's not necessary in order to address this issue. I have reviewed the CUFOs case files which you might be interested in because they include copies of original correspondence between Stanford and Richard Hall at NICAP, plus Zamora's report and a variety of other clips. Maybe I overlooked it, but in none of that documentation did I see anything that mentions flames "knifing into the ground", and as already stated, there's no way to be certain that is an accurate observation given the variables involved anyway.

Zamora was very frightened and turned away from the object as soon as he heard the roar, and although he glanced back at the object during his retreat he also stumbled and lost his glasses. He also describes dust in the immediate area which may have obscured any flame to some extent. Additionally, not all parts of a thruster burn are as bright as others, plus the evidence of the burnt bushes surrounding the LZ is evidence that the exhaust must have spread out. So even if Stanford somehow extracted the detail you mention from Zamora or someone else after-the-fact, it's extraneous and doesn't make any difference to the analysis. It's more likely given the circumstances that Zamora's mind is just filling in a blank for him on this particular point.

One thing that remained curious to Hynek was the lack of a blast-off impression, however in one of the documents it's mentioned that the lack of a blast-off impression doesn't rule out certain VTOL craft because the way the exhaust can be vectored. So apparently even that isn't necessarily a reason to exclude a very terrestrial combustion type engine. Add the flame and the huge roar and it's obvious something was burning a lot of fuel at takeoff.

Here's some links:

- http://cufos.org/1965_04_24_Socorro/1964_04_24_US_NM_Socorro_CUFOS_Zamora_Files1&4R.pdf
- http://cufos.org/1965_04_24_Socorro/1964_04_24_US_NM_Socorro_CUFOS_Zamora_File2.pdf
- http://cufos.org/1965_04_24_Socorro/1964_04_24_US_NM_Socorro_NICAP_Zamora_Files3.pdf
 
Last edited:
It’s likely a long shot that he’ll respond to this question, but noted UFO skeptic Jim Oberg does on occasion take a look at this forum. I would find it interesting to hear his opinion, as a space technology historian and former NASA engineer, on the specific question of whether a craft resembling the look and capabilities of the Socorro object would have existed in April 1964, and even if it did whether it would have been allowed to go winging its way across open public desert unaccompanied and unmonitored.

I suspect that no one here is saying the Socorro object was a test of the actual LM (which could not function in the earth’s gravity and atmosphere, and was not completed until over 3 years later) or that it was an LLRV/LLTV Lunar Lander Training Vehicle (which was not designed to fly any significant distance horizontally, did not carry sufficient fuel for the Socorro flight, would never have been allowed to fly off an AFB, was never flown without being observed by monitoring team, was not capable of flying silently, and did not make its first test flight until 6 months after Socorro).

If in April 1964 we had something as advanced as the Socorro object, it has never made sense to me that they would have allowed the astronauts in the late 1960s to be risking their lives in something as comparatively primitive, crude and dangerous as the Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (of the five built, three crashed)

It would be interesting for someone with the background and expertise on our technology of Jim Oberg to provide their opinion on what we were capable of having in April 1964, and whether that would had been allowed to go flying loose unaccompanied across the countryside. The 1968 LLRV crash that almost killed Neil Armstrong.

The ground test conditions for the LEM ( or whichever acronym you prefer ) are entirely different than the conditions for the actual space mission. The LEM did just fine in space, so there was no need to make it super tough like you're suggesting. On the other hand, if there was a VTOL project for Earth based use, it would have to be tough like you're suggesting, and it just so happens that White Sands was a place where design and testing for the LEM was going on, which is a related technology, so it's not so far fetched to think some other project may have been in the works there as well that Oberg knows nothing about, and nobody else will ever know anything about because it's all been scrapped and destroyed.

But even if it's nothing from White Sands, it could still be from some other terrestrial source because there's nothing about the craft or the report that gives us sufficient reason to class it as something alien. In other words, even if we didn't build it, we could have built something like it if we had wanted to bad enough, and therefore there's insufficient reason to think it's from some advanced interstellar shipyard. It's just not that amazing a vehicle compared to the ones where there is just no way it could have been ours.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top