From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:01:44 -0500 Archived: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:47:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Socorro Again >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:45:31 +0100 >Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>From: Viktor Golubic <Diverge247.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:59:31 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:08:19 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:00:00 -0600 >>>>Subject: Re: Socorro Again ><snip> >>>>I don't rule out a hoax at Socorro (unless it involves a Chinese >>>>lantern), but I'm astonished that Tony apparently sincerely >>>>believes that these cryptic email mutterings from "perhaps the >>>>greatest living physicist in the word [sic]" Stirling Colgate, >>v>along with gratuitous references to Linus Pauling (whose lack of >>>>any further comment/query about Socorro is presented as >>>>_confirmation_ of Colgate's claim!), are somehow sufficient to >>>>blow this case completely out of the water. >>>I agree entirely, Mike. When this story first appeared several >>>years ago I thought it was a disingenuous tissue of hearsay and >>>speculation, and said so on this List. Now, like you, I'm sure >>>of it. >>To all: >>Unfortunately, the explanation is completely plausible and >>within the limitations of observation and psychological impact. ><snip> >>...I remain open minded enough to entertain the reality of this >>explanation. >And so you should. Nobody would expect any different. But you >miss the point. >A hoax of this or a similar type using a balloon may or may not >be physically/psychologically plausible, that is not by any >means a new issue. It has been debated before, for many years, >as you know. >What _is_ a new issue is Bragalia's claim of evidence >effectively proving that such a hoax occurred. This is the point >under discussion. >I repeat that in my opinion this evidence is inflated, a balloon >in fact, made of very thin hearsay and launched with hot air. As >you correctly say, if some more substantial evidence of this >hoax comes to light it will need to be dealt with. Well said, Martin. I would add that the failure of any substantive evidence to emerge for a hoaxed Socorro event after all these decades makes its likelihood seem vanishingly small, though of course never quite nonexistent, at least in principle if nowhere else. Moreover, Zamora's sighting needs to be seen in the context of a series of other puzzling UFO encounters, close and other, that occurred within days of each other in New Mexico. (Blue Book actually forbade Hynek, who was on site investigating Zamora's report, to look into them.) In my encyclopedia I devote a long entry to an effort to reconstruct this neglected wave. Finally, it is amusing to me to watch those who rejected Bragalia's pro-Roswell claims out of hand fall all over themselves endorsing his anti-Socorro allegations. But then, what else would one expect? Jerry Clark Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp