Kevin Randle’s Socorro book inspires Facebook debate

Mrherr Zaar, whose Facebook comments I’m noting below, is a well-known and admired UFO enthusiast. Mrherr Zaar is not his real name. (And why he’s using it, I dunno.)

UFO-Pragmatism is a Facebook page and group to which I apparently signed up, so I get input (feeds) from it and this is a (small) part of an ongoing debate about the 1964 Socorro sighting and Kevin Randle’s new book about it.

As you know, I’m a fan and promoter of Kevin’s book. It is rather replete with information about the iconic 1964 Socorro/Zamora sighting but it seems the book has some critics, Mrherr Zaar is one, and there are a few others at the UFO-Pragmatism page, Gilles Fernandez among them.

Here is one partial criticism, implying that Kevin’s slant toward an ET explanation is unwarranted.

I, too, thought Kevin was leaning toward an ET explanation and I think Nick Redfern sees it that way also.

So, here’s one Socorro anti-ET plaint you might find interesting:

Mrherr Zaar commented on Gilles Fernandez's post in UFO-Pragmatism.

Mrherr Zaar            5:17pm Nov 13

Speaking of non-starters, Randles’ book is subtitled “The Case for Alien Contact at Socorro,” but I submit it does not present a single argument FOR it at all. It is ultimately an exercise in explanatory nihilism which merely assumes that if something is unidentified that takes one “very close” to it immediately being extraterrestrial. (p. 249) He does not address any of the obvious problems. 

Zamora does not report seeing aliens – “Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat… I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.” http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html Implicitly they are not wearing spacesuits or air supply face masks or protective gear like dozens of other ufo humanoid reports in the early decades. They seem okay with breathing our atmosphere.They don’t seem to be grays or reptoids or insectoids or a more distinctly alien shape. 

Nep Lopez, radio operator, asked Zamora what is it? "It looks like a balloon." He doesn’t say a flying saucer or a rocket or missile or a mothership or football-sized triangle or a giant sphere with portholes.

He hears a roar accompanying a flame that is light blue and orange at the bottom. After the roar ceases, “The object seemed to lift up slowly, and to "get small" in the distance very fast. It seemed to just clear the Box Canyon or Six Mile Canyon Mountain. It disappeared as it went over the mountain. It had no flame whatsoever as it was traveling over the ground, and no smoke or noise.” (ibid.) It does not fall after the flame ceases. It does not rocket vertically towards space. What is that flame doing underneath the ufo if it was not providing propulsion? If something else was providing propulsion like a magnetic drive – the most common hypothesis –

http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite5_2.pdf

 or something even more exotic

 http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite5_1.pdf

- why are there any flames at all?

Then we come to the perpetual conundrum – why no contact? Why no telepathic warnings or messages? What is the motive for aliens to briefly touch down in the desert with nobody around. Not to pick someone up or drop someone off – where’s the contactee’s car or footprints leading to or away from the scene? Why no subsequent testimony of the contactee about his Socorro adventure?  

Positing the involvement of aliens explains absolutely nothing about Socorro. It is such a non-starter, Randles did not even begin to explore how the hypothesis should actually fit the evidence of the testimony or the physical evidence. The subtitle is fundamentally based on the unstated assumption and fallacy of most ufological reasoning: unexplained = alien.

RR