The Evidentiary Thread (Exhibits, Documentation, Testimony)

Hard to debunk

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby ryguy » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:36 pm

Access Denied wrote:Don’t let Serp fool you, he clearly doesn’t believe this case is solvable, at least not in terms of an Earthly explanation, as evidenced by his continuous (and dare I say mind numbing) parroting of the statements made by the various Blue Book investigators. :)


You would be surprised. When Serp first arrived here, his hypothesis in regards to Serpo and Rick Doty's involvement was much different than it is today. If you review our long discussions in the private research area, you'll see that when enough undeniable evidence is placed in front of him, he'll modify his own hypothesis. But you're right, he's one tough cookie - but he plays Devil's Advocate like a true soldier...it's one reason I'm thankful he's part of the team - he forces us to push ourselves beyond the limit in terms of obtaining evidence. But trust me, once faced with overwhelming evidence - he'll concede. It takes a hell of a lot of work...lol....but he'll concede. (Hey Serp, how do you like being discussed in 3rd person? lol)

I believe if any progress can be made at this point the key is identifying what assumptions have been made (or we’ve been led to believe as the case may be) and then systematically reevaluating those assumptions and rejecting them as necessary in order to gain new insight.


Absolutely. In fact - if there are an overwhelming number of statements made by Blue Book Investigators that can be shown by the evidence to be inaccurate or flat-out untrue, then I think it places enough doubt on their conclusions to provide the basis for many of their assumptions to be rejected, as you've described. I was suprised by the year claimed that the Lunar Lander was "operational"...do you know more?

And please take your time. Most here have day jobs, so don't sacrifice that simply for this analysis. Almost everyone who works in researching the field of paranormal and holds day jobs simply do their work when they have the time - usually weekends. So take your time - there's no rush.

Speaking of Paranormal research - I was watching the show "Ghosthunters", these two guys who run TAPS, they collect data on haunted places and do audio/video, EMF, Gamma, and other methods of analysis. Well last night they showed what they do for "day-jobs". They're both Roto-Rooter plumbers. For those who are serious about studying the field of the paranormal using science...there's not much of a living to be made in it. It's simply a passionate belief in truth.

Cheers,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Postby Access Denied » Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:39 pm

ryguy wrote:(Hey Serp, how do you like being discussed in 3rd person? lol)

Point taken. :)

ryguy wrote:I was suprised by the year claimed that the Lunar Lander was "operational"...do you know more?

What I meant was Surveyor is a “lunar lander” and it was “operational” in 1964 and in fact it was scheduled for testing by Hughes Aircraft Co. at White Sands Proving Ground outside of Socorro on the same day as Zamora’s sighting. The LRRV (Lunar Lander Research Vehicle) was also operational in 1964 and in fact the first two were delivered by Bell Aerospace to the FRC (now called NASA Dryden Flight Research Center) at Edwards AFB in California that same month.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:32 pm

Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:(Hey Serp, how do you like being discussed in 3rd person? lol)

Point taken. :)


NO!..lol....I was talking about myself. As I was typing along I realized I was talking about him in 3rd person...I wasn't referring to you!

What I meant was Surveyor is a “lunar lander” and it was “operational” in 1964 and in fact it was scheduled for testing by Hughes Aircraft Co. at White Sands Proving Ground outside of Socorro on the same day as Zamora’s sighting. The LRRV (Lunar Lander Research Vehicle) was also operational in 1964 and in fact the first two were delivered by Bell Aerospace to the FRC (now called NASA Dryden Flight Research Center) at Edwards AFB in California that same month.


Right - excellent points.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Serpentime » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:11 am

Access Denied wrote:What I meant was Surveyor is a “lunar lander” and it was “operational” in 1964 and in fact it was scheduled for testing by Hughes Aircraft Co. at White Sands Proving Ground outside of Socorro on the same day as Zamora’s sighting.


{Emphasis added}

AD, you're still hanging around? LOL

Good for you. :)

My only point of contention here would be that WSPG is a very large area, with multiple operating facilities. Only one of them is close to Socorro, I think? The others - including the Air Force Missile Development Center (AFMDC) at Holloman Air Force Base, where Surveyor testing appears to have been focused (?) are close to 100 miles away.


The Range log was:

Prepared by Range Operations Directorate;

Deputy for Range Activities; AFMDC, HAFB, New Mexico, 23 April 1964


..But gives no indication of what part of the range (near Socorro, or otherwise) that the Surveyor flights were intended to take place in.


