Socorro a prank/hoax? I don’t think so….

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The idea (crazy hypothesis) that the 1964 Zamora/Socorro experience is predicated on a hoax or prank against Police Officer Lonnie Zamora is ludicrous on the face of it.

Kevin Randle’s recent well-documented book, pictured here, and covered by me earlier, dispels the hoax/prank idea thoroughly.

But some comments in the December 1966 Science Digest magazine, a rather reputable periodical at the time, also provide substantiation that the Socorro sightings was, and remains, a legitimately unexplained sighting of something (a UFO).

From the magazine:

“The [Air Force] report ruled out hallucination and noted that Zamora is a nondrinking man.” [Page 60]

[One maverick ufologist insists that Officer Zamora was a drunk. The accusation is libelous/slanderous if the AF report is true.]

“The Air Force report concludes that Zamora ‘saw a tangible, physical object … and consider[s] this [to be] one of the major UFO sightings in the history of the Air Force’s consideration of the subject.’” [ibid]

RR

The move to dismantle Unidentified Flying Objects, replaced by Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

I’m not into the Tom Delonge “movement” but find the Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU) thing interesting.

My pal Kevin Randle interviewed Robert Powell, one of the co-founders of SCU on his [Kevin’s] podcast which wil enlighten you about SCU:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/13125719  

And here’s the SCU site, where you’ll find all you need to know about the newest scientific thrust scheduled to find out what UFOs, or UAPs, are:

http://www.explorescu.org/

What I find interesting is the current hubbub, among UFO buffs, about the flying saucer phenomenon that is at a nadir in the public/social mind, the zeitgeist of human society today.

More important, perhaps, is the subtle twist found in the SCU effort: the altering of UFO into UAP.

This denotes, for me, a slant, trend, or preemptive attempt to pigeonhole UFOs as anomalous phenomena, not objects, with coherent tangibility.

That  is SCU is prepping UFO buffs for a diminution of the ET aspect that has been and is still a meme for the mysterious phenomenon.

(See my post, preceding this one about the matter.)

SCU, like the Condon Committee and eventual dismissive report, has a mind-set that UFOs are phenomena, something amorphous that can be studied like climate change or meteorology.

While I don’t think UFOs are ET visitors from galaxies far, far way, I do think that UFOs are objects of some kind, with tangibility, maybe tangibility brought on by observers (yes) or Jose Caravaca’s “external agent” – maybe Jacques Vallee’s “controlling other" or that Matrix creator, some call God.

At any rate, SCU is trying to take us, UFO buffs, up a garden path, where the pretext of “science” will cure us our belief in enigmatic UFOs, replacing them with theories and hypotheses encrusted with scientific jargon and the craziness of people who think science is the be-all of human thought.

I’m not buying in, not at the moment anyway.

RR