• 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!

Socorro UFO Incident Questions

Forums New posts
I think the complete lack of a definite prosaic explanation, based on documentation which should be readily available, leaves no good alternative but ET, especially given similar reports e.g. the Frenchman who said an illustration of the socorro craft matched what he saw--he was also zapped by two small beings from that craft, btw.;)
Click to expand...


How did I end up playing skeptic on this one? :cool:
 
Last edited:
exo_doc said:
There were suprisingly quite a few V/STOL aircraft....here's some of them:

VTOL Experimental Aircraft PAGE

Couple more:
Army VZ Series PAGE

Here's the POGO

The SNECMA c-450

And the Ryan X-13

Just to name a few....
Click to expand...

Ok, I will stipulate that these craft existed. But, I believe that I said "fully functional". Unless I am mistaken, we know of absolutely no VSTOL aircraft from that time period that would ascend vertically while shooting flames out the bottom and then transition (vector thrust) to horizontal flight that was either egg shaped or did not sport some wing like appendage.

The Ryan X-13 Vertijet flew only 2 times and only once where it transitioned from Vertical to Horizontal. Yes, that was in 1959. 5 years before the incident. But the aircraft looked exactly like an aircraft and the crew could not exit the vehicle without special equipment.

The Convair XFY-1 POGO was propeller driven. Like the X-13 verticle to horizontal transition was meant to be performed at altitude in a gradual manner.

I am surprised you didn't mention the Bell Convertiplane. It was very similar to the Osprey. But again made to transition at altitude in a gradual manner.

In VSTOL tech the transition from vertical to horizontal flight is a huge delimiter. There is gradual and there is nearly immediate. A great example of the nearly immediate is the Harrier Jump Jet and the Osprey. The transition from vertical to horizontal flight and the lack of lift sustaining wings are the real keys to wether this was or was not technically doable at the time. Personally, I don't think that it ws technically possible given the observed parameters.

1) vertical ascension to under 100 feet via some flame ejecting rocket
2) transition to horizontal at about 100 feet
3) no flame ejection in horizontal flight
4) egg shaped
5) retractable tri-legged landing gear
6) no wing structure to provide lift in horizontal flight
7) two man enclosed cockpit with entry port at the bottom of the craft

I can't tell you what it was but if the observations were correct then I feel certain enough to say that there was no known similar aircraft in the world at the time. That is fascinating to me.
 
Ron Collins said:
I can't tell you what it was but if the observations were correct then I feel certain enough to say that there was no known similar aircraft in the world at the time.
Click to expand...

If there was no known similar aircraft "in the world" (or no known aircraft of human construction) it's reasonable to conclude it was ET.;)
 
I would encourage anyone analyzing the Zamora incident to step back a frame or two and view the events at Socorro in light of the larger history of the phenomenon. The Socorro sighting has all of the elements that simultaneously make us perk up and take notice, while denying us methods of traditional scientific analysis.

-A credible witness with no apparent motivation to lie or hoax
-A chain of almost synchronistic events leading to a high strangeness finale. Zamora's attention is seized by an anonymous speeder and things unfold from there.
-The sighting of a physical craft and occupants that are almost, but not quite feasible in terms of human logic. The craft behaves in a way that is a cartoon of our concept of something technically functional, right down to its logo in strange glyphs--another recurrent theme.
-Trace evidence that is likewise present, but not quite substantial enough to qualify as useable data. At least, not to my knowledge.
-A follow up by associates and friends of the witness who are genuinely impressed with his affect
-An awed and terrified witness whose world view is fundamentally changed.

Like so many of the "classics", we are enthusiastically motivated to find rational answers, but left frustrated and confounded, with no place to stand for a peek behind the curtain. I will rip off another of Vallee's ideas--that human confusion and frustration may be the essence of the whole darned thing. In spite of our best efforts, we are left a phenomenon that is essentially sociological rather than technological.
 
Ron Collins said:
Ok, I will stipulate that these craft existed. But, I believe that I said "fully functional". Unless I am mistaken, we know of absolutely no VSTOL aircraft from that time period that would ascend vertically while shooting flames out the bottom and then transition (vector thrust) to horizontal flight that was either egg shaped or did not sport some wing like appendage.

The Ryan X-13 Vertijet flew only 2 times and only once where it transitioned from Vertical to Horizontal. Yes, that was in 1959. 5 years before the incident. But the aircraft looked exactly like an aircraft and the crew could not exit the vehicle without special equipment.

The Convair XFY-1 POGO was propeller driven. Like the X-13 verticle to horizontal transition was meant to be performed at altitude in a gradual manner.

I am surprised you didn't mention the Bell Convertiplane. It was very similar to the Osprey. But again made to transition at altitude in a gradual manner.

In VSTOL tech the transition from vertical to horizontal flight is a huge delimiter. There is gradual and there is nearly immediate. A great example of the nearly immediate is the Harrier Jump Jet and the Osprey. The transition from vertical to horizontal flight and the lack of lift sustaining wings are the real keys to wether this was or was not technically doable at the time. Personally, I don't think that it ws technically possible given the observed parameters.

