The Evidentiary Thread (Exhibits, Documentation, Testimony)

Hard to debunk

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:50 pm

Serpentime wrote:Unlike, perhaps, other directors of Project Bluebook, Hector Quintanilla possessed a degree in physics, and he allegedly told researcher Alex Chianetti that Socorro was Bluebook’s “most important case”.

And yet as a physicist, after having presumably reviewed the available physical evidence (documented by others who of course were not) and spending several days talking to people at White Sands where Lunar Surveyor vehicle testing was being conducted, he had this “epiphany”…

Hector Quintanilla wrote:On my way back to Wright-Patterson, I hit upon an idea. Why not a lunar landing vehicle?

And yet he apparently came to the conclusion that the reason “why not” was because they were not operational in April, 1964… go figure.

ryguy wrote:Are there any examples of this (where the AF "admitted" that a sighting was experimental and top secret )?

OPSEC: It's not just a good idea, it's policy.

[It doesn't even have to be Top Secret, just deemed "sensitive" in nature... and the issue is complicated even further if the source "belongs" to a different agency]

AD
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 » Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:05 am

Access Denied wrote:And yet nobody was apparently willing to fess up… go figure.


This would assume that there was something to “fess up” to…

I’m simply pointing out an alternative. :)


Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:I think the Surveyor hypothesis specifically has been somewhat weakened by some of the analysis here –


Perhaps but the attentive observer will note that Serp chose to only test a small subset of my hypothesis, including a rather lengthy analysis of one aspect of it that I had already rejected, and “triumphantly” declared the Surveyor hypothesis null and void. Why Serp chose to do that is beyond me. Essentially it amounts to much ado about nothing.


That’s why I entitled that presentation “Part One”. :) I accepted your rejection of the necessity for the alleged Surveyor’s landing gear to have touched the ground, but simply thought it was legitimate to confirm the non-correlation - both for the record, and for the benefit of others.

Besides, maybe I just enjoyed all of the drafting? :)


My concluding words were simply these:

…yet the physical evidence, as shown, does not appear to support this best remaining hypothesis.



Access Denied wrote:Why would I take it personally?


I have no idea, but I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t. :)


Friends? :)


Access Denied wrote:I disagree with Quintanilla’s characterization of this case as “important” although I can certainly understand why he would feel that way given the pressure he was under. I think you’re mistakenly interpreting this as an “admission” on his part that the physical evidence “defies” explanation. I see no evidence to support such an assertion… everyone, including Zamora, thought it was a conventional craft of some sort.


I never thought that he felt the evidence was unexplainable – only that he couldn’t explain it. :)

As for Zamora, I certainly believe that you’re correct. He desperately wanted someone to tell him that what he had seen had come from WSMR, and vowed that if he ever saw anything like it again, that he would never tell another living soul about it. ...Even the Catholic priest that he consulted over the matter.


Access Denied wrote:…although again I can certainly understand why anyone who’s emotionally invested in the “outcome” of this case might have a hard time with that.


I promise not to be emotional. :)


Access Denied wrote:It doesn’t work both ways… you’re attempting to turn the Scientific Method on it’s head by proclaiming that selecting a non-ET hypothesis in this case (and “robbing” it of it’s perceived “importance”) based on the available evidence is the equivalent of making an “extraordinary’ claim that requires “extraordinary” evidence… it isn’t.


I simply thought that the coincidence was ironic. :)


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:Following that, I have one more presentation regarding David Thomas' ideas to present, and then perhaps we can each offer a concluding statement?


We’ll see how it goes. In the meantime I would like to take Ry up on his generous offer to try and contact the originators of this hypothesis on our behalf to see what, if anything, they might have in the way of additional information to offer. We can discuss that elsewhere though.


That’s an excellent idea. In fact, I was thinking of taking a try at that myself. :)

I’d love to know more about the provenance of that data, and whether anything else ever developed out of that investigation. :)


Access Denied wrote:To my knowledge no official documentation is available that accounts for what happened between the time Officer Chavez arrived and “secured the scene” and the military arrived (a hour or more later?). In particular we don’t know when Chavez first noticed (all of?) the impressions and took the (apparently missing) Polaroids.


Specifically, an attachment to a summary of the investigation prepared by Colonel de Jonckheere, and the first page of TSgt. Moody’s report, state that Sgt. Chavez noticed the impressions (?) only minutes after the incident occurred, and while Lonnie Zamora was the only other person on the scene:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695222

(Sgt. Chavez) arrived at the point where Sgt. Zamora was parked about three minutes after the object had disappeared. Sgt. Zamora was pale and upset at what he had witnessed.

Sgt. Chavez was skeptical of the situation and proceeded to where Zamora had found the object. Here he found the marks and burns.

Smoke appeared to be coming from a bush which was burned but no flame or coals were visible. Sgt. Chavez broke a limb from the bush and it was cold to the touch.

The marks were fresh and no other marks were in the area.

Diagonals of the four impressions intersect in a perpendicular and the major distance seems to be approximately 13 ft.

Sgt Chavez secured the area and contacted local military authorities. This resulted in the investigation of the sighting.


And,

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696280

From the ensuing activity monitored on the radio Sgt. Chavez immediately made an effort to reach patrolman Zamora and arrived about 3 minutes after the object under observation by Lonnie Zamora had disappeared.

Sgt. Chavez then went to the area where the craft or thing was supposedly sighted and found four fresh indentations in the ground and several charred or burned bushes. …Sgt. Chavez contacted the FBI, who in turn contacted White Sands…



Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:We've known Serp for a while now, since 2005 actually, and I can assure you that his persistence is a dogged determination to get to the truth - while it appears tedious, I personally have always termed it "tenacious", and I've always admired him for it.


If there’s a method to his madness I will admit that perhaps I’ve yet to fully come to appreciate it. :)


Maybe I’m just an old-fashioned skeptic who enjoys a thought-provoking debate? ;)


What's the harm? :)



ryguy wrote:It's a matter of rating the probability of hypothesis Serp. The ETH has far less evidence to support it than the terrestrial hypothesis...yet you clearly (from your last post) prefer that hypothesis in this case.

Oh...and btw...if you re-read the quote you pulled from the report I mentioned to you, you'll notice that the quote from that report did not mention anything about the the liklihood of the sightings being extra-terrestrial in nature....they just make the point that there were far too many unidentified craft sightings, which could and should have been solved, but weren't - to justifiy the re-opening of Blue-Book. An argument I have to agree with.


I’m sorry, Ry. :( I didn’t mean to misinterpret the quote, but I just thought that it was interesting that King and Stanley, at least, did appear decidedly sympathetic to the ETH in their own conclusions and recommendations.

If it will clarify my position in this debate, I will completely foreswear the ETH for the remainder of this discussion. But I don’t think that I ever endorsed it at any time previously? I was only pointing out the offerings of the Air Force officers.


ryguy wrote:Question - clearly at least a few sightings investigated by Blue Book must have been related to classified test flights..maybe 1%, 5%, 10%?....so tell me this: how did the Blue Book investigators deal with those? Are there any examples of this (where the AF "admitted" that a sighting was experimental and top secret )?


That’s an excellent question. :) I don’t recall that the Air Force ever confirmed a classified experiment, but I believe that terrestrial objects were often labeled as “Probable aircraft”, “Probable balloon”, “Probable helicopter”, and so on.

That’s just my memory, though, so I might have to check. :)



Access Denied wrote:And yet as a physicist, after having presumably reviewed the available physical evidence (documented by others who of course were not) and spending several days talking to people at White Sands where Lunar Surveyor vehicle testing was being conducted, he had this “epiphany”…

Hector Quintanilla wrote:On my way back to Wright-Patterson, I hit upon an idea. Why not a lunar landing vehicle?


And yet he apparently came to the conclusion that the reason “why not” was because they were not operational in April, 1964… go figure.


Maybe the balloon tests didn't impress him?

Then again, as the bureaucrat “on the spot” before his chain of command, it might seem probable that he was expected to say something, even if he didn’t have any answers.

Truly, his position was unenviable. :(


Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:Are there any examples of this (where the AF "admitted" that a sighting was experimental and top secret )?


OPSEC: It's not just a good idea, it's policy.

[It doesn't even have to be Top Secret, just deemed "sensitive" in nature... and the issue is complicated even further if the source "belongs" to a different agency]


Regardless, it does seem like terrible OPSEC to conduct a sensitive test in a public area.



Serp :)


> I promise to stay quiet until the rebuttal is finished. I'll just work on my own "Part Two".
"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 ryguy » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:54 pm

Serpentime wrote:If it will clarify my position in this debate, I will completely foreswear the ETH for the remainder of this discussion. But I don’t think that I ever endorsed it at any time previously? I was only pointing out the offerings of the Air Force officers.


That wouldn't really be appropriate in a scientific study either, would it? We can't really foreswear any hypothesis. But we can rank them in terms of probabilities based on all of the evidence available. And based on all of the evidence in this case (not all UFO cases, just this one), the probability of the ETH appears somewhere toward the very bottom. I would hope that we would apply the same stringent scientific ideals (demand for hard, solid, evidence) toward the ETH as we do toward the earthly hypothesis we're debating here.

I guess you did somewhat endorse the ETH through your interpretation of a fairly unbiased study that termed the craft "unexplained" or "unidentified", a study that simply stated that a satisfactory explanation hadn't been achieved for these cases because the AF focus, seriousness, and importance offered to the project was inadequate.

The comment you made greatly suprised, dare I even say shocked, me....

Ironically, the conclusions of all three of those studies are decidedly Pro-ETH.


I know a great number of people who often mistake or confuse the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) with the term "Extraterrestrial" craft. You were absolutely never one of those people. Considering the fact that the report I quoted in no way whatsoever mentioned anything about the craft being ET related, I was very surprised by your statement that you thought the report was "Pro-ETH"?

That’s an excellent question. :) I don’t recall that the Air Force ever confirmed a classified experiment, but I believe that terrestrial objects were often labeled as “Probable aircraft”, “Probable balloon”, “Probable helicopter”, and so on.

That’s just my memory, though, so I might have to check. :)


Yes - or maybe they (the objects that were part of a classified experiment) were simply labeled "unexplainable"? After all - if a project was so secret (and if one of the test flights accidentally went off course into a public area, for example), and if even acknowledging the activity would compromise the project, then really why wouldn't the Air Force simply keep the information from the Blue Book investigators and just allow them to classify it as unexplainable?

Even better....have a few agents (AFOSI for example?) inject stories into the UFO field in order to encourage the public to believe that these sightings are very likely extra-terrestrial in nature.

It sure does appear that the Air Force is awefully good at this kind of thing, don't you agree?

-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 » Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:33 am

Serpentime wrote:That’s why I entitled that presentation “Part One”. :)

Ah I see. Actually you entitled it:

PART ONE: THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Had you intended to test the other aspects of my hypothesis that I presented regarding the physical evidence before making your conclusion…

Serpentime wrote:…yet the physical evidence, as shown, does not appear to support this best remaining hypothesis.

I would have expected you to entitle it:

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: PART ONE

:)

Serpentime wrote:Friends? :)

Respected foes? :)

[now if you want to talk guitars and Heavy Metal...] 8)

Serpentime wrote:As for Zamora, I certainly believe that you’re correct. He desperately wanted someone to tell him that what he had seen had come from WSMR, and vowed that if he ever saw anything like it again, that he would never tell another living soul about it. ...Even the Catholic priest that he consulted over the matter.

And your point is? Are you suggesting he said that because you believe he saw Aliens? :shock:

Maybe it’s the burning bush that did it…

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Exodus 3:3 And Moses said, “I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.”


Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:To my knowledge no official documentation is available that accounts for what happened between the time Officer Chavez arrived and “secured the scene” and the military arrived (a hour or more later?). In particular we don’t know when Chavez first noticed (all of?) the impressions and took the (apparently missing) Polaroids.

Specifically, an attachment to a summary of the investigation prepared by Colonel de Jonckheere, and the first page of TSgt. Moody’s report, state that Sgt. Chavez noticed the impressions (?) only minutes after the incident occurred, and while Lonnie Zamora was the only other person on the scene.

That is correct however the statement I’ve underlined below in the “narrative” attachment you quoted is misleading…

Colonel de Jonckheere wrote:(Sgt. Chavez) arrived at the point where Sgt. Zamora was parked about three minutes after the object had disappeared. Sgt. Zamora was pale and upset at what he had witnessed.

Sgt. Chavez was skeptical of the situation and proceeded to where Zamora had found the object. Here he found the marks and burns.

Smoke appeared to be coming from a bush which was burned but no flame or coals were visible. Sgt. Chavez broke a limb from the bush and it was cold to the touch.

The marks were fresh and no other marks were in the area.

Diagonals of the four impressions intersect in a perpendicular and the major distance seems to be approximately 13 ft.

Sgt Chavez secured the area and contacted local military authorities. This resulted in the investigation of the sighting.

This implies that Sgt. Chavez measured the “impressions” but there is no documentation of that anywhere in the Blue Book file. Chavez was only alone with Zamora for less than 15 minutes before FBI Agent Byrnes arrived and by that time two other officers were already present…

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640508_pg1.htm

Agent Byrnes wrote:Agent [redacted] finished his work in the State Police Office at Socorro at approximately 6:00 P.M., April 24, 1964, and thereafter proceeded to the site where Officer [redacted] Socorro County Undersheriff [redacted] Sergeant [redacted] and Officer [redacted] New Mexico State Police, were assembled.

According to the first page of Jonckheere’s summary Chavez merely noted he saw some “slight” depressions at that time…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696368/#8694874

Colonel de Jonckheere wrote:Within moments afterward, Sgt Chavez of the New Mexico State Police arrived on the scene in response to Mr Zamora's earlier radio call. He observed no object, but he reported that there were some slight depressions in the ground and apparently burned brush in the area where Mr Zamora had reported seeing the object. The brush was cold to the touch. Sgt Chavez reported the incident to local military authorities who conducted the initial investigation.

This is also confirmed by Zamora’s account who wanted Chavez to see the “burning bush” he witnessed although curiously he called them “tracks”…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696274

Lonnie Zamora wrote:I asked the Sgt. to see what I saw and that was the burning bush. Then Sgt. Chavez and I went to the spot and Sgt. Chavez pointed out the tracks.

The “marks/tracks/impressions/depressions/diagonals” weren’t measured until an hour or so later when the Army arrived…

http://www.fufor.com/case640424.htm

Capt. Holder wrote:Present when we arrived were Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and] Bill Pyland, all of the Socorro Police Department, who assisted in making the measurements. When we had completed examination of the area, Mr. Byrnes, Officer Zamora, and I returned to the State Police Office [at] Socorro, then completed these reports.

Note that Sgt. Chavez is not listed as being present at this time. That’s the point I was trying to make but in retrospect I probably should have worded it differently. The point is the provenance of the four “impressions” from the time of Zamora’s sighting to the time they were measured (recorded and documented) isn’t firmly established by the documentation… especially in the absence of the photos Chavez (or the unidentified “state Trooper”) took.

[I’ll address the three additional circular impressions mentioned in the FBI report that are missing from the AF report in my rebuttal]

Serpentime wrote:If it will clarify my position in this debate, I will completely foreswear the ETH for the remainder of this discussion. But I don’t think that I ever endorsed it at any time previously?

IMO the endorsement is implied… it’s as if you’re testing the Surveyor hypothesis against the ETH… which (apparently) has already been established as a valid alternative (as opposed to simply "unexplained") in your mind… yet you’ve presented no evidence that it is… invalidating the Surveyor hypothesis doesn’t count. ;)

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with proposing the ETH… show us the evidence and I’ll be more than happy to test it for you. :D

Before you do though, in the interest of full disclosure, I should probably let you know what kind of evidence I would consider valid…

1. Physical evidence of an alleged ET “craft” entering and/or leaving Earth’s atmosphere.

2. Physical evidence of an alleged ET “artifact” that could not have originated on Earth.

3. Physical evidence of an alleged ET “being” that could not have originated on Earth.


8)

Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:And yet as a physicist, after having presumably reviewed the available physical evidence (documented by others who of course were not) and spending several days talking to people at White Sands where Lunar Surveyor vehicle testing was being conducted, he had this “epiphany”…

Hector Quintanilla wrote:On my way back to Wright-Patterson, I hit upon an idea. Why not a lunar landing vehicle?

And yet he apparently came to the conclusion that the reason “why not” was because they were not operational in April, 1964… go figure.

Maybe the balloon tests didn't impress him?

:roll:

You’re really aren't very good at this are you? :)

As suggested by Hynek…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8695946

Hynek wrote:In view of the fact that the prevailing opinion in the town still is that what Zamora saw was not the result of hallucination or of a hoax, but a secret test vehicle, what has become of my suggestion to have this left as "an exercise for the students"? It would be a marvelous exercise for neophyte intelligence officers.

Sheesh… do I have to spell it out for you? :wink:

If Quintanilla spent several days at White Sands where he presumably (according to you) learned (due to the “enormous” cooperation he was getting lol) about the Surveyor “balloon tests” being conducted there (never mind the Surveyor helicopter test scheduled the same day as Zamora’s sighting!) that “didn’t impress him” (again according to you) then why did he go back to Dayton, have an epiphany about lunar landers, attend some briefings to learn who all was involved, and then decide to start writing letters to Hughes asking for them information about Surveyor? By your logic he should have already known everything he needed to know!

Whether or not you think the Surveyor hypothesis is valid at this point, you can’t deny that this is strong evidence of a “cover-up” if it is… or at the very least proof that Quintanilla wasn’t informed of everything that was going on at White Sands.

[then again, maybe *you* can lol]

Serpentime wrote:Regardless, it does seem like terrible OPSEC to conduct a sensitive test in a public area.

Or admit it. :)

Serpentime wrote:I promise to stay quiet until the rebuttal is finished. I'll just work on my own "Part Two".

Thank you. Give me about week… this case is giving me a headache. :)

ryguy wrote:After all - if a project was so secret (and if one of the test flights accidentally went off course into a public area, for example), and if even acknowledging the activity would compromise the project, then really why wouldn't the Air Force simply keep the information from the Blue Book investigators and just allow them to classify it as unexplainable?

A classic Catch-22… which no doubt played a significant part in the AF’s decision to get itself out of the flying saucer business not long after this. I think it’s fairly clear though that, at least in this case, it wasn’t the AF who was keeping the information from Blue Book… then again I could be wrong and it could turn out to be an elaborate hoax or psyop. :)

AD
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 » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:00 am

UPDATE/CORRECTION

While preparing my rebuttal to Serp’s analysis and double-checking my sources I discovered what appears to be an error in some source material I quoted earlier in this thread from the NICAP web site written by Wendy Conners that needs to be corrected for the record as follows…

[Serp I’m surprised you didn’t catch this!] ;)

wetsystems wrote:
Access Denied wrote:witness tampering

Serious charge. Any evidence to support it? Or just another red herring?

Just another red herring. :)

[with regards to the Lorenzen’s that is lol]

Here’s what I wrote when I first quoted this material…

Access Denied wrote:Wait, stop the presses!

I don’t know why I overlooked this before but if the following is true this raises some serious doubt in my mind about the “integrity” of Lonnie Zamora’s testimony and may be the source of some of the discrepancies I’ve tried to point out (to no avail apparently)…

[emphasis mine]

Wendy Connors wrote:Image
L-R: Sgt. Lonnie Zamora, Mr. Burns (FBI), Maj. H. Mitchell (AFMDC), Coral Lorenzen of APRO, and Sgt. Castle of the Military Police.

Sgt. Castle was the NCOIC of the SRC M.P. from White Sands Missile Range. His immediate supervisor was Captain Holder. Lt. Col. Conkey and Major H. Mitchell were from the AFMDC and reported to FTD on the results of their investigation.

First notified was Mr. Burns of the FBI who notified 1st Lt. Hicks, Executive Officer of Co. C, USAF about the incident. Hicks notified Captain Richard T. Holder, the Up-Range Commander. Holder then stopped and picked up Sgt. Castle of the Military Police and they headed to Socorro. Before they got there, Coral and Jim Lorenzen of APRO arrived. Holder interviewed Zamora AFTER Jim and Coral. Burns had already done a short interrogation of Zamora. Holder notified Lt. Col. Conkey at Holloman AFB and he and Major Mitchell headed to Socorro and took measurements, etc. of the site. While this was going on, W.P. was notified and Quintanella [sic] began his preparation to go, but Hynek made a beeline to Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque and then on to Socorro (Hynek told Vallee that he was also expected at Kirtland, but Vallee decided not to go).

Actually, in the documentation, Lt. Col. Conkey stated that he was not there, but he is in the photograph, so probably a minor goof.

Wendy Connors
Project SIGN Research Center

http://www.nicap.org/zamora3.htm

The caption on the above photo is incorrect. Lt. Col. Conkey is NOT in the photograph and in fact the two military officers pictured here are the AF investigators for Project Blue Book, Major Conner from Kirtland AFB and TSgt. Moody (FTD) from Wright-Patterson AFB. What tipped me of to this (maybe *that’s* why I unconsciously “overlooked this before” lol) is I recognized the stripes on the Sergeant in the photograph. Those are Air Force Technical Sergeant stripes… doh! :)

Paraphrasing from TSgt. Moody’s report with my comments in parentheses…

TSgt. Moody wrote:At 0530, Sunday 26 April 1964 [two days after Zamora's sighting], I received a call from Hector Quintanilla requesting that the Socorro sighting be investigated immediately and that he be advised as soon as possible of the results of an initial investigation.



I contacted Col King and a meeting was arranged for 0830. The only information that Col King had was in the form of an FBI report made by agent Barnes [sic] on Friday night following the sighting.



A geiger counter was obtained and Major Conner and I departed [from Albuquerque] for Socorro at 1030 arriving 1200 in Socorro.

...

Following the interview with Sgt Chavez, Sgt Zamora was interviewed and a trip to the location was made.

...

At approximately 4 pm we proceeded to the site, accompanied by two reporters from the local press.

...

A gieger counter check for background radiation was made in the presence of the press and Sgt Zamora and no radioactivity count was present.



Coral Lorenzen [APRO] and husband [Jim] were in Socorro at the time and had interviewed both Lonnie Zamora and Sgt. Chavez, and also Capt Holder prior to the arrival of Major Conner and myself.

Presumably the Lorenzens did their interviews earlier that morning and there’s a newspaper clipping in the Blue Book file with the photograph and the correct caption here...

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697204

And a similar one here…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696854

Also, I can find no documentation in the Blue Book file (on Footnote) to confirm that Sgt. Castle (MP) accompanied Army Capt. Holder from the Stallion Range Center but I did find this reference to “we” from the FUFOR web site…

http://www.fufor.com/case640424.htm

Capt. Holder wrote:Present when we arrived were Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and] Bill Pyland, all of the Socorro Police Department, who assisted in making the measurements. When we had completed examination of the area, Mr. Byrnes, Officer Zamora, and I returned to the State Police Office [at] Socorro, then completed these reports.

Source: Richard T. Holder (Capt., U.S. Army) "UFO Report, 24 April 1964."

…but note that he says he returned to the State Police Office so that may be a reference to Agent Byrnes who may have been waiting for him there having left the scene after his initial visit earlier that evening.

Furthermore, I can find no documentation in the Blue Book file to confirm that Lt. Col. Conkey (FTD Liaison) or Major Mitchell (AFMDC) from Holloman AFB were present at the landing site on the night of Zamora’s sighting (Friday) when the measurements etc. were made (by all other accounts) by Capt. Holder so I don’t know where Wendy Connors is getting her information from.

[This does however raise an important question: If they weren’t there, why weren’t they, and if they were there, why isn’t it documented in the Blue Book file? Why did it take two days to get somebody (anybody) from the AF out to Socorro to investigate and/or talk to the press? Curious and curiouser…] :)

I continued…

Access Denied wrote:You can’t really argue with the photograph and this differs significantly from the quote I cited earlier from Rich Dolan’s book, Blue Book, and other “treatments” of the incident I’ve read, and even this other one on the same site (NICAP)…

http://www.nicap.org/zamora6.htm

For accuracy, details on the Socorro case itself have been paraphrased from the investigation results of James and Coral Lorenzen of APRO, 3910 E. Kleindale Rd., Tucson, AZ. 85712, who arrived at the landing scene less than 40 hours after the incident. Further information on Socorro may be found in the Lorenzens' excellent book, Encounters with UFO Occupants, a 1976 Berkley paperback (Berkley Publishing Corp., 200 Madison Ave.. New York. N.Y. 10016).

Any opinions on the veracity of Wendy Connors’ research?

[snip]

If the Lorenzens got to Zamora before anybody else did then there’s no telling what the poor guy was led to believe about what he experienced… witness tampering of any sort, knowingly or unknowingly, means all bets are pretty much off.

Oops! Looks like I answered my own question. In this case you *can* argue with a photograph lol and the quote I cited regarding the arrival time of the Lorenzens at the scene (~40 hours after) from the other NICAP web page is probably correct.

I guess that blows that theory out of the water. :)

[However I believe the Lorenzens probably *are* responsible for the widely circulated bogus calculation of the “egg’s” weight and no doubt many other misconceptions and misinformation about this event out there… especially on the Internet]

Adding insult to injury I brought this up again more recently…

Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:The notion that the four rectangular (?) “Holes-In-The Ground” were created, or manipulated, to conceal the nature of the incident appears contradicted by the documented evidence found in the official file.

So it would appear however let me remind you again in case you missed it that somebody else (in addition to the “UFO occupants”) with both the opportunity and arguably the motive (the Lorenzens who “wrote the book” on this incident) to do so WAS present at the scene.

[snip]

Moody acknowledges the Lorenzens early presence in his report but I don’t think Burns [sic] or Holder did. At any rate, I find it interesting that the Lorenzens themselves apparently didn’t acknowledge their early presence there either.

[I had planned on addressing this in my rebuttal]

Err… scratch that. Sorry for any confusion.

Anyway, just wanted to clear that up. The good news is my list of suspects to consider in determining whether or not any evidence tampering and/or obfuscation may have occurred has now grown considerably shorter. ;)

OK with that out of the way, next up will be my (long overdue) rebuttal…
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 » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:38 pm

Serpentime wrote:“Let the nightmare begin…” :twisted: LOL

Having trouble sleeping at night are you?

Serpentime wrote:PART ONE: THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

- A SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS :D

Serpentime wrote:As we have been learning through first-hand experimentation in this thread, witness testimony is often difficult to quantify and/or qualify.

Even more so when there’s only one witness.

Serpentime wrote:So far, we have seen that Zamora’s testimony may be interpreted in different ways to support different conclusions regarding the nature of his “sighting”. One side of the argument may emphasize certain parts of the testimony, and omit – or de-emphasize – others, while the opposite perspective is equally capable of adopting the same types of selective interpretation.

And the same can be said with regards to the interpretation of the physical evidence as I hope to demonstrate…

Serpentime wrote:Regrettably, perhaps, we appear at a scientific impasse?

Fortunately, however, in the Socorro case, additional evidence also exists by which we might better try to understand, interpret, and ultimately explain this event.

Are you sure about that?

[and I’ve yet to see you present a hypothesis to try and explain this event]

Serpentime wrote:As AD has stated, he appears anxious to consider my arguments regarding the physical evidence that appears to have been documented at the so-called “landing site”.

Anxious? I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by “looking forward to your analysis”. ;)

Serpentime wrote:By all accounts, this evidence was manifest and agreed by many of those present to be germane to the event.

That doesn’t mean it was.

Serpentime wrote:To date, I have not made any comment in response to AD’s prior representations, but will do so now, seeing as the current lines of argument appear to be inconclusive and in dispute.

First off, why don’t we begin by taking a better look at the actual “landing site” as described in the Bluebook investigation?

Yes, let’s do that…

Serpentime wrote:Presented below is a scale drawing which amalgamates the Bluebook data regarding the physical evidence.

Note that all stated distances and angular relations have been modeled with accuracy given the information contained in the official Air Force report.

Well done, however it appears you’ve taken the liberty of reinterpreting certain aspects of that information while retaining other aspects of it in complete disregard of other conflicting evidence available like the photographs. For example, note how the “berms” are depicted as circles in Capt. Holder’s diagram in the AF report…

Image

…and yet for some reason you’ve chosen to depict these as simple arcs as if to artificially limit the size and “scope” of the depressions…

Image

What is your justification for that?

Also, what basis is there for the orientation of the “rectangles” you chose? Did you crosscheck them with the photographs? No measurements (e.g. angles) are given in Holder’s diagram and yet you drew them all aligned in the same direction when clearly they’re not… nor do they appear rectangular in my opinion.

On these two points alone it appears you misrepresented the evidence as you say “for the benefit of others” to give a false sense of uniformity… hence the reason why I extended the title of your presentation above to “- A Subjective Analysis”. ;)

Furthermore, what do you make of the five seemingly symmetrically arranged circles in the “center” of Capt. Holder’s diagram? Three of these appear to correlate with the (consistently reported) three “central” burn marks but the other two don’t appear in the page documenting the burn marks. On what basis did you eliminate these from your diagram?

On a somewhat more positive note, I do see that you discovered that Capt. Holder’s numbering of the four “rectangles” is inconsistent with the photographs and you changed them to match (by swapping #1 and #2) but judging by the photographs #3 appears to have a “less defined” berm than #4 so I’m still not sure what to make of that but more on that later.

In my opinion Capt. Holder’s diagram is a rather crude attempt to (pun intended) fit a rectangular peg (Agent Byrnes’ report) into a round hole (his “documentation” of the evidence) and your reinterpretation of it as presented here only serves to cloud the issue further for these and others reasons outlined below.

Serpentime wrote:The “footprints” are represented near the number three “hole-in-the-ground” (O.K. on the semantics, AD? ;)) and the number three burn mark – as in the AF diagram – although some of the case photographs appear to place these closer to the number four HITG (?).

Well, this photo of what appears to be a single shoeprint is labeled “CLOSE UP OF (5) FOOTPRINT” (singular not plural)…

Image

…and this photo of the same area from a slightly different angle ironically labeled (especially if Chavez took these photos) “CLOSE UP OF VEHICLE IMPRINT” also appears consistent with a single shoeprint…

Image

…and in this photo the circled area originally labeled #5 (on the left side where I added the red question mark and X) does appear to be closer to HITG #4 assuming #5 refers to the “(5) FOOT PRINT” however it’s outside of the “trapezoid”…

Image

…and further inspection of the photographs reveals the above photo is labeled wrong (unless there’s two #5s?) because in this photo…

Image

…which is also labeled wrong (note the red X over the original #4 label I added) according to this overview photo (taken from the opposite direction as the first overview shown earlier and from the same direction as the photo above)…

Image

…#5 (presumably one of the “footprints”) is actually between HITG #3 and HITG #1 (closer to #3) but it’s *outside* the “trapezoid” so apparently two “sets” of “footprints” were found.

If that’s the case, since the outline of the “footprint” appears fairly clear in the photos, it may be the one whose dimensions are carefully documented as being (up to) 12.5 inches long and 4.5 inches wide (i.e. consistent with the size of a human foot) in this diagram…

Image

…which then perhaps can be interpreted as documenting both “sets” with the “set” inside the “trapezoid” (or perhaps a third “set” outside and incorrectly labeled as #5 in the first overview photo?) described as being “in the area” of the #4 HITG or it could be another mistake and it’s the set drawn near HITG #3 in the overall site diagram.

Make sense? :)

For your diagram to be considered an accurate (as possible) representation of the evidence found at the scene I believe it should show approximately where the single “footprint” (#5) is (and labeled with the corresponding “human” dimensions) in relation to HITG #1 and #3 and there should perhaps only be three little circles (or the actual shapes?) instead of four near HITG #3 (i.e. “in area of” #4?) inside the “trapezoid” representing what appears to be a footprint and a half as drawn with a note to that effect.

At any rate, in my opinion, labeling these “footprints” as “(@ 4”- 5”)” as you have chosen to do falsely implies that these are four separate small footprints. In addition to effectively dispelling the popular myth that the “UFO occupants” were small, armed with the correct information we might better be able to ascertain where the proposed helicopter (or other “stimulus”) may have landed and what “they” were doing if indeed these “footprints” can be attributed to them (not necessarily a forgone conclusion in my opinion).

Serpentime wrote:Note that the number four burn area appears along the approximate reported line of departure.

And the significance of this is in your opinion? Also, I wonder if it’s possible the number four burn area is what was (incorrectly?) labeled as #5 as noted in the first overview photo?

Serpentime wrote:Given the preliminary nature of the information, and the extended chain (the “telephone” game – remember? ;)) of provenance, it would not surprise me that the FBI was reported to have described 4” x 5” impressions to Colonel King, while Special Agent in Charge Byrnes noted the 6” x 16” dimensions in his field report of the investigation.

In government speak, that’s commonly called a SNAFU. :)

I can accept possibly one SNAFU but I still have a problem (discussed later) with the other more major (IMO) discrepancy regarding the three circular impressions described by Agent Byrnes in his report that don’t appear in the AF report (actually Army Capt. Holder’s diagram). It should be noted that Quintanilla wrote the “errant” memo in question *after* Major Conner and Sgt. Moody had been to Socorro and reported their findings to him thus confirming that Capt. Holder’s diagram had not yet been made available to the AF investigators (also discussed later).

Serpentime wrote:SNAFUs aside however, I’ll concur that a degree of ambiguity exists in these two documents, but almost all of the other accounts from different sources all suggest that the four larger HsITG were trapezoidal in layout, “rectangular” in aspect, and greater than or equal to 12 inches (or 16 inches) in length.

Actually only one of the sources you quoted (the “narrative” attached to Col. Jonckheere’s summary written a month after the sighting) suggests that they were “trapezoidal in layout” but thanks for compiling all of those sources. So in summary, depending on what source you choose to use, the dimensions are reportedly either:

4x5 (potential SNAFU)
6 x 12
6 x 14
6 x 16

Give me ambiguity or give me something else!

Serpentime wrote:But what of the Bluebook photographs, themselves? Were those “holes” really round, or were they vaguely (?) rectangular, after all?

On second glance, this HITG might (?) be further argued to have been more “rectangular” than “circular” in shape, perhaps?

Image

“Vaguely” rectangular is right. :) On second glance you’re right, this HITG (hereafter referred to as #X1 since I, nor my wife lol, have been able to correlate it with any of the numbered HsITG in the other photographs) doesn’t look “circular”… it looks to be about 12 inches square to me (note my rough outline in red). By what stretch of the imagination does this look even remotely close to 6 x 12, 14, or 16 inches to you?

[Note: As will be discussed later, there is reason to believe this photo, in contrast to the next one below likely taken two days later after the public descended upon the scene en masse, may have been taken on the night of the sighting, in which case it is perhaps closest to representing what was actually found by Sgt. Chavez et. al.]

Serpentime wrote:Additionally, in this photograph, we see Zamora kneeling by one of the HsITG and using his outstretched hand as a rough unit of measurement for the camera.

Judging from this perspective, the HITG duly appears to be at least twice the length of Zamora’s hand, and thereby notably consistent with the commonly reported 12 to 16 inches.

Image

However this HITG (#1) again appears notably inconsistent with the commonly reported companion rectangular dimension (in this case) of 6 inches in width and also looks 12 inches (or more) square to me. How do you explain that?

While this next HITG (hereafter referred to as #X2 since again the rocks don’t seem to match up with any of the numbered HsITG in the other photographs) does appear vaguely rectangular and ~6” x 12-16” (and remarkably similar in shape and size to the previous “footprint”)…

Image

…HITG #1 and #2 in this photo appear to be more “square” (or vaguely “circular”) in nature (and perhaps “eroded” somehow judging by the exposed pebbles?) from this angle…

Image

…as does HITG #4 in this photo (shown previously)…

Image

…and this photo of HITG #3 doesn’t appear very well defined at all…

Image

In conclusion where are the four alleged 6 x 12 to 16 inch rectangles? Also, where are HITG #X1 and #X2 located? Were more than four HsITG found?

These discrepancies with the HsITG are not reflected in your site diagram and the representation you chose to reuse (four perfect rectangles) gives the false impression of a consistency between them that obviously isn’t there.

Serpentime wrote:So what again of the Quintanilla document – and the OD report – that describes 4” x 5” impressions that were reportedly burned?

In rereading this section of Agent Byrnes’ report…

Agent Byrnes wrote:Inside the four depressions were three burned patches of clumps of grass. Other clumps of grass in the same area appeared not to be disturbed. One burned area was outside the four depressions.

…I can see how somebody might (mistakenly) interpret that first sentence (SNAFU #? lol) to mean that “three burned patches” were “inside [each of] the four depressions” therefore the depressions were “burned” so perhaps that discrepancy is resolved.

Serpentime wrote:Where could the confusion (?) over the 4” x 5” figure have originated from?

From my reading of [the AF “footprint” diagram] it appears that a more definite correlation may be established for these markings if they are interpreted to represent the “footprints” which were reportedly observed in the vicinity of the number three burn (or HITG #4?) – thereby (possibly?) explaining the reason that they were described to be burned?

See above re: the burns so no, I don’t think they can’t be interpreted as you suggest (“in the vicinity of the number three burn”) and also for the following reasons…

Serpentime wrote:According to the referenced diagram, the “footprints” were clearly (?) measured as approximately four to five inches in dimension.

Huh? Only one “footprint” is clearly measured (<= 12.5” x 4.5”) and surely (?) Agent Byrnes would have noted finding footprints in his report.

Serpentime wrote:As for Agent Byrnes’ recorded observation of three additional (?) circular marks, it is unclear to me exactly what he might have been referencing, although his description of “ …three circular marks in the earth which were smooth, approximately four inches in diameter and penetrated in the sandy earth approximately one-eighth of an inch as if a jar lid had been gently pushed into the sand” reads much (?) like the “footprints” information, to my perception.

Methinks your perception is flawed. :)

1. As drawn none of these “footprints” are circular in the shape of a “jar lid” as described by Agent Byrnes.

2. There appears to be five separate “marks” associated with the “footprints” not three.

3. Three of these five “marks” (one complete shoeprint and a heel or toe by my estimation) appear to be labeled as being 2 inches deep while the other two (which appears to be one complete shoeprint) are labeled as being 1/2 inch deep, neither of which is anywhere near the stated depth of 1/8 of inch given for the three circular marks.

Clearly (to my perception anyway) there is no correlation to the “footprints” therefore the question still remains, where (exactly) are these three “circular marks” that Agent Byrnes recorded? They’re not documented in Capt. Holder’s diagram or anywhere else in the Blue Book file so what does that say about the documentation of the physical evidence?

Serpentime wrote:Actually, I would appreciate further clarification [re: when the photographs and measurements were taken], myself. But Chavez is reported to have discovered the four rectangular HsITG as soon as he arrived on the scene.

However on closer inspection there appears to be no documentation to firmly support the assertion that what Chavez reportedly discovered at that time can be definitively correlated with the “four rectangular HsITG” mentioned in Agent Byrnes report and presumably documented by Capt. Holder in his diagram. This is a subtle but important distinction that I hope to demonstrate as follows…

Starting at the beginning of the “evidence trail” as it were, here’s what Chavez reportedly discovered according to Zamora in Capt. Holder’s report (i.e. his interrogation of Zamora on the night of the sighting)…

Lonnie Zamora wrote:I asked the Sgt. to see what I saw and that was the burning bush. Then Sgt. Chavez and I went to the spot and Sgt. Chavez pointed out the tracks.

Note the use of the term “tracks” and that no quantity, dimensions, or indication of geometrical relationships (e.g. “rectangular“ or “trapezoidal”) is given.

Next we have TSgt. Moody’s report which states after having interviewed Chavez two days later…

TSgt. Moody wrote:Sgt. Chavez then went to the area where the craft or thing was supposedly sighted and found four fresh indentations in the ground and several charred or burned bushes.

Note again that no dimensions or indication of geometrical relationships is given however Moody apparently confirms Chavez found a quantity of four. This may or may not be an assumption on his part since further reading of his report reveals that…

TSgt. Moody wrote:Following the interview with Sgt Chavez, Sgt Zamora was interviewed and a trip to the location was made.

…it’s unclear whether or not Chavez accompanied Moody and Zamora on their visit to the site (he’s not in the press photographs) in order to confirm the geometrical relationships as documented in Capt. Holder’s diagram which apparently wasn’t even available at the time of his interview as we’ll soon see.

In the absence of explicit confirmation from Sgt. Chavez himself or the supporting photographs that he (and/or the unidentified “state Trooper”) reportedly took, the exact nature of these “four fresh indentations” (according to Moody) or “tracks” (according to Zamora) he presumably discovered remains unclear. At this point one might reasonably assume these were the “four rectangular HsITG” noted to be in a “trapezoidal” arrangement by Capt. Holder but it could have been the “footprints” (NOT noted in Agent Byrnes’s report) or the three additional circular marks noted in Agent Byrnes’ report (NOT noted in Capt. Holders report) or any combination thereof.

In fact the possibility for such errant (or deliberately misleading?) assumptions to have been made is further indicated by TSgt. Moody’s report in the text [which I’ve added and underlined in bold below] that you left out of your quotes…

TSgt. Moody wrote:Sgt. Chavez contacted the FBI, who in turn contacted White Sands and Agent Barnes [sic] and Lt R T Holder of the latter organization arrived to conduct an investigation and obtain various samples of the soil and charred brush. Sgt. Chavez secured the area and made an investigation of the ground surrounding the scene to 800 yds. He determined that the only tire marks were those of Patrolman Zamora’s vehicle and the State Police car and found no prints or track activity of any kind other than that noted in the FBI report. Further, he stated that the marks were definitely “fresh”, and the dirt showed evidence of "dew" or moisture. Sgt Chavez is firm that no track activity was evident.

With the missing text included this indicates that:

1. Agent Byrnes and Capt. Holder conducted the investigation and given that according to Holder…

http://www.fufor.com/case640424.htm

Capt. Holder wrote:Present when we arrived were Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and] Bill Pyland, all of the Socorro Police Department, who assisted in making the measurements. When we had completed examination of the area, Mr. Byrnes, Officer Zamora, and I returned to the State Police Office [at] Socorro, then completed these reports.

…Chavez wasn’t there when the measurements were made so he’s not really in any position to attest to their accuracy or “germaneess” as you put it.

2. Chavez ‘s “investigation” was of the “ground surrounding the scene to 800 yds” (close to a square mile!?) and could not have been completed in the 15 minutes (or less) before Agent Byrnes arrived so while he and (presumably) the other officers initially present (discussed below) were out in the field “investigating”, the scene technically wasn’t secure.

3. Chavez only confirmed (according to Moody) what was noted in the FBI report (four 6” x 16” depressions and three 4” diameter circular marks) NOT the “trapezoidal” arrangement noted in Capt. Holder’s diagrams (or the “footprints”) which further reading reveals wasn’t even available to Moody, Conner, or Chavez at this time…

[note my narrative comments in parentheses]

TSgt. Moody wrote:[after interviewing Chavez and then visiting the scene with Zamora] Lt Holder was visited and the report made by the FBI agent (Mr Barnes) [sic] and Capt Holder [Zamora’s interrogation] read by Major Conner. Capt Holder claimed no knowledge of the red mark. Extensive diagrams of the holes had been made and measurement taken. He indicated that the samples could be analyzed at White Sands. Also a check had been made with the local Radar stations and no U/I tracks carried at the time of the sighting [note however it was later revealed that the radar at the north end of the base had been shut off]. Further check indicated that no helo activity was in the area. White Sands has two or three [which is it?] white helos, but at the time were located at the other end of the range and were not in operation, the base activity being secured until Monday morning. A copy of the FBI report and Capt Holder's report and measurements to be forwarded to Major Conner, along with analysis of the charred specimen.


[Note: This also indicates Capt. Holder was clearly “running the show” as it were by controlling the evidence chain.]

4. The “dew” or moisture noted by Chavez may be an indicator that the “tracks” he was referring to were in the “burned’ area (perhaps due to changes in the thermal conductivity of the soil) in which case what he saw and confirmed to investigators may have been the “footprints”.

[Note: This possibility is also supported by the fact that as noted earlier two different photos of the exact same feature are alternatively labeled “footprint” and “vehicle imprint”.]

In summary, for the reasons outlined above, the following “narrative” attached to Col. Jonckheere’s summary written a month after the sighting that you’ve quoted several times now can NOT immediately be considered as confirmation that the four HsITG were both “manifest and “germane” to the event…

(Sgt. Chavez) arrived at the point where Sgt. Zamora was parked about three minutes after the object had disappeared. Sgt. Zamora was pale and upset at what he had witnessed.

Sgt. Chavez was skeptical of the situation and proceeded to where Zamora had found the object. Here he found the marks and burns.

Smoke appeared to be coming from a bush which was burned but no flame or coals were visible. Sgt. Chavez broke a limb from the bush and it was cold to the touch.

The marks were fresh and no other marks were in the area.

Diagonals of the four impressions intersect in a perpendicular and the major distance seems to be approximately 13 ft.

Sgt Chavez secured the area and contacted local military authorities. This resulted in the investigation of the sighting.

The sentence underlined in bold above which is critical to establishing the provenance of the “four rectangular HsITG” (specifically their geometric relationship and Chavez’s alleged confirmation of them) has clearly been taken out of context.

Furthermore, this quote from Dr. Hynek you cited raises some other interesting issues…

Dr. Hynek wrote:I questioned Mr. Art Burns (sic) of the FBI, and several others who had been on the site within the first hours after the sighting as to the alleged freshness of the tracks. They were all of the opinion that the tracks were, indeed, fresh. Although Zamora was the only witness to the actual sighting, nine people in all saw the markings. Altogether nine people saw the markings within hours of the sighting and before the hourds (sic) of curiosity seekers descended upon the place the following day.

In addition to the unresolved issue of exactly which markings did each of these people see (i.e. the “footprints”, Agent Byrnes’ “missing” circular marks, or the HsITG) and when, given the earlier quote attributed to Capt. Holder and this quote from the FBI report (neither of which by the way are included in the Blue Book file, at least not on Footnote)…

Agent Byrnes wrote:Agent [redacted] finished his work in the State Police Office at Socorro at approximately 6:00 P.M., April 24, 1964, and thereafter proceeded to the site where Officer [redacted] Socorro County Undersheriff [redacted] Sergeant [redacted] and Officer [redacted] New Mexico State Police, were assembled.

…and information gleaned from various other sources I can only account for eight of those nine people as follows (in order of arrival by my estimation)…

1. Sgt. Zamora (Socorro PD)
2. Sgt. Chavez (NM State Police)
3. Officer Ted Jordan (NM State Police) [the unidentified “state Trooper”]
4. Socorro County Undersheriff James Luckie (aka Socorro Deputy Sheriff)
5. Agent Burns (FBI)
6. Officer Katzlaff (Socorro PD)
7. Bill Pyland (Socorro PD)
8. Capt. Holder (Army)

Potential (unconfirmed) candidates for the ninth individual include…

"Cattle Inspector" Robert White* [bet he had a shovel lol]
Sgt. Castle (Army) [possibly accompanied Capt. Holder]
Lt. Col. Conkey (FTD Liason)
Major Mitchell (AFMDC)

* various sources including [/i]Swamp Gas Times: My Two Decades on the UFO Beat[/i] By Huyghe, Patrick, p. 315

Serpentime wrote:
TSgt. Moody wrote:Sgt. Chavez took Polaroid pictures of the holes and area. They are available to us.

Perhaps these pictures were taken during the noted “investigation of the ground surrounding the scene” that Chavez performed (apparently?) before either the FBI or the Army arrived?

Well, as noted above, Agent Byrnes was there within 15 minutes and his noted “investigation of the ground surrounding the scene to 800 yds” could not have been completed that quickly so it’s unclear when these photos were taken. I find it interesting that the pictures were “available” but apparently not presented to Moody at this time (two days after the sighting). Where were they?

I do suspect however that the two photographs of the same feature (one labeled “footprint” while the other curiously labeled “vehicle imprint”) and one of the two unidentified HITG photographs (#X1) were possibly taken by Chavez shortly after (on the evening of) the sighting but unfortunately I see no way to confirm that at this late date other than the fact that these photos all show the same photographic defect (a bright spot discussed later) indicating that they were most likely taken by the same camera and do not seem to match the other photos presumably taken 2 days later

Serpentime wrote:Then again, a “state Trooper” accompanying Sgt. Chavez to / at the scene was noted to have taken “slides”…

TSgt. Moody wrote:Included in Major Connor’s IR as attachments will be the FBI report, Captain holder’s report, photos of the area, and specific slides taken that evening by a state Trooper accompanying Sgt. Chavez to the scene.

{Emphasis added.}

…which were described to have been taken on the evening of the event (?).

I find it interesting that he used the term “specific”. I wonder if these are the close-ups of the “burn” areas that appear first in the Blue Book file? If so, they certainly don’t help much… yep some plants and stuff definitely look burned. :)

Serpentime wrote:Logically considered, however – if there was any discrepancy between the Polaroids that Chavez allegedly took (as he secured the “site” waiting for the FBI and the Army to arrive?) and the photos that were contained in the Bluebook file, then I would fully expect that such a major discrepancy would have been significantly noted by the Bluebook investigators and confirmed with Chavez in further interviews (?).

Assuming Blue Book and/or the base/culprits (represented initially by Capt. Holder) wanted this case to be solved which other evidence as discussed in my previous posts (e.g. the evident “runaround” given Capt. Quintanilla re: Surveyor testing) suggests may not be the case. ;)

Serpentime wrote:There is – in the official record – no apparent evidence that this line of interest ever developed, as Hynek apparently returned to Socorro some time later and re-interviewed Chavez and Zamora, I think?

According to TSgt. Moody, Polaroids of the four HsITG allegedly taken by Chavez were available to the Bluebook investigation and should logically (?) have been cross-checked against the official photographs in due course.

That no further mention of this is offered in the official record suggests to me that there was likely (?) no significant difference between the two sets of images. Given the lack of any documented exception, such cross-correlation would seem logical and reasonable to assume (?). But of course, I could be wrong.

As I hope I’ve demonstrated above, such a cross-correlation appears not to have been done as many of the photos clearly (to my perception) don’t appear to match up with each other, the diagram, or the witness testimony and there are many uncorrected errors is the consistency of the numbering of the photographs. I would expect that had these photographs been scrutinized as closely as have I done here that these discrepancies would have been noted and yet there are not.

Serpentime wrote:I further doubt, however, that Chavez would have allowed the HITG evidence to be adulterated after the arrival of the Army, and not to have made any further mention of such an overt act that he was arguably (?) likely to have taken direct notice of.

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694951

The area was secured by Sgt. Chavez, and the Commanding Officer, Captain Holder, of the Stallion Site at White Sands notified. Captain Holder conducted an initial investigation of the sighting and obtained samples of the charred areas and dirt surrounding the markings left by the UFO.

As detailed above this is a gross oversimplification (if not an outright misrepresentation) of the events as they occurred. Chavez evidently wasn’t there when Capt. Holder arrived and there’s no clear evidence in the official record to confirm that Chavez concurred with the results of Captain Holder’s investigation.

Serpentime wrote:This document also states:

Information obtained during this investigation revealed that the sighting was legitimate and there was no indication that a hoax was being perpetrated.


However the information obtained doesn’t rule out the possibility of a cover-up.

Serpentime wrote:Adulteration, or hoaxing, of the Socorro physical evidence is an extraordinary claim, in my opinion, and duly requires an extraordinary proof, if it is to rise beyond the level of unfounded speculation and become substantially relevant to this analysis.

I agree however in this case I believe I’ve demonstrated enough circumstantial evidence exists to suggest that in the absence of further clarification or evidence, at the very least, there was an opportunity (and logically a motive) for such an “adulteration” (or “obfuscation”) to have occurred therefore it’s relevant to any further analysis until such time as it can be conclusively ruled out.

Serpentime wrote:For example:

Dr. Hynek wrote:It is Quintanilla’s and my opinion that both Chavez and FBI agent Byrnes must have been in on the hoax if we adopt the hoax hypothesis.


Is that the only option? Seems to me Capt. Holder could have initiated a cover-up without Chavez’s knowledge and Agent Byrnes may or may not of been in on it. I find it somewhat interesting that by some accounts I’ve read Agent Byrnes reportedly did not wish his presence at the scene to be known publicly.

Serpentime wrote:Therefore, to assume any sort of legerdemain on the site, without evidence (IMO), we might as well abandon the Scientific Method altogether in this discussion. :( (Nothing personal. :))

I agree but by the same token, I’m not as willing as you are to accept the conclusions of others without looking into it myself… trust but verify. ;)

Serpentime wrote:
Dr. Hynek wrote:Both Quintanilla and I find it impossible to dismiss as a hoax unless we have some evidence that it was a hoax.


Profound. :)

Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:OK but in my opinion the Surveyor hypothesis has not been ruled out as the source of these depressions (again not necessarily “indentations”) or by any other “evidence” for that matter presented so far. I will be looking forward to your analysis eliminating the following possibilities I believe I’ve already suggested…

1. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by (up to) three Surveyor vernier engines firing simultaneously (or otherwise) at some fixed and/or varying distance above the surface.

2. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by Surveyor high pressure gas purge of propellant and/or pressurant (helium) through a common vent and/or one or more engine nozzles.

3. Some/all burns created by Surveyor vernier engine residual post firing propellant leakage though one or more engine nozzles.

4. Some/all depressions created by optional (two) wheeled landing skids or other unusual landing gear on a Bell 47G helicopter.

I’ve been looking forward to this analysis, also. :D

OK well here’s a quick BOTE (that’s “back of the envelope” for the non-engineering types) analysis I did that suggested to me that the first three options are not completely outside the realm of possibility…

Image
Surveyor T-2 drop test vehicle landing

where:

d1 = distance between vernier engines = ~62 inches (derived from your diagram)
d2 = distance between depressions
h = height of lander = 14 ft. (minimum*)
theta = apparent angle of thrust = ~8.5 degrees

then:

d2 = d1 + ( 2 * ( tan (theta) * h ) ) = ~112 inches

That’s pretty close to the reported distance of ~116 inches between HITG #1 and #3 (#2 and #3 in the AF diagram) for example however as shown here when all three thrust vectors (120° apart) are overlaid on the diagram …

Image

… the opposite one doesn’t seem to line up with the opposite HITG even if that engine was gimbaled over up to 6 degrees in either direction. Then again (assuming the flame was actually present and the HsTIG were indeed “manifest” and “germane” lol) it seems (remotely) possible since Zamora apparently only reported seeing one flame each time (on takeoff and landing) perhaps only two of the engines were running (and perhaps the landing was as attempt to fix this?) and appeared as one from his angle in which case perhaps two of the HsTIG are related to landing and the other two related to takeoff. In that respect it is interesting to note that for the two cases shown above there is a circle drawn fairly close to where one might expect a faulty thruster to be leaking uncombusted propellants (i.e. straight down) and spontaneously combust with any organic material present. Also, it seems possible that at least one of the HsITG (the “less defined” one?) may be the result of a high pressure propellant/gas purge which this photograph appears to show would fall outside any marks created by the vernier engines…

Image

Of course this is all a gross 2D simplification of what in reality is a relatively complex 3D problem and I could be way off but hopefully you get the picture. It should also be noted that the vehicle may not have been perfectly level with the ground and analytically speaking the diagram is practically useless since it’s obvious from the photographs that the terrain at the landing site was highly uneven and without taking these factors into account any firm conclusions drawn from it are potentially suspect.

Anyway, the point is (and was), in order to the make the claim that the physical evidence doesn’t appear to support the Surveyor hypothesis as you’ve attempted to do here is premature until you’ve fully tested ALL available options. Personally, I don’t have the time or inclination to fully explore this particular possibility since I’m already convinced based on other evidence that the ETH can safely be ruled out in this case so it’s no longer very interesting.

[you did say you enjoy drafting right?] :)

* The height at which the vernier engines were designed to shut off. The RTI report gives a figure of 14 ft. for the range marker while other JPL/NASA documents I’ve looked at say it was 13 ft.

Serpentime wrote:And even though you are NOT looking forward to this test (for reasons that the RADVS radar testing profile may now suggest?)…

Access Denied wrote:1. Some/all depressions created by Surveyor landing pads which may or may not of been present or touched the ground.


…I’m still going to DENY your request, and demonstrate this fundamental conclusion for the benefit of our audience. Scientifically speaking, it is perfectly legitimate, in my estimation, to eliminate the Surveyor landing pads completely if this elimination may be demonstrated to be possible.

So eliminated – and if proven - we can then focus our further inquiry on more relevant (?) options.

Like what? Like I said earlier, I think you misunderstood why I said I was (and wasn’t) looking forward to your analysis of the possibilities I listed and no it wasn’t because of what the RADVS radar testing profile suggested.

Serpentime wrote:In the next diagram, a match is attempted between the alleged Vernier engine positions on the Surveyor chassis and the three central burn areas:

Though the exact dimensions of the burn areas are not specified, a loose correlation might be reasonably (?) argued from result above, but any conclusion / correlation based on the alleged firing of Vernier rockets now appears to be placed in doubt (?) by AD’s recent research:

First of all, the ground was highly uneven (apparently sloping in towards the bottom of the arroyo in the center of the “trapezoid” judging by the photographs) and no indication is given how the distance measurements were made (i.e. point to point or on the ground) so a loose correlation may be reasonable if indeed Surveyor’s vernier engines were the source. Also, as noted earlier regarding the five circles in Capt. Holder’s diagram, it’s unclear whether all the burn marks found were measured or perhaps just the major ones.

Secondly, that wasn’t my “recent” research as you imply. I provided links to those documents way back on page 3 of this thread in this post here…

http://www.realityuncovered.com/forum/v ... 3024#13024

…so they have been available to you for independent review for over a month (at the time you wrote this). Did you look at them or not? If you did are we to assume you had no problem with them then? If you did why didn’t you say anything until I brought it up?

In either case I’m concerned that you apparently chose to seize upon my sharing of some doubt on my part in an open and honest way about what those documents revealed or didn’t reveal in a rush to pass judgment or cast doubt on my research.

Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:I have some doubt that the T-2H test article included a fully functional Surveyor descent system (e.g. three vernier engines) but I think if you go back you’ll see where I’ve alluded to that possibility and set the stage for an alternate scenario if that’s the case. My basis for that doubt mainly comes from this document…

Namely that the T-2H helicopter flights were intended to test the RADVS, or Radar landing avionics, for Surveyor’s intended approach to the Lunar surface…

{Which is very practical to my perception – the helicopter flights would simulate a descent profile to the lunar surface from altitudes greater than the 1200ft balloon tests. -- Serp’s note :))

…and that this particular Spaceframe (S-8?) was NOT equipped with Vernier engines for this testing… (I think?)

…which might indicate that the “necessity for radar design verification” referred to, above, applied only to the airborne “field” testing described, and – further – that required Vernier integration data was obtained from the balloon tests (?).

No, again, in case you missed it, that same document (the RTI Report) shows that the S-8 spaceframe had vernier engines *and* RADVS…

RTI Report wrote:7. Spaceframe S-8 was used for flight control/propulsion interaction tests at the Air Force Missile Development Center (AFMDC).

8. The S-8 Spaceframe also was used for RADVS vibration tests in the upside down position. (late 1964)

You can’t do flight control/propulsion interaction tests without a propulsion system (i.e. the vernier engines). :) Obviously the T-2 (N-1 and -2) test article used for the balloon/tether drops tests also had vernier engines and RADVS. The only issue here is what was attached to the Bell 47G helicopter scheduled to be tested on the day of Zamora’s sighting. Was it?

a) RADVS only
b) The S-8 spaceframe
c) The T-2 spaceframe

Unfortunately the RTI report offers no insight in this regard and it should be noted they did not perform the tests, Hughes did. RTI was merely contracted by JPL to do a post-test review of the entire program based on the available literature some three years later and they may not have had access to all of Hughes’ test reports (especially if there had been a cover-up of one particularly “unconventional” test lol).

I also disagree with the suggestion of your “practical” note. Again, I can see several reasons why an ad-hoc (or improvised) captive (as opposed to free flight) low-altitude descent (or otherwise) flight test on a helicopter with a fully functional vernier engine system could be useful… especially considering they were already way behind schedule and having problems performing the first balloon drop tests in the days immediately prior to Zamora’s sighting. Granted why they (Hughes) would do it off-base after the range had essentially been shut down for the weekend remains a mystery.

Serpentime wrote:If so, then all of these possibilities are quickly eliminated…

Access Denied wrote:1. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by (up to) three Surveyor vernier engines firing simultaneously (or otherwise) at some fixed and/or varying distance above the surface.

2. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by Surveyor high pressure gas purge of propellant and/or pressurant (helium) through a common vent and/or one or more engine nozzles.

3. Some/all burns created by Surveyor vernier engine residual post firing propellant leakage though one or more engine nozzles.


…if the previous demonstrations have conclusively eliminated the Surveyor Geometry from correlating with the four main HsITG.

Keyword “if so” and also not necessarily… nice try though. :)

Serpentime wrote:Yet again:

Access Denied wrote:…there may some doubt about all of this and if so, perhaps the Bell 47 itself was the source of the “flame” and burns (e.g. malfunctioning somehow?) and it doesn’t matter whether the T-2H had vernier engines or not.

Nevertheless, some high temperature from some source is apparently demonstrated in the burning of the indigenous Greasewood and Snakeweed at the site (which were reportedly difficult to ignite) as documented by the Bluebook investigation.

Not necessarily. Define “difficult” to ignite. Greasewood for example is considered “flame resistant” which means it’s difficult to burn it completely to the ground (i.e. sustain combustion) without a constant external source of heat. That doesn’t mean an unusually “high temperature” source is required to ignite it as seems to be implied… i.e. no exotic ET technology required. :)

Of course the propellants Surveyor used will also do the job quite nicely as the links to the MSDS’ show that I gave you way back on page 6 of this thread…

NTO MSDS wrote:Unusual Fire/Explosion Hazard: POWERFUL OXIDIZER. WILL INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF A FIRE & INCREASE RISK OF EXPLOSION. REACTS VIOLENTLY W/ORGANIC CHEMICALS.


MMH MSDS wrote:Unusual Fire/Explosion Hazard: AUTO-IGNITION TEMP: 382F. ABSORPTION OF MONOMETHYLHYDRAZINE BY RAGS/COTTON ASTE/SAWDUST/SIMILAR ORGANIC MATERIALS WILL RESULT IN SPONTANEOUS IGNITION.

You did read those parts right?

Serpentime wrote:In particular, this burn area appears to show what has been referred to as “calcified” sand (highlighted) which would also, presumably, indicate a significant source of heat being present (?).

You mean like the high temperature exhaust from a ROCKET engine? :)

Only problem is there’s no evidence that I’m aware of in the Blue Book file to support the assertion that any “calcified” sand was found nor would I expect there to be from own experience with firing rocket motors in the desert. I think this may be yet another example of a “UFOlogy” propagated myth about this case. In fact further analysis of the “burned bush” photo you linked to shows that the bright spot is possibly caused by a reflection of some sort (from the sun or a flash?) in the camera lens. Note the rough iris shape I outlined in red below…

Image

A similar effect can be seen in the same relative location in this photo shown earlier…

Image

…but this one doesn’t seem to have an iris-like shape so it may instead be the result of a flaw in the (Polaroid?) film/processing or camera (e.g. a light leak?).

[which in either case, as noted earlier, also suggests that these two photos were taken by the same camera, possibly by Chavez, on the night of the sighting]

Serpentime wrote:Unfortunately, however, the official investigation also determined that no evidence of chemical propellants could be found in any of the burned material…

“Unfortunately”? That’s actually “fortunate” for the Surveyor hypothesis because (as I’ve pointed out already several times) the relatively rare NTO/MMH propellant combination it used would leave no significant trace evidence (i.e. evaporate and rapidly decompose) unlike more common hydrocarbon based rocket fuels. How many times must I repeat this before you acknowledge it?

Serpentime wrote:… but from what I understand, MMH combusts fairly completely – with only trace “droplets” being propelled in the blast stream to alight on any nearby material. ~ The smaller the engine in question (like a Vernier), though, the more droplets it appears to produce?

No, again (besides the high temperature of the exhaust) you’re ignoring the startup and shutdown phases of rocket motor operation when there is likely to be relatively large quantities of uncombusted propellant expelled through vent lines and/or the thrust chamber. Do you not understand how this could cause widely dispersed and isolated (i.e. ”sporadic” as relayed to Hynek by Holder) burn areas?

Serpentime wrote:Also,

According to the USAF “Burn” diagram:

No other indications of a blast - i.e. a thrust force were noted.

No other (uncertain) indentations or area disturbances were noted.


Actually this is yet another point in favor of the Surveyor hypothesis. The host helicopter would have provided all of the lifting thrust and the blade turbulence would likely have wiped out most (if not all) distinct disturbances (e.g. footprints, skid marks). Each Surveyor venier engine was capable of producing a thrust anywhere between 30 and 100 lbf (in vacuum) and I believe the T-2 test article (for example) operated at around 200 lbf total (in order to counteract it’s weight of ~200 lb) which works out to ~66 lbf each. That’s not a lot of thrust so I would expect there to be no general indications of a “blast” in the area other than perhaps localized directly under them (e.g. the HsITG?)… moreso after takeoff if are we are to accept Zamora’s testimony that a flame was visible both times (takeoff and landing).

Regarding the diagram itself there looks to be some more potentially helpful information on the right side of the burn diagram…

Image

…but unfortunately I can’t really make it all out. Anybody have any idea what it says?

Serpentime wrote:Finally, there is one more element to account for if the Surveyor theory is to be fully tested against the physical evidence.

Access Denied wrote:4. Some/all depressions created by optional (two) wheeled landing skids or other unusual landing gear on a Bell 47G helicopter.


Sure, in the limited (selective) scope of your “full” test. :)

Serpentime wrote:Again, no correlation to any of the physical markings is observed, and the Bell 47G cannot be shown to have created any combination of HsITG.

Though uncertainty remains about the positioning of the RADVS “mockup” relative to the Bell 47 – and a side mount is suggested – further manipulation of the helicopter skids appears unable to create any logical correlation of the given engineering to the surface HsITG (?).

I concur. However that doesn’t mean a helicopter wasn’t there. :)

Serpentime wrote:According to:

Dr. Hynek wrote:It would appear essential that for this case to be fairly closed out – if the interpretation is that of a new device and its dimensions be shown to match the markings on the ground; that is – that the device finally selected as the culprit, be indeed capable of producing the marks observed.


Looks like Hynek may have made (or perhaps was unwittingly “encouraged” to make?) the same mistaken assumption as you and many others have.

Serpentime wrote:Which returns us to the exact conundrum faced by Project Bluebook in 1964:

If the Bell 47 could NOT have created the markings – and the Surveyor could NOT have created the markings – then some other “device” must have created the markings.

No, that’s the conundrum YOU apparently would like to return us to however you failed to fully test the Surveyor hypothesis as presented to you therefore it can’t be eliminated as the source of the sighting… besides, the markings could have been created by something as simple as a shovel or even a piece of cardboard. :)

[you laugh but as noted in the Blue Book file some burnt cardboard *was* collected at the scene]

Serpentime wrote:Perhaps this was some sort of “unusual” landing gear designed to accommodate both the alleged helicopter and its “mockup” / instrumentation (?), but AD has already eliminated the possibility that any such trapezoidal undercarriage would have been practical, or logically reasonable to assume:

Access Denied wrote:Seems to me a non-symmetrical perpendicular trapezoidal arrangement would actually rule out the ETH since I can’t image why aliens would not recognize the sheer brilliance of using convex circular landing pads instead of rectangles for landing gear and arranged them symmetrically to distribute the vehicle’s mass equally over the planets surface as did their Earthly counterparts…

Nevertheless, such “non-symmetrical perpendicular trapezoidal arrangement” must now – indeed – be demonstrated (?) if ANY correlation between the proposed Helicopter / Surveyor combination and the physical evidence documented in the April 1964 Socorro sighting case is to be established.

No it doesn’t. This is the fatal flaw in your analysis. You’re assuming (like Hynek who also failed to find a satisfactory explanation) that these four “impressions” had to have been created by the object’s “landing gear” and therefore must match the dimensions of any candidate vehicle. Not only is this illogical as I pointed out in the quote of mine you cited above, it also destroys the credibility of your “star” witness in this case who consistently reported seeing only TWO legs!

Here’s Zamora’s drawing of the “object” the first time he claims to have seen it from “approximately .15 miles” (~800 ft.) away and “looking down on it”…

Image

Where’s the third “landing gear” (I added in red) that should be clearly visible in the middle according to your interpretation of the evidence?

Now here’s Zamora’s drawing of the object as he claimed to have seen it from his “position at approximately 103 ft.”…

Image

Again, where’s the third (and possibly fourth by my estimation) “landing gear” (again added in red) that should visible from this angle according to your interpretation of the evidence?

Look at your site diagram with the arrow indicating the direction Zamora viewed the “object” from. Can you DENY the fact that he should have been able to see at least THREE legs/landing gear/whatever from that position?

Oops!

Are you sure you still want to insist that Hynek’s suggestion that the “depressions” must match the proposed “stimulus” is valid? If so, then by your own suggestion that one can’t pick and choose evidence, in your rush to jump to conclusions and refute the Surveyor hypothesis you’ve unwittingly debunked Zamora’s testimony. Bravo!

Now you’re going have to explain why four “impressions” were found instead of two. Good luck with that. :)

[at this point Occam’s razor would seem to suggest the least complicated explanation is Zamora’s vision was impaired somehow, perhaps because he wasn’t wearing his glasses for some reason, and he was frightened by a helicopter that looks remarkably like an “egg”] :)

Image

Serpentime wrote:According to AD…

Access Denied wrote:…I did some pretty extensive research on some other possibilities but Surveyor testing is the only one that really fits the bill in terms of the timing and technology.


…yet the physical evidence, as shown, does not appear to support this best remaining hypothesis.

According to (in my opinion) your subjective/selective interpretation. Plenty of unambiguous evidence remains to the support the Surveyor/Helicopter hypothesis (e.g. range record, burn marks, lack of propellant residue, flame color, sounds, flight characteristics etc.) then either the ETH or the nice and safe “scientifically” correct “UNIDENTIFIED” position.

Serpentime wrote:In the traditions of the Scientific Method, I invite any other interested researchers to re-create my cited experiments, and to either confirm or reject the above conclusions according to their best results.

Done and duly rejected. :)

Serpentime wrote:…For what we have seen demonstrated is not hallucination, not speculation, not myopia, and not opinion.

It is the simple mathematics of aerospace engineering.

LOL… OK Mr. Scientific Method let’s see you use those same “simple mathematics of aerospace engineering” to disprove (for example) my hypothesis that one or more of Surveyor’s vernier engines could have been the source of some of those “depressions” through the process of erosion… or as some folks I know in Mojave like to call it…

Supersonic Post Hole Digger
http://masten-space.com/blog/?p=95 <-- click here to see the video

Image

8)

…and then when you’re done with that disprove the hypothesis as outlined above that the four HsITG may simply be a diversion created to throw the public (and any interested researchers) “off the track” (pun intended) of the source of Zamora’s sighting.

Serpentime wrote:Though I have more helicopter-related (and other) issues to address and reply to fully, I will choose to stop here, and allow a few days for consideration.

OK but keep in mind Zamora’s testimony has now been shown here to be significantly inconsistent with the alleged physical evidence and here’s some more issues that need to be addressed…

1. According to Zamora’s account it took approximately 3 minutes for the “object” to travel 6 miles. This translates to an average velocity of ~120 miles per hour. The top speed of a Bell 47G is somewhere around 105 miles per hour. Coincidence?

2. Zamora claimed he could *hear* the object from *inside* his patrol car approximately 3 /4 miles away but could not *see* it. Zamora also claims he could *see* the object departing up to 6 miles away from *outside* his patrol car but could not *hear* it. Both times he was looking at the object were from approximately from the same angle relative to the position of the Sun. Consistent?


This quote from Hynek may offer some more insight into the veracity of Zamora's account…

Dr. Hynek wrote:It must be remembered that at this time he was giving chase to a speeding car, and it would seem that, to be diverted from this jolly procedure, the noise and/or light must have been fairly strong. Zamora did not describe the light to me in the detail that he described it in Captain Holder's report. He stressed only the roar and the fact that he thought the Mayor's dynamite shack had exploded and thought that somebody might be in trouble.

If you’ll recall, Zamora originally (allegedly) told Capt. Holder he could see a flame and described it in (uncharacteristically) great detail (colors and proportions) but he could not see anything above it i.e. no “egg”.

Serpentime wrote:"I take what you love, and leave you in tears..."

Would you like a tissue?

"Killing is my business...
And business is good!"


:twisted:

AD

P.S. It has been suggested to me that I present my findings in a format suitable for publishing as a complete article but I wanted to respond to Serp first since his counterpoint is what prompted me to delve into this case so deeply. We’ll see, at this point I feel like I never want to look at another UFO report again lol… after wading through this mess and the year or so I spent on Roswell, doing something else for a change that’s not like work suddenly seems more appealing. :)
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 » Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:29 am

I haven't had a chance to read this all yet AD...I've read about 1/4th so far, but I just wanted to say that what you've written, right there, represents an enormous level of effort and work. Regardless of the way this analysis/debate ultimately goes, I just wanted to thank you for putting that level of research and analysis into it AD. Truely remarkable.

Cheers,
-Ryan
---
"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 » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:37 am

Thanks Ryan and you're welcome. I'm just happy to finally get this off my plate... with any luck my wife won't divorce me. :)
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 Oct 30, 2007 4:52 am

Thank you, AD. :)

That was a great post, and I appreciate all of the time and effort that you’ve spent on this case. :D

If you wouldn’t mind too much, I’d like to study your presentation carefully before posting my response to it. As of now, I’ve already noted some points of interest that I would like to comment on, but would like to focus most closely on some of the key assumptions. With any luck, this might reduce the amount of writing required. ;)


In the meantime though, I can confirm the conclusions that you offered here:


Access Denied wrote:
UPDATE/CORRECTION

While preparing my rebuttal to Serp’s analysis and double-checking my sources I discovered what appears to be an error in some source material I quoted earlier in this thread from the NICAP web site written by Wendy Conners that needs to be corrected for the record as follows…

[Serp I’m surprised you didn’t catch this!] ;)


Actually, I did catch this error after you pointed out the Connors allegation to me again. The first time around, it appeared unreasonable that the Lorenzens would have been allowed to interfere with the investigation, so I did not pursue the issue.

But seeing as you raised it again, I did prepare a full response to correct the mistake, and was only waiting for the “grace” period that I offered to end so that I could post it.

Nonetheless, I’m glad that you caught the mistake. But just so as to clear up the backlog of my own research, support my statement, and hopefully come to an agreement on this particular point, I will present my previously written post in its entirety.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presented for the record:


Access Denied wrote:
Actually you entitled it:

PART ONE: THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Had you intended to test the other aspects of my hypothesis that I presented regarding the physical evidence before making your conclusion…

I would have expected you to entitle it:

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: PART ONE


Thank you, AD. :) I was in error. :(

If this – below – is one of the aspects of your hypothesis that I failed to test in my presentation:

Access Denied wrote:
Wait, stop the presses!

I don’t know why I overlooked this before but if the following is true this raises some serious doubt in my mind about the “integrity” of Lonnie Zamora’s testimony and may be the source of some of the discrepancies I’ve tried to point out (to no avail apparently)…

Famous Photo From Socorro Landing Case
Incident: April 24, 1964

Image

L-R: Sgt. Lonnie Zamora, Mr. Burns (FBI), Maj. H. Mitchell (AFMDC), Coral Lorenzen of APRO, and Sgt. Castle of the Military Police.

You can’t really argue with the photograph and this differs significantly from the quote I cited earlier from Rich Dolan’s book, Blue Book, and other “treatments” of the incident I’ve read, and even this other one on the same site (NICAP)…

…however let me remind you again (in case you missed it) that somebody else (in addition to the “UFO occupants”) with both the opportunity and a potential motive (they “wrote the book” on this incident) to do so WAS present at the scene…


…Then I will offer you an apology for not doing so.


Here, therefore – and by way of regret – I will present the full and complete analysis that I should have provided earlier:



The hypothesis claiming that Mr. or Mrs. Lorenzen could have tampered with the physical evidence prior to Captain Holder’s documentation of the site appears to be incorrect.



~ First, Coral Lorenzen’s interview with Lonnie Zamora:

http://www.nicap.org/zamora.htm

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/report/640424.htm


Is footnoted as follows:

Footnotes:

1. Lorenzen, Flying Saucers, Signet, 1966, p 219-220;

this interview was done on the next day after the event.



Which places Mrs. Lorenzen at Socorro no earlier than Saturday, April 25, 1964.



~ Second, Robert Barrow’s summary of the case (as noted previously) states:

http://www.nicap.org/zamora6.htm

For accuracy, details on the Socorro case itself have been paraphrased from the investigation results of James and Coral Lorenzen of APRO, 3910 E. Kleindale Rd., Tucson, AZ. 85712,

who arrived at the landing scene less than 40 hours after the incident.

Further information on Socorro may be found in the Lorenzens' excellent book, Encounters with UFO Occupants, a 1976 Berkley paperback (Berkley Publishing Corp., 200 Madison Ave.. New York. N.Y. 10016).


Which places Mrs. Lorenzen in Socorro no later than 10:00 AM, Sunday, April 26, 1964.



~ Third, Wendy Connors’ identification of the Air Force Officers in this photograph:

Famous Photo From Socorro Landing Case
Incident: April 24, 1964

Image
L-R: Sgt. Lonnie Zamora, Mr. Burns (FBI), Maj. H. Mitchell (AFMDC),
Coral Lorenzen of APRO, and Sgt. Castle of the Military Police.


…As Major Mitchell (AFMDC) and Sgt. Castle (NCOIC SRC MP) is incorrect.


Note that these two men are conducting a radiation sweep with a Geiger counter.



According to Colonel de Jonckheere’s Summary of the case:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694984

(2) Radioactivity: Major Connor and Sgt. Moody checked the area for radiation. There was no radioactivity in the area of the sighting.



Hector Quintanilla’s memoirs:

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

Radiation had been checked by Connor and Moody and the readings were negative.



And the preliminary report prepared for Colonel de Jonckheere by Quintanilla:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695311

…at 0728 26 April, I placed a call to the OD at Kirtland and asked him to locate Sgt. Moody for me. Sgt Moody is currently on TDY at Kirtland on Project Cloud Gap. At 0945 Sgt. Moody called and I asked him to get together with the UFO reporting officer at Kirtland and investigate the sighting.

At 1125, Major Connor, Kirtland UFO reporting officer, and Sgt. Moody called and I suggested the manner in which they should conduct the investigation and the people whom they should contact.

Major Connor and Sgt. Moody left for White Sands after my phone call equipped with a Geiger counter.


…These men are properly identified as Kirtland UFO Officer Major Connor (center) and TSgt. Moody (right):

Image

…With Mrs. Lorenzen standing behind them.


Further, Quintanilla’s statement:

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

It was hours before the investigation could be organized and on its way. A Geiger counter had to be found and the base photographer had to be called. The staff car, which had been provided for the investigation had a flat tire midway between Albuquerque and Socorro. Socorro is located fifty-five miles south of Kirtland Air Force Base.


…Indicates that Major Connor and TSgt. Moody likely did not arrive at Socorro any earlier than the afternoon of Sunday, April 26, 1964.

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696280

Moody:

A Geiger counter was obtained and Major Connor and I departed for Socorro at 1030 arriving 1200 in Socorro.



On the following day – Monday, April 27, 1964 – the picture shown below was published in the press:

Image

…Which correctly identifies the Air Force NCO as TSgt. Moody. Mrs. Lorenzen is clearly visible behind Zamora’s left shoulder.


This article, along with TSgt. Moody’s account:

At approximately 4 pm we proceeded to the site, accompanied by two reporters from the local press. The sequence of events was repeated and total duration from the initial contact with the event to time of it’s (sic) disappearance did not exceed ten minutes.

A Geiger counter check for background radiation was made in the presence of the press and Sgt. Zamora and no radioactivity count was present. The counter was checked with Major Connor’s watch and found to be in good working order.


…Establishes the date of the photograph as being taken on late Sunday, April 26 – in which case the implied date of Friday evening, April 24, as captioned over the Connors article, is also incorrect and/or subject to misinterpretation.



~ Fourth, FBI documentation (as noted previously) establishes that Special Agent Byrnes was already at the State Police Office in Socorro, on unrelated business, when the radio call of the incident came in to the Socorro County Sheriff’s Office:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640508_pg1.htm

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640508_pg2.htm

Special Agent (Arthur Byrnes, Jr.), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Stationed at Albuquerque, New Mexico, was at Socorro, New Mexico, and at the State Police Office there on business late afternoon of April 24, 1964.

At approximately 5:45 to 5:50 P.M., (Ned Lopez), radio operator in the Socorro County Sheriff’s Office, located about thirty feet down the hall from the State Police Office, came into the State Police Office.

(Lopez) advised that (Sgt. Chavez), New Mexico State Police, that he had just received a radio call from Officer (Zamora) to come to an area about one mile southwest of Socorro. The call was in relation to some unknown object which “landed and has taken off.”

Agent (Byrnes) finished his work in the State Police Office at Socorro at approximately 6:00 P.M., April 24, 1964, and thereafter proceeded to the site where Officer Zamora, Socorro County Undersheriff (Luckie), Sergeant (Chavez), and Officer (redacted), New Mexico State Police, were assembled.

…Special Agent (Byrnes) noted four indentations in the rough ground at the “site” of the object described… by Officer (Zamora). These depressions appeared regular in shape, approximately sixteen by six inches rectangular. Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line. Each depression was approximately two inches deep and pushed some earth to the far side.

Inside the four depressions were three burned patches of clumps of grass. Other clumps of grass in the area appeared not to be disturbed. One burned area was outside the four depressions.

There were three circular marks in the earth which were smooth, approximately four inches in diameter and penetrated in the sandy earth approximately one-eighth of an inch as if a jar lid had gently been pushed into the sand.

No other person was noted in the area the night of April 24, 1964. No other objects were noted in the area possibly connected with the incident related by officer (Zamora).


…And that he (Byrnes) likely arrived on the scene within only approximately 20 minutes (?) of Zamora’s report.

As noted, Byrnes observed the four “sixteen by six inches rectangular” indentations in the presence of only Lonnie Zamora, Chavez, Undersheriff Luckie, and another State Police Officer before contacting the Air Force, who then notified Stallion Range Center Commander, Captain Richard Holder:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640428b_pg2.htm

It may be noted that New Mexico State Police Sergeant M.S. Chavez, and Socorro County Undersheriff Jim Luckie on 4/24/64, advised that they answered (Zamora’s) radio calls and went to the scene quickly. They noted several small burning areas at the site and the indentations. No one else was in the area. (Zamora), a well regarded and capable (redacted) was noted to be sober and thoroughly frightened.

SA D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr. was at Socorro, New Mexico, 4/24/64, and had noted the four irregular burned spots and the four indentations at the site. SA Byrnes immediately advised Captain R.T. Holder, Up Range Commander, Stallion Range Center, Socorro, New Mexico. Captain Holder, along with (redacted) and SA Byrnes checked the Socorro site and interviewed (Zamora) at length. (Zamora’s) observations were taken in the form of a statement. A copy of this lengthy statement is retained at the Albuquerque FBI Office as well as a small sample of charred material taken at the scene…”

An unusual observation made at the Socorro scene was that there appeared to be no “blast” effects.”


…Which suggests, overall – perhaps very strongly – that Ms. Connors’ statement:

http://www.nicap.org/zamora3.htm

Holder then stopped and picked up Sgt. Castle of the Military Police and they headed to Socorro.Before they got there, Coral and Jim Lorenzen of APRO arrived. Holder interviewed Zamora AFTER Jim and Coral.


Is also incorrect.

As is Ms. Connor’s concluding statement that:

Actually, in the documentation, Lt. Col. Conkey stated that he was not there, but he is in the photograph, so probably a minor goof.

Wendy Connors
Project SIGN Research Center


…Where Lt. Col. Conkey is clearly not in the photograph, and the documentation that Ms. Connors cites appears accurate, after all, while her own representation is apparently erroneous.



~ Fifth, FBI documentation records that Captain Holder conducted his survey of the physical evidence at the site on the evening of Friday, April 24, while SA Byrnes placed rocks around the four indentations:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640505_pg1.htm

As noted in the Albuquerque airtel, Captain (Holder), Stallion Range center, Socorro, N.M. was immediately advised, 4/24/64, of the facts in this case. He observed the site of the incident, 4/24/64, and made measurements while SA (Arthur Byrnes) Jr. was placing rocks around the four earth indentations and around one other mark found at the site.

Late 4/24/64 and into 4/25/64, Captain (Holder), who is with the U.S. Air Force {Army?}, and (SA Byrnes) interviewed (Zamora) of the (Socorro County Sheriff’s Office).

SA (Byrnes) typed up a statement like account from (Zamora) as given by (Zamora) under lengthy interrogation. Captain (Holder) diagrammed his measurements of the scene.

Early 4/25/64, Captain (Holder) and SA (Byrnes) delivered the original and a copy of (Zamora’s) statements and Captain (Holder’s) diagrams to the authorities at Stallion Site, approximately 30 miles southeast of Socorro.

Two letterhead memorandums are enclosed, one from Officer (Zamora) and one of the observations of SA (Byrnes). Also enclosed is a copy of charts made by Captain (Holder) of the pertinent area.


Therefore, as the evidence presented above demonstrates, all of the physical data relevant to the case was apparently collected, and likely submitted, before the arrival of the Lorenzens.



~ Sixth, the improbability that Mr. and Mrs. Lorenzen would have received notification of the incident prior to – or simultaneously with – the official authorities, and the high unlikelihood that Mr. and Mrs. Lorenzen would have been able to travel from Tucson, Arizona (?), to Socorro, New Mexico, more rapidly than Special Agent Byrnes was able to reach the landing site from the Socorro State Police Office, or Captain Holder was able to arrive there from Stallion Range Center.




Again, I apologize for this omission, or for any confusion that it may have caused. :(

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And just to clarify this point, briefly:

Access Denied wrote:
Captain Holder wrote:

Present when we arrived were Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and] Bill Pyland, all of the Socorro Police Department, who assisted in making the measurements. When we had completed examination of the area, Mr. Byrnes, Officer Zamora, and I returned to the State Police Office [at] Socorro, then completed these reports.

Source: Richard T. Holder (Capt., U.S. Army) "UFO Report, 24 April 1964."



…but note that he says he returned to the State Police Office so that may be a reference to Agent Byrnes who may have been waiting for him there having left the scene after his initial visit earlier that evening.


I’m not sure, but if I read that again (even the word “returned”), it appears to state that Byrnes, Zamora, “and” Holder, all traveled to the State Police Office at the same time, or as a group – when “we had completed examination of the area”. This interpretation appears consistent with the FBI documentation that describes:

He (Holder) observed the site of the incident, 4/24/64, and made measurements while SA (Arthur Byrnes) Jr. was placing rocks around the four earth indentations and around one other mark found at the site.


…Which clearly states that SA Byrnes was not only on the site during the time of the taking of the measurements, but that he – along with the Socorro police officers – actively assisted in the process.

Whatever may have occurred after Captain Holder arrived, it appears that he was well accompanied, and his relevant activities observed, by individuals who had been present on the site previously and who had independently noted the four “indentations” and other evidence.



Serp :)


> I'll discuss the rest soon.
"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 Zep Tepi » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:59 pm

Can I just say guys, you are both doing an absolutely fantastic job in attempting to get to the bottom of this fascinating case. I have seldom seen such a well-thought out and reasoned argument from two sides of a fence as is on display in this thread.

I already have an idea of what happened on that day, based primarily on the information in this thread, and I wait with baited breath for the next installment.

Keep it up guys :bgthbup:

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Access Denied » Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:45 am

[catching up…]

Serpentime wrote:Thank you, AD. :)

That was a great post, and I appreciate all of the time and effort that you’ve spent on this case. :D

Yeah well you better, it’s your fault I got mixed up in this case in the first place. :)

(just kidding, it’s a been an interesting journey, I for one have learned a lot more than I expected from this exercise)

Serpentime wrote:If you wouldn’t mind too much, I’d like to study your presentation carefully before posting my response to it. As of now, I’ve already noted some points of interest that I would like to comment on, but would like to focus most closely on some of the key assumptions. With any luck, this might reduce the amount of writing required. ;)

Absolutely, take as much time as you need. It would be nice though if you could perhaps tailor your response towards coming to some sort of conclusion and/or proposing an alternative hypothesis to explain this event? :D

[and while you’re at it I would love to hear what makes you believe Aliens wear boots] 8)

"Yeah fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes"


:twisted:

Serpentime wrote:In the meantime though, I can confirm the conclusions that you offered here:

Access Denied wrote:UPDATE/CORRECTION

While preparing my rebuttal to Serp’s analysis and double-checking my sources I discovered what appears to be an error in some source material I quoted earlier in this thread from the NICAP web site written by Wendy Conners that needs to be corrected for the record as follows…

[Serp I’m surprised you didn’t catch this!] ;)

Actually, I did catch this error after you pointed out the Connors allegation to me again. The first time around, it appeared unreasonable that the Lorenzens would have been allowed to interfere with the investigation, so I did not pursue the issue.

But seeing as you raised it again, I did prepare a full response to correct the mistake, and was only waiting for the “grace” period that I offered to end so that I could post it.

Nonetheless, I’m glad that you caught the mistake. But just so as to clear up the backlog of my own research, support my statement, and hopefully come to an agreement on this particular point, I will present my previously written post in its entirety.

Well done, much more thorough than my own, thanks. What do you know, finally we agree on something. :) Although I think I would have preferred you said something the first time (Toon’s insightful comment notwithstanding lol) perhaps saving us both some unnecessary effort and avoiding any animosity it may have created, I actually think it worked out for the better in the long run. Case in point being some interesting points raised by your analysis that I’d like to comment on briefly if I may? I believe it may be pertinent to/helpful in your response…

Serpentime wrote:As noted, Byrnes observed the four “sixteen by six inches rectangular” indentations in the presence of only Lonnie Zamora, Chavez, Undersheriff Luckie, and another State Police Officer before contacting the Air Force, who then notified Stallion Range Center Commander, Captain Richard Holder:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640428b_pg2.htm

It may be noted that New Mexico State Police Sergeant M.S. Chavez, and Socorro County Undersheriff Jim Luckie on 4/24/64, advised that they answered (Zamora’s) radio calls and went to the scene quickly. They noted several small burning areas at the site and the indentations. No one else was in the area. (Zamora), a well regarded and capable (redacted) was noted to be sober and thoroughly frightened.

SA D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr. was at Socorro, New Mexico, 4/24/64, and had noted the four irregular burned spots and the four indentations at the site. SA Byrnes immediately advised Captain R.T. Holder, Up Range Commander, Stallion Range Center, Socorro, New Mexico. Captain Holder, along with (redacted) and SA Byrnes checked the Socorro site and interviewed (Zamora) at length. (Zamora’s) observations were taken in the form of a statement.

Err.. where does this say Byrnes contacted the Air Force “who then notified” Holder?

I’m glad you quoted this part of the FBI airtel because I neglected to include it in my rebuttal and it highlights a couple of important points as follows …

1. Byrnes went to the site and then advised Holder. This raises two issues:

a. How did he advise him? My guess is it would have to be by telephone which means Byrnes had to leave the scene. (and in fact this appears to be the case as discussed later)

b. Why did he contact Holder? Because SRC was closest? Did he contact anybody else?

2. Who is [redacted] that checked the site and interviewed Zamora along with Holder and Byrnes?

Serpentime wrote:FBI documentation records that Captain Holder conducted his survey of the physical evidence at the site on the evening of Friday, April 24, while SA Byrnes placed rocks around the four indentations:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640505_pg1.htm

As noted in the Albuquerque airtel, Captain (Holder), Stallion Range center, Socorro, N.M. was immediately advised, 4/24/64, of the facts in this case. He observed the site of the incident, 4/24/64, and made measurements while SA (Arthur Byrnes) Jr. was placing rocks around the four earth indentations and around one other mark found at the site.

Late 4/24/64 and into 4/25/64, Captain (Holder), who is with the U.S. Air Force {Army?}, and (SA Byrnes) interviewed (Zamora) of the (Socorro County Sheriff’s Office).

SA (Byrnes) typed up a statement like account from (Zamora) as given by (Zamora) under lengthy interrogation. Captain (Holder) diagrammed his measurements of the scene.

Early 4/25/64, Captain (Holder) and SA (Byrnes) delivered the original and a copy of (Zamora’s) statements and Captain (Holder’s) diagrams to the authorities at Stallion Site, approximately 30 miles southeast of Socorro.

Two letterhead memorandums are enclosed, one from Officer (Zamora) and one of the observations of SA (Byrnes). Also enclosed is a copy of charts made by Captain (Holder) of the pertinent area.

I’m glad you quoted this FBI memo too because it also highlights a couple of important points as follows…

1. I would like to see a copy of Holder’s original diagrams that were used to make the one included in the Blue Book file. As noted by Hynek in his report…

Dr. Hynek wrote:Finally, the drawings which Captain Hilder [sic] and his associates made, when replotted to scale, (already enclosed with the report of Captain Holder, already sent to you) [Quintanilla] which indicate that the diagonals between the markings intersected perpendicularly.

…the drawing in the Blue Book file doesn't appear to be the original because it *is* “replotted to scale”. (this can be confirmed by overlaying your diagram for example… they’re VERY close). Were they not included in the FOIA release of this memo?

2. As previously noted in my rebuttal this appears to confirm that control of the evidence chain was being maintained by Holder and that these diagrams were not made available to the Blue Book investigators (Conner and Moody) during their investigation of the scene two days after the sighting and two days prior to Hynek’s arrival. Perhaps they were still being “replotted”? :)

[re: your question re: Holder’s service affiliation, no doubt another FBI SNAFU. :) WSMR was and still is primarily managed by the Army and by all other accounts he is referred to as an Army Captain]

Serpentime wrote:And just to clarify this point, briefly:

Access Denied wrote:
Captain Holder wrote:Present when we arrived were Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and] Bill Pyland, all of the Socorro Police Department, who assisted in making the measurements. When we had completed examination of the area, Mr. Byrnes, Officer Zamora, and I returned to the State Police Office [at] Socorro, then completed these reports.

Source: Richard T. Holder (Capt., U.S. Army) "UFO Report, 24 April 1964."

…but note that he says he returned to the State Police Office so that may be a reference to Agent Byrnes who may have been waiting for him there having left the scene after his initial visit earlier that evening.

I’m not sure, but if I read that again (even the word “returned”), it appears to state that Byrnes, Zamora, “and” Holder, all traveled to the State Police Office at the same time, or as a group – when “we had completed examination of the area”.

That’s clarification? I think you completely missed the point. Yes, obviously that states they all returned together. Again the important part is Holder says they returned implying that he had been there previously… i.e. Holder went to the State Police Office *before* going out to the scene. Note also he says “when we arrived” implying that he was accompanied by *somebody* and Agent Byrnes is not one of those noted to be “present when we arrived”. The logical conclusion is either he arrived with someone else not noted elsewhere or he arrived with Agent Byrnes. If it’s the former then that confirms Agent Byrnes left the scene to contact Holder… and possibly opens the door for some collusion to have occurred in private between them in the interim. :)

Serpentime wrote:This interpretation appears consistent with the FBI documentation that describes:

He (Holder) observed the site of the incident, 4/24/64, and made measurements while SA (Arthur Byrnes) Jr. was placing rocks around the four earth indentations and around one other mark found at the site.

…Which clearly states that SA Byrnes was not only on the site during the time of the taking of the measurements, but that he – along with the Socorro police officers – actively assisted in the process.

Right but what’s important is those weren’t the same Socorro police officers who were initially present at the scene. As noted previously, Sgt. Chavez, who was the first to arrive (and noted to be “skeptical of the situation”) at the scene, is conspicuously absent. Note also that I think this pretty much settles the issue of whether or not SA Byrnes was “in” on a possible cover-up/obfuscation… in fact one might even argue that in the act of “placing rocks” he (literally) had a hand in defining what was (or was not) “germane” to the sighting. :)

Serpentime wrote:Whatever may have occurred after Captain Holder arrived, it appears that he was well accompanied, and his relevant activities observed, by individuals who had been present on the site previously and who had independently noted the four “indentations” and other evidence.

As noted in my rebuttal this is HIGHLY misleading and I must says it seems more than a little bit disingenuous on your part to be repeating this again at this point! I hope this isn’t a sign of things to come. :(

Again, according to the official record, it appears the only parties who had been on the site prior to Captain Holder’s arrival who were in a position to observe their “relevant activities” *after* his arrival were Zamora and Agent Byrnes. Whether this was by design (as I suspect) or not we’ll probably never know but I think my skepticism in regards to Zamora’s observational abilities is perhaps best summed up in these additional notes attached to the end of Dr. Hynek’s report to Project Blue Book…

Dr. Hynek wrote:Additional Notes to the Report:

It should be noted that, at the time Zamora saw the insignia, the craft was well illuminated by sunlight which was streaming in from Zamora's right. It might be well to perform some experiments with placards with insignia and different patterns inscribed thereon to see how well these are visible, under good lighting, at 100-200 feet.

Additional Note: What is the power of Zamora's glasses? Does he suffer from a stigmatism?

Additional Note: Several things are a pity in this situation. One is there was not an additional witness. Second is that no photographs were taken. Third, that no radars picked up the object, and fourth that the witness whom we did have was not a better observer and more articulate.

Recommendations: The object which produced this, if it was a new device under test or in maneuvers, be brought to same location described by Zamora, and under the same lighting conditions. This then could be played at any future hearings on flying saucers. This, it seems to me, could go a long way toward exploding the myth of flying saucers, and might do more good than all the previous years of propaganda.

Anybody know a documentary filmmaker and where we can get a Bell 47G to try this experiment? I volunteer to play the role of Zamora by not wearing my glasses. :D

[subtle guy that Hynek eh?]

Zep Tepi wrote:I already have an idea of what happened on that day, based primarily on the information in this thread, and I wait with baited breath for the next installment.

Oh that’s just mean, if you have a theory don’t be a tease and share it with us! :)

AD
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 » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:00 am

O.K.

I’m back. :D


Thank you for your patience, AD. :) I have considered your rebuttal post, and offer the following response:



In regard to the physical evidence related to the Socorro case, two principle propositions are offered to support the Surveyor hypothesis as an explanation for the event.


These are:

1.) That the disturbances of the ground that were noted in the official documentation were either created, and/or altered, after the sighting in support of a deception operation. The prime suspects are considered to be the law enforcement officers who were described to have been present, and/or the military personnel who responded to the scene shortly afterwards. FBI Special Agent D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr., and/or Army Captain Richard T. Holder, in particular, are assumed to be the most likely perpetrators, and/or “conspirators”.

And/or:

2.) That the disturbances of the ground, and the burn effects that were noted, were created by a Vernier rocket propulsion system that was transported to, and from, the site by a helicopter.



To begin, I would like to examine proposition Number One, before considering proposition Number Two, but feel that I should return to the photographs and diagrams first, so that some apparent, and continuing, confusion might be resolved.


My original diagram:

Image

…Incorporated the numbering sequence for the main features that was originally used in this photograph:

Image

…That I had previously presented. The intent of this numbering was to maintain the continuity of the presentation, but seeing as these numbers conflicted with the sequence that was recorded in Captain Holder’s diagram of measurements, a degree of confusion was apparently introduced, instead. For this, I apologize, and will shortly correct the errata in a revised diagram that I will present after a new review of the photographs.

In this way, I hope to bring all of the representations into harmony, and to demonstrate the consistency of the all of photographs with each other, and with the new diagram. This analysis will also isolate certain inconsistencies found in the Holder documents.




To begin, the photograph showing the relationship of Zamora’s “cruiser” to the main features has been relabeled with the numbering system used in the Holder diagram:

Image

Note that the numbering of HsITG #1 and #2 have now been reversed, with HsITG #1 and #4 representing the longest distance of 14 feet, 9 ½ inches as recorded in the Holder diagram. The feature known as the “Burned Bush” is located in the center of site, with its placement slightly offset toward the 1-4 axis. The perspective of this view is oriented from southeast to northwest and includes the location of Feature #5 as labeled in this photograph:

Image

The caption at the bottom states “Overall vue (sic) looking to the NW”. Note the white car parked at the top of the picture where the dirt road was located, and the same locations / orientations for the bushes as captured in the previous picture. The “Burned Bush” is at center.


The next photograph shows the site from the opposite side of the gully, looking from the north-northwest to the south-southeast:

Image

The berm of HITG #3 is clearly visible behind the “Burned Bush”, and slightly to its left. Note also that this feature was erroneously labeled as “1”.


Translating roughly 90 degrees to the left, this photograph shows the site from a northeast to southwest perspective:

Image

Note the longest distance between #1 and #4, and the location of #5 behind a small bush halfway between #4 and #3. Large bushes lie directly behind #3 and #4, with the “Burned Bush” at the center right near the 1-4 axis. Several smaller bushes are located along the outside perimeter of 1-4, with the hills in the background corresponding to the southwest departure path of the object that was described in the documentation. The original compass marker “N >” appears to be incorrect, and has been replaced by a new indicator that is approximately consistent with the photo labeled “Overall vue (sic) looking to the NW”.



This photograph shows Zamora standing between Holder #2 and Holder #3, and depicts a perspective of the site that is very similar to the last photograph (generally to the southwest):

Image

Compare the locations of the bushes and the main features. The hills that the “object” allegedly “disappeared” over are clearly visible.


Intriguingly, the next photo again displays this same basic orientation (generally south-southwest):

Image

…But appears to show the site in a seemingly less-disturbed condition than the other two, possibly suggesting that it was – in fact (?) – one of the pictures that was allegedly taken on Friday evening, April 24, during the original investigation. If so, then the locations of the main features are recognizably consistent with the Tuesday morning, April 28 photos.

Note that the same bushes are behind #3 and #4, with the smaller bush (partially obscured by a light streak) in front of #5, and the “Burned Bush” apparently looking slightly taller than in the other pictures (possibly before investigators and “curiosity seekers” had broken off samples?)

Another interesting feature is the dark mark on the ground that appears to be located between the center, #2 (not visible), and #3.

In Holder’s separate Burn diagram:

Image

… Burn #1 is depicted in this approximate position, yet the 9’ 4” (112”) measurement places it closer to the center. If this mark is indeed a burn, then this photograph may demonstrate an inconsistency in the measurement given (?).


The next photograph shows a close up of the relationship between Holder #2 and Holder #3 from the same northeasterly to southwesterly perspective:

Image

The berms behind these features are discernable to the southeasterly sides and may not appear as elongated as their representations in the Holder diagram suggest (?). The location of #5 lies behind the bush in back of HITG #3, which – in turn – is clearly recognizable in this photograph of Zamora posing next to #3 with his hand extended over the feature:

Image

Note the gap in the rocks in front of the bush, the large rock to the left, the square rock to the right next to the two smaller rocks, and the long, thin, “finger-like”, rock on the berm side of the feature – which is shown as it may have been on Friday (?) evening (still uncovered by blown sand, and tucked close to another rock?) in the photograph below:

Image

These features likely identify this same HITG #3 as it looked shortly after the event, and before three and a half days of erosion likely distorted its appearance, as such a passage of time in the desert might be expected to accomplish (?). If the rock formation does not appear exact, consider also that three days of intense “curiosity” could have added / subtracted, and/or moved, individual rocks. The differing perspectives and lighting conditions present in the two photographs might also lead to possible confusion (?).


Translating laterally across the northeasterly side of the site, this photograph shows a similar close up of Holder #1 and Holder #4 (looking to the southwest) with Feature #5 in the background.

Image

Note the “Burned Bush”, several small bushes along and outside of the 1-4 axis, the bush behind Holder #4, and the “Large Rock” at the near, right corner of Feature #5.

This “Large Rock” may also be observed in each of the two photos of the “Foot Print” (one mistakenly labeled “Close up of Vehicle Imprint”) that were possibly (?) taken on Friday evening.

Image

Image

The closed end of the rock “horseshoe” apparently points toward the west. Note also the “two rocks on one”, that become more recognizable in this close up of Holder #4 and Feature #5:

Image


Comparing Holder #4 to the descriptions provided at the top of the Holder diagram:

Image

…Further appears to correlate this feature as “#4 Sides defined – Burm (sic) and internal base not as well defined as though wt. rocked up” when viewed against the other three features already examined, and the description that Holder provided for them (i.e.“Burm” #s 1, 2, and 3).


A closer examination of Holder #4:

Image

…Shows that it is likely – in fact (?) – consistent with this feature, which may have been photographed on Friday evening:

Image

~ Note the open end of the rocks in front of the bush, the “Stacked rock with white mark”, and the berm “not as well defined” spread out under the rocks to the west – which I mistakenly labeled on the wrong side of the feature in this picture:

Image

If these photographs are of the same Feature #4, then the degradation that may be observed in the Tuesday image - over the supposed Friday (?) image - might also be considered consistent with two photographs of the same feature that were taken three days apart.


Finally, four photos of the burned areas are included in the case file:

Image

Lacking adequate visual perspectives for the close ups, however, it is difficult to determine much useful information from the pictures – although the photograph in the upper right-hand corner of the page may, or may not, correlate (?) with the darkened “ledge” that seems to appear in the photo labeled “Burned Bush”.

That these burned areas do not appear in the Tuesday, April 28 photos, may suggest – also – that these images, too, might likely have been taken on the evening of Friday, April 24 (?). If so, then this discrepancy may be accounted for in J. Allen Hynek’s report of his visit to the site:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696407

By the time that I got to see the area, it had been so badly trampled over that I could make no assessment of the burned areas. There appear to be a fair amount of charred particles mixed in with the dirt, and some charred cardboard was also found (enc).




From this analysis, a new diagram of the site is constructed that corrects previous errors and brings the numbering system of the Holder diagram into conformance with the features depicted in the photographs:

Image



Note that the following changes have been made:


~ The compass rose has been rotated;

~ The location of significant bushes has been added for clarity;

~ The area of the “Foot Print” feature has been moved outside of the trapezoid and nearer to HITG #4. Without measurements for a precise location, this placement is approximate. Because they are not evident in any of the photographs, the circles noted in “General Area of Footprints” in the Holder diagram have been redrawn in phantom lines, identified with a question mark, and labeled with the letters “G.A.o.F”;

~ The berms have been redrawn to reflect the best dimensions and orientations available from the photographs;

~ The four HsITG have been redrawn to reflect the best orientations available from the photographs. The overall shapes include the entire, general, area of the features as depicted in their possibly degraded state from the Tuesday pictures. Dashed lines are placed across each area as a representation of their best available “nadirs” as suggested in the Holder profile legend;

~ A new, possible (?), approximate, location for Burn #1, or Burn #X (?), has been added;

~ The location where Zamora posed with his hand over HITG #3 is noted;

~ The approximate stated direction of departure has been altered slightly to reflect the change in the compass rose.



The analysis suggests the following conclusions:


~ Depiction of the four main features is geographically consistent across all of the photographs and the original Holder diagram.

~ The numbering system used in the photographs is inconsistent. Each of the four HsITG are identified by at least two conflicting numbers, and none of the numbering schemes are completely consistent with the Holder diagram.

~ Certain photos included in the case file – particularly the image labeled “Burned Bush”, and the four burn photographs – may have been taken before J. Allen Hynek’s visit to the site, with Zamora and Sgt. Chavez, on Tuesday morning, April 28, 1964. If so, then these photographs may represent some of the “slides”, or “polaroids”, that the documentation suggests were taken on the evening of Friday, April 24, during the original investigation (?).

~ If some of these photos were taken on Friday evening, their depiction of the main features (not including the burns) at the site is significantly consistent with the Tuesday photographs, given the suggested activity at the site over a three day interval.

~ The feature labeled as “(5) Foot Print” appears consistently in the southwesterly position indicated in all of the photographs (outside of Holder axis #3 - #4, and nearest to #4), although this position is not noted in the main Holder diagram. The separate “Foot Print” diagram, however, does state: “Note – 1 set of prints in area of #4 indentation”, which appears consistent with the photographs.

~ The “General Area of Footprints” cited in the Holder diagram is not evident in any of the photographs. The reason for this discrepancy – and the picture of a single “Foot Print”, as opposed to its (?) association with the three additional features noted in the separate diagram – remains unknown.

~ No feature that appears in any of the photographs is unaccounted for, although placement of “(5) Foot Print(s)” / “General Area of Footprints” differs between the photos and the Holder diagram – if these are, indeed, the same feature(s)? There may also be some discrepancy in the placement of the “burns” as represented by the Holder diagram.

~ Placement of “5” toward the southeast quadrant of the site (beyond Holder axis #2 - #3) appears to be incorrect:

Image


~ The majority of confusion between the photographs and the Holder diagram appears to derive from the inconsistent numbering systems, rather than the imagery’s depiction of actual evidence.



Access Denied wrote: For example, note how the “berms” are depicted as circles in Capt. Holder’s diagram in the AF report… and yet for some reason you’ve chosen to depict these as simple arcs as if to artificially limit the size and “scope” of the depressions… What is your justification for that?


The original arcs are consistent with the general orientation of the berms as pictured in the photographs. On the other hand, the Holder depictions might appear somewhat un-scaled, given the best resolution available in the pictures (?). Nevertheless, the basic berm contours have been redrawn in the new diagram to better reflect their shapes and locations.


Access Denied wrote: Also, what basis is there for the orientation of the “rectangles” you chose? Did you crosscheck them with the photographs? No measurements (e.g. angles) are given in Holder’s diagram and yet you drew them all aligned in the same direction when clearly they’re not… nor do they appear rectangular in my opinion.

…However this HITG again appears notably inconsistent with the commonly reported companion rectangular dimension (in this case) of 6 inches in width and also looks 12 inches (or more) square to me. How do you explain that?

…By what stretch of the imagination does this look even remotely close to 6 x 12, 14, or 16 inches to you?


Crosschecking the orientation of the HsITG with the photographs reveals that they do appear to be set at slight angles to the axes between them (IMO). This “cant” continues to be reflected in the revised diagram.

The rectangular shape was based on Special Agent Byrnes’ description of 6” x 16”, for the features. Though the general shape of the four HITG features may appear to be “square” (especially in the Tuesday photos?), it should also be noted that the base of the features is not flat. Rather, as Captain Holder indicated in the profile legend that was not included with the presentation of his diagram, there were two slopes descending to form a “V” shaped wedge in each of the “holes”. To a lesser extent, this profile is also present in HITG #4, and is confirmed by an examination of the photos of each of the features.

Image

Image


The updated diagram reflects roughly 14” x 14” squares, which incorporate the overall areas of the features based on the mean of the three lengthwise dimensions offered by those who allegedly viewed them – 12”, 14”, and 16”.

Though speculative, it may be possible that those who viewed the HsITG could have considered the far side of the “wedge” to be the beginning of the berm proper, and thereby described the inner, descending slope of the hole as an approximately six-inch deep “depression”, “impression”, or so on – that was approximately 12”, 14”, or 16” long, depending on the individual topography. But this is only a guess.


On further consideration, if the rectangles that Captain Holder used to portray the HsITG in his diagram represented only the inner part of the “wedges” – and the outer part of the “wedge” was considered to be the beginning of the berm proper – then the dimensions of his berm depictions may be substantially accurate after all (?).


Access Denied wrote: In conclusion where are the four alleged 6 x 12 to 16 inch rectangles? Also, where are HITG #X1 and #X2 located? Were more than four HsITG found?


As suggested above, the rectangular shape may have been a subjective interpretation of the HsITG that was assigned by the witnesses on the site (?). Subjective, or not, the rectangular form was offered by four sources (?), including Captain Holder’s diagram.

Careful examination of the photographs appears to correlate four, and only four, HsITG – apparently in the general locations that Captain Holder documented.


Access Denied wrote:Furthermore, what do you make of the five seemingly symmetrically arranged circles in the “center” of Capt. Holder’s diagram? Three of these appear to correlate with the (consistently reported) three “central” burn marks but the other two don’t appear in the page documenting the burn marks. On what basis did you eliminate these from your diagram?


The other two “markings” were left out because there did not appear to be any other corresponding description of them. Only four burn areas were described by Agent Byrnes – three inside of the other features, with one outside – while the separate burn diagram also referenced this same number of four burns and their general placements. The burns that were represented were derived from the burn diagram and the measurements that were given for them, although the circumferences were only approximations – given that there were no dimensions offered by any source. Comparisons of the burn diagram with the Friday evening (?) “Burned Bush” photo, however, may suggest that the placement of burn number “One” in the upper left-hand quadrant may be accurate, although the center of the site (IMO) also appears to have been influenced by a heat / combustion source.

The reason for the “extra” burn marks (?) being included in the main Holder diagram, but not in the burn diagram, remains unknown.


Access Denied wrote:[Note: As will be discussed later, there is reason to believe this photo (of a HITG)… may have been taken on the night of the sighting, in which case it is perhaps closest to representing what was actually found by Sgt. Chavez et. al.]

…I find it interesting that the pictures were “available” but apparently not presented to Moody at this time (two days after the sighting). Where were they?


Given that TSgt. Moody noted in his report that:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696309

Included in Major Connor’s IR as attachments will be the FBI report, Captain holder’s report, photos of the area, and specific slides taken that evening by a state Trooper accompanying Sgt. Chavez to the scene.


…It seems plausible that these photos, and/or slides, were likely forwarded to Captain Quintanilla with Major Connor’s Initial Report, and may actually appear in the Footnote photo archive (?).

Whether Moody and Connor actually viewed these photos during their investigation is uncertain, but the notation that they were “available to us” does not suggest (IMO) that they did not have such an opportunity.


Access Denied wrote: In fact further analysis of the “burned bush” photo you linked to shows that the bright spot is possibly caused by a reflection of some sort (from the sun or a flash?) in the camera lens. Note the rough iris shape I outlined in red below…

Image

A similar effect can be seen in the same relative location in this photo shown earlier… but this one doesn’t seem to have an iris-like shape so it may instead be the result of a flaw in the (Polaroid?) film/processing or camera (e.g. a light leak?).


On second examination, I believe that your analysis is likely correct. The spots in the photographs are most likely (?) film anomalies that have been subject to misinterpretation.

I stand corrected.

Access Denied wrote: Only problem is there’s no evidence that I’m aware of in the Blue Book file to support the assertion that any “calcified” sand was found nor would I expect there to be from own experience with firing rocket motors in the desert.


There is no evidence of “calcified” sand – that I am aware of – in the official file, but if there were any such feature, it would not, apparently, have been associated with a rocket motor (?).


Access Denied wrote: And the significance of this is in your opinion? Also, I wonder if it’s possible the number four burn area is what was (incorrectly?) labeled as #5 as noted in the first overview photo?


The significance of the burn labeled “#4” lying to the southwest (reported direction of departure) – and the “apparent direction of burn” noted from a direction opposite the trapezoid – may confirm the witness’s account of the object departing in that direction, however this is not conclusive.

If the location measurements for this #4 burn area are accurate, then it appears to be placed some feet away from the area labeled “(5) Foot Print”.


Access Denied wrote: …so apparently two “sets” of “footprints” were found?


The geographic location of “(5) Foot Print” appears consistently in the area of Holder #4, which was specifically noted in the separate “Foot Print” diagram. The “General Area of Footprints” represented near Holder #3 in the main Holder diagram may appear to be in error (?), given the photographic evidence, but the small circles might – alternately (?) – be intended to represent the “circular” features that Special Agent Byrnes reported, and could be incorrectly labeled (?). But this is only speculative. (Nevertheless, these features have been modified with a question mark).


This discrepancy has been corrected in the revised diagram above.


The interpretation of two “sets” of “footprints” may have been derived from presumptive error(s) in the Holder diagram, and an incorrect interpretation of the photographs (?), which may – in turn – have been influenced by the conflicting numbering system offered in the photographs.


The preceding analysis attempts to clarify this point.


Unfortunately, the person who numbered / labeled the photographs, and the time and place at which this was done, remains uncertain.


Access Denied wrote: For your diagram to be considered an accurate (as possible) representation of the evidence found at the scene I believe it should show approximately where the single “footprint” (#5) is (and labeled with the corresponding “human” dimensions) in relation to HITG #1 and #3 and there should perhaps only be three little circles (or the actual shapes?) instead of four near HITG #3 (i.e. “in area of” #4?) inside the “trapezoid” representing what appears to be a footprint and a half as drawn with a note to that effect.


“(5) Foot Print” has been properly located in the new diagram, based on the best photographic evidence. The feature depicted has been oriented and adjusted to scale – again, according to the photographic evidence, and the measurements contained in the separate diagram.

Image

The other three features noted in the ”Foot Print” diagram are included in phantom lines because they are not visible in the photographs, while the “General Area of Footprints” features have been redrawn in phantom lines, and labeled with a question mark.

Though only speculative, the conspicuous lack of details for the other three features in the “Foot Print” diagram (other than the ‘depth - 2”’ notation) – combined with the note “Possibly more outlines destroyed by personnel in the area” – might suggest that these features were partially, or completely destroyed during the investigation, and that their proximate location (as depicted) was possibly covered over by the rocks that were placed to preserve the other feature(s). But this is only a guess.


Access Denied wrote: Huh? Only one “footprint” is clearly measured (<= 12.5” x 4.5”) and surely (?) Agent Byrnes would have noted finding footprints in his report.

… Clearly (to my perception anyway) there is no correlation to the “footprints” therefore the question still remains, where (exactly) are these three “circular marks” that Agent Byrnes recorded? They’re not documented in Capt. Holder’s diagram or anywhere else in the Blue Book file so what does that say about the documentation of the physical evidence?


The “General Area of Footprints” representation in the main Holder diagram, and Agent Byrnes’ “three circular marks”, apparently do not appear clearly (?) in any of the photographs, so the reasons for these discrepancies are – in the end – unclear.

Though speculative, it may be possible that these “three circular marks” could have been among the “Possibly more outlines destroyed by personnel in the area”, that were noted in the Holder diagram, and that may have been “destroyed by personnel” in the interval following Byrnes’ arrival, but prior to Holder’s appearance.


It is inferred in this FBI document:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640505_pg1.htm

Late 4/24/64 and into 4/25/64, Captain (Holder), who is with the U.S. Air Force {Army?}, and (Agent Byrnes) interviewed (Zamora) of the (Socorro County Sheriff’s Office).

SA (Byrnes) typed up a statement like account from (Zamora) as given by (Zamora) under lengthy interrogation. Captain (Holder) diagrammed his measurements of the scene.


…That Captain Holder did not apparently fully diagram his measurements until he had “returned” to the Socorro State Police office, later that evening, or possibly even sometime on Saturday morning (?).

~ If, perhaps, he had failed to measure the precise location of the “Footprints” during the short interval that he apparently (?) had to survey the site, prior to sundown on Friday evening – or even after dark (?), as some sources suggest – then his memory could (?) have failed him as he attempted to place the “General Area of Footprints” on his final diagram.

Alternately, again, the four (as opposed to three) circles noted in the “General Area of Footprints” might have been intended to represent Special Agent Byrnes’ “circular marks” – which were then labeled as “Footprints” – with the “(5) Footprint” features not noted in the main diagram. But this is only a guess.



Three types of features are apparently described in Captain Holder’s papers:

Four rectangles / “Burms”; four burns; and “Footprints”.


While Agent Byrnes apparently described:

“…four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in rectangular type pattern averaging about twelve feet apart.”; ”four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas.”; and ”three circular marks in the earth which were smooth, approximately four inches in diameter and penetrated in the sandy earth approximately one-eighth of an inch as if a jar lid had gently been pushed into the sand.”


Among the primary features noted – namely the four rectangles / “Burms”, and the “four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in rectangular pattern averaging about twelve feet apart.” – there appears to be a strong correlation between Captain Holder’s main diagram and the description offered by Agent Byrnes.

Among the secondary features noted – namely the four burns, and the ”four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas.” – there also appears to be a strong correlation between Holder’s Burn diagram and Byrnes’ description. This correlation becomes even stronger if the separate: ” Inside the four depressions were three burned patches of clumps of grass. Other clumps of grass in the area appeared not to be disturbed. One burned area was outside the four depressions.” statement is considered.

Among the tertiary features noted – namely the “General area of Footprints”, the separate “Foot Print” diagram, and the ”three circular marks in the earth which were smooth, approximately four inches in diameter and penetrated in the sandy earth approximately one-eighth of an inch as if a jar lid had gently been pushed into the sand.”, there is a discrepancy, which may or may not be explained by the speculation offered.



~ What this may say about the “documentation of the physical evidence” is that the primary and secondary features of the site were consistently described by both Captain Holder and Agent Byrnes, and that (with the possible exception of the southeasterly burn area(s)?) their documentation is largely consistent with the photographic evidence.

It may, or may not, be reasonable to conclude that the tertiary features received less attention from the investigators – given the possible confusion (?) that may have been present immediately after the event, and/or the short span of time available to conduct the survey prior to sunset, or even after dark. Simple human error may account for the tertiary discrepancies, but this is only a guess.



Access Denied wrote: …many of the photos clearly (to my perception) don’t appear to match up with each other, the diagram, or the witness testimony…


I disagree, with the exception of “(5) Foot Print” vs. “General Area of Footprints”, Agent Byrnes’ “three circular marks”, and the location of Burn #1/ Burn #X.


Access Denied wrote: …there are many uncorrected errors is the consistency of the numbering of the photographs. I would expect that had these photographs been scrutinized as closely as have I done here that these discrepancies would have been noted and yet there are not.


I agree that the numbering has been confusing and inconsistent, and that the photographs should have been scrutinized more closely. These errors have been corrected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now that the appropriate corrections have been made, and some of the misinterpretations that may have been clouding the issues are hopefully resolved, I would like to return to an examination of the first proposition:


That the disturbances of the ground that were noted in the official documentation were either created, and/or altered, after the sighting in support of a deception operation.

The prime suspects are considered to be the law enforcement officers who were described to have been present, and/or the military personnel who responded to the scene shortly afterwards. FBI Special Agent D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr., and/or Army Captain Richard T. Holder, in particular, are assumed to be the most likely perpetrators, and/or “conspirators”.




There are several reasons to doubt this assumption.



1.) The first responders on the scene were law enforcement officers.


Out of the nine persons who, according to Dr. Hynek, “saw the markings within hours of the sighting”, the first seven appear to have been law enforcement officers.

According to official or media sources of the time, these seven persons were:

1.) Lonnie Zamora (Socorro Police)
2.) Sgt. Chavez (New Mexico State Police)
3.) Undersheriff James Luckie (Socorro Police)
4.) Officer Ted Jordan (New Mexico State Police)
5.) Special Agent D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr. (FBI - Albuquerque)
6.) Officer Melvin Katzlaff (Socorro Police)
7.) Bill Pyland (Socorro Police)

Though not identified by name in the official documentation, other sources suggest that Officer Ted Jordan was the New Mexico State Trooper who was referred to in both the FBI documents and TSgt. Moody’s report.


~ Rather than alter, or create, evidence at the scene of an investigation, however, the professional training and instinct of such officers would have been – instead – to preserve the extant evidence that they had discovered, and to protect it from any corrupting influence, until the designated principle investigator(s) had arrived.

According to Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement, published by the National Institute for Justice (the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice), some of the fundamental guidelines for first responders to a scene are established as follows:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/178280.txt

1. Initial Response/Receipt of Information

Principle: One of the most important aspects of securing the crime scene is to preserve the scene with minimal contamination and disturbance of physical evidence. The initial response to an incident shall be expeditious and methodical.

Policy: The initial responding officer(s) shall promptly, yet cautiously, approach and enter crime scenes, remaining observant of any persons, vehicles, events, potential evidence, and environmental conditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4. Secure and Control Persons at the Scene

Principle: Controlling, identifying, and removing persons at the crime scene and limiting the number of persons who enter the crime scene and the movement of such persons is an important function of the initial responding officer(s) in protecting the crime scene.

Policy: The initial responding officer(s) shall identify persons at the crime scene and control their movement.

Procedure: The initial responding officer(s) should:

a. Control all individuals at the scene--prevent individuals from altering / destroying physical evidence by restricting movement, location, and activity while ensuring and maintaining safety at the scene.

c. Exclude unauthorized and nonessential personnel from the scene (e.g., law enforcement officials not working the case, politicians, media).


Summary: Controlling the movement of persons at the crime scene and limiting the number of persons who enter the crime scene is essential to maintaining scene integrity, safeguarding evidence, and minimizing contamination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5. Boundaries: Identify, Establish, Protect, and Secure

Principle: Defining and controlling boundaries provide a means for protecting and securing the crime scene(s). The number of crime scenes and their boundaries are determined by their location(s) and the type of crime.

Boundaries shall be established beyond the initial scope of the crime scene(s) with the understanding that the boundaries can be reduced in size if necessary but cannot be as easily expanded.

Policy: The initial responding officer(s) at the scene shall conduct an initial assessment to establish and control the crime scene(s) and its boundaries.

Summary: Establishing boundaries is a critical aspect in controlling the integrity of evidentiary material.


{Emphasis added}


Therefore, TSgt. Moody’s statement that:

Sgt. Chavez secured the area and made an investigation of the ground surrounding the scene to 800 yds. He determined that the only tire marks were those of Patrolman Zamora’s vehicle and the State Police car and found no prints or track activity of any kind other than that noted in the FBI report.


… Appears to confirm that this basic protocol was duly followed at the landing site, and – with at least three police officers present (Zamora, Luckie, Chavez, and possibly Jordan?) – there was no obvious reason why the primary evidence would be left unsecured. In fact, from a professional standpoint, the opposite procedure should have been expected, and there is no clear suggestion that it was not observed.

{The “to 800 yards” correction is noted and appreciated. :)}


Even if an “unauthorized” person, such as “Cattle Inspector” Robert White, or any other “nonessential personnel”, were to have overheard the police radio calls and responded to the scene, there is no clear reason – as outlined above – to believe that anyone else would have been allowed to interfere with either the physical evidence, or the investigation.



2.) Teletypes from the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Albuquerque Office contradict a “cover-up”.


It has been inferred (?) that the presence of FBI Special Agent D. Arthur Byrnes on the landing site could have influenced the documentation of the evidence as a component of an alleged deception operation, but the following statement from the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Albuquerque office (a.k.a. Special Agent Byrnes’ “Boss”) may be seen to contradict this assumption.


This excerpt is quoted from an urgent Teletype, sent from the Albuquerque SAC to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover at 5:37 PM MST - April 25, 1964; or approximately 24 hours after the event:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640425_pg1.htm

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640425_pg2.htm

Albuquerque conducting no investigation, is maintaining liaison with military. Bureau will be advised of any pertinent developments.


This document apparently contains a summary of the initial report of the incident, as submitted by Special Agent Byrnes; including a synopsis of the event and Zamora’s testimony, a notation that (Captain Richard T. Holder), Commander, Stallion Range Center, Socorro, N.M., advised at once April twenty four and is handling”, and the observation that:

(Zamora) greatly frightened, radioed his observations and (Sgt. Chavez) and (Socorro County Undersheriff Jim Luckie), quickly on scene, noted four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas and four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in… rectangular type pattern averaging about twelve feet apart.


{Emphasis added}

Perhaps, it may be argued, that the use of the phrase “…conducting no investigation” can be interpreted to indicate that “no investigation” was being conducted because the FBI already understood the nature of the “sighting”, but this interpretation is contradicted by a second Teletype from April 27, that states:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640427_pg3.htm

No investigation being conducted by FBI, Albuquerque. Liaison being maintained.

Military Officers contacted advise the two incidents reported are not part of a military exercise to their knowledge and to date have no explanation.

Bureau will be advised of any pertinent developments.


{Emphasis added}

…And openly acknowledges that the military officers who were questioned – including Captain Holder, perhaps (?), who was clearly “contacted” by Agent Byrnes? – did not have any explanation for the sighting.

Further, if the FBI did possess any definitive knowledge of the nature of the event at Socorro, it presumably would not have forwarded a report of the other “incident” implied in the Teletype, that was reported in La Madera, New Mexico (north of Santa Fe), on Sunday, April 26th:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640427_pg1.htm

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640427_pg2.htm

An additional incident has been reported as happening at one AM, Four twenty six last, at La Maderia (sic), N.M., about seventy miles north of Santa Fe, N.M.


Nor would they have queried the Air Force Office of Special Investigations at Kirtland AFB regarding the Socorro event:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640427_pg1.htm

Unidentified Flying Object, Socorro, N.M., April twenty four sixty four information concerning.

RE Albuquerque Tel four twenty five last.

OSI, Albuquerque advises incident not known to be connected with military or Operation Cloud Gap.



In addition, it should also be recognized that the Albuquerque Special Agent in Charge would not have needed to withhold any, alleged, sensitive information, regarding Socorro, in Teletypes that were sent directly, and confidentially, to FBI Director Hoover.

~ Omission of such, arguably, significant information would have been misleading at best, and derelict of duty at worst.

Therefore, if Agent Byrnes’ “Boss” knew nothing – and/or reported nothing – about a deception operation at Socorro, then this would imply that either: Agent Byrnes was reporting the information, and evidence, from Socorro honestly and openly – as his assignment should have required; or that he was acting as a “rogue” agent on his own initiative, for unknown, and perhaps unlikely (?), reasons.



Given these circumstances, it may be simpler to conclude that Agent Byrnes was performing his duties honestly and professionally, and that his wish to remain “anonymous” (as suggested by Ray Stanford?) may have reflected an honest desire to avoid becoming “Special Agent Flying Saucer” – which he reasonably (?) could have anticipated to damage to his personal and professional reputations, in much the same way that Lonnie Zamora’s reputation was later damaged.



3.) Sgt. Chavez confirmed Captain Holder’s measurements to the press on Saturday morning.


It has been argued that Sgt. Chavez never confirmed the information contained in Captain Holder’s diagram: Namely, that he (Chavez) witnessed four main features at the site that were arranged in a “trapezoid” arrangement, and spaced a significant distance apart:

Access Denied wrote: However on closer inspection there appears to be no documentation to firmly support the assertion that what Chavez reportedly discovered at that time can be definitively correlated with the “four rectangular HsITG” mentioned in Agent Byrnes report and presumably documented by Capt. Holder in his diagram.

…Chavez evidently wasn’t there when Capt. Holder arrived and there’s no clear evidence in the official record to confirm that Chavez concurred with the results of Captain Holder’s investigation.

…Actually only one of the sources you quoted (the “narrative” attached to Col. Jonckheere’s summary written a month after the sighting) suggests that they were “trapezoidal in layout” but thanks for compiling all of those sources.

…Note the use of the term “tracks” and that no quantity, dimensions, or indication of geometrical relationships (e.g. “rectangular“ or “trapezoidal”) is given.

…Note again that no dimensions or indication of geometrical relationships is given however Moody apparently confirms Chavez found a quantity of four.



…Yet the following, significant, passage was included in an article published in the Albuquerque Tribune on Saturday, April 25, 1964 – within 24 hours of the event:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697179

Zamora said he called Sgt. Sam Chavez on his car radio. Chavez joined him and both approached the site of the apparent landing.

They found scorched ground and burned weeds. They also found four 4 -5 inch depressions in the ground which apparently had supported a heavy object.

Chavez said the impressions were irregularly spaced with the distance between them varying from about nine to fifteen feet.


{Emphasis added}


In retrospect, this article is important for at least two reasons:


1.) It identifies the source of the erroneous 4” X5” dimension that appeared in the SNAFUed, April 26th, preliminary report that Captain Quintanilla prepared for Colonel de Jonckheere:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695311

…the army took soil samples of 4” X 5” impressions which were found where the alleged vehicle had landed. The impressions appeared to be burned and the surround (sic) area was clean.


{Emphasis added}

…And the SNAFUed OD log, written by Major Sameshima, that the preliminary report was clearly based on:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695390

…Also the FBI at Albuquerque proceeded to the area, and allegedly confirmed that “something” had been there. They reportedly found 4”x5” impressions in the ground somewhat like stand legs; the impressions appeared burned – none of the other area was burned.


{Emphasis added}


According to the Quintanilla Initial Report:

At 0715, 26 April, when I reported for duty as OD, I was informed by Major Sameshima, 25 April OD, that he had received a UFO report via telephone at 2130 EST, 25 April, from the 1005th Special Investigation Group, Washington, D.C.

The UFO report had been received by the 1005th from Lt Col King, CID, of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Lt Col King had read about the sighting in the local newspaper and had also been provided data by the FBI.

The FBI was informed of the sighting by the New Mexico State Police.


{Emphasis added}

…Which reflects the same information regarding the primary source – Lt. Colonel King – as given in the Sameshima log:

UFO data was received by Capt Cuny from a Lt. Colonel King, Counter Intelligence Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico, who in turn read about it in the local newspaper and also was provided data by the FBI.


{Emphasis added}

Reviewing these documents, it now becomes clear, perhaps, that the “local newspaper” that Lt. Colonel King, Albuquerque CIC, received his preliminary information from (?) was the Albuquerque Tribune of Saturday, April 25th, and that what he had read about the case – specifically – was the very text of the article that was quoted above.

Comparing the given dimensions between the article and the reports carefully, it becomes apparent that the original Tribune citation describes the features as “4 (TO) 5 inches” – not the “4 (BY) 5 inches” cited in the reports.

~ This is significant, because, although not precisely consistent with the common width of 6” cited for the four features by all of the witnesses, this figure might be considered very similar to it, if 4 TO 5 inches was given by Zamora (apparently?) as the WIDTH of the holes.

While only a guess, stating that something is 4 TO 5 inches in WIDTH, is very different from an implied 4 BY 5 inch overall dimension that was apparently misstated in the Air Force documents.


If so, then it might be argued that Zamora was publicly describing the four main features almost consistently within 24 hours of the event (?).



Additionally, the Tribune article also states:

Besides the landing marks, Zamora said he found what appeared to be two round prints like heel marks.


…Which appears to confirm that the “Footprints” (?) were not confused with the main features, and that Zamora likely took notice of the “Footprints” separately while he was present on the site the previous evening.


Finally, the last sentence in the article states:

An FBI agent visited the spot this morning.


… And though apparently not consistent with Agent Byrnes’ presence on the site on Friday evening (unless he also returned on Saturday?), this statement likely suggests the reason for Lt. Colonel King’s subsequent contact with the FBI.



2.) Chavez’ statement that:

…the (four) impressions were irregularly spaced with the distance between them varying from about nine to fifteen feet.


{Emphasis added}

…Matches the description of the Holder diagram almost exactly.

According to the diagram, the distance between Holder #2 and Holder #3 is 9 feet, 7 and 1/2 inches – which is the shortest distance recorded. Conversely, the distance between Holder #1 and Holder #4 is 14 feet, 9 and ½ inches – which is the longest distance recorded.

Therefore, the given description of ”distance between them varying from about nine to fifteen feet” is entirely consistent with Holder, and arguably (?) beyond the realm of random coincidence.


Where it has been suggested that Chavez was not on the site when Holder’s measurements were taken:

Access Denied wrote: Chavez wasn’t there when the measurements were made so he’s not really in any position to attest to their accuracy or “germaneess” as you put it.


…A seemingly significant question is now raised.


That being:

If Chavez had left the site, or was not present, when Holder’s measurements were being taken, then how could he have cited those same dimensions to the press on Saturday?


The simplest answer may be that Chavez, himself – or another Officer, perhaps – had measured the distances (even if paced off with their feet, in lieu of a measuring tape?), and that the four features that Captain Holder diagramed were, in fact, the same four features that Chavez and Zamora had first discovered shortly after the event.


~ Alternately, it may be argued that Chavez had been given the 9 and 15 foot measurements by someone else, but if these apparent dimensions were not what he had first observed at the site personally, then why did he repeat them? …And if he had left the site before Captain Holder arrived, then who was it that had given him the false measurements that he apparently did not see fit to correct? Agent Byrnes was present with Chavez, of course, but the evidence presented previously appears to absolve Byrnes’ motives and actions…


Though not exact, Chavez’ characterization that the ”…the (four) impressions were irregularly spaced”, can also be argued to correspond to an “irregular” geometric relationship such as a trapezoid.

Access Denied wrote: Chavez only confirmed (according to Moody) what was noted in the FBI report (four 6” x 16” depressions and three 4” diameter circular marks) NOT the “trapezoidal” arrangement noted in Capt. Holder’s diagrams


Yet it should also be noted that the FBI Teletype from that same day – Saturday, April 25th (presumably based on Special Agent Byrnes’ initial report?) – more completely described the physical evidence as follows:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640425_pg1.htm

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640425_pg2.htm

5:37 PM MST - April 25, 1964; From: SAC Albuquerque To: Director FBI:

(Zamora) greatly frightened, radioed his observations and (Sgt. Chavez) and (Socorro County Undersheriff Jim Luckie), quickly on scene, noted four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas and four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in… rectangular type pattern averaging about twelve feet apart.


{Emphasis added}

…And not only describes the four main features as being in a ”…rectangular type pattern averaging about twelve feet apart.”, but also specifically states that Zamora, Chavez, and Luckie were already on the site, and that these individuals had “noted” both the primary and secondary evidence as described.


Though the characterization of the evidence as described in Colonel de Jonkheere’s summary may, indeed, have written a month after the event (and is therefore subject to question):

Access Denied wrote: Diagonals of the four impressions intersect in a perpendicular and the major distance seems to be approximately 13 ft.

The sentence underlined in bold above which is critical to establishing the provenance of the “four rectangular HsITG” (specifically their geometric relationship and Chavez’s alleged confirmation of them) has clearly been taken out of context.


It is also interesting – for the record – to realize that the average distance of the measurements between the four main features is exactly 12.375 feet – which is very close to the “averaging 12 feet apart” statement given in the FBI Teletype, and the “major distance seems to be approximately 13 ft.” phraseology from Colonel de Jonckheere’s summary.



Finally, another key question has been raised:

Access Denied wrote: …it’s unclear whether or not Chavez accompanied Moody and Zamora on their visit to the site (he’s not in the press photographs) in order to confirm the geometrical relationships as documented in Capt. Holder’s diagram which apparently wasn’t even available at the time of his interview as we’ll soon see.


…But all evidence, including these pictures:

Image

Image

…Establishes that Chavez accompanied Dr. Hynek and Zamora to the site on Tuesday, April 28, and nowhere in Hynek’s account is Chavez alluded to as saying anything even remotely like:


Chavez: ”Excuse me, Dr. Hynek, but these holes aren’t what I saw here on Friday night. Someone else must have changed them!”


At the same time, Zamora was making at least his second visit to the site since Friday night (including Sunday, April 26th, with Connor and Moody)…

Image

Image

…And he wasn’t recorded as making any such “corrective” statements in either the Moody, or the Hynek reports.


In fact, Hynek said this about Zamora:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696368

Zamora did not describe the light to me in the detail that he has described it in Captain Holder’s report. He stressed only the roar and the fact that he thought the Mayor’s dynamite shack had exploded and that somebody might have been in trouble.

From that point on, his report to me was virtually identical to that he gave to Captain Holder…


{Emphasis added}

And he also said this about both Zamora and Chavez:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696407

Both men seemed to give every indication of being devoted to duty and being basically simple and honest.


Therefore, if this impression were accurate, there would have been, arguably, every reason to expect that Zamora and Chavez would have immediately pointed out any discrepancies – in any of the evidence – to Dr. Hynek.

Yet there is no evidence, whatsoever (?), that suggests that either one of these men disagreed with anything that they had witnessed (and posed beside) on the site, on either Sunday, April 26th, or Tuesday, April 28th.



Again, the simplest answer would appear to be that nothing was altered.



4.) Captain Holder did not work for Hughes.


Captain Richard T. Holder, Commander of Stallion Range Facility at White Sands Missile Range, appears to have been the eighth person – following the law enforcement officers – to arrive on the scene at Socorro on Friday evening.

Though Lieutenant Colonel Conkey, and Major Mitchell – the Foreign Technology Division liaison officer at Holloman AFB – have been suggested as (possible) ninth individuals as cited by Dr. Hynek:

Access Denied wrote: Potential (unconfirmed) candidates for the ninth individual include…

Lt. Col. Conkey (FTD Liason)
Major Mitchell (AFMDC)


…Major Mitchell does not appear to have become involved in the case prior to being contacted by Captain Quintanilla:

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

Capt 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.


…Where Captain Quintanilla is known not to have become aware of the sighting until Sunday, April 26th. Therefore Major Mitchell’s potential presence appears unlikely (?).

In addition, Lt. Colonel Conkey is not cited as becoming involved in the matter until the “latter” part of May, though he might certainly (?) have become aware of the incident earlier (?) – so perhaps, the same negative conclusion can also be reached for him?


Alternately, a more likely candidate for the ninth person at the site (IMO) could have been Sergeant Castle (?), Chief of the Military Police at Stallion Range Center.

~ Given that Captain Holder was called to the site to conduct an investigation, it would have, arguably, made sense that he might have selected his chief security officer to accompany him, but this is only a guess. Accordingly – and if so – Sergeant Castle should have been expected to follow the orders that were given to him by Captain Holder.


Therefore, this assumption:

Access Denied wrote: [Note: This also indicates Capt. Holder was clearly “running the show” as it were by controlling the evidence chain.]


…Appears to be reasonable, if Holder was, indeed, called to the scene as a primary investigator (?).


~ Yet – nevertheless, in addition to simply investigating the sighting, Captain Holder is also suggested to have conducted a deception operation:

Access Denied wrote: Seems to me Capt. Holder could have initiated a cover-up without Chavez’s knowledge and Agent Byrnes may or may not of been in on it.


If this is so, then Captain Holder should also have been expected to have become the fulcrum of any such effort, seeing that he was the only person on the scene who – at this point – could, arguably, have possessed a realistic motive to be deceptive.


Yet there is a critical flaw in this reasoning.


Given that the essence of the Surveyor Hypothesis is ascribed to an independent, “rogue”, flight test conducted by Hughes personnel, acting on their own:

Access Denied wrote: Unfortunately the RTI report offers no insight in this regard and it should be noted they did not perform the tests, Hughes did. RTI was merely contracted by JPL to do a post-test review of the entire program… and they may not have had access to all of Hughes’ test reports (especially if there had been a cover-up of one particularly “unconventional” test lol).

… Granted why they (Hughes) would do it off-base after the range had essentially been shut down for the weekend remains a mystery.


{Emphasis added}

…It thereby becomes a mutually exclusive assumption to suggest that Captain Holder could have possessed an alleged intent to “cover-up” something, that – by definition – he could NOT have been aware of.


?



CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE...
"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 » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:33 am

CONTINUED...


This significant inability of Holder to be aware of the alleged Hughes test is also reinforced by the fact that, flying at its “top” speed of 105 mph (which might be questionable, if carrying a payload like Surveyor…), the Bell 47 helicopter would have taken nearly one hour to return to Holloman AFB, some 93 miles to the southeast.

This is particularly so if there was a strong quartering headwind blowing from the south, as the wind conditions at that time were described in Dr. Hynek’s report:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696424

The wind at the time was blowing very strongly from the south and I established by repeated questioning that the object had taken off either at right angles to the wind, or partially into the wind.



Therefore, at the time that Holder was contacted and sent to Socorro, the alleged helicopter would have still been in the air, and no one other than the alleged “rogues” at Hughes, presumably, would have had any idea about what had just (supposedly) happened near Socorro.



Alternately, it might be argued that the alleged Hughes helicopter could have, possibly, radioed the up-range controllers, but with radar shut off in the area and the base closed down, there would not appear to have been anyone on-duty to talk to (?). Neither should line of sight radio communications have been able to reach anyone in the Holloman area, if the helicopter – as alleged – was flying “low” to avoid the radar from Holloman (that was apparently still active?) and was flying in the “shadow” of the San Andres mountain range that bisects WSMR.



~ Broadly speaking, it would also appear illogical (?) that if Captain Holder – a base commander, and not a counterintelligence officer – was intent on hiding something, that he would have gone to so much effort to carefully document the evidence at the site – thereby creating the opportunity for others to continue debating and discussing it some years later (?).

A better, and arguably more bureaucratic, method of “sweeping something under the rug” might have been to arrive in Socorro, listen carefully, nod one’s head a lot, and then offer up a good, old-fashioned, official U.S. Government: ”Well, don’t worry about it…”. But this is only an opinion.


Then again, Captain Holder, himself, agreed to be interviewed (in 1995?) by the television program Unsolved Mysteries, regarding his involvement at Socorro, and his own words regarding the case after 31 years were these:

http://www.strangeworld.tv/video/116764 ... doavi.html

Well, my first impression was that it was something from the range that needed possible help – you know… first aid, attention, or at best, security. The more I got into it, the less convinced I was that that was the case.

We looked around to try and find out if we could see any evidence of anythingthat would make us believe it was a hoax. We found nothing.

Everything we saw seemed to support the story that Officer Zamora recounted. My impression of talking to him was that he was mystified; He wanted an explanation.

Nothing that I heard of later gave me the slightest hint that he did this as a hoax, or cooked it up for fame or fortune.

I believe Lonnie Zamora was a good policeman and an honest man who reported, as he felt proper, something well beyond his experience.

Was it something terrestrial, …extraterrestrial? I have no idea.


{Emphasis original}

Perhaps, it might be argued, that by stating that he had ”No idea” about what Lonnie Zamora claimed to have seen, Captain Holder was still maintaining his alleged deception operation some twenty-nine years after Surveyor One had landed on the Moon.

Given the ease, however, with which he likely (?) could have avoided saying ANYTHING at all – to anyone – this idea appears to be inconsistent (IMO).


It may, in fact, be simpler to conclude that he was genuinely telling the truth.



5.) The alleged helicopter pilots have not been identified.


In lieu of the documented first responders, it has also been suggested that the hypothetical pilots of an alleged helicopter could have created the four Holes-in-The-Ground. ~ Yet this is a dependent assumption (i.e.that such pilots could have made the HsITG), which is based on a secondary assumption (that such pilots existed), that does not substantiate the existence of these pilots, nor answer the question of why such pilots would have placed themselves in such a compromised position as to require the creation of such “holes” in the first place.


Lacking independent, substantiating evidence, this hypothesis appears to be un-testable.



5.) Lieutenant Colonel King reported a UFO to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.


If the alleged Surveyor flight to Socorro was not, after all, the private, and secretive, work of Hughes, it may alternately be argued that the timing and location of this “test” was known – or became known – to base authorities. Therefore, any subsequent, alleged, “cover-up” would have become a formal “National Security” event, which could have been effected, and/or responded to by base personnel, such as Captain Holder.


~ But, if so, then why did Lieutenant Colonel King of Army Counterintelligence, Albuquerque, elect to file a UFO report, and forward the information that he had learned from the Albuquerque Tribune (?), and the FBI, to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations in Washington, D.C?

As a senior Army Counterintelligence officer, likely with a Top Secret clearance, Lt. Colonel King should have, arguably, been in one of the best positions to learn about the existence of any Army-related deception operations that may have occurred in the Socorro area.

With his interest piqued by the Saturday newspaper article, he arguably, again, would have contacted U.S. Army Intelligence sources at White Sands, or elsewhere, for any possible information regarding the Socorro event, even before contacting the FBI.

~ After all (whether reported correctly or not), Army Intelligence (?) was stated in the article to have collected soil samples at the site:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697179

Zamora said men who identified themselves as from Army Intelligence at White Sands Missile Range took samples of the soil.


And yet, presumably after conducting his own preliminary investigation – which would have appeared to be professionally appropriate – he still saw fit to file a UFO report with the Air Force’s 1005th Special Investigations Group (AFOSI) in Washington:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695390

Summary of UFO report received by phone on 25 April 1964:

Caller: Captain Theodore W. Cuny, 1005th Special Investigation Group, Wash.

Called at 2130 EST, 25 April

Call received by OD (Maj K S Sameshima)

UFO data was received by Capt Cuny from a Lt. Colonel King, Counter Intelligence Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico, who in turn read about it in the local newspaper and also was provided data by the FBI.

{snip}

The above is all that Capt Cuny could report.

It is suggested that Lt Col King, Albuquerque 268-2107 be contacted for proper questioning of Lonnie Damora (sic).


… Which, in turn, would appear to contradict the idea that a conventional, “sensitive”, or “National Security”, event was known to have occurred, and that a CIC officer such as Lt. Col. King should have (?) arguably been able to determine on his own.


Indeed, TSgt. Moody also stated, after a personal briefing, that Lieutenant Colonel King knew nothing more about the event than what he had reported to Captain Cuny at AFOSI:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696280

I contacted Col. King and a meeting was arranged for 0830. The only information that Col. King had was in the form of an FBI report made by agent Barnes (sic) on Friday night following the sighting. This report was forwarded to Washington and Col. King had notified the Command Post. (This FBI report to be included as an attachment in Major Connor’s report.)



The initial UFO report – of course – filed by Lieutenant Colonel King to AFOSI, was to become the genesis of the FTD / Bluebook investigation, itself.



Alternately, perhaps, it might be argued that Lieutenant Colonel King’s report was intended to cloud the issue of an alleged Surveyor test with a “smokescreen”, but several important factors may (?) appear to contradict this idea:

1.) As an Air Force host project, managed at Holloman AFB, the Air Force should have been responsible for the security needs of the Surveyor program. Yet, the Socorro UFO report was filed by an Army Counterintelligence officer to the Air Force, instead.

2.) AFOSI’s response to Lieutenant Colonel King’s report was to forward it to FTD without substantial modification. Seeing as Captain Cuny, at 1005th SIG, was the officer who both took the UFO information from Colonel King, and then relayed it to Major Sameshima, it would appear that AFOSI did not play any active role in the handling of the report. Rather, instead, if a “smokescreen” were, arguably, to have been intended, AFOSI should have likely (?) been the primary agency to conduct it. Yet AFOSI’s involvement in this chain of events appears to have been only transitory, and/or ancillary.

3.) Calling in a separate investigation by a rival service (on the part of the Army) would have served to create even more security requirements on the part of more offices – and would have caused even more attention to be paid to an allegedly sensitive event that, logic dictates, should have been de-emphasizedto the greatest extent possible, rather than exposed to even more non-essential personnel and publicity.

4.) Even if there had been the intent to create a “smokescreen” for the Socorro event, it seems unlikely that a CIC officer based in Albuquerque – as opposed to White Sands, itself – would have been tasked to file the report.



In the end, it may be simpler to conclude that Lieutenant Colonel King honestly filed a UFO report because he had no other information – and if he had no other information, it was likely because no other information existed, and because no deception operation was indicated.



Further, the assumption of the Socorro incident to be a “National Security” event appears to raise even more unanswered questions, such as:


~ Why was the radar at the northern end of WSMR shut down, if controllers (presumably provided with a flight plan?) were aware that this alleged flight was still “out there”?

~ Why would this alleged flight have been authorized after the base had been shut down?

~ Why was a “sensitive” test known to be in a public area?

~ Why was Captain Holder tasked to investigate the sighting, rather than personnel from White Sands’ Security and Counterintelligence Division, or AFOSI?

~ Why were none of the witnesses debriefed by military Counterintelligence personnel, or by the FBI’s National Security Division?

~ Why would such elaborate “countermeasures” be required for a project that did not appear to be classified at a level higher than Confidential?

~ Why was no official acknowledgement of this event made - even after Surveyor had became worldwide public knowledge, and Congressional UFO hearings were threatened?

~ Why was Project Bluebook allowed to investigate this incident, at all? A simple, private, “It’s one of ours”, could have arguably resolved the matter very simply.



Access Denied wrote:Assuming Blue Book and/or the base/culprits (represented initially by Capt. Holder) wanted this case to be solved which other evidence as discussed in my previous posts (e.g. the evident “runaround” given Capt. Quintanilla re: Surveyor testing) suggests may not be the case. ;)


Assuming that the proprietary reservations that were expressed by the majority of the contractors can be interpreted as a “runaround”, this “runaround” appears to have been largely prosaic in nature, and far (IMO) from representing substantial evidence of any implied “cover-up”.

Alternately, the simplest explanation might suggest that these contractors were only following basic security protocols in response to an unauthorized inquiry – thereby protecting their contracts. Conversely, Cleveland Pneumatic Aviation (Surveyor landing gear) offered to provide Project Bluebook with as much assistance as they could.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Access Denied wrote:…and then when you’re done with that disprove the hypothesis as outlined above that the four HsITG may simply be a diversion created to throw the public (and any interested researchers) “off the track” (pun intended) of the source of Zamora’s sighting.


…I believe I’ve demonstrated enough circumstantial evidence exists to suggest that in the absence of further clarification or evidence, at the very least, there was an opportunity (and logically a motive) for such an “adulteration” (or “obfuscation”) to have occurred therefore it’s relevant to any further analysis until such time as it can be conclusively ruled out.


I’m not sure if this alleged “diversion” has been disproved or ruled out, but after further clarification and presentation of evidence, there appear to be several significant reasons (IMO) to regard such a hypothesis with skepticism – particularly with regard to the assumed motives of the personnel who are accepted to have been present.

On the contrary, the lack of any tangible evidence to support the intent of any of these people to have been deceptive – or the presentation of any verifiable proof that they were, in fact, deceptive – should be carefully considered by any further analyses (again, IMO).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With the above issues better clarified, and the physical evidence at the site now better established, I would like to continue to the second proposition:


That the disturbances of the ground, and the burn effects that were noted, were created by a Vernier rocket propulsion system that was transported to, and from, the site by a helicopter.



There are at least two significant reasons to doubt this assumption.



1.) The submitted diagram that establishes a correlation between the Surveyor rocket engines and the physical evidence may be in error.


This diagram, which appears to demonstrate the correlation of two Vernier rocket thrust plumes to Holder #2 and Holder #3 (in yellow?):

Image

…May be dependent on a possible misinterpretation of this Surveyor landing photograph:

Image

…Where a thrust vector of 8.5 degrees appears to be implied from the proximity of a dark “mark” (?), near the ground, and beneath the Surveyor rocket plume.

Where…

Access Denied wrote:d1 = distance between vernier engines = ~62 inches (derived from your diagram)
d2 = distance between depressions
h = height of lander = 14 ft. (minimum*)
theta = apparent angle of thrust = ~8.5 degrees

then:

d2 = d1 + ( 2 * ( tan (theta) * h ) ) = ~112 inches

That’s pretty close to the reported distance of ~116 inches between HITG #1 and #3 (#2 and #3 in the AF diagram) for example however as shown here when all three thrust vectors (120° apart) are overlaid on the diagram …


{Emphasis added}

Apparently (?), the given dark “mark” is assumed to represent the effects of the Vernier rocket thrust impacting the ground – thereby creating what has been called a “Supersonic Post Hole”.

But closer inspection of the photograph reveals that a very similar dark “mark” is also located to the extreme left of the picture, which appears to be completely unrelated (?) to the Surveyor test:

Image

Therefore, it is not beyond scientific consideration that all of the dark “marks’ in the photograph may – in fact – be independent features of the terrain, and therefore only coincidentally collocated under, and/or behind (?), the cited rocket plume.


Speaking as “Mr. Scientific Method” (LOL), it thereby becomes possible (IMO) to question the validity of the 8.5-degree angle of thrust that is assumed by the equation, and it’s implied relevance to the diagram, and/or presentation.

This is particularly so, perhaps, where only the Surveyor Vernier engine #1 was designed to be vectored + 6 degrees from the vertical zero vector (i.e. straight down):

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bits ... 4-0406.pdf

Surveyor Spacecraft Automatic Landing System:

(pp. 5)

A close-up of a vernier engine assembly is shown in Fig. 3. One of the three engines could be gimbaled + 6 deg, about an axis allowing its use for roll control of the spacecraft.


Though it might, in turn, be argued that the apparent angle of thrust could be modified by the relative pitch of the vehicle to the ground, such a pitch angle does not appear to be particularly evident in the source photograph (IMO), and the plume dispersion measured – @14-degrees on each side (?) – appears to be fairly symmetrical in aspect.

{Interestingly, however, the plume dispersion the left side of the picture appears to demonstrate an asymmetrical aspect of roughly 20 degrees (?) on the outside, and roughly eight degrees (?) on the inside – possibly indicating that this might be a gimbaled plume from Vernier engine # 1? But this is only a guess.}


Secondly, the validity of the measurement of the stated 8.5-degree angle of thrust would appear to require that the axis of the Vernier rocket thrust in question be perpendicular to the camera, and this does not seem to be the case (?).


And third, the “d2 = d1 + ( 2 * ( tan (theta) * h ) ) = ~112 inches” equation only measures d2 as a simple line extending straight across and beyond each Vernier location, without accounting for the assumed angle of thrust to extend symmetrically beyond each Vernier rocket at the 120-degree relationship that is implied in the diagram.


This corrected relationship is demonstrated, in magenta, by the diagram below:

Image

…Where d2 becomes closer to 102 inches. Note also that d1 is corrected to ~ 59 inches, rather than ~ 62 inches, where the corrected figure is derived from Page 10 of the following document:

Surveyor Thrust Phase Flight Control System

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 088073.pdf


Then again, the original calculation was only suggested to be BOTE.



Even though it is correctly argued that the landing site, itself, is uneven in relief, thereby making precise calculations of any alleged rocket plumes / thrust to the four main features unreliable (…and/or complicated, with many variables required), it still appears difficult (IMO) to quantify the suggested engine plumes / thrust to any comprehensive combination of features, or to their dimensions.



Access Denied wrote:1. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by (up to) three Surveyor vernier engines firing simultaneously (or otherwise) at some fixed and/or varying distance above the surface.

LOL… OK Mr. Scientific Method let’s see you use those same “simple mathematics of aerospace engineering” to disprove (for example) my hypothesis that one or more of Surveyor’s vernier engines could have been the source of some of those “depressions” through the process of erosion… or as some folks I know in Mojave like to call it…

Supersonic Post Hole Digger



Actually, it’s not surprising that the thrust from a rocket engine could disturb, or create a hole in the ground. In fact, this commonplace (?) characteristic appears to have been the reason that the Surveyor engineers originally designed a 14 foot (or 13 foot) engine cut-off altitude into the flight descent profile:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 088073.pdf

Surveyor Thrust Phase Flight Control System:

(pp. 5)

23. When slant range has decreased to 13 feet the radar generates a digital signal marking that range. This signal is utilized by the flight control electronics to shut down the three vernier rocket engines.

24. The spacecraft free falls to touchdown.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 082318.pdf

Surveyor Terminal Guidance - R.K Cheng:

(pp. 12)

Finally, engine shutoff is made when the range beam indicates a specific value (different from zero), in order to avoid possible detrimental effects resulting from the impingement of rocket exhaust on the (lunar) surface.


{Emphasis added}

…But (and especially with the assumed 8.5-degreeVernier thrust vector open to question) the assumption that any of the alleged Surveyor’s rockets could have created the four main features still appears difficult to qualify (IMO) – for some, or all, of the following reasons:


1.) The 14 (13) foot engine cutoff.:

Seeing as the rationale for shutting off the engines at 14 or 13 feet above the ground was to avoid creating surface disturbances – which likely could have contaminated the spacecraft’s sensitive instruments, and avionics, with dirt and dust – it may appear open to question (?) that the minimal rocket thrust of @ 66lbf each (?):

Access Denied wrote:That’s not a lot of thrust…


…Should have been able to create distinct features like HsITG #s 1-4 from that distance above the ground (as opposed to being fired from a few feet, or so, above the surface on a stationary test stand?). But then again, I’m not a rocket expert.


~ It could, of course, be argued that the rockets malfunctioned – and thereby continued to fire closer to the ground – but this would create further inconsistencies in the geometries, and apparently cannot be substantiated beyond speculation (?).


2.) The mathematics still don’t add up.:

Even taking into account the unevenness of the terrain, the mathematics still don’t appear to provide any firm basis (IMO) for matching the four holes to any configuration of Surveyor rockets, or to their effects. Alternately, it might be argued that one, two, or less than three, rockets were supposedly responsible, but this still doesn’t explain the total number of features – and their placement – beyond the realm of speculation, or differentiate between which of the features were supposedly created by rockets, and which ones were not.

As has often been suggested, a variety of possible (?) implements could have created the holes, but without some definitive indicator – particularly in the realm of mathematics, and/or geometry – there is no clear evidence (IMO) that conclusively appears to select for rocket engines over any other cause(s).


3.) The nearby bushes and/or grass were not burned.

Careful examination of the photographs reveals that bushes and/or grass were located very (?) close to the positions of Holder #2, #3, and #4. Yet there is no apparent indication that any of these organics was influenced by heat and/or combustion, nor was any inference made, in any of the official documentation, that this was the case. On the contrary, all heat / combustion features were noted to have occurred nearer to the center of the site – with the exception of Burn #4, which was noted to have been six feet, four inches, outside and distant from Holder #3.

Assuming that sufficient plume effects (hot gases?) were present, and were allegedly able to create these three features, it appears inconsistent that the proximity of heat (?) to the corresponding bushes – only inches away, at best – would have left them (reportedly, or the lack, thereof…) unaffected.


4.) There are no “Supersonic Post Holes” in the center of the site, or collocated with any of the burns.:

Assuming that the geometry of the burns areas can be shown to match the alleged Surveyor Vernier plumes, it appears reasonable to entertain the idea that these burns could have been manufactured by one, or more, hypothetical rocket engines firing at some distance(s) above the surface.

~ Observing, however, that the official documentation places the main locus of the burns toward the center of the site, this would also – arguably – place the general locus of the alleged rockets in the same central area (?). If so, (…and as implied by the pink figure in the diagram?):

Image

…This would appear to place the location of the alleged takeoff “flame”, as reported by the witness, in this center area, as well.


Were this to be the case – and with the alleged rocket thrust now (hypothetically) much closer to the ground – it might be expected that if “Supersonic Post Holes” were to have been created anywhere, that it most likely would have been here… And yet there was no such type of disturbance noted, or photographed (apparently?), in this area.

Access Denied wrote:I would expect there to be no general indications of a “blast” in the area other than perhaps localized directly under them (e.g. the HsITG?)… moreso after takeoff if are we are to accept Zamora’s testimony that a flame was visible both times (takeoff and landing).



Alternately, it might be argued that the witness testimony is, again, incorrect in this case, but – if so – one of the key assumptions supporting the Surveyor hypothesis appears to be invalidated along with it:

Namely, the alleged “roar” that frightened the witness, which allegedly explains the “strangeness” of the event that confused him, causing him to run and lose his glasses, rendering him too visually impaired to recognize the helicopter, deafening him so he couldn’t hear the helicopter fly away, and so on…


~ Without the takeoff “flame” (…and the presumed presence of rockets in the first place?), the “star” witness for the Surveyor hypothesis appears to be “impeached”, as well (?).



Access Denied wrote:2. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by Surveyor high pressure gas purge of propellant and/or pressurant (helium) through a common vent and/or one or more engine nozzles.

…Also, it seems possible that at least one of the HsITG (the “less defined” one?) may be the result of a high pressure propellant/gas purge which this photograph appears to show would fall outside any marks created by the vernier engines…


While the purging of pressurant, or propellant, through one or more engine nozzles might be argued to have created burns or holes – provided, again, that the geometries can somehow be correlated – the assumption of a common vent purge (i.e. venting outside of the Vernier radius) appears to be significantly questionable (?), based on the photograph cited:

Image


Looking closely, the assumed “common vent” apparatus is conspicuously absent in the preceding airborne photograph on the left:

Image

…Which may belie “its” more probable (?) identity as a fixture of the parachute recovery system that was employed by the T-2 Terminal Descent vehicles.


According to Surveyor Project Review, the main components of the T-2 test articles are specified as follows:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 076705.pdf

(pp.75 – 76)

T-2 test program

Test vehicle

Modified frame, lunar-g scaled
Vernier engine system
Flight control group (prototype radar and electronics)
Power source
Recovery system (parachute, airbag)


{Emphasis added}

…And where the recovery airbags are clearly discernable in the airborne test photograph, it appears equally logical to conclude that the “effluent” portrayed (to the right) is not a pressurant or propellant “purge” of any sort, rather than the descended recovery system parachute lying on the ground (?).


Of course, this parachute interpretation may be in error, given the resolution of the image, but I will offer an apology for not suggesting this possible correction earlier.

I was remiss.



Access Denied wrote:3. Some/all burns created by Surveyor vernier engine residual post firing propellant leakage though one or more engine nozzles.

…In that respect it is interesting to note that for the two cases shown above there is a circle drawn fairly close to where one might expect a faulty thruster to be leaking uncombusted propellants (i.e. straight down) and spontaneously combust with any organic material present.

…you’re ignoring the startup and shutdown phases of rocket motor operation when there is likely to be relatively large quantities of uncombusted propellant expelled through vent lines and/or the thrust chamber. Do you not understand how this could cause widely dispersed and isolated (i.e. ”sporadic” as relayed to Hynek by Holder) burn areas?

…the relatively rare NTO/MMH propellant combination it used would leave no significant trace evidence (i.e. evaporate and rapidly decompose) unlike more common hydrocarbon based rocket fuels. How many times must I repeat this before you acknowledge it?

…You did read those parts right?


Yes. If the NTO/MMH combination could cause burning and/or combustion effects without leaving any trace residues behind, then this absence would appear consistent with the lack of any chemical signatures that were reportedly found in the materials from the site that were analyzed.

Standing alone, this evidence may, arguably, be interpreted as the single greatest factor supporting the Surveyor hypothesis (IMO), but – although notably significant – it is still not entirely conclusive.


~ In the end, the evidence found at the site indicates a source of heat, and/or combustion, but without an obvious cause – be it Nitrogen Tetroxide and Mono-Methylhydrazine Monohydrate, or something else – the probability of those propellants being transported to Socorro must also be examined before accepting NTO/MMH as a conclusive explanation.




2.)No evidence has been identified that Surveyor rocket systems were tested by helicopter.


Again, without the presence of rocket engines, these key hypotheses:

Access Denied wrote:1. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by (up to) three Surveyor vernier engines firing simultaneously (or otherwise) at some fixed and/or varying distance above the surface.

2. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by Surveyor high pressure gas purge of propellant and/or pressurant (helium) through a common vent and/or one or more engine nozzles.

3. Some/all burns created by Surveyor vernier engine residual post firing propellant leakage though one or more engine nozzles.


…Would appear to be invalidated.

And where it might be argued – alternately – that the lack of such evidence does not completely rule out the possibility of helicopter-based rocket testing, there are additional reasons to doubt that such testing likely would have occurred.


Previously, the question has been raised:

Access Denied wrote:The only issue here is what was attached to the Bell 47G helicopter scheduled to be tested on the day of Zamora’s sighting. Was it?

a) RADVS only
b) The S-8 spaceframe
c) The T-2 spaceframe

Unfortunately the RTI report offers no insight in this regard and it should be noted they did not perform the tests, Hughes did.


…Where both the S-8 and T-2 space frames are acknowledged to have tested RADVS (Radar Altimeter Doppler Velocity Sensor) equipment and/or Vernier rockets.


~ Yet all available (?) documentation identifies the RADVS equipment, alone, as the only Surveyor component to have been associated with the program helicopter test flights – designated “T-2H”.


These include:


Surveyor Project Status Report – 11/27/64

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf

(pp. 19)

T-2H. Helicopter test vehicle for descent tests of T-2 RADVS.



Surveyor Project Review

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 076705.pdf

(pp. 76)

T-2 test program

T-2H helicopter tests (Culver City)
RADVS system mounted and flown on helicopter
Improvements indicated



Surveyor Spacecraft Automatic Landing System

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bits ... 4-0406.pdf

(pps. 7 – 8)

The helicopters used in the testing were equipped with a complete mock-up of the RADVS, employing a special test fixture that positioned the two antenna modules in the same relative locations and beam pattern geometry as on the actual spacecraft.



…And the above referenced Research Triangle Institute report:

Surveyor Landing Radar Test Program Review (Final Report, RTI Program RU-277)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp. 71)

1. TheT-2H "vehicle" was an installation of the QA-I RADVS and test equipment on a helicopter to evaluate RADVS performance. (design / development phase: mid 1963; verification phase: mid 1964)

(pp. 73)

2. FLIGHTTESTS:

TheT-2H phase of the T-2 test program flight-tested RADVS with use of a helicopter. The model used in the tests contained all of the main features of flight models.



These descriptions contrast, in specific detail, with separate summaries that are available for both the S-8 and T-2 articles:


Surveyor Project Status Report – 11/27/64

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf

(pp. 19)

S-8. Spacecraft for tether tests to determine dynamic compatibility of spaceframe, vernier engine subsystem and flight control subsystem.

(pp. 20)

The S-8 vehicle continues to be used in evaluating the RADVS system in an actual spacecraft vibration environment. Tests were successfully completed on the flight AM-1 RADVS system. Tests are now being conducted on the AM-2 RADVS unit.


{Emphasis added}


Surveyor Landing Radar Test Program Review (Final Report, RTI Program RU-277)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp. 71)

7. Spaceframe S-8 was used for flight control/propulsion inter-action tests at the Air Force Missile Development Center (AFMDC).

8. The S-8 Spaceframe also was used for RADVS vibration tests in the upside down position. (late 1964)

(pp. 72)

I. VIBRATION: An S-8 spaceframe fitted to simulate an A-21 vehicle after retro eject was supported in an inverted position by a shock-cord system. Shakers attached at the three vernier engine points were driven with noise to obtain overall force outputs between i0 and 56 pounds rms with flat spectra band limited to the 80 to 2000 Hz range.


{Emphasis added}


Surveyor Project Status Report – 1/8/65

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001353.pdf

(pp. 21)

7.0 S-8 Test vehicle

During this reporting period, testing of the S-8 vehicle was completed. A total of 87 test runs were conducted with several combinations of components from the RADVS systems AM-1, AM-2, AM-3, and SN-1. Preliminary analysis of the RADVS operation indicate:

3. The crushable blocks are “visible” to the RADVS, and microwave absorber can reduce the extent to which they are seen.

4. The footpads on the vehicle landing gear are “invisible” to the RADVS.

5. …After removal of control items, the S-8 vehicle will be used in the thermal control model program.



Surveyor Project Status Report – 11/27/64

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf

(pp. 19)

T-2. Test spacecraft for descent dynamics testing.



Surveyor Landing Radar Test Program Review (Final Report, RTI Program RU-277)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp. 71)

2. TheT2N-I/-2 test vehicles were used for RADVS/flight control/ vernier propulsion subsystem tests during descents from a balloon. The X-3 and X-4 RADVS was used. (Sept. 1965 through May 1966)

(pp. 74)

3. DESCENT TESTS:

Descent tests were performed with the T2N-I and T2N-2 vehicles, which are special frames fitted with RADVS, flight control, and vernier engine propulsion subsystems.


{Emphasis added}


Surveyor Project Review

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 076705.pdf

(pp. 75 – 76)

T-2 test program

Test vehicle

Modified frame, lunar-g scaled
Vernier engine system
Flight control group (prototype radar and electronics)
Power source
Recovery system (parachute, airbag)

Test objectives
I. Dynamic test of final portion of vernier descent phase including touchdown, near simulation of lunar conditions.

2. Determine ability of vernier engine system and attitude reference system to maintain attitude in dynamic descent.

3. Determine ability of vernier engine system and doppler velocity sensor to align thrust vector.

4. Determine ability of system to attain touchdown conditions.

5. Gather reliability data.


Engine evaluation tests (AFMI_)
Engine system tests (tether tests and static firings)
Problems revealed
Engine and valve redesign


T-2 static and tether tests (AFMDC)
Static firing, SO July 63: engine performance good
Tether test, 9 August 63: engine performance good, roll oscillation observed
Tether test (scheduled), week of 2 September 63


{Emphasis added}


SP-480 Far Travelers: The Exploring Machines

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-480/ch9.htm

Oran Nicks: Director of Lunar and Planetary Programs, NASA:

… In general, the plan involved simple logic: a number of tethered tests would be performed, first using a large crane and later balloons, which would allow performance testing of the radar and spacecraft controls above the surface of Earth without the danger of a crash. The final test phase would involve 1500-foot drops from a balloon in which the Surveyor landing article would actually conduct its own descent phase, including landing on the surface. Three consecutive successful landings were declared to be mandatory to meet the goals of the test. The drop tests were conducted at White Sands, New Mexico.


{Emphasis added}


Surveyor Spacecraft Automatic Landing System

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bits ... 4-0406.pdf

(pps. 7 – 8)

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 116 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.


{Emphasis added}


Note carefully that all of the test environments described for both the S-8, and T-2, space frames identified their test conditions as either:

Static;

Tether;

Or Balloon drop.

And where the S-8 was used for both RADVS and Vernier / flight control interaction evaluations, note also that the Vernier / flight control simulations were conducted separately from the RADVS tests, and that the RADVS tests were static (in an upside-down configuration with simulated Vernier vibration shakers only), while the Vernier / flight control tests were conducted from a tether.

Access Denied wrote:No, again, in case you missed it, that same document (the RTI Report) shows that the S-8 spaceframe had vernier engines *and* RADVS…



~ Nowhere – in any of the documents – is any linkage between Vernier rocket and RADVS / T-2H helicopter testing either stated, or implied, in any way.

Neither is any other Vernier rocket / Helicopter testing inferred.



Further, there appear to be significant, and logical, reasons for this dichotomy – both practical and theoretical:

Access Denied wrote:Unfortunately the RTI report offers no insight in this regard…


Actually, I disagree somewhat.

From a theoretical standpoint, the RTI document appears to offer an extensive, and detailed, discussion – particularly in Appendix B (pps. 126 – 129) – regarding possible limitations and conflicts that were identified between the requirements of RADVS (for which the Helicopter was employed) and Vernier rocket testing.


In the words of the study:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp. 44)

The need for operation of the velocity and range sensors simultaneously with vernier engine operation poses the most difficult RADVS testing problem, and possibly the most difficult operational problem.



Asked to consider the parameters for developing a RADVS / Vernier testing regime, the RTI team identified three fundamental testing models:


1.) Ground-Based Experiment, Upright

2.) Ground-Based Experiment, Upside Down

3.) Balloon-Supported System


…With the objective of determining whether Vernier engine vibration, and/or the proximity of the rocket plumes to the radar signals, could create potential problems with “leakage” between the transmitters and receivers.


According to Section IV of the report:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp. 58)

In an attempt to find a reasonable method for realistic measurement of the leakage problem, several possible experiments were suggested and evaluated.


The first experiment to be considered consisted of hanging a spacecraft (or a simulating system) above the earth, firing the vernier engines and observing the transmitter- receiver leakage signal. The difficulty in reducing ground reflections to an acceptable level rules out this method.

The second experiment is similar to the first, but the spacecraft is inverted in order to reduce ground reflections to an acceptable level. However, the difficulties encountered in firing the vernier engines upside down discourage the application of this method.

Still a third and similar method is to tether a balloon-supported spacecraft above the earth, sufficiently high to reduce ground reflections to an acceptable level, again observing and analyzing the transmitter-receiver leakage. Of the three methods, the latter offers most promise.


Yet it is still noted, significantly, that:

All three of the test methods mentioned above have common shortcomings of a serious nature.


…Which, in turn, serves to spotlight a critical, and nearly inescapable, problem:

First, the acoustical air-coupling which exists in the tests, but is not present in the lunar environment, tends to mask the desired results. In theory, this coupling can be reduced to an acceptable degree by various acoustical shielding techniques.

An even more serious difficulty is the fact that plume-coupling effects would not be realistically tested by any of the tests because the plume characteristics would be grossly different in the lunar environment than in the test environment because of the atmosphere.

This limitation is believed to be sufficiently serious to discourage use of any of the three tests for studying the effects of vernier plume on the transmitter-receiver leakage.

Only brief consideration was given to conducting tests in a vacuum chamber.


{Emphasis added}

In plainest language, simple atmospheric turbulence – which would not be present in the Lunar environment – is recognized to be unavoidable in even tether, static, and/or balloon-basedtests, thereby rendering the collection of useful data, relevant to Vernier plume / RADVS interaction, to be virtually impossible.


Therefore, the following, relevant, conclusion was reached:

Overall RADVS system tests with vernier engine operation are impractical.


{Emphasis added}


The substantial discussion of the experiments, as described in Appendix B of the RTI report are reproduced below:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pps. 126 –129)

APPENDIX B


B. Ground-Based Experiment, Upright

The leakage problem described above in Part A highlights the desirability for an experiment to evaluate the leakage problem. As pointed out previously, such an experiment is difficult to perform and may even prove to be impractical.

Consideration will be given below to possible means of performing a useful experiment.

First, it does not appear feasible to use an actual spacecraft for the type of experiment which is desirable. Factors mentioned previously in Section IV.A such as surface contamination prevent this; additionally, spacecraft availability would not allow the use of an assembled spacecraft, because of the careful and time-consuming effort needed to perform the tests. Therefore, the tests would have to be performed by using a simulating spacecraft structure, on which the critical parts are mounted.

One possible configuration would be to hang the simulating spacecraft from a boom so that it is suspended about 25 feet from the ground. It would probably be sufficient to use one vernier engine, although three engines would be preferred in order to balance the applied torques to the spacecraft. It would be desirable to use two antennas in order to include the coupling path between the transmitter of one and the receiver of the other. Such a configuration is illustrated in Fig. B-2. Only one antenna would be connected to the transmitter, in order to minimize the problem of ground and support-structure reflections. Ground reflections would be further minimized by the use of absorbing material, located over the ground area being illuminated. As shown in a report on anechoic chambers [72], tilting this material away from normal incidence will reduce the back-scatter in the transmitter source direction considerably. This reference tabulates reflectivity data from three operating anechoic chambers. An apparent radar cross-section of these chambers was defined and values computed from measurements. The apparent radar cross-section results primarily from back-scatter from the rear wall. These data would indicate that the minimum apparent cross section of a wall located 25 feet from the transmitting source would be about 75 db below one square meter.


Assuming that this value could be achieved with an outdoor range, the ratio of echo to transmitter power, in the absence of other targets, would be GtGrO%2 (4) 3R 4 (B-12).

For the worst-case condition, where both transmit and receive beams of a given channel are pointing at the apparent source of reflection, G and G will be the • r peak antenna gain. For RADVS this gain is approximately 29 _b. Thus, P 02__3) 2 10-12 r 6 x 105 x 3 x 10 -8 x CO. _ i.i x Pt (4_) 3 x (25/3) 4 (B-13).

Referring to the previous discussion of the leakage problem, it was shown that the product of the leakage factor and the power distribution of the leakage signal in the receiver bandwidth must be of the order of -160 db. Thus, in order for the echo power calculated above to have negligible effect on the simulated free-space measurement, the modulation sidebands must be –16 SAM or PM (f) < I0 = 10 -4 (B-14) • 10 -12 i i x

That is, the sideband power in any band centered at f and contained in the tracker pre-detection bandwidth must be less than 10 -4 of the total reflected power. This obviously would be a difficult requirement to meet. With the vernier engines operating, vibration of the spacecraft and perturbations in the propagation path might easily cause sidebands which exceed this requirement. Unfortunately, there is no convenient way of distinguishing between sidebands on the ground-reflected signal and those on the leakage component which would exist with the spacecraft "looking" into free space.



C. Ground-Based Experiment, Upside Down

Although it would be preferable to conduct an experiment with the spacecraft right-side up, as described above, the practical problems in doing so are very difficult and it is questionable whether this can be done.

An alternate approach is to turn the simulated spacecraft, as described above, upside down in order to minimize the ground-reflection problem. Although this approach is less realistic than the one described previously, it has been considered because of the severe difficulty in performing the test described in Part 2 above.

The two important effects to be tested are: (i) the coupling between transmitter and receiver caused by plume reflections; and (2) the modulation imposed on the transmitter-receiver coupling caused by spacecraft vibration and acoustical coupling. In mounting the spacecraft upside down, the reversal of the gravity vector will certainly modify the plume shape. However, the relatively high exit speed of the exhaust gases would be expected to cause the gravity reversal to have a relatively small effect on this shape.

A greater effect on the plume shape is the presence of the earth's atmosphere, which is unavoidably present for any reasonable earth test, and this will be discussed later.


If the vernier engines can be operated properly in the inverted position, and if the spacecraft is properly supported, the vibration characteristics of the spacecraft frame are not expected to be changed materially from those existing during lunar landing. This follows from the fact that a properly-designed spacecraft support can counteract the steady gravitational vector, while not appreciably affecting the vibration components likely to cause spurious leakage sidebands in the doppler band.

In any event, any ground testing of the spacecraft, such as described here, should attempt to separate acoustical coupling from spacecraft frame coupling because the acoustical air coupling is absent during lunar descent.

The biggest problem in performing this test appears to be the upside-down operation of the vernier engines. There appear to be differences of opinion in this regard; however, the fact that some propulsion experts think that such operation would be dangerous (from a standpoint of engine operation) would probably rule-out this type of test.



D. Balloon-Supported System

The above considerations indicate that the two experiments described above would probably not be feasible.

Still another possibility would be to hoist the simulating structure to an altitude of about 2,000 feet by balloon and tether it to the ground. Much of the present T-2N system could he used for this purpose.

The spacecraft frame would preferably be the same as used in Surveyor, because of the desirability for realistic simulation of the vibration transfer function from each vernier engine to the RADVS antennas. This would also mean loading the spacecraft frame with weights, to simulate the major components which would affect the transfer function. The desirability for keeping the overall weight less than that of the actual spacecraft, because of balloon size requirements, may make it desirable to modify the structure in order to produce an equivalent transfer function with less overall weight.

Two major questions are involved in evaluating the feasibility and desirability of this test.

The more fundamental question is that concerning the relationship between the plume characteristics for the test and those existing during lunar landing. The second question concerns the presence of air-coupled acoustical coupling during the earth tests, which would of course be absent during lunar descent.

A review of plume characteristics as a function of air pressure is given in two documents.

A study of these results indicates that there will be gross differences between the vernier-engine plume which exists during lunar descent and that which will occur during near-earth testing. In fact, these differences are sufficiently great to discourage comparison of plume-coupling behavior between the two different sets of conditions.


With regard to the second question, there appear to be methods by which the air coupling can be reduced to negligible levels or separated from the structural coupling; therefore, this problem does not appear to be as fundamental as that of the plume characteristics. However, the process of reducing this coupling would require rather elaborate experimental setups and testing.

In view of the lack of realism in simulating plume characteristics under lunar conditions, it does not appear worthwhile to attempt solution to the air-coupling problem.

In summary, it appears that the balloon-supported system does not permit realistic testing of plume effects. Consequently, it offers very little conclusive information that cannot be obtained by separate measurement of the spacecraft vibration caused by the vernier engines, followed by an upside-down test where this vibration is imposed by shake tables while the leakage-signal characteristics in the pre-amplifiers are studied.


{Emphasis added}


In light of these conclusions, the implications for any suggested helicopter-based Vernier rocket / RADVS testing should now become evident:

Namely, that if even ambient atmospheric interference from a static, tether, or balloon- based test, would unacceptably disrupt the collection of viable RADVS / Vernier plume data, then the dynamic vortex of a nearby helicopter downdraft would immediately render any such experiments functionally untenable.


~ Therefore – and without apparent evidence to the contrary – there should (?) be no clear expectation that any such RADVS / Vernier / helicopter experiments would have actually been attempted.


Access Denied wrote:The host helicopter would have provided all of the lifting thrust and the blade turbulence would likely have wiped out most (if not all) distinct disturbances (e.g. footprints, skid marks).


Perhaps, but the same blade turbulence would have likely invalidated the test data, also.


Seen in this context, the (previously cited) confusion regarding the phrases ”as described here”, and ” In spite of this limitation, such (helicopter or aircraft based) tests are considered as a necessity for radar design verification.” – offered at the end of the passage below – may now be further clarified:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp. 60)

Flight Tests

It is desirable to conduct a series of flight tests on an early experimental model of the radar in order to verify its operational capability under certain realistic conditions.

It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that that completely realistic simulation of lunar environmental conditions cannot be achieved.

In fact, there appears to be no practical way to simulate realistically RADVS operation during retro and vernier firing.

However, RADVS can be tested for high altitude operation to verify its design for proper operation when realistic signals are present.

…From the standpoint of such noise characteristics, then, the high altitude tests must be viewed as essentially qualitative in the way that they highlight trouble spots which require corrective action.

The flight tests should be conducted under conditions which are as realistic as possible. Operating altitudes should preferably be as high as 40,000 feet and the antenna should be tiltable from 0° to 70° relative to vertical (i.e., the limits encountered for RADVS descents). The altitude requirement cannot be met by the helicopter; because this is otherwise a good choice it maybe desirable to compromise on the altitude requirement. A subsonic, fixed-wing aircraft cannot provide the hover testing of a helicopter, but generally offers a superior "flying laboratory" because of the greater available space (as for example offered by the KC-135). Altitude limitations of some aircraft can be partially compensated by inclusion of flight tests conditions which present low signal level; flights over smooth seas or flat sandy terrain offer one way of satisfying this condition.

The major deficiency of flight tests, as described here, is that lunar descent conditions are not realistically simulated; in particular, retro and vernier firing effects are not present. Therefore, the flight tests cannot be viewed as complete verification of RADVS' capability for controlling lunar descent.

In spite of this limitation, such tests are considered as a necessity for radar design verification.


{Emphasis added}

~ Or, in other words: Either aircraft (undocumented?), or helicopter-based, testing of RADVS was still considered to be necessary even though NO rockets (“desirable” as such rockets might be…) would be carried on the flights.

This would appear to be true whether discussed theoretically, as above, or as described in the “Present Test Program Description”; Section V – where the results of the T-2H helicopter “Flight Tests”, and T-2N balloon-drop “Descent Tests” are listed distinctly, and separately.


Consistent with all other descriptions, “RADVS, flight control, and vernier engine propulsion subsystems”, were only specified to have been employed by the balloon-drop “Descent Tests”, while no mention of Vernier rocket propulsion is recorded, or inferred, in the Helicopter “Flight Tests” results description.



Access Denied wrote:Secondly, that wasn’t my “recent” research as you imply. I provided links to those documents way back on page 3 of this thread in this post here…

http://www.realityuncovered.com/forum/v ... 3024#13024

…so they have been available to you for independent review for over a month (at the time you wrote this). Did you look at them or not? If you did are we to assume you had no problem with them then? If you did why didn’t you say anything until I brought it up?

In either case I’m concerned that you apparently chose to seize upon my sharing of some doubt on my part in an open and honest way about what those documents revealed or didn’t reveal in a rush to pass judgment or cast doubt on my research.


The use of the word “recent” was not meant in a pejorative tense, and may have been accidentally (?) misinterpreted.

The link offered to the RTI report (at that time) was for the source of the document titled: ”Final T-2H Test Phase Report QA-1 Model RADVS testing on the Bell 47G Helicopter” that established the Bell 47G as the host helicopter for the RADVS testing regime. This specific reference was checked when presented, although I’m unsure why the rest of the information was not also posted if it was researched concurrently?


CONTINUED....
"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 » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:46 am

CONTINUED...


Access Denied wrote:RTI was merely contracted by JPL to do a post-test review of the entire program based on the available literature some three years later and they may not have had access to all of Hughes’ test reports…


This is true, although (pp. 115) APPENDIX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTATION AND LIST OF REFERENCES, lists 52 Hughes documents (including test reports), 3 JPL documents, and 11 Ryan documents, as a partial basis for the report.

Additionally, perhaps, it might be argued that the RTI conclusions regarding the impracticality of RADVS / Vernier testing were only theoretical, and not necessarily observed by the actual test program, but the report also offers that:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp.43)

It should, of course, come as no great surprise that the philosophy described below is not greatly different from that of the test program now in effect because the basic principles of a test program are quite fundamental.


…Where, presumably, the Surveyor test engineers would have logically recognized these same inherent problems (?).




Beyond testing of the RADVS equipment by helicopter, as documented by various reports, it might also be suggested (as an “alternate scenario”?, or as an ad hoc response to a destroyed vehicle?) that a helicopter could have been used for conducting a T-2 terminal descent test – complete with Vernier rockets. Yet there are additional problems to be considered before accepting this hypothesis, also.


~ First, there is no indication from the available documents that this type of testing was conducted.

~ Second, the introduction of a helicopter to a terminal descent test would have interfered with the collection, and evaluation, of the fundamental required data.


For instance, according to:

Application of a Tethering System to a Specific Requirement

http://library.gsfc.nasa.gov/Databases/ ... 035.13.pdf

(pp. 2 – 3)

Among the less spectacular phases of this program, yet a very vital and necessary phase, was testing the impact characteristics of this vehicle. This involved retro-rocket and stabilization-hardware performance. So that a moon environment could be approximated a tethered balloon test bed was considered; this satisfied the basic philosophy which was to have a short drop with insufficient time for drag to build up.

…One could say that the tethered balloon test bed provided the user with a (virtual) tower having no structural impediments, or with a (virtual) hovering helicopter without vibration and atmospheric turbulence.


{Emphasis added}

Therefore, the attachment of a Surveyor T-2 article to a host helicopter would have been unable to realistically simulate, or provide, the type of “impact characteristic” data that was considered to be “vital and necessary” for a proper descent test – assuming, of course, that landing gear was mounted to the vehicle. In effect, the entire “free-fall” phase of the landing approach would have been omitted.

In addition, the same conclusion might also be reached for the requirements of “retro-rocket and stabilization-hardware performance”, as it would be very difficult (?) – if not impractical (?) – to effectively isolate the performance of the T-2 stabilization systems from that of the much more powerful, and attached, helicopter.

~ Simply put, such a combination of vehicles might appear as a questionable, if not overly complicated, and undesirable, methodology by which to obtain useful terminal descent data.

Note, also, that the vibration and atmospheric turbulence associated with a helicopter are again suggested to be undesirable, and detrimental to this experiment.


Concomitantly, these same fundamental requirements for a terminal descent test are also specified by:


Surveyor Project Review

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 076705.pdf

(pp.75 – 76)

T-2 test program

Test objectives

I. Dynamic test of final portion of vernier descent phase including touchdown, near simulation of lunar conditions.

2. Determine ability of vernier engine system and attitude reference system to maintain attitude in dynamic descent.

3. Determine ability of vernier engine system and doppler velocity sensor to align thrust vector.

4. Determine ability of system to attain touchdown conditions.

5. Gather reliability data.


…Where again, none of the parameters listed appear to be viably testable, if the desired experiments were to be conducted from a helicopter test bed.


~ Should the question of Vernier rocket testing alone be considered, this type of evaluation was apparently conducted with different articles in separate static, or tether, tests:


Surveyor Project Status Report – 11/27/64

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf

(pp. 19)

S-6, S-7. Test spaceframes for Vernier propulsion system prequalification testing.


Surveyor Landing Radar Test Program Review (Final Report, RTI Program RU-277)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf

(pp. 70)

6. Vernier propulsion system tests were performed using space frames S-4 through S-7. The last of these, which employed dummy masses to simulate S/C components, was used to establish vibration levels for FAT and TAT. (Through mid 1965).



…While Vernier / flight control interaction and compatibility evaluations (S-8) were – again – conducted from a tether:


Surveyor Project Status Report – 11/27/64

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf

(pp. 19)

S-8. Spacecraft for tether tests to determine dynamic compatibility of spaceframe, vernier engine subsystem and flight control subsystem.




Therefore, an important question is raised:

Beyond appearing unsuitable as a platform for either RADVS, or terminal descent testing; loading rockets and their volatile propellants aboard a helicopter is arguably dangerous – especially without a practical reason to do so…


So why should such tests be assumed to have occurred?


~ Why, without any clear evidence – and in spite of multiple countervailing, circumstantial, factors – should the assumption of a helicopter-borne rocket test be accepted as an explanation for the Socorro case?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Access Denied wrote:1. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by (up to) three Surveyor vernier engines firing simultaneously (or otherwise) at some fixed and/or varying distance above the surface.

2. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by Surveyor high pressure gas purge of propellant and/or pressurant (helium) through a common vent and/or one or more engine nozzles.

3. Some/all burns created by Surveyor vernier engine residual post firing propellant leakage though one or more engine nozzles.


Again, these propositions may not have been conclusively disproved, but the lack of any conclusive evidence to support them (IMO) – juxtaposed against considerable, contradictory, circumstantial evidence – may represent a fatal flaw in the Surveyor hypothesis as an explanation for the April 24, 1964 Socorro event.


At the least, three significant factors should be carefully considered by any further skeptical analysis:

1.) There is no conclusive evidence that any Surveyor rocket experiments were conducted by helicopter.

2.) The evidence that does exist appears to select against such testing.

3.) In respect to the these contradictions, no clear reason to believe otherwise has been offered.


{Again, IMO.}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:According to:

Dr. Hynek wrote:It would appear essential that for this case to be fairly closed out – if the interpretation is that of a new device and its dimensions be shown to match the markings on the ground; that is – that the device finally selected as the culprit, be indeed capable of producing the marks observed.


Looks like Hynek may have made (or perhaps was unwittingly “encouraged” to make?) the same mistaken assumption as you and many others have.

…You’re assuming (like Hynek who also failed to find a satisfactory explanation) that these four “impressions” had to have been created by the object’s “landing gear” and therefore must match the dimensions of any candidate vehicle.

…No, that’s the conundrum YOU apparently would like to return us to however you failed to fully test the Surveyor hypothesis as presented to you therefore it can’t be eliminated as the source of the sighting…

…Are you sure you still want to insist that Hynek’s suggestion that the “depressions” must match the proposed “stimulus” is valid?


Actually, there appears to be no conclusive evidence that Hynek’s assumption was mistaken – or that he was “encouraged” to make it. Whether or not the “markings” were created by a “new device” remains unknown, but the suggestion that the combination of “depressions”, and burns, was associated with a Surveyor-related test appears to rely on a complicated and unclear chain of assumptions.


For example:

~ The holes and the burns were created separately, and at two different times (?).

~ The holes were not initially present, until the Army created them, and the police and FBI covered it up – including the witness (?).

~ Other persons created the holes for unknown reasons (?).

~ The holes were created by rocket thrust, unless rocket thrust couldn’t be shown to have created all of them; Then they may have been created by one, or two, rockets, a spare shovel, and/or cardboard (?).

~ Some holes were created by rockets – in one place – while “landing”, while others were created in another place while “taking off”, yet neither place matched the location of the burns (?).

~ The burns were created by propellant purge / leakage, but the rockets that leaked it did not disturb the ground in their vicinity during shutdown, and/or startup (?).


Perhaps – in the end – any, or all, of these assumptions may be true, but Hynek’s firsthand assumption appears to be – at the least – simpler, and less complicated.



Access Denied wrote:Now you’re going have to explain why four “impressions” were found instead of two. Good luck with that. :)

…. Not only is this illogical as I pointed out in the quote of mine you cited above, it also destroys the credibility of your “star” witness in this case who consistently reported seeing only TWO legs!

Here’s Zamora’s drawing of the “object” the first time he claims to have seen it from “approximately .15 miles” (~800 ft.) away and “looking down on it”…

Image

Where’s the third “landing gear” (I added in red) that should be clearly visible in the middle according to your interpretation of the evidence?

Now here’s Zamora’s drawing of the object as he claimed to have seen it from his “position at approximately 103 ft.”…

Image

Again, where’s the third (and possibly fourth by my estimation) “landing gear” (again added in red) that should visible from this angle according to your interpretation of the evidence?

Look at your site diagram with the arrow indicating the direction Zamora viewed the “object” from. Can you DENY the fact that he should have been able to see at least THREE legs/landing gear/whatever from that position?



Careful analysis of the data indicates that the witness drawings depicted the “object” from two (approximately) perpendicular perspectives, as demonstrated by the diagram below:

Image

…Where the first drawing from “approximately .15 miles” (~ 800 ft.):

Image

… Shows a figurative “end” perspective with “two legs” (also drawn in the diagram), and the second drawing, from “approximately 103 ft.”:

Image

…Shows the same “object” from a “side” perspective.


Therefore, by definition, the witness has depicted a single object with at least THREE “legs” – drawn from two different perspectives.


~ Theoretically, these three alleged “legs” would have corresponded with Holder features #1, and #2, as depicted in the first “end” drawing, and with Holder features # 2, and #4, as depicted in the second “side” drawing.

Image


The reason that the witness might have claimed to have seen only two “legs”, from either perspective, may have resulted from the alleged “looking down on it” vantage that was described in the first drawing note, and from the observation that:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696297

…From this position the base of the craft was in the gully and not visible to Lonnie Zamora.


…That TSgt. Moody noted regarding the witness’s vantage from the “side” position (which is also confirmed by the site photographs).

This being the case, it may appear reasonable to conclude that the witness might not have been able to seen the alleged “legs” on the far side of the “object” because the body of the “object” itself obstructed his ability to view them – especially the hypothetical Holder #3 “leg”, which would have remained hidden behind the “object” from both perspectives.


According to the witness:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696274

The object might have been about three and a half feet from the ground at that time.


…So, if seen from above, this “obstruction” explanation may appear consistent (?).


Then again, according to TSgt. Moody’s report:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696297

As he {Zamora} came over the top of the hill (about 300 yds from the object) it appeared to be a thing on four pronged legs and the two white things (described as coveralls) were no longer visible.


{Emphasis added}

…It is alternately recorded – perhaps – that the witness did report FOUR legs, although it is unclear how he might have seen this fourth “leg”. Perhaps after its “takeoff’, but this is only a guess.


Noting also, the photograph below:

Image

…Which Hynek described as:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696384

Photograph No 6 shows the position from which Zamora first saw the object whose location was approximately under the X mark on the photograph.


...It may become difficult (?) to understand how the witness could have identified the alleged (roughly) 1.5 – 2 ft. tall X (roughly) 3 inch wide Bell 47 landing gear, if the dimensions of the bushes themselves at that distance are difficult to resolve, and the witness’s vision is assumed to have been impaired, somehow?

Then again – and only hypothetically – a different and larger landing gear may have been easier to distinguish (?).


Access Denied wrote:OK but keep in mind Zamora’s testimony has now been shown here to be significantly inconsistent with the alleged physical evidence…


No. Not necessarily (IMO).


Access Denied wrote:This quote from Hynek may offer some more insight into the veracity of Zamora's account…

Dr. Hynek wrote:It must be remembered that at this time he was giving chase to a speeding car, and it would seem that, to be diverted from this jolly procedure, the noise and/or light must have been fairly strong. Zamora did not describe the light to me in the detail that he described it in Captain Holder's report. He stressed only the roar and the fact that he thought the Mayor's dynamite shack had exploded and thought that somebody might be in trouble.


If you’ll recall, Zamora originally (allegedly) told Capt. Holder he could see a flame and described it in (uncharacteristically) great detail (colors and proportions) but he could not see anything above it i.e. no “egg”.


Again, not necessarily, if Hynek’s next sentence is also included:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696368

From that point on, his report to me was virtually identical to that he gave to Captain Holder…




On second examination, this “side” drawing:

Image

…And this “side” photograph:

Image

…Don’t appear all that similar (IMO), outside of an arguably subjective (?) interpretation.




Access Denied wrote:[at this point Occam’s razor would seem to suggest the least complicated explanation is Zamora’s vision was impaired somehow, perhaps because he wasn’t wearing his glasses for some reason, and he was frightened by a helicopter that looks remarkably like an “egg”] :)


Maybe.

~ But it doesn’t seem “least complicated” (IMO) that an otherwise capable and well regarded observer could not recognize a helicopter – by sight or by sound – at a distance of approximately 100 feet:


Dr Lincoln LaPaz:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697214

But I do want to say that I have had contacts with Mr. Zamora in my work and he is a thoroughly dependable observer.



Dr. Hynek:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8696344

…I called Dr. LaPaz by phone to ask whether he might go down to Socorro with us. He was unable to make it, but told me that a number of years before he had worked with Zamora on a field trip in search of a fallen meteorite.

He gave Zamora a very clean bill of health and said that he was a completely reliable person.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8696458

Not one person whom I talked with in the least, by either implication or innuendo, challenged Zamora’s veracity.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696368

Photograph No 2 is important in that it shows how close he was to the object.

It is clear from this that any common object would certainly have been easily recognized.

It would seem virtually incredible that an ordinary object, such as a balloon, helicopter, private small plane, etc., could have remained unidentified, and further, could have caused Zamora to have become as frightened as he did.



~ Neither does it appear “least complicated” (IMO) that an experienced police officer should have been frightened by a helicopter:


Dr. Hynek:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696384

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696407

From all of the above and all of my personal observations, I would conclude the following: That Zamora, although not overly bright or articulate, is basically sincere, honest, and reliable.

…He was simply a cop on duty, relinquished one discharge of duty (chasing a car) for another which he thought was of more immediate importance. (Investigating the possible explosion of a dynamite shack). His fright was genuine, and his feeling that he had seen something truly unusual is attested to by the fact that he asked whether he should speak to the priest first before saying anything about it.

Any question of hallucination seems clearly out. He is a non-drinking man, and is a solid, well-built, physically healthy individual. He is a cop who looks as though he could be pretty gruff with his customers, and in fact, his complaint about the UFO sighting was that it did not allow him to give out his full quota of tickets for the day.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695736

I come back also to the trenchant fact that Zamora was a thoroughly scared person. Chavez has remarked this to me a number of times that never in his long association with Zamora has he seen him in anything at all approaching the state he was in when Chavez joined him.

I honestly don’t think that a (conventional object) could have frightened a gruff, practical, type like Zamora who is used to accidents, bloodshed, fights, and even murders.

We all seem to agree that Zamora saw something that really and truly frightened him.



And this may be especially true, if – as gas station owner Opel Grinder allegedly told the “tourist”:

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

…there were many helicopters in this vicinity.


…For if Opel Grinder was familiar with, and able to recognize, the “many helicopters” that operated near Socorro, then a Socorro police officer should not have (allegedly) been surprised by them, either.


In the words of Jim Grinder (allegedly present at the gas station when the “tourist” reported the “object” to his father, Opel):

http://www.strangeworld.tv/video/116764 ... doavi.html

I believe Lonnie saw something – same as the tourist saw – something they had never seen or encountered before… you know, that did not meet a helicopter-type scenario. Definitely not an airplane type-scenario.




