|
Posts:
996
From:
Philadelphia
Registered:
2/5/09
|
|
(1 of 41)
In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 5, 2009 2:09 PM
|
Lonnie Zamora, retired New Mexico police officer, passed away this week.
Following his 1964 sighting in New Mexico of an egg-shaped craft with two "small adults or large kids in coveralls" walking around the craft, the case would turn out to be one of the most extensively investigated, documented cases in US history.
I ask the skeptics to review this case in detail and tell me it's another weather balloon. Wikipedia does the case justice with a good writeup here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora
The official Blue Book conclusion? "The Air Force is continuing its investigation, and the case is still open."
--
Currently reading "Foundation and Empire" by Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Posts:
1,226
Registered:
12/28/07
|
|
(2 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 5, 2009 2:15 PM
|
|
Well that's too bad. Wasn't he just on the show?
|
|
|
Posts:
996
From:
Philadelphia
Registered:
2/5/09
|
|
(3 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 5, 2009 2:23 PM
|
Yeah, he was actually. I can't remember if it was this past season or not, but he was up there in age.
--
Currently reading "Foundation and Empire" by Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Posts:
66
From:
Reality
Registered:
11/2/09
|
|
(4 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 5, 2009 3:26 PM
|
That is sad to hear about.
Perhaps he passed with a sense of knowing, and that is a good thing.
OO 
|
|
|
Posts:
996
From:
Philadelphia
Registered:
2/5/09
|
|
(5 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 6:41 AM
|
Some debunkers suggested that the affair was a hoax. Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel first suggested that Zamora had been the victim of a complex prank engineered by high school students who "planned the whole business to 'get' Zamora." (Hynek suggested this to some Socorro citizens, who discounted the idea). Years later, Menzel argued that Zamora had misidentified a dust devil.
Journalist, and prominent UFO skeptic, Philip J. Klass first suggested that the Zamora sighting was due to misidentified ball lightning. When this debunking was itself debunked (notably by atmospheric physicist Dr. James E. McDonald), Klass switched gears and suggested the Zamora sighting was part of a scheme Zamora had invented with Socorro's then mayor, Holm Bursum, Jr., to attract tourism. (In 1964, Bursum owned the land where Zamora's encounter occurred.) Klass claimed that Bursum hoped Zamora's "fabricated" UFO story would lure tourists to Socorro, and Bursum could then develop the UFO landing site into a tourist attraction. Both Bursum and Zamora consistently denied these accusations as ridiculous, and even after Zamora's sighting gained national publicity the landing site was never developed. As of 2009, the landing site reportedly remains much as it was in 1964.
--
Currently reading "Foundation and Empire" by Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Posts:
1,226
Registered:
12/28/07
|
|
(6 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 10:43 AM
|
|
I do believe he was confused about what he saw, but I don't believe he was in on it in any way.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,193
From:
Charlottesville, VA
Registered:
2/15/08
|
|
(7 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 10:54 AM
|
That's something I've noticed.
A lot of Believers can't seem to comprehend that you can say you think someone is saying what they think they saw, but that they are wrong about it.
To them your calling him a liar.
And I just can't follow that kind of logic.
> I do believe he was confused about what he saw, but I
> don't believe he was in on it in any way.
--
Bringing reality, reason and logic to your day.
If you like it or not.
|
|
|
Posts:
996
From:
Philadelphia
Registered:
2/5/09
|
|
(8 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 11:06 AM
|
Fine Don.
Project Bluebook itself ruled out the lunar module, so what do you think it was?
--
Currently reading "Foundation and Empire" by Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Posts:
8,193
From:
Charlottesville, VA
Registered:
2/15/08
|
|
(9 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 11:09 AM
|
I've always thought the ballon hypothesis matched with what he said quite well.
--
Bringing reality, reason and logic to your day.
If you like it or not.
|
|
|
Posts:
26
From:
Eastern Washington
Registered:
11/5/09
|
|
(10 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 11:31 AM
|
|
He must have been a courageous and caring person to stand up for what he believed he witnessed. Just recently I was reading about a place in Oregon where stories about the sightings of small child like beings at a place called Tufts mountain have been witnessed for centuries by the Native people who lived nearby. Evidently there are child size footprints embedded into the landscape and interestingly it has been known as a dangerous place and one to be avoided. Could these have been aliens and how many more places like this are here in America?
|
|
|
Posts:
996
From:
Philadelphia
Registered:
2/5/09
|
|
(11 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 12:00 PM
|
Nice try. Aside from the obvious fact that balloon carriages do not have "legs" or scorch the ground, and that police officers and USAF investigators have ruled this possibility out; you have the factor of speed:
According to reconstructions of the event from Zamora's account, the time was probably no more than 20 seconds from when the object went to silent operation, rapidly accelerated, and then faded from view near Box Canyon, a distance of about 6 miles (9.7 km). Assuming constant acceleration, these numbers can be used to estimate the object's acceleration, average speed, and final speed. The acceleration would be given by 2d/t^2, where d is the distance of 6 miles (9.7 km) or about 9600 meters, and t is the time of 20 seconds. The final speed would be 2d/t and the average speed d/2. This works out to a final speed of 2160 miles/hour, an average speed of 1080 miles/hour, and an acceleration of 48 meters/sec^2, or almost 5 times Earth gravity of 9.8 meters/sec^2.
These high values rule out many conventional explanations, such as a helicopter or balloon. A high-performance jet aircraft or rocket propulsion could conceivably produce the accelerations and supersonic speeds, but neither forms of propulsion are silent. The Air Force report on the incident also said that they analysed the soil and found no evidence of chemical propellants, as might be expected from a jet or most rocket engines. Further, no contemporary craft was capable of vertical take-off and such high speeds. The oval object described by Zamora also lacked any wings or other external structures that might have provided lift.
--
Currently reading "Foundation and Empire" by Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Posts:
512
From:
NY
Registered:
4/9/08
|
|
|
Posts:
248
Registered:
1/14/09
|
|
(13 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 5:43 PM
|
> From now on I'm just going to ignore the debunkers.
> They're not even worth responding to these days. The
> cover up can kiss my ass.
I have noticed in the short while I have been here, and have been quite amused by the debunkers. They rarely demonstrate intelligence and most often don't even know about the reported experiences in a case. Yet they seem to know what it was by simply laying out the usual possibilities of a list, and this never changes, no matter what is being reported. Sad but true, they don't get it but are desperate for the attention that an arguement brings and therefore will comment will the same ol crap and somehow expect to be taken seriously. Of course there are exceptions, who are willing to devote some time to study the case before offering the same lame BS.
|
|
|
Posts:
512
From:
NY
Registered:
4/9/08
|
|
(14 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 6:26 PM
|
> I have noticed in the short while I have been here,
> and have been quite amused by the debunkers. They
> rarely demonstrate intelligence and most often don't
> even know about the reported experiences in a case.
> Yet they seem to know what it was by simply laying
> g out the usual possibilities of a list, and this
> never changes, no matter what is being reported. Sad
> but true, they don't get it but are desperate for the
> attention that an arguement brings and therefore will
> comment will the same ol crap and somehow expect to
> be taken seriously. Of course there are exceptions,
> who are willing to devote some time to study the case
> before offering the same lame BS.
From researching close encounter cases I believe Lonnie Zamora saw what he claims he saw.
Example:
Landing Legs
I just pointed out a case that was very similar from around the same time period.
Of course the debunkers are full of it. They need 15 different explanations.
|
|
|
Posts:
312
From:
AZ
Registered:
5/25/09
|
|
(15 of 41)
Re: In Honor of Lonnie Zamora
Nov 6, 2009 7:23 PM
|
Lonnie's story was the first credible UFO encounter I had ever heard about, and from then I have always been intrigued. Farewell Lonnie.
--
Open your mind and soak it in
|
|
|
|
|
