I seem to have been deeply drawn into the latest investigations of the Socorro UFO landing. The latest theory to be floated was that it was a hoax perpetrated by students at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. One of the items in support of the theory is the cardboard found at the landing site and the suggestion that this cardboard was the remains of some kind of pyrotechnics that gave the object its alleged blue – colored flame.
I say alleged because there is some discussion about this flame and whether or not it was ever there, but that is a discussion for another time. Hynek, in his notes to the chief of Blue Book, wrote, 'As far as the cardboard is concerned, Menzel’s conjectures here fall completely flat.
The cardboard was portions of very old and weathered corrugated emphasis added paper from a packing box which also seems to answer questions about shape and holes. There are many examples of this all over the region. There is a city dump not too far away, and when the wind, which blows tumbleweeds all over the place, gets hold of some of this stuff, it scatters the papers pretty well all over the region. Many of the bushes, I noticed particularly this time, have papers caught on their underneath side. In any case, some of this paper was still there, and I shall send Menzel a sample of what this cardboard really looks like.
I would say that the cardboard had been there through many rains and had suffered successive dryings emphasis added. The original piece I picked up was definitely charred.' (5) Soil Samples: The soil samples obtained at the sighting were given to Dr.
Allen Hynek by Capt Holder. They were turned over to Captain Quintanilla who in turn submitted them to ASD for analysis. Laboratory analysis of the soil was completed on 19 May 64. It included spectrographic analysis which revealed that there was no foreign material in the soil samples (emphasis added).
Also, no chemicals were detected in the charred or burned soil which would indicate a type of propellant (emphasis added). There was no significant difference in elemental composition between the different samples.The evidence that was collected at the time of the sighting including the charred cardboard and the soil samples seem to rule out a pyrotechnic display. That is, all the evidence and not just the pieces that fit into a narrow window, seem to rule it out. The evidence that was collected at the time of the sighting including the charred cardboard and the soil samples seem to rule out a pyrotechnic display. That is, all the evidence and not just the pieces that fit into a narrow window, seem to rule it out.'
It certainly doesn't rule out propellant driven pyrotechnics for the initial roar and flame that drew Zamora to the area. That could have been launched from anywhere in the general area.Sgt Moody's report-'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. Smoke appeared to come from the bush and he assumed that it was burning, however no coals were visible and the charred portions of the bush were cold to the touch.' Hynek wrote of the sporadic nature of the burning of the area, indicating human randomness. Said.Dear Keven,Excellent work. But I want to ask you why the UFO community doesn't demand these hoaxers take a polygraph test when they go public.
They not that easy to beat if done right. Many times when we've had a big UFO story UFO witnesses are called to take lie detector test. Hoaxer are basically liars but they never put through this. The two different 'Hoaxers' at Rendlesham were allowed also to continue with their nonsense without even a challenge in the public forum to take this test.
I think that should be done first and if they refuse make that public on all our blogs and submit comments on articles that conveniently overlook this.Thanks for a great investigative piece.Joe CappUFO Media MattersNon-Commercial Blog. Said.Let me see if I have this straight.
A student conspirator sped past Zamora knowing that he would give chase. Okay, pretty much a given. The student continues to flee, engaging in a felony or two, and led Zamora along a road where another conspirator touched off a pyrotechnic display hoping that Zamora would a) see it and b) let the fleeing felon go so that he could check out this display that is c) not at the final site where the object and two others wait.Zamora did as planned but didn’t find the original site, his attention now diverted to a second site where he saw something on the ground. He drove toward it, lost sight briefly and then got quite close. The two conspirators there disappear behind the object and it lifted off, into a strong wind and disappeared. The two conspirators fled using poles to vault away so they didn’t leave footprints.Others arrive within moments but see neither the object, which has now disappeared, or the students pole vaulting away.
They search the area, find the landing imprints and collect samples which reveal no evidence of radioactive or chemical contamination but that’s okay because the pyrotechnics were fired from somewhere else and the charred cardboard that has fascinated so many has nothing to do with that. It’s just debris from the nearby dump.I’m struck by the fact that Zamora did everything he had to do to make this thing work.
Without any knowledge of what his role had to be. I’m struck by the fact that the investigators, some of whom arrived within minutes, saw nothing out of the ordinary. I’m struck by the fact the conspirators could escape undetected and that we have, at a minimum, four people involved in this.
I’m struck by the fact that no evidence of a hoax was found on the site, even though the prevailing opinion of the official investigators would have done almost anything to get to a solution, short of salting the area with terrestrial debris.While I have attempted, in this particular discussion to remain neutral and allow others publish their opinions for and against, I want to make sure that everyone realizes that I try to keep an open mind on this, but really. No evidence of the pyrotechnics, which entered the discussion because of the charred cardboard found have now been moved to some other location to explain the fact that the soil samples, gathered that very evening, showed no chemicals or changes to suggest any sort of pyrotechnical display.Does this mean it wasn’t a hoax? Does it mean that we can reject the extraterrestrial explanation? It means that the evidence does not support a pyrotechnic display on the site where the object, whatever it was, was seen. Said.Kevin-You have failed to tell readers the entire USAF accounting of the cardboard. From the original report by Hynek (Lines 44 and 45):'A closer examination of the site on April 29 revealed a fair amount of charred particles mixed with dirt. Charred cardboard was also found.'
What is 'char' of anything doing at the site? Especially char particulate (likely from cardboard)interspersed with the soil at the site.And I never ever stated that the cardboard was definitely resultant from a pyro tube. It was a suggested as a possibility- but so was burned corrugate or craftboard which may have been used to create 'landing strut' and other features.And Kevin has a long-standing stance on this issue. The truth is that Kevin appeared many, many years ago on the old TV show Sightings offering his opinion.Kevin knows that I respect his work, and that I have been reluctant to make public comment on his Socorro 'findings' - but I needed to correct the record. Kevin remains someone of whom I have the greatest admiration -and he knows this- but on this, he is wrong.
Said.Does not the position of the 4 landing pads rule against a large vehicle (whether man-made or ET-made) resting on the ground? The 4 points are entirely unsymmetric and form an irregular quadrilateral whose diagonals are at right angles (approximately). If this were a manufactured vehicle you would expect the pads to form a square or rectangle. Commonsense tells us that, although I concede we cannot predict what ETs might or might not construct.
Their ideas of symmetry may be quite different from ours!As to the likelihood of the diagonals meeting at right angles, perhaps the hoaxer(s), if they existed, did this deliberately as best they could and placed the 4th 'pad print' on one of these diagonals. Also why is the 4th impression oriented differently from the other 3?I would like to know the name of the physicist who estimated the weight of the object as 4 to 10 tons (David Rudiak's posting in part 1).
The reason I query this is because Phil Klass tells that Chavez made some indentations with a small shovel which, Klass says, matched the existing ones. He also says one of the indentations 'could be duplicated simply by removing one of the large rocks that abound in the sandy arroyo' (UFOs EXPLAINED p.110). He also claims the small burned bush in the center of the landing site was burnt no more than what could have been done with a cigarette lighter.Maybe the ground impressions and burnt shrubs had nothing to do with the object, and were formed earlier.Despite the above, I admit that we are a long way from proving a hoax, however much some of us would like to.All we can say with certainty is that the ETs, if they indeed landed at Socorro, construct some mighty unsymmetric craft. Said.Tony Bragalia wrote:What is 'char' of anything doing at the site? Especially char particulate (likely from cardboard)interspersed with the soil at the site.That's an easy question. Zamora reported the object taking off with a roar and emitting a bright bluish 'flame'.
First responders reported the ground and plants still hot and smoldering when they arrived.So if any old cardboard from the nearby dump was there and was in the path of the 'flame' on takeoff or landing, it too will be burned and charred, along with grass, sagebrush, and greasewood bushes.As for charred material being mixed in with soil, Hynek didn't get out to the site until April 29, after many curiosity seekers had already been out there and trampled everything, something he commented on, expressing regret. He and Ray Stanford still took samples of what they could (Stanford had the presence of mind to bring sample vials, because Hynek had nothing with him.)But Kevin was pointing out the AF had already taken plant and soil samples before that when the area was still closed off. Their published conclusion? No traces of any chemicals that might have caused the burning. Thus, the burning couldn't be explained by gasoline, kerosene, propane, fireworks, etc.Also first responders noted no smell that might be associated with such accelerants.So what caused the totally fresh burning if it wasn't chemicals?
And how could hoaxers time it so that it started right when Zamora got there, with nobody in sight? You would need fuses or wires or radio transmitters, and then the burn paraphernalia itself, none of which was found.Also not found were any tracks leading into or out of the site. How do erase all of the track evidence? (You can forget Frank Stalter's ridiculous levitating pole vaulters.)And of course, what the heck was the object itself, still sitting on its legs when Zamora got there? And how did it fly away right in front of Zamora in complete silence, heading AGAINST a stiff wind blowing at the time, straight and level in a very controlled way all the way to the base of the mountains? It is quite impossible for balloons to do that.Until you can explain how a hoax could be done in a plausible, way (no impossible balloons, pole-vaulting students, pyrotechnics that leave no traces behind, etc.), given the available physical evidence at the site and Zamora's testimony (as well as others), the hoax theory is not tenable now, just as it wasn't in 1964. Even Blue Book head Quintenilla totally rejected the idea, though he very much wanted to debunk the case.
Swgemu stuck on connecting to galaxy s7. Cloud house I think.When I try and login I get stuck at the Tie Fighter Connecting to Galaxy screen. ProfitMy last question would be, why does it keep happening? Is there something I'm doing that is making the server keep them logged in? Before 2-3 days ago, I was able to log in/out of characters at will and never had much of a problem.Thanks for the help by the way I appreciate you taking the time to let me know about it. This is not working for me.I have a character I logged out in a Mall.
Said.CDA-You make an excellent point and I was wondering when someone would bring it up: The 'padprints' were a main evidence for the story. But to fit the spacing of the marks, the object would have had four legs with unequal lengths and angles. It would have been unstable.It would have been a simple matter to make four marks at right angles to each other, quite another to make the distance between them equal. The prints were simply made by lifting rocks and using a shovel.
I think this was a telling 'hint' from the hoaxers.David-There were tracks found at the site! See the Holder info in my article. He thought the prints were made by 'kids.' BTW, David I appreciate the tremendous amount of work that you have done on Roswell.
