| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
The Stanford Socorro Mess
Monday, October 17, 2016 9:31
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
Our pal Kevin Randle has been clarifying, at his blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com] the April 1964 Lonnie Zamora/Socorro event.
While some of you think the “sighting” is old news, not significant, it is neither.
It represents an iconic UFO incident with an exceptional witness, seeing an odd thing on the ground and in the sky.
But, as Kevin makes clear, with his recounting of the “sighting,” the reportage and accounts of Police Officer Zamora’s observation were compromised by military officials, at the time, and ufologists afterward.
For me, the worst offender in the matter was (and is) Ray Stanford, whose oddly titled book, Socorro ‘Saucer’ in a Pentagon Pantry, is treated by some UFO buffs (David Rudiak for one) as a Biblical-like treatise.
It is nowhere near that.
Kevin provides a posting of the ongoing, debated symbol that Officer Zamora drew but which is obscured by a red-herring element in the report/sighting Officer Zamora made.
There are two symbols (maybe more) that are proferred as the insignia seen by Zamora, one of which was purportedly provided by Army Captain Richard Holder as a “trick” to foil possible hoaxers.
Ray Stanford wrote a note (retrieved from Richard Hall’s Socorro materials) that gives a wayward slant to what he, Stanford, posited as the authentic symbol. This is that note:
(Yes, it’s all very confusing, but see Kevin’s blog for a reasonable scenario of the various vicissitudes about the insignia brouhaha.)
My concern here is the instability of Mr. Stanford’s Socorro sojourn, which he made to the sighting site a few days after the event.
That instability shows up in his hand-printed note (above).
I won’t subject you to my proclivities for handwriting analysis, which has been dismissed for a few decades now, but resurging in popularity by businesses and government agencies nowadays. My senior thesis at college was “Handwriting Analysis as a Diagnostic Tool” [for psychologists/psychiatrists].
There a few things one notices about Mr. Stanford’s printed memo:
Note his letter “A” in words with “a” in them. It is remarkably like one of the symbols that Mr. Stanford offers, but dismisses as authentic, reversing that view in his book and currently.
Also, his printing is ramshackle, not neat or aesthetic as one finds in the writing of an ordered, cultured, clear-thinking mind.
Common sense would rebuke such a messy missive, that’s what graphology or grapho-analysis would say, but, minus that iffy consideration, the note, by itself, tells you the mind-set of Mr. Stanford.
It’s not an ordered mind-set.
The problem for ufology and its practitioners is that many UFO old-timers promote Mr. Stanford’s book as the meat of the Socorro event when it is, rather, the gristle.
The insignia is the “smoking gun” of the Socorro incident, despite the claim by some that it is not the nub of the sighting. It isn’t, but it is a major clue, in the Holmesian sense, that could unlock the mystery of what Lonnie Zamora saw/reported.
Kevin Randle and Spanish UFO researcher understand the significance of the insignia, as do I.
It’s a shame that it is besmirched by sloppy investigation then (1964) and still.
RR
http://ufocon.blogspot.com – The UFO Iconoclast(s)
Source: http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-stanford-socorro-mess.html
