Writing and that Socorro Symbol: an example of an iconic sighting that can’t provide a UFO explanation
Copyright 2023, InterAmerica, Inc.
Readers here are sure to forgive me for resurrecting the UFO chestnut – Socorro 1964 – as readers here keep suggesting that the old and older UFO reports contain clues that are necessary and/or invaluable for an explanation of the enigmatic phenomenon.
And the Zamora observation in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964 falls into a category ripe for renewed evaluation, according to the whims of UFO enthusiasts.
The reason I’m delving into the sighting comes about from a pending re-evaluation of Tony Bragalia’s hoax theory and from two book reports by Josephine Quinn in the January 19th, 2023 issue of The New York Review of Books [Page 6 ff.].
The reviews concern the scripts and alphabets of humanity, their evolution and mysteries.
I won’t re-engage with the reviews themselves as they only pertain to those interested in the topic, but they do spur me to re-access that symbol (insignia) that Police Officer Zamora saw and drew for investigators.
The problem is that UFO gadfly Ray Stanford intervened in the sighting by suggesting that this symbol:
Readers here are sure to forgive me for resurrecting the UFO chestnut – Socorro 1964 – as readers here keep suggesting that the old and older UFO reports contain clues that are necessary and/or invaluable for an explanation of the enigmatic phenomenon.
And the Zamora observation in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964 falls into a category ripe for renewed evaluation, according to the whims of UFO enthusiasts.
The reason I’m delving into the sighting comes about from a pending re-evaluation of Tony Bragalia’s hoax theory and from two book reports by Josephine Quinn in the January 19th, 2023 issue of The New York Review of Books [Page 6 ff.].
The reviews concern the scripts and alphabets of humanity, their evolution and mysteries.
I won’t re-engage with the reviews themselves as they only pertain to those interested in the topic, but they do spur me to re-access that symbol (insignia) that Police Officer Zamora saw and drew for investigators.
The problem is that UFO gadfly Ray Stanford intervened in the sighting by suggesting that this symbol:
... was not the real symbol seen by Zamora but rather this one:
The matter is further complicated by various statements that Zamora was told to invent his symbol in order to throw off hoaxers who might complicate matters by reporting they saw the symbol too, and if an invented symbol, this one:
... was brought forward, investigators would know the witness
account was false, a ruse.
In 2006, I contacted the Zamora household in my role as a correspondent for the Indy STAR which I was reporting for at the time.
I asked to talk with Lonnie Zamora, who was not available his wife told me, so I asked her if the symbol pushed as the one seen by her husband was this one:
The arc rendition. She said
that was what Lonnie saw and drew.
I took that as a truth, but now realize that, perhaps (and likely), Mrs. Zamora was shilling me. After all, who was I, an unknown person from Indiana, posing as a reporter not known by her.
Moreover, she could have been keeping to the suggestion by the Air Force Captain to keep the real symbol secret, and she offered me the arc-umbrella as the real symbol.
However, I have always felt, as does my pal Kevin Randle, that the arc-umbrella was what Office Zamora saw and drew, despite the shenanigans of Ray Stanford to confuse the issue with his presen- tation of the inverted V with lines through it as the “real” symbol seen by Officer Zamora.
My point here is not to recreate an unresolved symbol brouhaha but to indicate that the NYRB article confirms the importance of written symbols, letters and script to explain the politics, econ -omics, and history of communication between humans and societies of antiquity right up to today.
And I persist in asserting that the Lonnie Zamora insignia would go a long way toward telling us what he saw: a human constructed “craft,” or a lunar landing prototype (from White Sands labs), or a balloon (as part of a cross-country trek by a paper company), or a prototype machine (from Hughes Aircraft company as part of a CIA program), or a student hoax (from a neighborhood college) or an extraterrestrial spacecraft (UFO).
The ET suggestion fails, for me, as it seems unlikely that an extra-stellar species would be using an insignia or symbol on its aircraft, one that has antecedents like that found in evaluations of human (Earth-bound) script which evolved to alphabets and writing as we know it today.
A species from outer space would unlikely have developed anything like the symbols found on Earth, the evolutionary process unique to this planet.
But how can we pursue the matter since Ray Stanford screwed up the initial Zamora report and drawing by insinuating a symbol dif -ferent from the one actually seen.
This goes to the problem of re-examining old UFO reports and accounts: many are befouled by the foolish and inept scrutiny and reportage of those early on the scene(s), not to investigate a sighting but, rather, to make a name for themselves.
RR
I took that as a truth, but now realize that, perhaps (and likely), Mrs. Zamora was shilling me. After all, who was I, an unknown person from Indiana, posing as a reporter not known by her.
Moreover, she could have been keeping to the suggestion by the Air Force Captain to keep the real symbol secret, and she offered me the arc-umbrella as the real symbol.
However, I have always felt, as does my pal Kevin Randle, that the arc-umbrella was what Office Zamora saw and drew, despite the shenanigans of Ray Stanford to confuse the issue with his presen- tation of the inverted V with lines through it as the “real” symbol seen by Officer Zamora.
My point here is not to recreate an unresolved symbol brouhaha but to indicate that the NYRB article confirms the importance of written symbols, letters and script to explain the politics, econ -omics, and history of communication between humans and societies of antiquity right up to today.
And I persist in asserting that the Lonnie Zamora insignia would go a long way toward telling us what he saw: a human constructed “craft,” or a lunar landing prototype (from White Sands labs), or a balloon (as part of a cross-country trek by a paper company), or a prototype machine (from Hughes Aircraft company as part of a CIA program), or a student hoax (from a neighborhood college) or an extraterrestrial spacecraft (UFO).
The ET suggestion fails, for me, as it seems unlikely that an extra-stellar species would be using an insignia or symbol on its aircraft, one that has antecedents like that found in evaluations of human (Earth-bound) script which evolved to alphabets and writing as we know it today.
A species from outer space would unlikely have developed anything like the symbols found on Earth, the evolutionary process unique to this planet.
But how can we pursue the matter since Ray Stanford screwed up the initial Zamora report and drawing by insinuating a symbol dif -ferent from the one actually seen.
This goes to the problem of re-examining old UFO reports and accounts: many are befouled by the foolish and inept scrutiny and reportage of those early on the scene(s), not to investigate a sighting but, rather, to make a name for themselves.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, January 08, 2023
|
3 comments