~ And third, it doesn’t seem “least complicated” (again, IMO) that a random witness, who had no desire to see an unusual object, would not have retracted (or recanted) his account in the face of persistent ridicule that affected both his personal and professional reputations:


Dr. Hynek:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695736

Zamora is having his troubles: the boys he picks up are rather direct. Zamora stopped a teenage speeder, and the kid fired back a t Zamora, “What are you giving me a ticket for? Don’t you know a flying saucer might come down on you any minute?”


http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8696344

It was during this preliminary interview in the jail that Sgt. Chavez told me that Zamora was getting disgusted with the whole thing and with the general misrepresentation he was the victim of.

…Apparently Zamora was not going to say anything about it, but it was at Chavez’s advice that he did.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696356

Both Zamora and Chavez appeared to me to be hoping that I could tell them this had been a secret air force devise (sic), so that they could dismiss the whole thing from their minds. Zamora was still evidently troubled over some of the town’s reactions…


http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695808

Zamora says he was trying to cooperate with persons who asked him about the UFO, which he describes as egg-shaped, and he wishes that they would not ask him about a flying saucer which he has never seen and cannot describe.

The policeman says that the account here stands unchanged from that he gave on April 24 and the following day.



Sgt. Chavez:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695793

I really feel sorry for Lonnie. He’s had to take an awful lot.



Lonnie Zamora:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696905

If I can just forget about it, maybe it will go away.

…I wanted to keep it to myself, but (Chavez?) made me report it. …I thought at first that it was some kind of Air Force plane, because the Air Force took charge of everything and was so busy. Now I don’t know what it was.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696897

It was more frightening than anything that could happen.

…I didn’t see a flying saucer. I don’t even know what one would look like.



…And where it might, arguably, have been “least complicated” for the witness to have simply told the investigators (and his detractors):


”My glasses fell off and I couldn’t tell what I was seeing. It might have been a helicopter, but it was no big deal…”


He still continued to stress the unusual nature of the event, even 31 years later:

http://www.strangeworld.tv/video/116764 ... doavi.html

I still think its something not from “here”. If I could find out what it actually was – O.K., I’m satisfied. I just don’t want to go through it again, you know.

If they want to believe me – good.

If they don’t want to believe me, it’s all right, too.


…For no obvious benefit, and at the predictable risk of continuing ridicule.



Access Denied wrote:According to (in my opinion) your subjective/selective interpretation. Plenty of unambiguous evidence remains to the support the Surveyor/Helicopter hypothesis (e.g. range record, burn marks, lack of propellant residue, flame color, sounds, flight characteristics etc.) then either the ETH or the nice and safe “scientifically” correct “UNIDENTIFIED” position.


Speaking again as “Mr. Scientific Method” (LOL), it appears (IMO) that the most scientifically proper conclusion that might be reached is this:

As an explanation for the April 24, 1964 Socorro event, the Surveyor hypothesis remains unproven, and may be weakened by inherent contradictions (i.e no evidence for rocket testing from a helicopter), and reliance upon unsupported assumptions (i.e. the physical evidence was altered).


The cited “flame color”; “sounds”; “flight characteristics etc.”; are dependent on the testimony of the witness, and as such cannot be considered strictly as “unambiguous” by a skeptical analysis – particularly if the credibility, and consistency of other parts of the witness testimony are challenged, and/or discarded. However, it may also be noted that the “blue flame” was allegedly reported to Captain Holder by Ned Lopez, Socorro Sheriff's Office radio operator – that: ”…approximately three reports had been called in by telephone of a blue flame of light in the area”.

The “burn marks”, and “lack of propellant residue”, are indeed significant – apparently establishing that a unique source of heat and/or combustion was present at the site. Yet while this evidence may appear consistent with the Surveyor hypothesis, and strengthen it, it cannot be considered as conclusive without the further corroboration of helicopter-based rocket testing – which (so far) does not appear to be supported (?).

The “range record” is an official document which states that “Surveyor – Helicopter Flts – 0745 - 1145” were scheduled to have occurred at White Sands Missile Range on “Friday, 24 April 1964”. Unfortunately, however, this description does not specify the nature of these Surveyor helicopter flights, or provide any conclusive evidence that the flights carried any payloads other than the RADVS testing equipment, alone, that is inferred by all of the other available documents.



~ From this point forward, the following evidence (IMO) should be required in order to validate, and/or significantly strengthen, the Surveyor hypothesis:


1.) Conclusive evidence that helicopter-based rocket testing was employed by the Surveyor evaluation program.

2.) In lieu of such conclusive evidence – substantive, and good, cause(s) to contradict the evidence available that appears to select against such testing.

3.) Conclusive, or strongly supportive, evidence that the physical evidence at the site was altered, or manufactured, through malice aforethought after the event, or that a deception operation was practiced.


Until this time, and/or presentation of evidence, it may appear scientifically correct (again, IMO) to agree with the preliminary conclusion of Dave Thomas, President of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, regarding the Surveyor hypothesis:

Of course, this new evidence (i.e. Surveyor as an explanation for the Socorro event) is far from conclusive.


{Clarification added}



Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:In the traditions of the Scientific Method, I invite any other interested researchers to re-create my cited experiments, and to either confirm or reject the above conclusions according to their best results.


Done and duly rejected. :)


I disagree. But I admire your effort, and thank you for your help. :)


Access Denied wrote:Respected foes?


Foes? Nah. 8) …Just a couple of wiseguys who like to challenge the usual assumptions.

Besides, where would the World be if everyone who disagreed had to be an enemy?


”Brother will kill brother, spilling blood across the land; Killing for Religion, somethin’ I don’t understand…”


Access Denied wrote:"Killing is my business...
And business is good!"


You’re a smart aleck, Vic Rattlehead. LOL

But Serp (with some help from Brian Johnson) says:


”…Forget the hearse, ‘cause I never die.”



:D




Serp ;)



{Addendum Follows…}
"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 » Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:09 am

ADDENDUM


Access Denied wrote: Case in point being some interesting points raised by your analysis that I’d like to comment on briefly if I may? I believe it may be pertinent to/helpful in your response…


Err.. where does this say Byrnes contacted the Air Force “who then notified” Holder?

I’m glad you quoted this part of the FBI airtel because I neglected to include it in my rebuttal and it highlights a couple of important points as follows …

1. Byrnes went to the site and then advised Holder. This raises two issues:

a. How did he advise him? My guess is it would have to be by telephone which means Byrnes had to leave the scene. (and in fact this appears to be the case as discussed later)

b. Why did he contact Holder? Because SRC was closest? Did he contact anybody else?

2. Who is [redacted] that checked the site and interviewed Zamora along with Holder and Byrnes?


The “who then notified” Holder suggestion was based on two sources:

1.) Wendy Connors’ statement that:

http://www.nicap.org/zamora3.htm

First notified was Mr. Burns (sic) of the FBI who notified 1st Lt. Hicks, Executive Officer of Co. C, USAF about the incident. Hicks notified Captain Richard T. Holder, the Up-Range Commander.


And,

2.) Huyghe Patrick’s version of the event from “Swamp Gas Times: My Two Decades on the UFO Beat”:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1931044 ... eader-link

(pp. 315)

Byrnes immediately contacted the executive officer at White Sands Proving Grounds, who in turn contacted Army Captain Richard T. Holder, the senior military officer in the area.


…But seeing as there appear to be certain inconsistencies, ambiguities, (and/or errors?) between these two sources and the official accounts of:


TSgt. Moody:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696280

Sgt. Chavez contacted the FBI, who in turn contacted White Sands, and Agent Barnes (sic) and Lt. (sic) R T Holder of the latter organization arrived to conduct an investigation an obtain various samples of the soil and charred bush.



Colonel de Jonckheere:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694951

The area was secured by Sgt. Chavez, and the Commanding Officer, Captain Holder, of the Stallion Site at White Sands notified. Captain Holder conducted an initial investigation of the sighting and obtained samples of the charred areas and dirt surrounding the markings left by the UFO.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695222

Sgt. Chavez secured the area and contacted local military authorities. This resulted in the investigation of the sighting.



Captain Holder:

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

From the El Defensor Cheiftain article; page 2:

I was contacted on the evening of April 24 by local authorities and asked to provide assistance in identifying a reported UFO.



And the FBI:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640425_pg2.htm

…(Captain Richard T. Holder) Commander, Stallion Range Center, Socorro, N.M., advised at once April twenty four and is handling.


http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640505_pg1.htm

As noted in the Albuquerque airtel, Captain (Holder), Stallion Range center, Socorro, N.M. was immediately advised, 4/24/64, of the facts in this case.


http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640428b_pg2.htm

SA D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr. was at Socorro, New Mexico, 4/24/64, and had noted the four irregular burned spots and the four indentations at the site. SA Byrnes immediately advised Captain R.T. Holder, Up Range Commander, Stallion Range Center, Socorro, New Mexico.


…It may be difficult to know for sure whether Special Agent Byrnes actually contacted Captain Holder directly, or through an intermediary at White Sands?


Nevertheless, assuming that Agent Byrnes was – in fact – the person who notified White Sands (…which arguably makes sense, if he was the senior law enforcement officer to have been present?), my best reconstruction of the sequence of events (from all sources) might go something like this:


~ Shortly after Zamora’s radio call, Special Agent Byrnes, while at the State Police office, becomes aware of the incident and proceeds shortly to the site. There he finds Zamora, Undersheriff Luckie, Sergeant Chavez, and Trooper Jordan from the New Mexico State Police, already on the scene.

~ After conducting his own observations, Byrnes (with the agreement of the others?) likely decides to contact White Sands Missile Range to determine if the Army can provide an answer for the incident. To contact White Sands, Byrnes most likely (?) needs the use of a telephone.

~ Possibly (?) taking Chavez and/ or Trooper Jordan with him, Byrnes returns to the State Police office, where he contacts SOMEONE at White Sands. Ultimately, Captain Holder receives notice of the event.

~ Captain Holder is unaware of the stimulus, and makes his own inquiry to Range authorities in search of his own answers. This is consistent with Holder’s statements that:

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

1964:

I was contacted on the evening of April 24 by local authorities and asked to provide assistance in identifying a reported UFO.

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.


http://www.strangeworld.tv/video/116764 ... doavi.html

1995:

Well, my first impression was that it was something from the range that needed possible help – you know… first aid, attention, or at best, security. The more I got into it, the less convinced I was that that was the case.



~ So informed, Captain Holder then drives to the Socorro State Police office (possibly accompanied by Sgt. Castle, his chief MP?), where Agent Byrnes is waiting to receive him, and escort him back to the landing site.

~ Arriving at the site, Byrnes and Holder find Zamora still waiting on the scene, along with officers Katzlaff and Pyland – who have possibly “relieved” Undersheriff Luckie (and/or Chavez and Jordan?) to other business:

http://www.fufor.com/case640424.htm

Captain Holder:

"Present when we arrived were Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and] Bill Pyland, all of the Socorro Police Department, who assisted in making the measurements.


~ After documenting the features and taking BOTE notes (?) of the relevant information, Captain Holder, Agent Byrnes, and Zamora, return to the State Police office (after dark?) for debriefing and processing of the data:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640505_pg1.htm

As noted in the Albuquerque airtel, Captain (Holder), Stallion Range center, Socorro, N.M. was immediately advised, 4/24/64, of the facts in this case. He observed the site of the incident, 4/24/64, and made measurements while SA (Arthur Byrnes) Jr. was placing rocks around the four earth indentations and around one other mark found at the site.


http://www.fufor.com/case640424.htm

Captain Holder:

When we had completed examination of the area, Mr. Byrnes, Officer Zamora, and I returned to the State Police Office [at] Socorro, then completed these reports.


http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640505_pg1.htm

Late 4/24/64 and into 4/25/64, Captain (Holder), who is with the U.S. Air Force {Army?}, and (SA Byrnes) interviewed (Zamora) of the (Socorro County Sheriff’s Office).

SA (Byrnes) typed up a statement like account from (Zamora) as given by (Zamora) under lengthy interrogation. Captain (Holder) diagrammed his measurements of the scene.




Regardless of whether Special Agent Byrnes contacted Holder directly – or not – the important question still remains as to how Captain Holder could have possessed any relevant awareness of what had just happened near Socorro – if the alleged test flight was an “unauthorized” undertaking on the part of Hughes?

~ Therefore – and without any such knowledge – how could he have possibly formed the intent to “collude” with Agent Byrnes about anything?

…And even if someone else at White Sands DID allegedly know what had happened (contradicting Holder’s testimony), this does not explain why Captain Holder – a base commander – was sent, and/or allowed, to investigate this allegedly “sensitive” incident, instead of trained / cleared personnel from White Sands’ Security and Counterintelligence Division?

Sure, it was after hours on a Friday, but Security and CI are a 24/7 business, I believe?


Were this were the case, it appears arguably simpler, that the supposedly “knowledgeable of Surveyor” personnel that Captain Holder would have contacted (and who would have necessarily (?) instructed him to lie, “cover-up/obfuscate” something…?) should have simply thanked him for his timely notification and told him: “Don’t worry, Captain. We’ll take care of it”.

It’s poor OPSEC to create an extraneous “need-to-know”.


Access Denied wrote: Note also that I think this pretty much settles the issue of whether or not SA Byrnes was “in” on a possible cover-up/obfuscation… in fact one might even argue that in the act of “placing rocks” he (literally) had a hand in defining what was (or was not) “germane” to the sighting. :)


The only question that appears to be settled (IMO) is that Agent Byrnes was present at the time in question, and that he actively participated in Captain Holder’s investigation of the site. There is no substantial evidence – to my perception – that he “covered-up/obfuscated” anything.

What is not settled (again, IMO) is the question of why Agent Byrnes would allegedly (according to this theory?) submit a false report to the Special Agent in Charge of the Albuquerque office – without explanation – and then allow his “boss” to pass that same bogus information on to FBI Director Hoover?

He could have lost his badge for that. :(


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:Whatever may have occurred after Captain Holder arrived, it appears that he was well accompanied, and his relevant activities observed, by individuals who had been present on the site previously and who had independently noted the four “indentations” and other evidence.


As noted in my rebuttal this is HIGHLY misleading and I must says it seems more than a little bit disingenuous on your part to be repeating this again at this point! I hope this isn’t a sign of things to come. :(

… Right but what’s important is those weren’t the same Socorro police officers who were initially present at the scene. As noted previously, Sgt. Chavez, who was the first to arrive (and noted to be “skeptical of the situation”) at the scene, is conspicuously absent.

…Again, according to the official record, it appears the only parties who had been on the site prior to Captain Holder’s arrival who were in a position to observe their “relevant activities” *after* his arrival were Zamora and Agent Byrnes.


Misleading? Disingenuous? I’m sorry, but in what way?

According to Captain Holder’s statement, officers Zamora, Katzlaff, and Pyland, were on the site when he arrived, and had – by his own admission – been present there before he was. The FBI documents also place Agent Byrnes at the site previously, else wise why did Agent Byrnes allegedly contact White Sands regarding the incident?


According to Special Agent Byrnes’ account (apparently):

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640428b_pg2.htm

It may be noted that New Mexico State Police Sergeant M.S. Chavez, and Socorro County Undersheriff Jim Luckie on 4/24/64, advised that they answered (Zamora’s) radio calls and went to the scene quickly. They noted several small burning areas at the site and the indentations. No one else was in the area. (Zamora), a well regarded and capable (redacted) was noted to be sober and thoroughly frightened.

SA D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr. was at Socorro, New Mexico, 4/24/64, and had noted the four irregular burned spots and the four indentations at the site. SA Byrnes immediately advised Captain R.T. Holder, Up Range Commander, Stallion Range Center, Socorro, New Mexico.


http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640425_pg1.htm

(Zamora) greatly frightened, radioed his observations and (Sgt. Chavez) and (Socorro County Undersheriff Jim Luckie), quickly on scene, noted four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas and four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in… rectangular type pattern averaging about twelve feet apart.



My statement did not imply that Chavez was present at that time, nor Trooper Jordan, or Undersherrff Luckie. But if Katzlaff and Pyland had arrived after the first three had arrived – or had left – then they also would have witnessed the same “ four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas and four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in… rectangular type pattern averaging about twelve feet apart” that the official FBI documents describe.

Instead, what Captain Holder, and the official records, confirm is that Byrnes, Katzlaff, Pyland, and – in particular – Zamora, were all present at the scene before Captain Holder was, and – further – were plainly described as actively assisting Holder in the evidence documentation process.

Therefore – by definition – four other individuals would have been obliged to have conspired in Captain Holder’s supposed acts of “legerdemain”, including – most notably – the witness, himself.


Ergo, my original statement is consistent.


Alternately, perhaps, it might be argued that Captain Holder’s testimony is not a part of the “official record” – and that officers Katzlaff and Pyland cannot, therefore, be officially confirmed as being present – but if Holder’s account is “officially” discarded, then so, also, is the fundamental assumption that Chaves, Jordan, and Luckie, were NOT present.

This assumption relies on Holder’s statement.



As to who this person was:

Access Denied wrote: 2. Who is [redacted] that checked the site and interviewed Zamora along with Holder and Byrnes?


…I’m not sure that the documentation makes this clear, but perhaps [redacted] may represent Sergeant Castle, if Captain Holder did bring him to Socorro? This is only a guess, though.


Access Denied wrote: 1. I would like to see a copy of Holder’s original diagrams that were used to make the one included in the Blue Book file. As noted by Hynek in his report…

Dr. Hynek wrote:Finally, the drawings which Captain Hilder [sic] and his associates made, when replotted to scale, (already enclosed with the report of Captain Holder, already sent to you) [Quintanilla] which indicate that the diagonals between the markings intersected perpendicularly.


…the drawing in the Blue Book file doesn't appear to be the original because it *is* “replotted to scale”. (this can be confirmed by overlaying your diagram for example… they’re VERY close). Were they not included in the FOIA release of this memo?

2. As previously noted in my rebuttal this appears to confirm that control of the evidence chain was being maintained by Holder and that these diagrams were not made available to the Blue Book investigators (Conner and Moody) during their investigation of the scene two days after the sighting and two days prior to Hynek’s arrival. Perhaps they were still being “replotted”? :)


I’m not sure what “original” materials are being referred to, unless – perhaps (?) – this alludes to the presumably (?) BOTE notes that Holder likely recorded on the scene, and then “diagrammed”, and/or “replotted” (?), at the State Police office later that night:

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640505_pg1.htm

Late 4/24/64 and into 4/25/64, Captain (Holder), who is with the U.S. Air Force {Army?}, and (SA Byrnes) interviewed (Zamora) of the (Socorro County Sheriff’s Office).

SA (Byrnes) typed up a statement like account from (redacted) as given by (redacted) under lengthy interrogation. Captain (Holder) diagrammed his measurements of the scene.

Early 4/25/64, Captain (Holder) and SA (Byrnes) delivered the original and a copy of (Zamora’s) statements and Captain (Holder’s) diagrams to the authorities at Stallion Site, approximately 30 miles southeast of Socorro.


Of course, I could be wrong, but it seems rather unlikely (IMO) that such BOTE (?) materials would have been retained (?). Alternately, the FBI document only describes “original”, and “copy”, of the diagrams (?) being submitted to the authorities – not “replottings”.

Then again, Hynek himself does not make any clear differentiation between any suggested “original” drawings, and the drawings in Captain Holder’s report that were apparently forwarded to Bluebook as part of Major Connor’s Initial Report (and that now appear in the official file):

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696309

A copy of the FBI report and Capt Holder's report and measurements to be forwarded to Major Conner, along with analysis of the charred specimen.



Neither am I sure what meaning is being inferred from Hynek’s use of the word “replotted”?

~ That the information contained in the ”…drawings which Captain Hilder [sic] and his associates made…” was somehow (?) changed before being submitted to Major Connor?

If so, then at least some of the dimensions for Hynek’s “markings”, as given by Chavez:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697179

Chavez said the impressions were irregularly spaced with the distance between them varying from about nine to fifteen feet.


…In the Albuquerque Tribune; Saturday April 25, 1964, are still consistently represented in the Holder diagram found in the Bluebook file, although Chavez did not use the term “perpendicular”.



Further, the citation alluded to previously:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696309

Lt (sic) Holder was visited and the report made by the FBI agent (Mr. Barnes) (sic) and Capt Holder read by Major Connor. Capt Holder claimed no knowledge of the red mark. Extensive diagrams of the holes had been made and measurements taken.


– in support of the statement that:

Access Denied wrote: …these diagrams were not made available to the Blue Book investigators (Conner and Moody) during their investigation of the scene two days after the sighting…


… Clearly states that Major Connor read Captain Holder’s report when he (Connor) and TSgt. Moody visited Captain Holder in, or near, Socorro on Sunday, April 26.


~ According to the official file:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695962

(pp. 49)

Tab A Lt (sic) Holder Report


…The Holder diagrams were also considered to be a part of Captain Holder’s report – and particularly where the diagrams and measurements are conspicuously noted – there appears to be no clear reason to believe, that while Major Connor was reading Captain Holder’s report on April 26, that he did not also have access to the diagrams that were a part of that same report.


Access Denied wrote: I think my skepticism in regards to Zamora’s observational abilities is perhaps best summed up in these additional notes attached to the end of Dr. Hynek’s report to Project Blue Book…

Dr. Hynek wrote:Additional Notes to the Report:

It should be noted that, at the time Zamora saw the insignia, the craft was well illuminated by sunlight which was streaming in from Zamora's right. It might be well to perform some experiments with placards with insignia and different patterns inscribed thereon to see how well these are visible, under good lighting, at 100-200 feet.

Additional Note: What is the power of Zamora's glasses? Does he suffer from a stigmatism?

Additional Note: Several things are a pity in this situation. One is there was not an additional witness. Second is that no photographs were taken. Third, that no radars picked up the object, and fourth that the witness whom we did have was not a better observer and more articulate.

Recommendations: The object which produced this, if it was a new device under test or in maneuvers, be brought to same location described by Zamora, and under the same lighting conditions. This then could be played at any future hearings on flying saucers. This, it seems to me, could go a long way toward exploding the myth of flying saucers, and might do more good than all the previous years of propaganda.


Anybody know a documentary filmmaker and where we can get a Bell 47G to try this experiment? I volunteer to play the role of Zamora by not wearing my glasses. :D


“Mr. Scientific Method” (LOL) applauds your willingness to participate in this experiment, but reminds you that your results should not be considered as conclusive until verified, and/or duplicated, by independent observers. It would be very interesting to see if the “documentary filmmaker” adequately captures the helicopter.

Equally, this same caveat applies to my own experiments – such as holding a Ziploc bag in front of my eyes to “blur” my vision (to the point that I cannot identify my thumbnail when held up at arm’s length), viewing images of Bell 47 helicopters, and being unable to identify the “egg-shaped”, transparent, windscreen before losing the ability to identify the engine and the tail boom. Or, in other words, the opposite result from that implied by the Surveyor hypothesis. Unfortunately though, I haven’t had an actual Bell 47 to experiment on as of late, so these results cannot be considered as conclusive, either.


An equally interesting experiment (IMO) might be to arrange for a sample of (say?) police officers, without any known hearing deficiencies, to be blindfolded (so that they could not see ANYTHING), and be brought, individually, to a point approximately 100 feet away from a Bell 47 helicopter. Following the startup, liftoff, and departure, of the helicopter, the subjects would then be asked what – if any – sounds they had just heard, and whether they felt that they could identify the likely source of those sounds – if any – by hearing alone.


Still, with this said, it must also be pointed out that Dr. Hynek’s above “notes” were originally offered in the context of determining the witness’s ability to accurately discern the “insignia” that he had reportedly observed on the outside of the “object” – NOT the alleged larger object, itself.

Therefore, any such attempt to insinuate the witness’s ability to discern an “insignia”, that was only (reportedly?) a few inches, to a foot and a half across, against his potential ability to identify a larger object, of many feet in dimension – such as a helicopter – may appear to be cited out of context here, and therefore might be somewhat misleading.


It is true, however, that both TSgt. Moody, and Dr. Hynek, did note the relative “inarticulateness” of the witness in their reports. But, in this case, it might not, also, be beyond the realm of possibility that the witness’s alleged “inarticulateness” could have resulted from his state of emotion at the time, regarding the incident, as opposed to either from his intellect, or his senses (?).

~ In other words, if he was truly as “frightened” as has been described – and truly also inquired about speaking to a priest before commenting on the incident – then it might not be unreasonable, also, to consider that his alleged “inarticulateness” (?) may have proceeded from what we would, today, perhaps (?) diagnose as Traumatic Stress Disorder. But this is only a guess.


Or, in plainer language – it may have simply upset him to discuss it.


Access Denied wrote: […I would love to hear what makes you believe Aliens wear boots] 8)

"Yeah fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes"


Wow… Do you mean to imply that the “Aliens” you refer to choose to explore “Strange New Worlds” in their bare feet???

”Got a drink in my hand, got my toes in the sand; And all I need, is a beautiful EARTH girl… Oh, yeah!! :D

Here I am, ain’t no man of THIS world…”



I can see it now.


Nice. 8)


And besides, ”Smokin’ and trippin’ is all that you do…” doesn’t really fit the witness description, according to the evidence.


{Great tune you cite, though. I haven’t played it in a while. Thanks for that. :D}


Access Denied wrote: It would be nice though if you could perhaps tailor your response towards coming to some sort of conclusion and/or proposing an alternative hypothesis to explain this event? :D


Again, from my analysis to this point, my conclusions appear to be these:


1.) There is no substantial evidence of deception on the part of any of the persons involved in the case: From the witness Zamora, to Sergeant Chavez, Special Agent Byrnes, and the other law enforcement officers; From Dr. Hynek, Captain Quintanilla, and Project Bluebook, to Captain Holder, and the personnel from White Sands.

Neither is there any clear evidence that the physical state of the site was deliberately altered, immediately after the incident, by anyone.

Due skepticism – in my opinion – should be applied before accepting this assumption, or any related “conspiracy theories”, as fact.


2.) There is no clear evidence that helicopter-based rocket testing was conducted by the Surveyor test program. Though the lack of propellant residue, found in the materials gathered from the site, is probably the single greatest factor that might support the Surveyor hypothesis as an explanation for the event, this is equally – and significantly – contradicted by the lack of any evidence for helicopter-based rocket testing contained in any, or all, of the official documents – and the theoretical logic provided that such testing would not have been practical.

Again – in my opinion – due skepticism should be applied before accepting this assumption as fact.


3.) There has been no clear explanation offered for why such alleged, “sensitive”, testing should have been expected to occur so far from Holloman Air Force Base – in a public area, after the base had been closed down – and so near to the largest population center in west-central New Mexico.

If such testing is assumed to have occurred, it must also be remembered that a helicopter is not a free balloon drifting with the wind, nor an unmanned rocket that veers off-course with a malfunctioning guidance system.

Again – in my opinion – due skepticism should be applied before accepting this assumption as a fact.



~ Without additional evidence, and broadly considered to this point, I would have to say that my overall sentiment for Surveyor remains similar to that expressed by Dave Thomas:

Of course this new evidence is far from conclusive.




As for an “alternative hypothesis to explain this event”, I’m not really sure that I have one…

~ Granted, it could have resulted from a Surveyor test flight, but many inconsistencies remain (IMO) that do not appear to fully explain (again, IMO), the overall data set.

~ Perhaps it was a so-called “Zetan Egg”, from a visiting “Alien” civilization, that frightened officer Zamora, but this hypothesis will remain eminently un-testable until such a time that the transient “Zetan Egg” chooses to return, and submits itself to be studied in an earthly laboratory by Doubting Toms. (Sorry. Just kidding. ;))

~ Perhaps another “secret” terrestrial vehicle – that continues to remain classified –explains the sighting?

~ Maybe – and just for fun – the transient “Egg” wasn’t from an “Alien” civilization, at all – but was, instead – an earthly vehicle “manned” by humans from our own future? Again, this very speculative hypothesis is well known to (say?) Star Trek fans, but also remains anywhere from contradictory (?) to un-testable. ;)



So what am I left with?

Probably the same basic set of observations that Captain Holder offered. Namely that an otherwise ordinary, and sane, person – who had no desire, whatsoever, to witness something strange or extraordinary – may have done exactly that (?):

http://www.strangeworld.tv/video/116764 ... doavi.html

Captain Holder:

We looked around to try and find out if we could see any evidence of anything that would make us believe it was a hoax. We found nothing.

Everything we saw seemed to support the story that Officer Zamora recounted. My impression of talking to him was that he was mystified; He wanted an explanation.

Nothing that I heard of later gave me the slightest hint that he did this as a hoax, or cooked it up for fame or fortune.

I believe Lonnie Zamora was a good policeman and an honest man who reported, as he felt proper, something well beyond his experience.


{Emphasis original}


So, in the end, I guess I’ll just have to agree with Captain Holder’s conclusion:

Captain Holder:

Was it something terrestrial, …extraterrestrial?

I have no idea.



Neither do I.




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 2 guests