I just wanted you to know that.There is one other thing: David M. Moody TSGT, USAF wrote a 3 page report to Blue Book: 'Lonnie Zamora's description of the object is vague- the only specific detail being the red marking.
All descriptions are general in nature. At no time did the object rise above the mountain background.' Said.Tony Bragalia to cda:You make an excellent point and I was wondering when someone would bring it up: The 'padprints' were a main evidence for the story. But to fit the spacing of the marks, the object would have had four legs with unequal lengths and angles. It would have been unstable.I have no idea where you get the idea that such an arrangement would be “unstable”.The fact is, any such quadrilateral arrangement where the diagonals meet at a right angle means a circle can be drawn which intersects exactly at the middle of the sides of the quadrilateral.
(The quadrilateral perfectly bounds the circle.) In engineering terms, this means that if the center of the circle was also the center of mass, then all points on the circle would bear equal weight.Thus equal weight on the midpoints of the sides, translates to equal weight distributed onto all landing pads, well thought-out engineering design for any sort of such landing craft. Nothing about such an arrangement is “unstable.” Quite the contrary.The center of the circle bounded by this asymmetrical quadrilateral also just happens to correspond to where the primary ground burn area was and where Zamora saw the “ear-splittlingly” loud roaring blue flame that seemed to penetrate into the soil instead of bouncing off (like an ordinary flame would have). No, not for a real VTOL craft. The vertical propulsion would be ideally located at the center of mass of the craft, just like for a lunar lander or a Harrier jet.Note, the burn area was not at the intersection of the asymmetrical diagonals, which is where you might expect hoaxers to put it.
No, they were so clever as to place the burn area off-center at exactly where the geometrical theorem would predict the center of mass and what you would expect for the VTOL performance of the craft that Zamora observed. All this extremely subtle detail just to scare Zamora?This is also where initial AF investigators found a strange rock (unknown at the time to either Stanford or Hynek), which seemed to have a bubbled surface and a powdery residue, and which didn’t match any other rocks in the area, another weird, subtle touch by hoaxers supposedly just trying to scare and humiliate a hated traffic cop.
Stanford later went back and found another rock buried underneath the same burn area, where the large quartz crystals had been remelted, but not the smaller ones, another anomaly.It would have been a simple matter to make four marks at right angles to each other, quite another to make the distance between them equal. The prints were simply made by lifting rocks and using a shovel.
I think this was a telling 'hint' from the hoaxers.Yes, it would be simple to make four marks at right angles, but not so simple to find four convenient rocks of approximately equal size, shape, parallel to one another, and wedgy at the bottom that were also at right angles to one another. That’s a bit much, don’t you think?Also one of the landing marks wasn’t as distinct as the others. Why not make them all the same? This is the one right next to the large, broken rock noticed by Zamora, that also had metal particles in it, of unknown alloy. So they created a previously unknown alloy, imbedded it in a broken rock, planted it next to the less distinct impression, just to make it seem like a real landing pad had struck the rock, broke it, scraped it, leaving trace metal behind, and had been tilted to the side by the large rock, thus explaining its less distinct nature.Thus these hoaxers seem to have gone through a helluva lot of trouble to create such subtle details, extremely easy to overlook, capable of fooling the experts, and totally unnecessary if all you want to do is scare and humiliate a hated traffic cop. If anything, you would want a hoax quickly exposed as such to make him seem like a “fool”, according to your own theory of the supposed motivation behind the hoax. Said.Part 2And then there’s the large patch of vitrified sand (again unknown at the time to Hynek or Stanford, apparently removed by the AF before they got there) which hoaxers would have had to create and plant, and the film of trooper Ted Jordan that the AF took and never returned, said by Hynek to have been fogged by some sort of radiation, which would have had to be done by short-lived radioisotopes obtained and planted at the scene by college students?
Where did they get those? And all this to scare a traffic cop?And Tony, you still haven’t come remotely close to explaining some of the BIG obvious points, such as the absence of chemical traces by what burned the plants and soil (so what burned them right in front of Zamora?), the missing paraphernalia for burning everything.
(Where did it go? How was it set off at exactly the right time?) Where are the missing footprints around the site and leading to and from the site. (How could “hoaxers” flee the area totally unseen right in front of Zamora and leave not a single footprint behind as they ran away?)And finally, what the hell was the craft that Zamora saw lift off with a huge roar, then go completely silent, fly quickly away AGAINST THE WIND (forget balloon), and also travel 2 miles in a straight line, horizontal to the ground, then angle sharply up, rise up over the mountains, and fade in the distance. Can you explain how “hoaxers” did that?Or how they created a roar so loud that other people in the south part of town heard it? Said.Part 3 response to Bragalia:BTW, David I appreciate the tremendous amount of work that you have done on Roswell.
I just wanted you to know that.Likewise, but I also think you have really shot yourself in the foot with the Socorro case. I do wish you’d stop avoiding the really HUGE points that clearly prove that this wasn’t any sort of hoax. Unless you can demonstrate in clear, totally PLAUSBILE terms how a hoax like this could be carried out, you’ve got nothing but unsupported say-so from guys like Colgate.
(The fact that Colgate is no longer communicating with you should be telling you something.)The Socorro case is much more than just Zamora’s testimony. It is also the inexplicable physical evidence left behind plus the total lack of physical evidence of any hoaxers being there. How do you magically erase footprints in front of everybody, leave no chemical traces behind, no paraphernalia, etc.?There is one other thing: David M.
Moody TSGT, USAF wrote a 3 page report to Blue Book: 'Lonnie Zamora's description of the object is vague- the only specific detail being the red marking. All descriptions are general in nature. At no time did the object rise above the mountain background.' Mostly lies by Moody. Zamora clearly described an egg-shaped, white object, about the size of a car, maybe 15-20 feet long, and still resting on “girderlike” legs, about 3 or 4 feet off the ground, when he got there.
He heard three loud bangs when he arrived, like those of tank hatches he had heard during he war. These are very specific details.He was quoted in the Socorro newspaper saying he approached to within 50 feet of the object. Yes, you will also find contrary statements attributed to him, but he was interviewed very early on by the Socorro paper before the Army, Air Force, and FBI made him pare back some of his remarks.Supporting this, BOTH Hynek and Ray Stanford took similarly positioned photos of the landing area from the place where Zamora said he parked his car and got out. Stanford said this was about 55 feet from the object, and the Hynek/Stanford photos seem to prove this.Hynek commented, “He finally stopped the car at the clearing just before the ground descends into the little arroyo (see photograph 2). 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, heliocopter, private small plane, etc., could have remained unidentified, and further, could have cause Zamora to become as frightened as he did.”Stanford told me Zamora pointed out his car-parking place at the arroyo edge simultaneously to both him and Hynek. Judging by the shadows cast by people milling about the landing site, both photos were taken in the early afternoon, with Hynek left of Stanford’s position and from about the same distance.To see Stanford’s photo of how close Zamora parked the car (facing south):to Hynek’s photo (bottom photo):got very close indeed!He also described the object taking off with a huge roar, emitting a cone-shaped, bright blue flame that seemed to penetrate into the soil instead of bouncing off and only kicking up a little dust. Those are important details.More very specific details about its performance characteristics: After reaching 15 to 20 feet above the ground (and at which point he noticed the legs no longer there), it seemed to hover there for a few seconds, “changed from high frequency to low frequency”, then go completely silent, then depart very rapidly emitting no smoke or flame, horizontally in a straight line, then angle sharply up when it reached the mountains 2 miles away.How could Moody say Zamora provided hardly any details?(cont.
Said.(Part 4 response to Bragalia)And Zamora very definitely stated that the object rapidly rose above the mountains (despite what Moody may have written) and faded out in the distance. E.g., from his AF statement:“It disappeared as it went over the mountain.”Socorro El Defensor Chieftain, April 28“He saw the object rise straight up and take off, and disappear beyond Six-Mile Canyon to the west.”“He saw the UFO rise straight up for an estimated 20 feetThe object appeared to maintain this altitude beyond the explosives building and due west in a straight line for about two miles to the perlite mill. On the other side of the mill the UFO gained altitude very rapidly, passed over Six-Mile Canyon, became a speck in the sky, and disappeared.Quote from recorded interview in Stanford’s book, p. 29-30:“it was completely silent. It kept about the same height above the ground—ten to fifteen feet—it never did get much higher until it got over near the perlite mill Then it angled up at a steep climb and got small in the distance, over the canyon or mountain that way, VERY FAST Zamora’s emphasis.” Another interview: It went away, climbing up, fast into the distance.”Moody’s report is riddled with serious mistakes, such as Zamora parking 150 yards from the object and walking the rest of the way on foot. (Doesn’t even make logical sense, since the road was only 100 feet from object.) In reality, what Zamora REALLY said was he stopped his car for a few seconds when he first saw the object to observe, maybe 150-200 yards way, then drove the rest of the way.You should also read Hector Quintanilla’s fawning comments about Sgt. Moody in his never-published book.hated UFO’s, just like Quintenilla.
Unlike that two-faced, fancy talking, academic astronomer Hynek, Moody knew it was all “bullshit” and was a man Quintanilla counted on. Sample quotes:“I finally received Hynek’s Socorro report; it was one of those typical reports which contained few technical details and added practically nothing to what had already been submitted by Connor and Moody. Actually, Hynek added very little to the investigation, however, his typical press interviews added more flame to the fire.” In other words, Hynek wasn’t saying exactly what they wanted him to say.“Hynek complained to me that Dave Moody was not treating him according to his scientific stature, or some crap like that. I talked to Dave about it and Dave would come back that he was too busy to baby sit or kiss the Doctor’s ass”“Sending Hynek to investigate he Socorro incident was my mistake Up to this time, Hynek had taken a fairly stable stand with regards to UFOs Afterward He embarrassed me and the Air Force on a number of occasions. I became concerned because at times I couldn’t believe what I read in print. For example: In April 1966, Dr.
The answer you are looking for is.
Hynek stated before the House Armed Services Committee that he had twenty cases which he had ‘certified as well reported’ and was unable to explain. In a letter to Science Magazine he stated that, ‘I have in my files several hundred reports that are real brain teasers and could easily be made the subject of profitable discussion among physical and social scientists alike.’ In the Saturday Post, Dr. Hynek stated, ‘of the 15,000 cases that have come to my attention, several hundred are puzzling, and some of the puzzling incidents are bewildering.’”“I’m not surprised at this statement, some of the cases that were puzzling to him were not at all puzzling to me, Dave Moody, Bill Marley, or Dr.
Menzel.” I wasn’t aware they solved the 600+ official “unknown” cases in Blue Book or Socorro, for that matter. “Dave Moody was right, ‘Bull shit is bull shit no matter who slings it.’ Dave was an old Navy Swabee and he could recognize it from a long way off.”(last post next). Said.(Part 5 response to Bragalia, last post)So basically, Quintanilla didn’t really object to ass-kissing, as long as it was HIS ass being kissed. Hynek stopped kissing it after Socorro and became a loose cannon.
Socorro was his tipping point. He stopped dependably kowtowing to the AF public party line and made “embarrassing” public statements that therjavascript:void(0)e might be something after all to those truly bewildering UFO cases tha was deserving of scientific scrutiny. What audacity! This was nothing but “bullshit” to Quintanilla and his dependable like-minded ass-kisser, the same Sgt.
Moody he sent out Socorro.With attitudes like this, how reliable and objective can we expect Moody to be? His report is definitely full of bad mistakes, maybe some of them deliberate. At the very least, he was extremely careless in his details and doesn’t seem terribly concerned about accuracy. Maybe his old “Swabee” background?Quintanilla, despite all his efforts to explain away Socorro, diss Hynek, and no matter how much he and Moody thought UFOs were “bullshit”, could not explain Socorro in the end. And, oh yes, even a hard-core UFO debunker like Quintanilla totally dismissed the idea that Socorro was caused by a hoax of any kind.Read Hynek, where he cites Quinanilla saying that for a hoax to work, literally everybody would have had to be a part of it: Zamora, fellow police officers, and the FBI. That was a bit much to swallow, even for Quinanilla. Said.as somebody who endorses a parasocial approach to ufology, not an ET one, it is kind of ironic that I am in cautious agreement with many ETH believers and for that matter Randle here, the case remains as he put it 'unidentified'neither a proven hoax nor an ET craft.There remains no realistic evidence that Socorro was hoaxed, we just don't know either way.
Something that needs to be stressed and is otherwise easily overlooked, much is made of Colgate's letter to Pauling (which is of course what is causing this sudden reappraisal of Socorro in the first place), and Colgate's account that it was all hoaxed by student pranksters. Yet what of the psychology of Colgate here and likewise the psychology of the Tech students who allegedly claimed staging a hoax? Ufology touches on so many taboos, especially psychological, sociological, cultural, anthropological etc - that the vast majority of people (including frankly many self-styled experts on ufology eg Steve Greer and other jokers) are desperate to dismiss the whole subject or turn it into a big joke and caricature (self-styled ufology experts) and the like. To acknowledge something real going on here (re ufology as a whole) without fitting it into our limited preconceptions, even though totally mysterious, is to acknowlege that our conventional ideas about ourselves and our world is not necessariy the full picture, or even the right one. So cognitive dissonance comes to the fore, and people engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics, subconsciously motivated, to avoid facing uncomfortable facts.Hence the record of ridicule and ostracisation many sincere UFO witnesses/contactees have received from their families, communities, scientists and media over the decades.
The point I am getting to is this - Colgate himself wanted to dismiss the subject from his mind (the disturbing nature of ufology to our deeply held and deeply subconsious assumptions applies as much to Colgate as any other), and so he was desperately inclined to believe in a hoax, no matter how implausible. So when rumour reached him from the student body or students themselves at New Mexico Tech that Socorro was hoaxed, he grabbed on to it, the easier to dismiss the disturbance to his own psyche that ufology inexorably makes.
And the rumours and claims of a hoax from the students themselves may have been motivated from the same source, the desperation to dismiss Soccorro and its disturbing implications from their own minds, and so these unconscious motivations saw students, without a real wilful intent, merely claim hoaxing without any basis. As if by claiming a hoax, it makes it a hoax, and thus they could put their minds at ease. I think with Socorro we will simply never know.It's interesting and amusing to see that the re-appraisal of the Socorro sighting, whether one believes it to be a hoax or not, does not depend on one's interpretation of ufology as a whole, whether ETH or the numerous psychosocial hypotheses.
It's ET believers vs ET believers and PSH believers vs PSH believers on this one. Admittedly I am distinctly in the minority here, as part of the latter group, arguing that the hoax notion is certainly unproven and even dubious (or so it appears, not all, or even most of the notabe PSH fellows have given public opinions here on the latest revelations re Socorro as far as I know). Much is made of Colgate's letter to Pauling (which is of course what is causing this sudden reappraisal of Socorro in the first place), and Colgate's account that it was all hoaxed by student pranksters.' Pauling was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived and Colgate has been highly accomplished as well. In a field like 'ufology' where guys who simply claim to have PhDs are revered, that is significant. The private nature of the correspondence, the fluke by which it come into the UFO webring and the fact that Anthony got Colgate to confirm his opinion on the contents is significant but the evidence hardly stops there.The letter is a key that opened the door, but it is a noteworthy key.'
So cognitive dissonance comes to the fore, and people engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics, subconsciously motivated, to avoid facing uncomfortable facts.' That's been evident since Anthony wrote his first blog on this subject. People love this Socorro legend and will grasp at straws to convince themselves it's anything but a prank. Dear Enemy/Enemies:we are going to be testing one of our most Top Secret aero-devices this coming evening. Please bring a notebook, some binoculars, and a camera, so you can capture all of the details that you can. We will be making a public fly-over on Route 66 so be ready.'
I feel the weight of evidence posed by several of the hard working investigators that have taken the time to comment on this, both here and at RRR's page, have made a good case for it NOT to have been a hoax. At least not one perpetrated by anyone from around these parts. To that, I would add that the silly pronouncement I made (.inviting our enemies) easily compares with the silliness of the 'it's just some secret test craft' claim made for MANY of the hard to write off cases, such as the triangle/boomerang-shaped objects seen, as well as the Socorro case.The Lunar lander test vehicle, being tested at that time, could never have strayed off of the testing grounds. It was having severe stablization problems. If it had magically made it that far, it would have been enough to set it down safely, let alone take off again. This makes it almost impossible to fit as an explaination in the Socorro case, if it wasn't a hoax.But, that is what brings me to my point.
The craft in question acted alot more like the version of the Lunar Lander that we all witnessed with the Apollo Moon Landings. But that version only worked because of the lower gravity on the Moon. Yet the LEM take-off, from the Moon, happened just as we saw demonstrated that day in 1964. A burst from the bottom to reach take-off velocity, then, no more flame needed. But our vehicle, being tested here on Earth at that time, had a constant flame, causing it to seem more like a hover-craft, and it tended to list to one side, or the other. It was very hard to control, if I am remembering correctly.Like the actual LEM that would later evolve, this Socorro craft just used a burst of flame for lift-off, then used the momentum of that burn to do the rest, as if the gravity was being reduced somehow.as if they were us on the Moon.As a balloon, the craft would still have to account for the abilty to sport a flame. As another witnessed compared it to a giant propane tank, that is exactly the kind of thing that would have been required.
As we recently witnessed with the 'Balloon Boy' fiasco, the weight of said propane, or Butane tank, would have posed real problems with weight, for a take-off. If the whole thing was a tank, how was the lift accomplished?Though I am far from being an expert, I just don't see the hoax explaination covering the questions raised so far, and i thank all of you for taking so much of your time to do the research that you have done. Said.Anthony -I didn't mention the Hynek report you refer to because Hynek himself said the cardboard both charred and uncharred was all over the site and that there was a dump close. When Menzel raised the charred cardboard question, Hynek made it clear that the cardboard, charred and uncharred, had been there for weeks if not months.I did mention the soil analysis because it takes out the pyrotechnic display at the site because no residue was found. And the cardboard was so unimportant that it wasn't mentioned.
Had the Air Force been able to suggest a hoax, they would have done so happily.CDA and others -When Klass and others showed the asymmetrical landing gear by sticking knitting needles through a copper scrubber, my immediate thought was to wonder if he had compensated for the terrain. In other words, it would seem that the terrain might account for the asymmetical nature of the landing gear, especially when it seems that the flame suggested a burn on the object's center of gravity.And, I think I'll point out to anyone who hasn't been listening, that, as we develop more information and fact, it is possible to change a position based on that new information. I have been arguing here that neither the hoax nor the extraterrestrial explanation have been proved.Finally, just in case some missed it. The letter TO Linus Pauling is irrelevant when attached to him because it does not necessarily reflect his opinion.
A letter FROM him would be more important. Said.As I said earlier, the position of the four indentations, and their orientation, is surely enough to rule out the idea that either a man-made craft or an ET craft landed at Socorro.I think this aspect of the evidence points directly to the impressions being made BEFORE the object was seen (perhaps a matter of an hour or several hours). Moreover, the people who made these impressions did so knowing, or hoping, that a UFO sighting would follow at that location.Look at those rectangular impressions again. Three are oriented so that their sides are parallel to at least one, maybe two, sides of the quadrilateral. The fourth impression is oriented so that its sides are parallel to the diagonal!
What for?The terrain is rough and I postulate that the assumed hoaxers (having already constructed the perpendicular diagonals) erred, and made the 4th indentation oriented to match the direction of the diagonal. Or, maybe due to the rough ground and time constraints, they simply had to rush the job, and thereby made a cock-up. The position of the central burn mark is also a giveaway. Yes it is at (approximately) the centre of mass and centre of the circle, but so what? Doesn't this further indicate that someone with technical/geometrical knowhow made those indentations?
It does to me.David Rudiak's 5-part refutation of any kind of hoax sounds very good and thorough. However, it does rest heavily on one thing -that Zamora related exactly what he had seen.
Did he embellish or exaggerate any part, or even most, of his testimony? This is the unknown quantity.We have gone some way towards showing it was a hoax, but I admit we have an awful long way to go to prove anything.And Anthony's recent revelations, in the end, amount to very little. And in line with most others, I do not believe anything further will come of them.I concur with those 'non-hoaxers' who say there are too many unanswered questions. We are indeed at an impasse.But can anyone really believe that ETs would build their craft in such a non-symmetrical & lopsided way as this? Oh well, I suppose it is (very) remotely conceivable. You never can tell with these ETs!
Donald Menzel was very accomplished, in more than one field, yet he was dead against UFOlogy-anything but objective. Same was true of Sagan and many others.' Pauling certainly wasn't dead set against UFOs. Have you read my srticle about his proposal for a study on the subject?anyone is grasping at straws it's the skeptics. Pole vaulting away from the site.lol.' Kool aid drinkers kept saying it isn't possible to leave an area without leaving footprints.
I offered an explanation as to how a clever person might solve that problem. I understand why it doesn't work for you.
Said.cda wrote:We have gone some way towards showing it was a hoax, but I admit we have an awful long way to go to prove anythingBut can anyone really believe that ETs would build their craft in such a non-symmetrical & lopsided way as this? Oh well, I suppose it is (very) remotely conceivable.
You never can tell with these ETs!Zamora never said he saw an asymmetrical craft. The flying object he described was a very symmetrical egg-shape. Only the landing gear pattern was asymmetrical.There are no laws forbidding asymmetrical aircraft and landing gears. In fact such aircraft and gears have been built, for various reasons (usually because of some other major asymmetry the aircraft is built around). Here is just one reference describing such:landing gears are even less important for a VTOL craft like described by Zamora at Socorro.
There is no fast horizontal takeoff or landing, where bilateral symmetry makes life easier for the pilot to keep the aircraft flying straight down the runway.I’ve already described two reasons why it might make good engineering sense for the Socorro craft to have an asymmetrical landing gear. One is if the hatch was on one side.
More room would be needed for the crew to get in, get out, and operate on that side. The other would be to give the craft more landing options on very rough terrain. The wider triangular landing platform on the right side of the Socorro craft could be used as a stable tripod that would conform to any terrain when utilizing all four landing gears was not possible.But since skeptics like cda know that nobody would ever build asymmetries into their aircraft, we have now gone some way toward demonstrating that claims of asymmetrical aircraft, human or ET, are all hoaxes.
The primary risk with explosives is losing a yellow timed-drop reward by getting the killing blow on an enemy with one - similar to losing weapon fragments in the first game. (Not all enemies will drop rewards at all, and killing one which would have triggers a 'loot destroyed' popup on the lower left, so if you don't mind save-scumming you can entirely avoid this and still blow up ADVENT left right and center.)There are also supply raid missions which give an explicit objective to 'not destroy critical supplies'. Central calls out specific cover items the first time you encounter them in one of these missions - similar to the 'please don't break that' messages for Power Cores/Flight Computers in EU/EW - which look like some kind of glowing crate in a metal frame. I presume that they function similarly to any other cover object in terms of being destroyed (i.e. Both explosives and stray weapons-fire can potentially break them), and further presume that any which are destroyed will decrease your end-of-mission reward. However, I've never actually blown one up to test that.Otherwise, there appears to be no downside to reckless explosive use.
XCOM has actually grown more hard-hearted about such things over the past two decades: these days, the maps haven't had all the civilians conveniently evacuated beforehand and collateral damage(Incidentally, I believe it was merely a rumour that explosives reduced UFO rewards in EU/EW (other than the actual object-on-the-map items like Flight Computers, Power Sources, etc.). I can't find a solid source for that, but personal experience and the wiki both indicate that they didn't reduce alloy/elerium rewards in the Long War. And I find it hard to believe that vanilla was more hard-core than the mod.).
X-COM: UFO Defense - Walkthrough/FAQ XCOM: UFO DefenseUnofficial Strategy Guide and FAQby Kasey Chang ([email protected])released January 17, 20020 Introduction0.1 A WORD FROM THE AUTHORThanks for the tremendous response all over the net! The guidewas uploaded to practically to wherever XCOM and UFO are sold(and probably far beyond), and many people have provided helpfulfeedback that were incorporated into this and previous revisions.This is a FAQ, NOT a manual. You won't learn how to play the gamewith this document, and I'm NOT about to add it to ease the lifeof software pirates.This USG only covers the PC version since that's the only versionthat I have. Other versions should be SIMILAR but may not beidentical.This version replaces any earlier versions previously released.0.2 TERMS OF DISTRIBUTIONThis document is copyrighted by Kuo-Sheng?Kasey? Chang (c) 1994-2002, all rights reserved excepted as noted above in thedisclaimer section.This document is available FREE of charge subjected to thefollowing conditions:1) This notice and author's name must accompany all copies ofthis document: 'XCOM:UFO Defense Unofficial Strategy Guide andFAQ' is copyrighted (c) 1994-2002 by Kasey K.S. Chang, all rightsreserved except as noted in the disclaimer.?2) This document must NOT be modified in any form or mannerwithout prior permission of the author with the followingexception: if you wish to convert this document to a differentfile format or archive format, with no change to the content,then no permission is needed.2a) In case you can?t read, that means TXT only. No banners, noHTML borders, no cutting up into multiple pages to get you morebanner hits, and esp.
No adding your site name to the site list.3) No charge other than 'reasonable' compensation should chargedfor its distribution. (Free is preferred) Sale of thisinformation is expressly prohibited. If you see any one sellingthis guide, drop me a line.4) If you used material from this, PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE the source,else it is plagiarism.5) The author hereby grants all games-related web sites the rightto archive and link to this document to share among the gamefandom, provided that all above restrictions are followed.Sidenote: The above conditions are known as a statutory contract.If you meet them, then you are entitled to the rights I give youin 5), i.e. Archive and display this document on your website. Ifyou don?t follow them, you did not meet the statutory contractconditions, you have no right to display this document.
If youstill do so, then you are infringing upon my copyright. Thissection was added for any websites who don?t seem to understandthis.For the gamers: You are under NO obligation to send me ANYcompensation. However, I do ask for a VOLUNTARY contribution ofone (1) US Dollar if you live in the United States, and if youbelieve this guide helped your game. If you choose to do so,please make your US$1.00 check or $1.00 worth of stamp to 'Kuo-Sheng Chang', and send it to '2220 Turk Blvd.
Ufo Landing Video
#6, San Francisco,CA 94118 USA'.If you don't live in the US, please send me some local stamps. Icollect stamps too.0.3 DISTRIBUTIONThis USG is only released to Gamefaqs (it should also be available from other major PC gamewebsites (such as gamesdomain.com, gamespot.com, etc.).To webmasters who wish to archive this FAQ on their website,please read the terms of distribution in section 0.2. It is quiteclear. In case you can?t understand it, it says?nomodifications? This means you may NOT modify any bits of it!Modifications include (but not limited to):.
Cutting up the FAQ into pages (so you get more banner hits). Adding your site's name to the list above0.4 OTHER NOTESThere is no warranty for this unofficial strategy guide. Afterall, it depends on YOU the player. All I can do is offer someadvice.PLEASE let me know if there's a confusing or missing remark. Ifyou find a question about this game that is not covered in theUSG, e-mail it to me at [email protected].
I'll try to answer it andinclude it in the next update.UFO: Enemy Unknown users should be able to use this supplementwith minimum changes. Most tips will apply to both versions, esp.the tactical tips. The charts on the other hand may havedifferent numbers, so compare it carefully please.XCOM was ported to many platforms including the Sony Playstation.Other versions of XCOM can probably use this guide withoutmodification, but that cannot be guaranteed.0.5 THE AUTHORI am just a game player who decided to write my own FAQs when theones I find don?t cover what I want to see. Lots of people likewhat I did, so I kept doing it.Previously, I've written Unofficial Strategy Guides (USGs) forXCOM, XCOM2:TFTD, Wing Commander 3, Wing Commander 4, Fade toBlack, Spycraft, 688(I) Hunter/Killer. Mechwarrior 3, MW3Expansion Pack, Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed, and many more.Most of them should be on gamefaqs.com, the biggest FAQ sitearound.If you need to write me, send e-mail to [email protected].
(Any spamwill be reported to respective authorities). You better specifywhat game you wish to talk about though. With over 20 FAQsarchived I don't want to spend the brain cells to guess whatyou're talking about.0.6 DISCLAIMER AND CREDITSXCOM is a trademark of MicroProse. XCOM was developed by MythosGames, UK.This USG is not endorsed or authorized by MicroProse, HasbroInteractive, Infogrames, or Mythos Games.Thanks to MicroProse and Mythos Games for bringing us such a nicegame.
I don't have the specifics and I don't want to dig the.ini right now, but you need a large spike in vigilance in the region you want it to land, I dunno if you also need Global Alert at high. Anyways, how I used to go about it in 1.2 is that spamming missions, specially a Liberation chain would make vigilance sky high and ADVENT would try to move legions into that region. After a while the precursor mission would be detected, a hack with no intel package (looks the same as Liberation 1).
Comes with a short timer so you usually need to boost. After completing the mission, immediatly Landed UFO pops with something like 8d to infiltrate.I think I spotted the precursor in 1.4, but I'm not sure since I kept vigilance and global alert low by hiding. There are three different UFO reinforcement activities.
You have a force UFO, an emergency UFO and a super emergency UFO. Each one starts with a preliminary mission, which if completed unlocks the UFO mission.ScheduledOffWorldReinforcements comes every 15 days and tries to increase Force Level throughout the world.
The preliminary mission runs between 3 and 7 days, making it quite hard to detect. It's always a Recover or Hack mission, with only Intel as a reward (making it look a lot like Liberation 1). I believe this one looks for a 'safe' region to drop in, preferring to drop in the lowest vigilance region in the world.EmergencyOffWorldReinforcements comes regularly as well (timing determined by difficulty), but tries to add 1 alert its target region and one adjacent region. The preliminary mission runs between 5 and 9 days, making it fairly hard to detect. It's always a Recover or Hack mission, with only Intel as a reward (making it look a lot like Liberation 1). I'm not sure what region this UFO likes to drop in, but it's probably a low vigilance region too.SuperEmergencyOffWorldReinforcements only come if global vigilance +20 is greater than global alert (advent strength). It will add 2 alert in its target region and 1-2 alert in any adjacent region (excepting liberated regions of course!).
The preliminary mission runs between 5 and 9 days, making it fairly hard to detect. It's always a Recover, Hack or Rescue mission, with only Intel as a reward. If you see a Rescue mission with only an Intel reward, you can be sure it is the preliminary for this! This tends to drop in a high vigilance region.The standard strategy for 'farming' UFOs is to have intelligence going everywhere you can and try to hit up anything that looks like Lib1 (Intel is the only reward).
If you have Lib1 completed in a lot of regions, this becomes even easier as any Intel only missions are going to reward either a UFO or a Facility Lead. You can't have more Facility Leads than there are Facilities active in the world, so you'll eventually get to the point where Intel only missions reliably unlock some kind of UFO.Note: UFO missions and their preliminaries generally have increased alert levels (1 or 2), which combines with their short detection times to make them fairly hard.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |