From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:27:21 -0700 Archived: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Socorro Again >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:28:30 +0100 >Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:27:07 -0600 >>Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>>From: Herb Taylor<herbufo.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:03:28 -0400 (EDT) >>>Subject: Re: Socorro Again ><snip> >>Perhaps then the coy Dr. Colgate can comment on the following, >>which I think most would consider at least as much a "point of >>substance" as any of the above, excerpted from a 28 May 1964 >>letter from USAF Col. Eric de Jonckheere to Hq USAF SAFOI PB, >>Washington DC: >>"_Soil_Samples_: The soil samples obtained at the sighting were >>given to Dr J Allen Hynek by Capt Holder. They were turned over >>to Captain Quintanilla who in turn submitted them to ASD for >>analysis. Laboratory analysis of the soil was completed on 19 >>May 64. It included spectrographic analysis which revealed that >>there was no foreign material in the soil samples. Also, no >>chemicals were detected in the charred or burned soil which >>would indicate a type of propellant. There was no significant >>difference in elemental composition between the different >>samples." >>So in whatever sense the "nature of the charred bushes" may >>"mimic the presence of pyrothechnics" (as in, they were >>charred?), there were evidently no pyrotechnics, or associated >>combustion products, detectable at the site. >Just to expand on this point: It was noted that the mesquite >bush in the middle of the marks had been "sliced in half" by >whatever burned it. Separation between burned and unburned areas >was abrupt, not, it was felt, like the way an ordinary fire >would spread. In this sense the pattern could be said to "mimic >pyrotechnics" - in the way that any directed and localised jet >of hot flame(plasma)/gas/sparks - such as a chemical rocket or >acetylene flame or the "flame" that Zamora saw - "mimics >pyrotechnics". this is not really interesting. <snip> >And, to re-emphasise, the most important point is the >"comparison" of samples from different parts of the area, >finding no significant difference. To add to this, normal accelerants like gasoline, kerosene, acetylene, or butane would have left hydrocarbon traces behind, which apparently were not found. About the only other burning agent that immediately comes to mind that would have left no trace behind might be hydrogen (would burn off as water vapor). So hoaxers would have had to created some sort of hydrogen torch, which is now getting pretty darn elaborate, since the sole purpose of doing something like that instead of using widely available pyrotechnics or chemical accelerants would be to fool chemical testing. Wasn't the point supposed to be to scare the wits out of Zamora and get back at a hated cop? Why concern yourself over any elaborate chemical test that someone might do afterward? That was way beyond the capability or knowledge of Zamora or the Socorro police department. A similar argument applies to possible radiation at the site immediately after the incident. Under-sheriff James Luckie was one of the first responders and started taking photos within about 10 minutes of departure of the object. According to Luckie, the Air Force asked him to hand over the photos, promising to return them. But they never did. Ray Stanford asked Hynek about this and Hynek told Stanford that he was told that the photos were not returned because the film was fogged by radiation. We don't have this documented in writing, like the AF chemical analysis. But assuming this was true, it would mean hoaxers would have had to salt the area with a radioactive substance. But it couldn't be just any radioisotope, since we know that photos taken the following morning were not fogged. So if something was radioactive, it had a short half-life, such that it decayed below detection levels by the following morning, or in only 14 or 15 hours. E.g., if something had a half-life of 2 hours, it would have decayed away to less than 1% of its original radiation level within 15 hours. And if the half-life was much less than this, say minutes, it would be almost totally gone within 1/2 to 1 hour. The key point here is that the radioisotope used is not something you would find lying around on a shelf somewhere. It would have to be "cooked up" immediately before the hoax in a particle accelerator or nuclear reactor and then rushed out to the site before it decayed away. That is why there are very few centers that can do positron emission tomography (PET) scans. They need a cyclotron on-site to create the radioisotope then quickly inject it into the subject before it can decay away. So again, this is getting pretty darn elaborate and unnecessary to just "get even" with Zamora. It would have to be targeted for investigators afterward, who given the lateness of the day and lack of scientific sophistication of the local police department, would be unlikely to do any sort of radiation testing. What foresight these hoaxers had to know the photos would be taken that would fog the film and give away the presence of radiation. But again, this all depends on what Hynek was told by the AF, so second-hand at best. However, according to Dr. James McDonald (as reported by Anne Druffel in her biography of McDonald), a doctoral student in radiation biology from the Univ. of N.M. (incorrectly given as being from the Univ. of Arizona) named Mary G. Mayes was brought in the next day "to analyze plant material from the Socorro site. Afterward, she was to turn in all records and samples, and heard no more about it." Mayes' speciality (radiation biology) says it all. They were already obviously considering the possibility of ionizing radiation at the site and brought in a specialist. Mayes also recalled them finding a triangular patch of sand fused into glass, about 25-30 inches wide, 1/4 inch think, and tapering down to about 2 inches. Again assuming Mayes' anecdote is true, again this is not easy to do if hoaxed, requiring melting sand in an oven, then transporting out to the site and planting it. Again this would have to be to fool sophisticated investigators afterward, not scare and get even with Zamora. So for a "hoax" just to "get" Zamora, this was all a bit over the top. David Rudiak 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp