long and far by his pronouncement. In contrast to my view on the bulk of his work with Roswell, and the reputation
he is building as sober, salient UFO researcher, in this instance—I believe he has erred!
To be clear: I feel Tony has culled some significant data surrounding the idea that “Socorro was a hoax” and as a
researcher, I feel this must be pursued; however, to pass judgment at this stage, with what little he has put on the
table isn’t prudent in my view.
Zamora’s Official Report
For those not familiar with the case here is the actual report submitted to the Air Force (Project Blue BookFiles) by
eyewitness, Officer Lonnie Zamora:
he is building as sober, salient UFO researcher, in this instance—I believe he has erred!
To be clear: I feel Tony has culled some significant data surrounding the idea that “Socorro was a hoax” and as a
researcher, I feel this must be pursued; however, to pass judgment at this stage, with what little he has put on the
table isn’t prudent in my view.
Zamora’s Official Report
For those not familiar with the case here is the actual report submitted to the Air Force (Project Blue BookFiles) by
eyewitness, Officer Lonnie Zamora:
THE SOCORRO INCIDENT: A HOAX OR A CASE OF JUMPING THE GUN? by Frank Warren
ADVERTISERS
ASK ABOUT
ADVERTISER RATES
AND REACH YOUR
NEW CUSTOMERS!
ASK ABOUT
ADVERTISER RATES
AND REACH YOUR
NEW CUSTOMERS!
| WANTED Frontier Science Researcher Writers |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
The Force is Disrupted
One way to raise the hackles of the UFO faithful . . . to stir the proverbial pot, is to take a well-documented case and
decree it false in some form or fashion; for example, stating that Kenneth Arnold witnessed “pelicans” on that fateful
day in June of ’47; or the never-ending weather balloon argument for Roswell by well known debunkers; or the
infamous “swamp gas” statement uttered by Allen Hynek while investigating the notable Michigan sightings of 1966,
which precipitated then Congressman Gerald Ford to formally request a congressional investigation into the
mysterious UFOs. When such instances occur it sends mild shockwaves throughout the UFO community, and evokes
immediate and sometimes harsh responses.
Generally when these actions take place, the names of the perpetrators are very familiar to Ufologists; their ideologies
are cemented in anti-Ufology rhetoric and the behavior is a component of what I call “cognitive bias” in the best
examples, and just plain ignorance in the worst-case scenarios.
One way to raise the hackles of the UFO faithful . . . to stir the proverbial pot, is to take a well-documented case and
decree it false in some form or fashion; for example, stating that Kenneth Arnold witnessed “pelicans” on that fateful
day in June of ’47; or the never-ending weather balloon argument for Roswell by well known debunkers; or the
infamous “swamp gas” statement uttered by Allen Hynek while investigating the notable Michigan sightings of 1966,
which precipitated then Congressman Gerald Ford to formally request a congressional investigation into the
mysterious UFOs. When such instances occur it sends mild shockwaves throughout the UFO community, and evokes
immediate and sometimes harsh responses.
Generally when these actions take place, the names of the perpetrators are very familiar to Ufologists; their ideologies
are cemented in anti-Ufology rhetoric and the behavior is a component of what I call “cognitive bias” in the best
examples, and just plain ignorance in the worst-case scenarios.
The Journal of Frontier
Science is looking for
intelligent, informed,
talented Writer-
Researchers in the
fields of:
furthering the study of
Ufology.
JFS is an excellent
format for publishing
your own research for
peer review and
education purposes.
See the Submissions
page for information!
Science is looking for
intelligent, informed,
talented Writer-
Researchers in the
fields of:
- Ufology
- The Paranormal
- Cryptozoology
- Parapsychology
- Etc.
furthering the study of
Ufology.
JFS is an excellent
format for publishing
your own research for
peer review and
education purposes.
See the Submissions
page for information!
| Copyright © 2009 JFS |
In that vein, it was quite a surprise to most when an article
was published—not by the usual debunkers, but from a
noted Ufologist, pronouncing a very prestigious case in UFO
history a hoax! The case was The Socorro Incident, and the
Ufologist is Tony Bragalia, whom I not only consider a friend,
but also have the highest regard for, and am grateful for his
efforts in Ufology.
Bragalia has been getting much deserved attention lately for
his research into Roswell; our regular readers aren’t
strangers to his work as he has been kind enough to allow
us to publish his articles, here at TUC. Accordingly, we’ve
published the article in question entitled, “THE SOCORRO
UFO HOAX EXPOSED!”
Admittedly, I was intrigued by the piece and read it
immediately, as did many of my colleagues and other
Ufologists; the ripples in the Ufological pond have been felt
was published—not by the usual debunkers, but from a
noted Ufologist, pronouncing a very prestigious case in UFO
history a hoax! The case was The Socorro Incident, and the
Ufologist is Tony Bragalia, whom I not only consider a friend,
but also have the highest regard for, and am grateful for his
efforts in Ufology.
Bragalia has been getting much deserved attention lately for
his research into Roswell; our regular readers aren’t
strangers to his work as he has been kind enough to allow
us to publish his articles, here at TUC. Accordingly, we’ve
published the article in question entitled, “THE SOCORRO
UFO HOAX EXPOSED!”
Admittedly, I was intrigued by the piece and read it
immediately, as did many of my colleagues and other
Ufologists; the ripples in the Ufological pond have been felt
| TODAY IS |
_____, Socorro NM, _____, Officer Socorro PD about 5 years, office phone 835-0941, now on 2:00 P.M. to
10:00 P.M. shift.
About 5:45 P.M. 4/24/64 while in Socorro 2 Police Car (64 Pontiac white) started to chase a car due south
from west side of Court House. Car was apparently speeding, and was about 3 blocks in front. At point on
Old Rodeo Street (extension of Park St. south) near George Morillo residence (about 1/8 mile south of
Spring Street, the _____ chased car was going straight ahead toward rodeo grounds. Car chased was a new
black Chevrolet (it might have been _____ boy about seventeen). Chased car still about three blocks ahead.
_____ alone.`
At this time heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to southwest some distance away--possibly a 1/2 mile
or a mile. Came to mind that a dynamite shack in that area had blown up, decided to leave chased car go.
Flame was bluish and sort of orange too. Could not tell size of flame. Sort of motionless flame, slowly
descending. Was still driving car and could not pay too much attention to the flame. It was a narrow type
of flame. It was like a "stream down"--a funnel type--narrower at top than at bottom. Flame possibly 3
degrees or so in width--not wide.
Flame about twice as wide at bottom as top, and about four times as high as top was wide. Did not notice
any object at top, did not note if top of flame was level. Sun was to west and did not help vision. Had green
sunglasses over prescription glasses. Could not see bottom of flame because it was behind the hill. No
smoke noted. Noted some "commotion" at bottom--dust? Possibly from windy day--wind was blowing hard.
Clear sunny sky otherwise--just a few clouds scattered over area.
Noise was a roar, not a blast. Not like a jet. Changed from high frequency to low frequency and then
stopped. Roar lasted possibly 10 seconds--was going toward it at that time on the rough gravel road. Saw
flame about as long as heard the sound. Flame same color as best as recall. Sound distinctly from high to
low until it disappeared. Windows both were down. No other spectators noted--no traffic except the car in
front--and car in front might have heard it but possibly did not see it because car in front was too close to
hill in front, to see the flame.
After the roar and flame, did not note anything, while going up the somewhat steep rough hill--had to back
up and try again, two more times. Got up about halfway first time, wheels started skidding, roar still going
on, had to back down and try twice and rock. While beginning third time, noise and flame not noted.
After got to top, traveled slowly on the gravel road westwardly. Noted nothing for awhile . . . for possibly 10
or 15 seconds, went slow, looking around for the shack--did not recall exactly where the dynamite shack
was.
Suddenly noted a shiny type object to south about 150 to 200 yards. It was off the road. At first glance,
stopped. It looked, at first, like a car turned upside down. Thought some kids might have turned over. 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.
At this time I started moving my car towards them quickly, with idea to help. Had stopped about only a
couple seconds. Object was like aluminum--it was whitish against the mesa background, but not chrome.
Seemed like O in shape and I at first glance took it to be overturned white car. Car appeared to be up on
radiator or on trunk, this first glance.
The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at
the object. 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.
Then paid attention to road while drove towards scene. Radioed to sheriff's office "Socorro 2 to Socorro,
possible 10-44 (accident), I'll be 10-6 (busy) out of the car, checking the car down in the arroyo."
Stopped car, was still talking on radio, started to get out, mike fell down, reached back to put up mike,
then replaced radio mike in slot, got out of car and started to go down to where I knew the object (car)
was.
Hardly turned around from car, when heard roar (was not exactly a blast), very loud roar--at that close was
real loud. Not like a jet--knows what jets sound like. Started low frequency quickly, then roar rose in
frequency (higher tone) and in loudness--from loud to very loud. At same time as roar saw flame. Flame
was under the object. Object was starting to go straight up--slowly up. Object slowly rose straight up.
Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color From this angle, saw the side of object (not
end, as first noted). Difficult to describe flame. Thought, from roar, it might blow up. Flame might have
come from underside of object, at middle, possibly a four feet area--very rough guess. Cannot describe
flame further except blue and orange. No smoke, except dust in immediate area.
As soon as saw flame and heard roar, turned away, ran away from object but did turn head toward object.
Bumped leg on car--back Fender area. Car facing southwest. Glasses fell to ground, left them there. Ran to
north--car between him and object.
Object was oval, in shape. It was smooth--no windows or doors. As roar started, it was still on or near
ground. Noted red lettering of some type (see illustration). Insignia was about 2 1/2' high and about 2' wide
I guess. Was in middle of object . . . Object still like aluminum-white.
After fell by car and glasses fell off, kept running to north, with car between me and object. Glanced back
couple of times. Noted object to rise to about level of car, about 20 to 25 feet guess--took I guess about
six seconds when object started to rise and I glanced back. I ran I guess about halfway to where I ducked
down--about fifty feet from the car is where I ducked down, just over edge of hill. I guess I had run about
25 feet when I glanced back and saw the object level with the car and it appeared about directly over the
place where it rose from.
I was still running and I jumped just over the hill--I stopped because I did not hear the roar. I was scared
of the roar, and I had planned to continue running down the hill. I turned around toward the object and at
same time put my head toward ground, covering my face with my arms. Being that there was no roar, I
looked up, and I saw the object going away from me. It did not come any closer to me. It appeared to go
in straight line and at same height--possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack
by about three feet. Shack about eight feet high.
Object was traveling very fast. It seemed to rise up, and take off immediately across country. I ran back to
my car and as I ran back, I kept an eye on the object. I picked up my glasses (I left the sun glasses on
ground), got into the car, and radioed to Nep Lopez, radio operator, to "look out of the window, to see if
you could see an object." He asked what is it? I answered "It looks like a balloon." I don't know if he saw it.
If Nep looked out of his window, which faces north, he couldn't have seen it. I did not tell him at the
moment which window to look out of.
As I was calling Nep, I could still see the object. 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.
Feeling in good health. Last drink--two or three beers--was over a month ago. Noted no odors. Noted no
sounds other than described. Gave directions to Nep Lopez at radio and to Sergeant M.S. Chavez to get
there. Went down to where the object had been and I noted the brush was burning in several places. At
that time I heard Sgt. Chavez (N.M. State Police at Socorro) calling me on radio for my location, and I
returned to my car, told him he was looking at me. Then Sgt. Chavez came up, asked me what the trouble
was, because I was sweating and he told me I was white, very pale. I asked the Sgt. to see what I saw, and
that was the burning brush. Then Sgt. Chavez and I went to the spot, and Sgt. Chavez pointed out the
tracks.
When I first saw the object (when I thought it might be a car) I saw what appeared to be two legs of some
type from the object to the ground. At the time, I didn't pay much attention to what it was--I thought it
was an accident--I saw the two persons. I didn't pay any attention to the two "legs?" The two "legs" were at
the bottom of the object, slanted outwards to the ground. The object might have been about three and a
half feet from the ground at that time. I just glanced at it.
Can't tell how long [I] saw object second time (the "close" time), possibly 20 seconds--just a guess--from
time got out of car, glanced at object, ran from object, jumped over edge of hill, then got back to car and
radio as object disappeared.
As my mike fell as I got out of car, at scene area, I heard about two or three loud "thumps," like someone
possibly hammering or shutting a door or doors hard. These "thumps" were possibly a second or less apart.
This was just before the roar. The persons were not seen when I drove to the scene area.
Just before Sgt. Chavez got to scene, I got my pen and drew a picture of the insignia on the object.
Again, calling this dialogue with Colgate a "confession" is erroneous—it certainly is not that! At best it’s an assertion
of Colgate’s mindset, and seemingly based on hearsay.
In Conclusion
Tony’s article was initially published on the 23rd, at the Iconoclast(s) web site, subsequently, we published it on the
28th; since that time I think it’s safe to say his article and its content have created an uproar. Most of the rejoinders
of course have been civil; some have been combative and vitriolic; initially, I wasn’t going to put my two cents in;
however, I found myself debating the matter privately with several researchers, so I thought it best to put the
proverbial pen to paper. In that vein, although this rejoinder is critical of Tony’s article, and by default his
declarations; hopefully it is perceived in the manner it was written, i.e., as a civil, analysis of the work of a respected
colleague.
In the remainder of Tony’s article he cited declarations from New Mexico Tech alumni and former professors as
corroboration, and speculation between he (Tony) and one of the latter of how the hoax proclamation could have
happened. Key point: none of these declarations were made by anyone claiming to be “directly” involved, or even
knowing anyone, “claiming to be directly involved.” In other words it’s an example “he said, she said ” or more
specifically “hearsay.”
Beyond that, Tony shares further speculation as to “why” “Techies” would choose Zamora as the target for a school
prank, and includes minutiae about college pranks in general and the motives for such folly.
Initially, when I began my rejoinder I had intended to spend a good deal of time arguing the key points against the
“speculative” ideas of the elements of the hoax; for example, Tony and one of the providers of the hoax rumor
discussed the concept of the object being a balloon; a balloon of the size reported by Zamora would not have been
able to get off the ground with two people in it, much less equipment of any substantial weight. Moreover, a balloon
obviously could not travel at the speed reported by Zamora and later deduced by official investigation. Also, it was
very windy that day, and the object took off against the wind, etc., etc.
Another “dart board” hoax theory (since the publication of Tony’s article) that’s bubbled up is that “genius NM-Tech
students” built “a craft” that duped Zamora; wouldn’t the folks next door at White Sands Missile Base, or for that
matter, NASA liked to have known that kids in performance of a prank could out due anything that the latter had on
the books to date?!
In any event “those arguments” are redundant since what Tony is offering as evidence wouldn’t pass small claims
court, much less the rules of scientific methodology! Should Tony have brought these issues to light in regards to an
“alleged hoax? Most certainly, but as noted above—there isn’t enough qualitative data to postulate a "conclusion" for
The Socorro Incident. These tidbits of information should have and still should be a prelude to further investigation.
Said investigation, should also include the “other” reports in the New Mexico area of an “egg-shaped” craft as report
by Zamora (which further negates a school prank).
Until that time, like the culmination of the combined official reports from the Air Force and Army Intelligence, the
object that Lonnie Zamora witnessed—remains “unidentified!”
of Colgate’s mindset, and seemingly based on hearsay.
In Conclusion
Tony’s article was initially published on the 23rd, at the Iconoclast(s) web site, subsequently, we published it on the
28th; since that time I think it’s safe to say his article and its content have created an uproar. Most of the rejoinders
of course have been civil; some have been combative and vitriolic; initially, I wasn’t going to put my two cents in;
however, I found myself debating the matter privately with several researchers, so I thought it best to put the
proverbial pen to paper. In that vein, although this rejoinder is critical of Tony’s article, and by default his
declarations; hopefully it is perceived in the manner it was written, i.e., as a civil, analysis of the work of a respected
colleague.
In the remainder of Tony’s article he cited declarations from New Mexico Tech alumni and former professors as
corroboration, and speculation between he (Tony) and one of the latter of how the hoax proclamation could have
happened. Key point: none of these declarations were made by anyone claiming to be “directly” involved, or even
knowing anyone, “claiming to be directly involved.” In other words it’s an example “he said, she said ” or more
specifically “hearsay.”
Beyond that, Tony shares further speculation as to “why” “Techies” would choose Zamora as the target for a school
prank, and includes minutiae about college pranks in general and the motives for such folly.
Initially, when I began my rejoinder I had intended to spend a good deal of time arguing the key points against the
“speculative” ideas of the elements of the hoax; for example, Tony and one of the providers of the hoax rumor
discussed the concept of the object being a balloon; a balloon of the size reported by Zamora would not have been
able to get off the ground with two people in it, much less equipment of any substantial weight. Moreover, a balloon
obviously could not travel at the speed reported by Zamora and later deduced by official investigation. Also, it was
very windy that day, and the object took off against the wind, etc., etc.
Another “dart board” hoax theory (since the publication of Tony’s article) that’s bubbled up is that “genius NM-Tech
students” built “a craft” that duped Zamora; wouldn’t the folks next door at White Sands Missile Base, or for that
matter, NASA liked to have known that kids in performance of a prank could out due anything that the latter had on
the books to date?!
In any event “those arguments” are redundant since what Tony is offering as evidence wouldn’t pass small claims
court, much less the rules of scientific methodology! Should Tony have brought these issues to light in regards to an
“alleged hoax? Most certainly, but as noted above—there isn’t enough qualitative data to postulate a "conclusion" for
The Socorro Incident. These tidbits of information should have and still should be a prelude to further investigation.
Said investigation, should also include the “other” reports in the New Mexico area of an “egg-shaped” craft as report
by Zamora (which further negates a school prank).
Until that time, like the culmination of the combined official reports from the Air Force and Army Intelligence, the
object that Lonnie Zamora witnessed—remains “unidentified!”
It’s important to remember that the Air Force, Army Intelligence and the FBI investigated the Socorro case;
additionally, civilian UFO organizations wasted no time getting involved. To this day “the official” explanation for the
case or specifically the object that Lonnie witnessed is “unresolved.” Henceforth, it remains a UFO in the verbatim.
additionally, civilian UFO organizations wasted no time getting involved. To this day “the official” explanation for the
case or specifically the object that Lonnie witnessed is “unresolved.” Henceforth, it remains a UFO in the verbatim.
,+Maj.+H.+Mitchell+(AFMDC),+Coral+Lorenzen+of+APRO,+and+Sgt.+Castle+of+the+Military+Police+(2).jpg)
Major Hector Quantanilla, then director of Project Blue Book,
told CIA journal readers:
told CIA journal readers:
"There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object
which left quite an impression on him. There is also
no question about Zamora's reliability. He is a serious
police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well
versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He
is puzzled by what he saw and frankly, so are we. This
is the best-documented case on record, and still we
have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation,
to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared
Zamora to the point of panic."
which left quite an impression on him. There is also
no question about Zamora's reliability. He is a serious
police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well
versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He
is puzzled by what he saw and frankly, so are we. This
is the best-documented case on record, and still we
have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation,
to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared
Zamora to the point of panic."
Tony’s Argument
Tony begins his piece by writing:
Tony begins his piece by writing:
“After 45 years the truth is now revealed- one of the most famous UFO sightings in history was a” hoax.
This is not posed as a question or theorem—it’s a "resolute statement," and this is the main issue I have with his
article and posture.
He continues (in the first paragraph):
article and posture.
He continues (in the first paragraph):
The recent confession of an elderly College President -and a newly discovered document- indicate that the
1964 sighting of a landed UFO by Socorro, NM policeman Lonnie Zamora was the result of an elaborate
school prank. This incredible story is publicly recounted for the first time ever by individuals who have held
the secret of Socorro for decades.
1964 sighting of a landed UFO by Socorro, NM policeman Lonnie Zamora was the result of an elaborate
school prank. This incredible story is publicly recounted for the first time ever by individuals who have held
the secret of Socorro for decades.
Now, for me, at this point I was enthralled by this mention
of “the document”; this “smoking gun” if you will, that
would persuade Tony to be so adamant in his conviction
that leaves no doubt of a hoax being perpetrated, not
only on Lonnie Zamora, but by default, the FBI, Air Force
and Army Intelligence. In all honesty, I couldn’t fathom
what it could be . . . what in this chronicle, that by merit
along with what Tony called a "confession" from an senior
college president could be so persuasive to compel him
(Tony) to state with authority, that The Socorro Incident,
only surpassed in regard, research and familiarity by
Roswell—was just a mere school prank?
Of course as Tony has done in the past, he didn’t
disappoint, the document in question accompanied the
monumental proof!
As you can see the document in question is a letter
addressed to then college President Stirling Colgate, from
Linus Pauling; in the postscript Pauling asks about the
Socorro Incident and Zamora and Chavez. Stirling, wrote
one sentence and according to Tony, returned it to
Pauling as his reply, he stated:
of “the document”; this “smoking gun” if you will, that
would persuade Tony to be so adamant in his conviction
that leaves no doubt of a hoax being perpetrated, not
only on Lonnie Zamora, but by default, the FBI, Air Force
and Army Intelligence. In all honesty, I couldn’t fathom
what it could be . . . what in this chronicle, that by merit
along with what Tony called a "confession" from an senior
college president could be so persuasive to compel him
(Tony) to state with authority, that The Socorro Incident,
only surpassed in regard, research and familiarity by
Roswell—was just a mere school prank?
Of course as Tony has done in the past, he didn’t
disappoint, the document in question accompanied the
monumental proof!
As you can see the document in question is a letter
addressed to then college President Stirling Colgate, from
Linus Pauling; in the postscript Pauling asks about the
Socorro Incident and Zamora and Chavez. Stirling, wrote
one sentence and according to Tony, returned it to
Pauling as his reply, he stated:
"I have a good indication of the student who
engineered the hoax. Student has left. Cheers,
Stirling."
engineered the hoax. Student has left. Cheers,
Stirling."
Where’s The Beef?
As one might imagine, I was taken aback; not by damning evidence or irritable proof, but quite frankly, just the
opposite! As stated above, I really didn’t know what to expect . . . perhaps blueprints of an experimental craft, or
maybe a patent, possibly an affidavit?
To see a “single sentence,” that wasn’t even confirmative, only speculative, well; it left me puzzled to put it mildly!
In referring to the letter, Tony wrote:
As one might imagine, I was taken aback; not by damning evidence or irritable proof, but quite frankly, just the
opposite! As stated above, I really didn’t know what to expect . . . perhaps blueprints of an experimental craft, or
maybe a patent, possibly an affidavit?
To see a “single sentence,” that wasn’t even confirmative, only speculative, well; it left me puzzled to put it mildly!
In referring to the letter, Tony wrote:
“A former New Mexico Tech President affirmed in the 1960s in a letter to renowned scientist Dr. Linus
Pauling that the Socorro UFO was a hoax.”
Pauling that the Socorro UFO was a hoax.”
Calling a “good indication” an “affirmation” is a stretch in my book. Again, to be courteous, Colgate’s response is
ambiguous at best. Later in the piece, Tony describes Colgate’s one liner as a “blunt reply”; another erroneous
description (although it was short and sweet).
Since the reader (me) was informed early on of the so-called evidence, i.e., a document (physical evidence), and then
what Tony described as a “confession” (anecdotal evidence), I knew at that point there would be no satisfaction for
me in terms of a smoking gun or “solid proof” of a hoax.
Nevertheless, what Tony paints as a “confession" is as follows:
ambiguous at best. Later in the piece, Tony describes Colgate’s one liner as a “blunt reply”; another erroneous
description (although it was short and sweet).
Since the reader (me) was informed early on of the so-called evidence, i.e., a document (physical evidence), and then
what Tony described as a “confession” (anecdotal evidence), I knew at that point there would be no satisfaction for
me in terms of a smoking gun or “solid proof” of a hoax.
Nevertheless, what Tony paints as a “confession" is as follows:
This author emailed Colgate to see what his thoughts are today on the Socorro UFO and to see if he would
shed additional light on the event. In my email to Colgate I attached the Pauling letter from 1968 with
Colgate's handwritten notes on the Socorro UFO.
Colgate took several days to reply to me. In his email, Colgate answered very cryptically and sparingly:
- To the question, "Do you still know this to be a hoax? His reply was simple: "Yes."
- When asked, "Today, decades later, can you expand on what you wrote to Pauling about the
event?" He wrote: "I will ask a friend, but he and other students did not want their cover blown."
- He offered that the hoax, "was a no-brainer."
- When asked "Specifically how did they do it?" He just answered, "Will ask."
- When queried, "Have you ever publicly commented on this?" he replied "Of course not."
It has been some time now, and I have never heard back from Stirling Colgate . . ..
shed additional light on the event. In my email to Colgate I attached the Pauling letter from 1968 with
Colgate's handwritten notes on the Socorro UFO.
Colgate took several days to reply to me. In his email, Colgate answered very cryptically and sparingly:
- To the question, "Do you still know this to be a hoax? His reply was simple: "Yes."
- When asked, "Today, decades later, can you expand on what you wrote to Pauling about the
event?" He wrote: "I will ask a friend, but he and other students did not want their cover blown."
- He offered that the hoax, "was a no-brainer."
- When asked "Specifically how did they do it?" He just answered, "Will ask."
- When queried, "Have you ever publicly commented on this?" he replied "Of course not."
It has been some time now, and I have never heard back from Stirling Colgate . . ..
| Reprinted from The UFO Chronicles at http://www.theufochronicles.com |
Editors Note: This article has been written by Frank Warren in rebuttal to THE SOCORRO UFO HOAX EXPOSED!
(Famous 1964 sighting was a college prank) by Anthony Bragalia
(Famous 1964 sighting was a college prank) by Anthony Bragalia
THE ALLEGED SOCORRO HOAX SERIES
THE SOCORRO UFO HOAX EXPOSED! (Famous 1964 sighting was a college prank)
by Anthony Bragalia
REBUTTAL: THE SOCORRO INCIDENT: A HOAX OR A CASE OF JUMPING THE GUN?
by Frank Warren
AN OPEN LETTER FROM RAY STANFORD
THE REVEREND AT ROSWELL: A CHAPLAIN AT THE CRASH?
by Anthony Bragalia
THE SOCORRO UFO: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE POINTS TO A PRANK (Part 3)
by Anthony Bragalia
ROSWELL CRASH REVELATIONS FROM THE FOSTER RANCH
by Anthony Bragalia
THE FOSTER RANCH AND THE BLM
by Dennis G. Balthaser
THE SOCORRO UFO HOAX EXPOSED! (Famous 1964 sighting was a college prank)
by Anthony Bragalia
REBUTTAL: THE SOCORRO INCIDENT: A HOAX OR A CASE OF JUMPING THE GUN?
by Frank Warren
AN OPEN LETTER FROM RAY STANFORD
THE REVEREND AT ROSWELL: A CHAPLAIN AT THE CRASH?
by Anthony Bragalia
THE SOCORRO UFO: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE POINTS TO A PRANK (Part 3)
by Anthony Bragalia
ROSWELL CRASH REVELATIONS FROM THE FOSTER RANCH
by Anthony Bragalia
THE FOSTER RANCH AND THE BLM
by Dennis G. Balthaser