Access Denied wrote:The LRRV (Lunar Lander Research Vehicle) was also operational in 1964 and in fact the first two were delivered by Bell Aerospace to the FRC (now called NASA Dryden Flight Research Center) at Edwards AFB in California that same month.


Were any LLRV flights scheduled at WSMR on April 24, 1964? :)


ryguy wrote:You would be surprised. ...If you review our long discussions in the private research area, you'll see that when enough undeniable evidence is placed in front of him, he'll modify his own hypothesis. But you're right, he's one tough cookie - but he plays Devil's Advocate like a true soldier...


To AD:

"I am relentless, unpredictable, waiting for your last breath..."



Carry on. :D



Serp


> Oh... BTW, I only love quoting those Bluebook guys because they were there and I was NOT. ~ Lends them an evidentiary insight we'll never have, don't you think? :)

And - after all - these statements ARE documented in the established historical record. ;)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Serpentime » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:39 am

Access Denied wrote:
Hector Quintanilla wrote:The briefings were extremely informative, but the Lunar Landers were not operational in April 1964.


Obviously he attended the wrong Lunar Lander briefings. :D


Are you sure?

There's a long list of period Lunar and Space projects in the Bluebook file - including Hughes and Surveyor.

Check it out, if you like:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697881


Serp ;)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:07 pm

Yes I’m sure and we’ve already covered all of this on like page 3 but for the benefit of others here’s the official request for information the AF sent to Hughes…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697903

TDEW

Request for Lunar Module Information
20 May 64

Hughes Aircraft Co
Burbank, California

1. Request any information relative to the present status of lunar module projects conducted by your corporation. Information should be forwarded to Captain Hector Qintanilla, FT (TDEW/UFO), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433.

2. We have a particular interest in the Lunar Surveyor Vehicle.

FOR THE COMMANDER

ERIC T de JONCHEERE
Colonel, USAF
Deputy for Technology
and Subsystems


{love that UFO office symbol LOL}

And here’s Hughes’ response…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697964

Hughes Aircraft Company
Aerospace Group
Space Systems Division
El Segundo, California
15 June 1964

Commander
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

Attention: Captain Hector Quintanilla
FTD (TDEW/UFO)

We are in receipt of Colonel Jonckheere’s letter of 24 May 1964 requesting information on Lunar Module Projects.

We have referred your request for information to the Project Office of Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. I trust you will be hearing from them shortly.

Very truly yours,

[signed]

D.H. Sandler
Advanced Program Development

Note that Hughes did not acknowledge the specific request for information on the Lunar Surveyor Vehicle and there is NO DOCUMENTATION in the Blue Book files to indicate that JPL ever responded. There is however this response to a request for information on “lunar landing gear” from the Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Company…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8698029

We do not feel free to pass on further information on this program because of the restrictions imposed by the prime contractor, Hughes Aircraft Company. Additional information on this project may be in your files or available to you by contacting the Hughes Company.

In the military that’s what’s known as “giving them the runaround”. ;)

Are you claiming that Quintamilla’s statement that “Lunar Landers were not operational in April 1964” is accurate? As simple yes or no will suffice. :)

And yes, I’m still here. I’ve been working on my rebuttal that will show among things how you unwittingly impeached Zamora’s testimony using the “Scientific Method” in your rush to pass judgment on the Surveyor hypothesis. :lol:

I’ve been pressed for time lately so thank you in advance for your patience.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Serpentime » Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:26 pm

O.K. We agree, then, that Bluebook did NOT overlook the Surveyor program. :)

Though I noted your reference to the Hughes referral (to JPL) on page 4, I would like to add that Hughes was not the only contractor to "outsource" Blubook's request for information.

Colonel de Jonckheere's request to Bell Aerosystem Company was met with this reply:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8698097

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8698113

WE ARE UNABLE TO HONOR YOUR REQUEST FOR LEM INFORMATION AT THIS TIME. BECAUSE OF THE TERMS OF OUR SUBCONTRACTS WITH GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT, APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED FROM GRUMMAN PRIOR TO RELEASING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SUBCONTRACTS. A REQUEST HAS BEEN SENT TO GRUMMAN REQUESTING APPROVAL TO SUPPLY YOU WITH INFORMATION. TO DATE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS APPROVAL.


...Which (to me) suggests that the "runaround" that you have identified was related to restrictions on sharing proprietary information. This principle is better known in the arena of government / defense contracting by the official classification of "PROPIN".


According to Jeffrey T. Richelson (The U.S. Intelligence Community; Boulder, 1999; pp. 432}, "PROPIN" is defined as:

...PROPIN (CAUTION - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION INVOLVED)


And according to Richelson and DCID 1/7 of April 12, 1995, this classification was still current as of 1999.

Simply put, it does not strike me as odd that a Contractor would cite PROPIN restrictions, or give Quintanilla the "runaround" regarding his written inquiry due to the reasons that Bell Aerosystems stated. In fact, it seems somewhat ordinary to me (?).

Though Hughes does not specifically cite PROPIN in its response, the referral to JPL would appear consistent with this contractual requirement to "pass the Buck".

This is not necessarily evidence of a "stonewall", either, as I interpret it.


Regarding the letter to Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Company:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8698029

We do not feel free to pass on further information on this program because of the restrictions imposed by the prime contractor, Hughes Aircraft Company. Additional information on this project may be in your files or available to you by contacting the Hughes Company.


PROPIN is cited here, also. But the rest of Cleveland's reponse also appears inconsistent with a "stonewall":

We do not feel free to pass on further information on this program because of restrictions imposed by the prime contractor, Hughes Aircraft Company.

IF IT WOULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO YOU IN YOUR PRESENT PROJECT, WE WOULD BE PLEASED TO HAVE ONE OF OUR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERS VISIT YOU FOR GENERAL TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS ON “LUNAR LANDING GEAR”. IF YOU WOULD PREFER TO VISIT US, WE WOULD BE CERTAINLY GLAD TO HAVE YOU SPEND A DAY OR TWO WITH US.


In fact, to my reading, this seems to describe the sort of helpful cooperation that Quintanilla alluded to.

Further, Cleveland clearly suggested to Quintanilla that the information that he might have been seeking could very well have been available to him at WPAFB:

These were classified proposals, details of which are possibly available to you at Wright Field. …Again, may we suggest that the complete file on this subject is available to you at Wright Field.


...which would be consistent with Quintanilla's claim to have attended the appropriate briefings.


Acess Denied wrote:Are you claiming that Quintamilla’s statement that “Lunar Landers were not operational in April 1964” is accurate? As simple yes or no will suffice. :)


"Answer the Question. Don't wait for the translation!"

-- Addlai Stevenson to the Soviet UN delegation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. LOL ;)

AD, seeing as you chose to debate the semantics of "impressions" versus "depressions" (ROTFL :)), I'll suggest to you that most folks in the aerospace sector would know that simply because an article has been "delivered" does NOT necessarily imply that it is "operational".

As we also have determined (?), the Surveyor program appeared to have been suffering from "difficulties" in early 1964.

Semantics (?), my friend. ;)


Access Denied wrote:I’ve been working on my rebuttal that will show among things how you unwittingly impeached Zamora’s testimony using the “Scientific Method” in your rush to pass judgment on the Surveyor hypothesis. :lol:


Again, as we have determined, Zamora's testimony may have been ambiguous. That's why I deferred to the physical evidence.

Nevertheless, I didn't mean to rush to any judgment, or to rush you, and am looking forward to your analysis of my math.


Acces Denied wrote:I’ve been pressed for time lately so thank you in advance for your patience.


Angels are very patient. :D



Serp
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:39 pm

Semantics are irrelevant to the issue at hand. In the context of the Socorro sighting the implication of this statement…

Hector Quintanilla wrote:On my way back to Wright-Patterson, I hit upon an idea. Why not a lunar landing vehicle? I knew that some research had been done at Wright-Patterson; so as soon as I got back I asked for some briefings.

The briefings were extremely informative, but the Lunar Landers were not operational in April 1964. I got the names of the companies that were doing research in this field and I started writing letters. The companies were most cooperative, but their answers were all negative.


…is that a lunar lander vehicle could not have been responsible because they were not “operational” and the companies doing the research “confirmed” this by “virtue” of their negative responses.

Semantics aside we know now this is untrue (e.g. Hughes *was* testing a lunar lander vehicle near Socorro even before April) therefore:

A. Quintanilla was misinformed. (i.e. he "went to the wrong briefings" or he got the "runaround")

B. Quintanilla wasn’t misinformed. (i.e. he was “in” on the “cover up”)

Pick one. :)

P.S. There is no such thing as a formal “Proprietary Information” security classification (there’s only three: CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET) although the Government is required (e.g. by the FAR) to protect contractor data labeled as such (it’s the responsibility of the contractor to clearly identify their PI) from unauthorized use and disclosure under the informal designation of "Sensitive Unclassified Information”. It should also be noted that as a general rule such information may be exempt from release to the public under the FOIA.

48 CFR 27.402 Policy wrote:Contractors may have a legitimate proprietary interest (e.g., a property right or other valid economic interest) in data resulting from private investment. Protection of such data from unauthorized use and disclosure is necessary in order to prevent the compromise of such property right or economic interest, avoid jeopardizing the contractor’s commercial position, and preclude impairment of the Government’s ability to obtain access to or use of such data.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Access Denied » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:16 pm

If there are no objections I will be moving this thread to the "Best Evidence" forum soon so as not to be confused with the ongoing “Exopolitical” discussion, a “movement” within UFOlogy who’s proponents clearly don’t rely on a preponderance of veritable evidence to make their arguments and base their beliefs upon. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:02 am

Access Denied wrote:If there are no objections I will be moving this thread to the "Best Evidence" forum soon so as not to be confused with the ongoing “Exopolitical” discussion, a “movement” within UFOlogy who’s proponents clearly don’t rely on a preponderance of veritable evidence to make their arguments and base their beliefs upon. :)


I couldn't agree more. You have my enthusiastic support in this movement!

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Serpentime » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:28 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
I couldn't agree more. You have my enthusiastic support in this movement!

Ray


I agree, too. In fact, I've been thinking the same thing myself. :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Serpentime » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:35 am

Access Denied wrote:A. Quintanilla was misinformed. (i.e. he "went to the wrong briefings" or he got the "runaround")

B. Quintanilla wasn’t misinformed. (i.e. he was “in” on the “cover up”)

Pick one. :)


You’re funny. :D


Actually, I’m going to select:

C. Quintanilla was properly informed. (i.e. he asked to be briefed on lunar landing vehicles / programs that would correlate to the physical evidence that was documented at the “landing” site, south of Socorro. Finding no program / vehicle / testing that was capable of creating such evidence at that time, he then sought to query the various contractors for any additional information that would suggest a vehicle and/or testing configuration that might not have been accounted for in the WPAFB briefing materials. According to his statement, the contractors were cooperative to the requests, but could not correlate their vehicles / testing programs to the Socorro area.)


From the official Surveyor documentation, we see (?) that most of the Surveyor components appeared to have been tested at the Air Force Missile Development Center, Holloman Air Force Base, including the T-2H helicopter flights - although some T-2H flights were reportedly conducted at the Hughes facility in Culver City, California.


From the 1963 Surveyor Project Review PDF (pp. 73):

Engine evaluation tests (AFMDC)

Engine system tests (tether tests and static firings).

Problems revealed.

Engine and valve redesign.


T-2H helicopter tests (Culver City)

RADVS system mounted and flown on helicopter.

Improvements indicated.



Quintanilla, however, needed to correlate a vehicle that was capable of flying to Socorro (81 nautical miles from Holloman AFB) AND creating the burn evidence and "Holes-In-The-Ground".


~ Perhaps there was no such vehicle? ;)


And you’re correct. :) PROPIN is not a security classification (my bad... LOL), such as CONFIDENTIAL; SECRET; or TOP SECRET. But it is a security marking, used to identify and protect proprietary information associated with private entities.

Therefore, in regards to:

B. Quintanilla wasn’t misinformed. (i.e. he was “in” on the “cover up”)


…I will offer that protecting such information from independent parties (such as Quintanilla?) does not constitute a “cover up”.


Further, Quintanilla’s private comments…

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/quintanilla.pdf

In spite of the fact that I conducted the most thorough investigation that was humanly possible, the vehicle or stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic has never been found.

During the course of the investigation and immediately thereafter, everything that was possible to verify was checked.

The news media was on SAFOI’s back and SAFOI was on my back. I didn’t have any idea as to what Zamora saw and reported, but by God, I was going to find it.

It was now time for me to pass judgment on the case after a careful review of all the information at hand. I hate to use the word “judgment”, but that is exactly what it boils down to. As President Truman used to say, “The buck stops here”, and in the world of UFO’s my desk was the end of the line. It was time for the Air Force to make a formal decision on the sighting of Socorro, New Mexico.

I labeled the case “Unidentified” and the UFO buffs and hobby clubs had themselves a field day. According to them, here was proof that our beloved planet had been visited by an extraterrestrial vehicle.


…appear to offer nothing that would suggest that he was “in” on anything, save – maybe – for a considerable amount of personal frustration. :(


He also reportedly told interviewer Alex Chionetti that Socorro was Bluebook’s “most important case”.



Without further evidence - beyond aerospace contractors lawfully adhering to proprietary restrictions and requirements – the notion of a “cover-up” remains purely speculative (to my perception), and an act of hypothetical assumption.




Serp :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:01 am

Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:A. Quintanilla was misinformed. (i.e. he "went to the wrong briefings" or he got the "runaround")

B. Quintanilla wasn’t misinformed. (i.e. he was “in” on the “cover up”)

Pick one. :)


You’re funny. :D

Actually, I’m going to select:

C. Quintanilla was properly informed. (i.e. he asked to be briefed on lunar landing vehicles / programs that would correlate to the physical evidence that was documented at the “landing” site, south of Socorro. Finding no program / vehicle / testing that was capable of creating such evidence at that time, he then sought to query the various contractors for any additional information that would suggest a vehicle and/or testing configuration that might not have been accounted for in the WPAFB briefing materials. According to his statement, the contractors were cooperative to the requests, but could not correlate their vehicles / testing programs to the Socorro area.)

No you’re funny. :D

Unfortunately that’s not what he said, he said they weren’t operational, not that he couldn’t find one capable of creating the evidence!

[In fact if he didn’t think one was capable of creating the evidence then why did he even pursue that line of inquiry in the first place?]

Also, those who have been following this thread have seen the letters he wrote to the contractors and their responses. He didn’t ask that question nor did Hughes (in particular) write back and say Surveyor couldn’t have been responsible!

There is no evidence to support your theory and in fact the evidence we do have contradicts it.

Don’t forget what the official ATIC Form 329 says:

"Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data."

Does that say no known vehicle could have created the "evidence" found at the site? No it doesn't thank you very much.

Sheesh, speaking of hypothetical assumptions! :lol:

Serpentime wrote:Quintanilla, however, needed to correlate a vehicle that was capable of flying to Socorro (81 nautical miles from Holloman AFB) AND creating the burn evidence and "Holes-In-The-Ground".

~ Perhaps there was no such vehicle? ;)

A Bell 47G helicopter has a range of range of 214 nautical miles. A Bell 47G with a Surveyor test article attached to it could have created the burn evidence and (assuming, among other things, they weren’t simply a clever diversion created by the crew of the Bell 47G or anyone else) "Holes-In-The-Ground". :D

[stay tuned] 8)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Serpentime » Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:46 am

Access Denied wrote:No you’re funny. :D


"The more of you that I inspect, the more of me I see reflect."

I knew I liked you. ;)


Access Denied wrote:Unfortunately that’s not what he said, he said they weren’t operational, not that he couldn’t find one capable of creating the evidence!


O.K. Maybe Quintanilla didn't say that...

...but some of the other investigators on this case DID. :)


For example:

Captain Richard T. Holder, uprange commander of White Sand’s Stallion Range facility:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697843

From the El Defensor Chieftain article; page 2:

After being appraised of the situation, I attempted to determine whether White Sands Missile Range or Holloman Air Force base had anything that might produce the conditions described. Neither White Sands nor Holloman had an object that would compare to the object described. There was no known firing mission in progress at the time of the occurrence that would produce the conditions reported.


From the El Paso Herald Post, Monday, April 27, 1964

Holder said he checked with both White Sands and nearby Holloman Air Force Base. Neither base, he said, is using any object comparable to Zamora’s machine.



From the Associated Press:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697433

Spokesmen at all New Mexico military bases say they have no such aircraft fitting the descriptions.



From an unspecified memorandum regarding Quintanilla's contact with the FTD liaison officer (Major Mitchell) at Holloman AFB:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695549

Captain Quintanilla contacted the FTD liaison office at Holloman AFB regarding the Socorro sighting and requested that he, Maj Mitchell make discreet inquiry as to a possible vehicle which may have caused the sighting.

