UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:44:00 -0400 Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:41:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Socorro: The Zamora 'Insignia' >Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:53:14 -0300 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: Socorro: The Zamora 'Insignia' Don Ledger wrote: >What do you mean by identify Andy?. Do you mean when only 50 >percent of the facts fit or 60 percent...or are you referring to >100 percent. We are nowhere near 100 percent yet so why blow it >off? I mean what I say, 'identify', ie work towards the state when the nature and origin of the Socorro object is known. Unfortunately in this discussion all I've seen so far is a lot of self opinionated people stating what it can't possibly be because...well, because a lot of reasons I suspect. It may have been a hot air balloon, it may not. But look at it another way. * We know balloons exist * We have some evidence to suggest that they may well have been flown in that area of America at that time * There is some suggestion that a platform-like structure may have been used on balloons at this time * We know that the insignia looked similar to an insignia used on a balloon * Zamora radioed in that the object, 'looks like a balloon.' * He noted the figures 'looked normal in shape' (like human balloon pilots?) * He noted the 'object was smooth, no doors or windows' (like a balloon?) * The object's ease of silent movement and lifting slowly is largely consistent with a balloon. and so on........ Now those points, to my sceptical mind, makes me think there is a very real possibility a hot-air balloon may have been involved. True, it doesn't explain some of Zamora's statement - but much of what he said fits a hot air balloon. So why this theory hasn't been taken seriously by many on this list astounds and worries me. >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: Socorro: The Zamora 'Insignia' >Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:32:54 -0700 GT Mcoy opined: >I think that Zamora was not a fool and at least >knew what a hot air balloon was. Well, he did say it 'looks like a balloon' GT! But in any case no witness describes their experience perfectly and they are _all_ subject to the vagaries of misperception. Zamora may have been a policeman but I'm afraid the UFO subject is littered with examples of policemen (alone and in groups) misperceiving everything from planes to stars as 'UFOs', chasing said misperceptions for miles and so on. So please don't try to tell me we should take a literal view of the whole sighting! With any UFO case it's perfectly reasonable (before you all start yipping) -nay, essential - to fit any relevant parts of the sighting to phenomena we already know exist. Which in this case is why the balloon theory is perfectly feasible. Oh, alright, I'm a pelicanist and proud! Happy Trails Andy
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com