1) vertical ascension to under 100 feet via flame ejected rocket
2) transition to horizontal at about 100 feet
3) no flame ejection in horizontal flight
4) egg shaped
5) retractable tri-legged landing gear
6) no wing structure to provide lift in horizontal flight
7) two man enclosed cockpit with entry port at the bottom of the craft

I can't tell you what it was but if the observations were correct then I feel certain enough to say that there was no known similar aircraft in the world at the time. That is fascinating to me.
Click to expand...


Oh, my bad. I thought you were making a blanket statement that there were no V/STOL craft. Sorry.
And I do agree with your point by points. I don't think whatever Zamora saw was anything close to mundane or some secret test craft. BUT, ETH? Interdimensional? Ultra terrestrial? Something else so bizarre we haven't thought of it yet?
 
exo_doc said:
Oh, my bad. I thought you were making a blanket statement that there were no V/STOL craft. Sorry.
And I do agree with your point by points. I don't think whatever Zamora saw was anything close to mundane or some secret test craft. BUT, ETH? Interdimensional? Ultra terrestrial? Something else so bizarre we haven't thought of it yet?
Click to expand...

It is me that owes the apology. I reread my comments and now realize that is exactly how it reads. In my head it had a very different meaning. Apologies.

As for the ETH statement, I was kinda trying to be funny. Though I have often said that for I tend to lend more credence to the ETH then any other origin theory. However, I try very hard not to think about origin in direct association with a case. It is far to speculative when the facts and other particulars about these cases are typically in various states of certainty. So we are probably more in agreement in this regards than not.
 
exo_doc said:
BUT, ETH? Interdimensional? Ultra terrestrial? Something else so bizarre we haven't thought of it yet?
Click to expand...

The craft may seem primitive for spacefarers; maybe it was a scout craft with primitive propulsion as a backup(?) But it didn't fade away into another dimension, it flew away. And it technically didn't seem very bizarre.
 
I still can't find the landing site on a map. I guess I'll have to run down a copy of Ray Stanford's book. Several people seem to have visited the site and taken pictures, however they always seem to neglect to tell anyone else how to find it. Either that or I'm just missing it.
 
trainedobserver said:
I still can't find the landing site on a map. I guess I'll have to run down a copy of Ray Stanford's book. Several people seem to have visited the site and taken pictures, however they always seem to neglect to tell anyone else how to find it. Either that or I'm just missing it.
Click to expand...

Check this out: 34.040625,-106.899928 - Google Maps

"The Chamber and volunteers built stone walkways and steps into the arroyo from the mesa top, a rock walkway circling the landing site, and some wooden benches. Much of this rock work remains at the site today.​
Driving up the steep hill west of Raychester's Jewelry, this site is several hundred yards beyond the houses to the south in the arroyo bottom. Unfortunately, this is not the correct site. Since vegetation at the real site had not yet grown back, many people were spooked that the area might be radioactive. As a result, the “Chamber site” was built in the proper gully, but closer to old U.S. 85. It remains an interesting, historical site in itself. Other popular locations behind the old drive in theater or along High School Road are also not correct. The real site is about a quarter mile further west from the Chamber site in the gully to the south. It needs to be stablized before being fully accessible to the public. Numerous rocks, seemingly randomly placed, have historical significance that need to be preserved."​

http://www.caminorealheritage.org/PH/y0808_socorro_ufo.pdf

socorrolg3.jpg
 
September 5, 2013
Go to google and punch in Maston M. Jacks letter to Robert Barrow and read about a little embarrassment that Jack's letter caused to the Air Force. Let's see how the debunkers explain away Jack's admission.
Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY
 
Steve Zalewski said:
September 5, 2013
Go to google and punch in Maston M. Jacks letter to Robert Barrow and read about a little embarrassment that Jack's letter caused to the Air Force. Let's see how the debunkers explain away Jack's admission.
Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY
Click to expand...
The USAF confirmed the object was a "vehicle" of unknown origin. I enjoy reading these old cases where officials squirm and dance around the topic. Most enjoyable was ole Phil Klass' theory that the whole thing was made up by a group of people trying to put their small town "on the map"
 
September 5, 2013

To Stagger Lee,

If you really want to have a good laugh, go to google and punch in the search field,
Phil Klass, FBI file. Read the file, by the time you are done, you should be rolling on the floor laughing.

Also go to google and in the search field punch in Shutting Up UFO Debunkers, read the entire posting that I wrote and when you reach the end you will be aware of how UFO research SHOULD be done. Some UFO debunkers, in Syracuse were very, very, very, upset that they could not refute the quality of my data gathering.

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY
 
Last edited:
exo_doc said:
This is a sketch made by Lonnie Zamora of what he saw:
images


And this was NASA's moon lander test vehicle:

images



And if I remember correctly, that was a JET engine, not a rocket giving lift.

Compare the two. Any resemblence?
Click to expand...
No real way to confuse that as anything but something we have made. The support struts, the piping, all very recognizable. A trained police officer would know the difference between the lander and a UAV.
 
Back
Top