During the latter part of May Lt Col Conkey visited W-P AFB, and at this time informed Capt Quintanilla that he had no knowledge of a vehicle at White Sands capable of causing the sighting as described by Lonnie Zamora.


{Emphasis added}

So perhaps Quintanilla might have drawn the same conclusion - given this additional intelligence?


Access Denied wrote:There is no evidence to support your theory and in fact the evidence we do have contradicts it.


Or, maybe not?

See above. :)


Access Denied wrote:[In fact if he didn’t think one was capable of creating the evidence then why did he even pursue that line of inquiry in the first place?]


Maybe because he (like some others? ;)) badly wanted to arrive at a WSMR-based conclusion? On the contrary, his private statements DO appear to support a dogged (?) belief in the Lunar Module hypothesis.

Then again, perhaps he just wanted to be diligent in his assignment?


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:Quintanilla, however, needed to correlate a vehicle that was capable of flying to Socorro (81 nautical miles from Holloman AFB) AND creating the burn evidence and "Holes-In-The-Ground".

~ Perhaps there was no such vehicle? ;)


A Bell 47G helicopter has a range of range of 214 nautical miles. A Bell 47G with a Surveyor test article attached to it could have created the burn evidence...


Yes. A Bell 47G certainly had the range to reach Socorro. :)

But mathematical analysis appears to show that said helicopter could NOT have accounted for the physical evidence that was documented at the site.

In addition (as I previously pointed out), my own reading of the available Surveyor documents has raised serious concern on my part that none of the T-2H helicopter flights carried any Vernier propulsion system at all?

To the best of my discernment, the available evidence suggests that only ONE (?) Surveyor test vehicle was equipped with both RADVS and Vernier rockets - and that this single test article was only evaluted from tether tests.


From "SURVEYOR SPACECRAFT AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEM":

The most complex and elaborate system-level test was designed to encompass the entire vernier descent phase, and was also performed at White Sands Missile Range.

The primary objective of this test was verification and validation of the guidance and control system for this phase. A special mock-up of the Surveyor spacecraft was developed whose weight in terrestrial gravity was 1/6 of the flight spacecraft. This vehicle was equipped with a complete vernier engine system, RADVS, inertial sensors, and flight control electronics. It was also aerodynamically balanced to minimize these effects when operating in the Earth’s atmosphere.

These modifications, coupled with aerodynamic balancing, scaled the vehicle’s dynamic properties to approximate the flight spacecraft’s dynamics in the lunar environment.

The terminal descent test vehicle was initially tested while tethered to a tower.
These initial static tests identified a problem with the vernier engine throttle valves, and an undesirable acoustic coupling between vernier engine and RADVS operation. Subsequently, modifications were made to the throttle valves and to the test vehicle configuration to deal with these issues.

To conduct a complete drop test, the spacecraft was initially suspended beneath a balloon, and released after vernier engine start to descend following the programmed flight descent contour. These tests were ultimately successful, demonstrating the performance and integrity of the complete system.



If true, this circumstance would appear consistent with the suggestion that:

Neither White Sands nor Holloman had an object that would compare to the object described. There was no known firing mission in progress at the time of the occurrence that would produce the conditions reported.



Access Denied wrote:(assuming, among other things, they weren’t simply a clever diversion created by the crew of the Bell 47G or anyone else) "Holes-In-The-Ground". :D


As you stated, that is an assumption. ~ Unless further evidence exists that can prove / establish such a "deception operation"?


~ As I stated earlier (quoting Carl Sagan, of course...:)):

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. :)


Besides, the absconding "crew of the Bell 47G or anyone else" must have paid much more attention to positioning these "Holes-In-The-Ground" at near 90 degree axes to each other, than they did to creating any semblance of a reasonable (non-trapezoidal?) "landing gear" arrrangement - given all of the activities they must have been responsible for within the span of about ten minutes (?), or less, on the ground.

They must have brought some digging tools, too? ;)



Serp :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Serpentime » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:14 am

Access Denied wrote:Don’t forget what the official ATIC Form 329 says:

"Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data."

Does that say no known vehicle could have created the "evidence" found at the site? No it doesn't thank you very much.


...Oh, I almost forgot!!


What it says is:

"Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site."


Sheesh? You ain't kiddin'!! :D



Serp
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Best Evidence

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron