Saturday, October 01, 2016

The Socorro Symbols - Redux

A couple of weeks ago I interviewed Ben Moss and Tony Angiola on the radio version of this blog. At the time they said a couple of things that I attempted to follow up on while we were on the air but didn’t get good answers. In the weeks that followed, I again tried to get more information and now have some of that. Ben Moss sent me a DVD copy of their presentation at the recent MUFON Symposium in Orlando, Florida, which provided some of the answers, and he has been sending me additional information through email. Here’s what I have learned.

First, they had mentioned a picture taken in Socorro though it wasn’t clear if there were pictures, plural, when they were taken, and who had taken them. The presentation answered all these questions. There is a single picture; it shows a number of objects, one of which has landing gear lowered and one that is six-tenths of a mile from the camera lens. The picture was taken by Ray Stanford some four months after the Zamora sighting. Although Stanford said they were “Zamora-like” objects, I haven’t seen the picture though both Ben Moss and Tony Angiola said they have. According to them, Stanford had been attempting to photograph the dynamite shed that Zamora had worried about and the objects were in the background. I don’t know why this information didn’t come out decades ago but I do know that Stanford said he would release the picture when he was ready. This, of course, worries me greatly given the history of claims of photographic evidence from important cases that we’ve dealt with in the recent past.

The Zamora symbol that has been featured as
the true symbol for decades.
Second is the claim that four newspapers of the time had printed either the upside down “V” with the bars through it or a variation of that or they had published a description of it. We’ve all seen the official version that has appeared in magazines and newspapers and we’ve all heard that Zamora was asked (ordered?) to change the design for security reasons. On KSRC radio Zamora told Walter Strode when asked about the symbol, “No, sir, I couldn’t tell you that, because they still don’t want me to say nothing about the markings.” You can listen to it here thanks to David Rudiak and Wendy Connors:

Zamora was also interviewed by Jim and Coral Lorenzen the day after the sighting. At the time they lived in Alamogordo which is not all that far from Socorro. When they asked about the design he had seen, he refused to tell them anything about it because he had been told not to by intelligence officers. While I’m not sure it was an intelligence officer who made the “request” it is clear someone in authority had. There were military officers in Socorro, representatives of the State Police and at least one FBI agent, who requested that it not be mentioned he was involved.  (The Lorenzen’s take on this can be seen in the APRO Bulletin for May 1964.)

There are descriptions of the symbol directly attributed to Zamora. In an AP story on April 29, 1964, and carried in many newspapers around the country it was reported, “Officer Zamora said the object he saw last Friday night was a brilliant white. He said there was a red marking on it like an upside down V with three lines across the top, through the middle and at the bottom.” (One of the sources for this is the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald for Wednesday, April 29, 1964, page 1.)  

A few days after the sighting, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was interviewed by the same reporter who had interviewed Zamora, on the same radio station, which is Shrode at KSRC. Hynek was asked what the marking was and Hynek replied, “He [Zamora] described it to me as an inverted ‘V’ with a sort of bar across it…” You can listen to this here:

This is actually at odds with the true symbol as has been suggested recently. Rather than three lines through it, Hynek said one line. Without a drawing, the many descriptions we now have can be interpreted in various ways. There are, however, drawings. There is the one that we all are familiar with which has the half circle over the inverted “V” with a single horizontal line under it. It is claimed that this is a faked symbol made up to keep the real one secret to weed out copycats. There is some support for this, with Zamora claiming that he was told not to talk about the symbol, and, according to the Lorenzen’s they couldn’t get him to tell then what the symbol looked like.

There is a hand-written letter by Hynek dated September 7, 1964, in the Project Blue Book files that seems to provide some corroboration. In fact, Ray Stanford made a big deal out of this when he found a copy on August 3, 2013. In an article published on Bill Chalker’s blog on June 4, 2014, Ray Stanford wrote, “James Fox asked to take that photo of me holding an important Hynek letter I had just discovered in the National Archives’s Socorro files.” These are, of course the Blue Book files which Stanford, for some reason, does not mention. You can read the whole article here:

But, the letter had always been in the Blue Book files and available to nearly everyone since the files were declassified and released to the public in the 1970s. Microfilms of them have been available since about that same time for purchase at the National Archives and Fold3 has put them up on the Internet.

Hynek's symbol that excited
Ray Stanford.
The symbol that excited Stanford isn’t quite the one that is being pushed as the real one. It has a horizontal bar over the top of the inverted “V” and two other bars inside the legs. I’m not sure that it does much to corroborate the inverted “V” with three bars drawn through it. You can argue that Hynek didn’t see the symbol himself and might have created this from the descriptions that have been offered rather than seeing a drawing made by Zamora, but it does complicate the issue and isn’t really corroboration for the symbol being pushed by Stanford.
There is another version of the symbol, also from the Blue Book files, but given that it is from the microfilm and that it was hand drawn in the text of a letter, it is difficult to see. It looks more like the symbol we’ve all seen, but it has variations as well, and in this case, does look like the corporate logo of Astropower, Inc. I’m not sure of the relevance. It’s just one more complication in all this and leads us off in another direction.

Another variation of the Zamora Symbol found in the Project Blue Book files.
The Astropower logo.
The final complication, at least for me, is why the “faked” symbol is in the Blue Book file with no notation about it being faked. There is no reason to include it because, the file, in 1964, was classified as secret so no one who didn’t have a clearance, a need to know, and who wasn’t part of the Blue Book team would have seen it. While it might make some sense to put out a false version to help identify any other sightings for comparison, the “true” symbol had already been described, more or less, in newspapers. There is nothing in the Blue Book files to indicate that they had created a fake, just the various symbols provided by various people at various times with little in the way of identification as to which is right and which are wrong.  

The only symbol that Zamora seemed to identify is the one that looks like an umbrella over an arrow. He signed the illustration and although it is his signature, the claim is that the other words on the paper were written by someone else. I don’t think that is a disqualification given the circumstances. It was merely the investigating officer identifying what the illustration showed.

Given the sighting is now a half century old and Zamora has died, many of those involved in the various investigations have died, I’m not sure that we’ll ever be able to sort this out. A case can be made that the “real” symbol is the inverted “V” with the three bars through it, but the variations to that description and what is found in the Blue Book files does nothing to prove it. A good case can be made for the other symbols as well. It boils down to what you wish to believe about what Zamora saw on the side of the craft. After so many decades, this is going to end up as one more of those little mysteries that we just can’t solve today.

I need to thank Ben Moss for providing the links and other information I used here and to Bill Chalker for his analysis at his blog. David Rudiak indirectly supplied some of the links to the radio interviews that were supplied by Wendy Connors. This just shows that something as simple as attempting to verify the symbols requires a review of the work done by so many others.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

X - Zone Broadcast Network - Carol Rainey

This week’s guest was Carol Rainey, who had at one time been married to Budd Hopkins and who, for a number of years, was part of his research world. You can listen to the show here:

We discuss some of the trouble with abduction research and explore, briefly, the idea that abduction scenarios are subtly implanted by the researchers. Carol provides some interesting insight into how some of the abduction stories have evolved. Some of what she has said in the past has been criticized and Budd Hopkins did respond to of it. You can read more about this here:

In the last few minutes, we look into the UFO crash near Santa Rosa, New Mexico, that Walt Webb and Budd Hopkins investigated.  You can read additional information here:

You can learn more about Carol Rainey at her website at:

Next week’s show: Keith Chester

Topic: Foo Fighters

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Rob McConnell Interviews Tom Carey

Rob McConnell, on the X-Zone Broadcast Network interviewed Tom Carey about the Roswell Slides, and Carey said some very interesting things. You can hear the interview here: 

Tom Carey
We learn from Carey (at about 04:15 into the interview) that it was Joe Beason who contacted him after Beason had attempted to interest Stan Friedman in the slides. Friedman, according to Carey, was too busy to follow the lead and suggested Carey to Beason. This bothers me because it would seem that Stan, who has been very protective of his leads about Roswell, handed to Carey what could have been the most important evidence of the Roswell case. I wonder if there was something in that communication between Stan and Beason that suggested to Stan that he be wary. 

At the 5:24 (all times approximate) point, Carey said that he received an email with the scan of two slides in it. 

At 6:31, according to Carey, Beason suggested that the slides were related to Roswell. 

At 11:57, Carey said that when he first saw the slides, he thought the image matched the descriptions of the aliens that he had received from various witnesses who had claimed to have seen the bodies. 

At 15:46, in what is an important point, Carey said that Beason told him that the codes on the edge of the film matched that used by Kodak in 1947. The problem is that that code was used for motion picture film and that slide film had a different coding system (though there seems to be some suggestion that some of the slide film might have had the motion picture code on it). The problem is that when we were all shown the whole frame from one of the slides, there is no coding on it. That coding didn’t appear on every slide, but was spread out through the length of the roll of film. 

I had noticed that the slides in play were number 9 and number 11, but number 10 was missing. Carey mentioned this as well (at 17:51), but said that Beason claimed that slide number 10 was lost. Carey mentioned that this seemed to be a problem, but clearly it wasn’t a big one for him. I wondered, of course, if what was seen on number 10 wouldn’t have clearly identified the image. 

At 20:36, Carey talked about the anthropologists that he attempted to get to review the slide. He said that he sent it to the smartest anthropologist he knew and that man told him the image was not of a human. 

Screen Grab for the documentary. This is close to the
image that Tom Carey shared with anthropologists.
Rob asked, if he had permission because of the non-disclosure agreements he and Don Schmitt had signed. Carey said that Adam Dew, who had partnered with Beason, had produced a trailer of a documentary he planned, and in that documentary, the image on the slide was revealed, possibly by mistake. This image was seen at an angle on a computer screen so that those outside the inner circle now had a poor image with which to work. This lousy image is what Carey was sharing with those anthropologists whose opinion he wanted. He said that the idea of UFOs and Roswell was toxic so that the anthropologists wouldn’t discuss it with him. He gave the impression that these anthropologists refused to even look at the image. 

At 29:00 he mentioned that MUFON has an anthropologist as one of its consultants and the consultant thought it was a genetically deformed human. Then Carey mentioned that some of the anthropologists provided opinions off the record which, of course, is not the same thing as refusing to even look at the slide which is what he had claimed. They too seemed to believe in some sort of genetic deformity but according to Carey, no one said that it was a mummy (which is strange because that was the thought that most of us had even looking at the poor image captured from the documentary trailer). Of course, the real problem is that he was giving them the poor image and not the best resolution scans he had which might contributed to the lack of cooperation. 

In a big revelation, found at 36:28, Carey is talking about the logistics of the situation with everyone involved scattered over two countries. The five principals, however, met in Chicago long before the great reveal in Mexico City. At this meeting, according to Carey, they were shown the slides to prove that slides actually existed. This brings up lots of questions, especially about how clear those slides were and if they were projected on a screen… which would provide a better look at the background, meaning it should have been obvious that it was a museum setting, and if the placard which became so critical to the story could be read. Two or three minutes later, Carey again addressed the problem of reading the placard and how no one could do it at that time. 

At 40:07, after Rob McConnell asked him about the image and the identity, Carey explained that although the placard does suggest it was a child, Carey didn’t believe that the image on the slide was a two-year-old child, because it was too tall. He doesn’t believe that it is a 900-year-old mummy but something that had died more recently. He doesn’t believe it was the child found by Palmer in 1898, though it resembles it. He seemed to base this belief on the size of the mummy, but he, like everyone else is working off the image on the slide so the analysis of the size of the image can be disputed and given the documentation that exists, it is clear to nearly everyone else that the image is of a child. No measurements on the mummy can be made because the remains have been returned to the native peoples, as, of course, they should have been. 

At 57:03, Carey makes the statement that the mummy in the museum is “Not our guy.” 

This is a very interesting interview with Tom Carey providing his take on how this fiasco developed. You can read more about it on this blog beginning in 2015 or head over to Rich Reynolds UFO Conjectures to review his take on much of this. Just look for Roswell Slides in the search engine provided. 

And, for a differing take on this given by the other participant, you can listen to my interview with Don Schmitt. You can hear it here: 

Finally, for those who would like a more concise review, a long, heavily footnoted chapter in Roswell in the 21st Century details this information and also notes some of the arrogance by those who had seen the slides before the big reveal in Mexico City.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Curt Collins

This week’s show concerned the Roswell Slides and the Cash/Landrum sighting of December 1980. The guest was Curt Collins who runs the Blueblurrylines website that can be found at The show can be heard here:

While I hadn’t planned to spend much time on the Roswell Slides, Collins provided some information that is important to those who read this blog and who have an interest in the Roswell Slides. He pointed out that according to what Don Schmitt said prior to the May 5, 2015, presentation in Mexico City, he had seen slides, and in fact was the first to meet with the owner (though it isn’t clear if he meant Adam Dew or Joe Beason). You can hear his statements of April 12,2015 here:

The relevant section comes at about the 106:00 point of the interview and with Tom Carey and then Don Schmitt talking about seeing the slides.

Tom Carey talked about the high resolution scans when he gave another interview on April 20, 2015 which can be heard here:

Tom Carey talks about receiving the high resolution scans of the slides in an email at 131:30 and then provides descriptions at 137:00 and 141:00.

You can also read, in detail, the story of the slides on this blog beginning in the months prior to the reveal in Mexico City. Just use the search engine and Roswell Slides. There is also a long chapter about them in Roswell in the 21st Century.

While we didn’t get to the Cash/Landrum sighting until later in the show, you can find out more about it at:

Next week’s show: Carol Rainey

Topic: Abductions

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Turning the Field Over to the Youngsters

Several years ago, over at UFO Iconoclasts, now known as UFO Conjectures, Rich Reynolds thought it was time for all us geezers to get out of UFO research and turn the field over to the youngsters. His theory seemed to be that we’d gotten too set in our ways, weren’t coming up with anything new and had had seventy years to find a solution and we hadn’t done it. The young blood, not locked into any one theory, would think in new and innovative ways, progressing rapidly if we’d just get out of their way.

When I was studying for a Ph.D., one of the things we learned was to make a literature search of our topic to ensure that we weren’t merely covering old ground. The literature search would provide a springboard into new arenas and new thought so that we could build on what had gone on before rather than just duplicating research. We could advance the field, the theory, and the thought rather than just repeat the same mistakes that had been made before. We could actually contribute something new.

All well and good but in the last year, as I see more and more of what the new blood has brought to the field and the advances they have allegedly made, I suspect that Rich was wrong. The new blood and the younger researchers are doing nothing to advance the work. They are just grabbing onto the same nonsense that has distracted and derailed us. They don’t bother with any sort of literature search that today, with the Internet, is so much simpler. They just keep filling the air with the same tired rhetoric, learning nothing from the mistakes we made or advancing thought at all. It is a case of the same old same old.

You want an example?

Sure. I’ve been engaged in a discussion of the MJ-12 Manual SOM 1-01. It suffers from the same problem of all the other MJ-12 documents which is a lack of provenance, but that seems to make no difference to many. We don’t know where it came from, we don’t know what agency is responsible for it (though the logo on the front seems to suggest the War Department which disappeared in 1947 when the Department of Defense was created) and there seem to be anachronisms in it. It was suggested that wreckage from crashed and recovered UFOs be sent to Area 51/S-4. The trouble is that when the manual was allegedly written, there were no facilities at Groom Lake as it was known then to house the wreckage and no personnel available to exploit it if something did arrive.

One of those believing the manual was real, provided a link to a declassified document to prove that the term, Area 51, was in use because it appeared on maps of that part of Nevada. But that source also described exactly what was there in April 1955. It said, “On 12 April 1955 Richard Bissell and Col. Osmund Ritland... flew over Nevada with Kelly Johnson in small Beechcraft plane piloted by Lockheed's chief test pilot, Tony LeVier. They spotted what appeared to be an airstrip by a salt flat known as Groom Lake, near the northeast corner of the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) Nevada Proving Ground. After debating about landing on the old strip, LeVier set the plane down on the lakebed, and all four walked over to examine the strip. The facility had been used during World War II as an aerial gunnery range for Army Air Corps pilots. From the air the strip appeared to be paved, but on closer inspection it turned out to have originally been fashioned from compacted earth that had turned to ankle-deep dust after more than a decade of disuse. If LeVier had attempted to land on the airstrip, the plane would probably had nosed over when the wheels sank into the loose soil, killing or injuring all of the key figures in the U-2 project.”

What was the response? Well, maybe there were facilities in the area they didn’t see. Maybe there was a secret, underground AEC base. Maybe the CIA historian who wrote that section lied about it to keep the secret safe. No evidence of any of that. Just some wild speculation to reject the evidence that there was nothing there to be seen by those who had actually been there.

That same document also said, “Bissel and his colleagues all agreed that Groom Lake would make an ideal site for testing the U-2 and training its pilots. Upon returning to Washington, Bissell discovered that Groom Lake was not part of the AEC proving ground. After consulting with Dulles, Bissell and Miller asked the Atomic Energy Commission to add the Groom Lake area to its real estate holdings in Nevada. AEC Chairman Adm. Lewis Strauss readily agreed, and President Eisenhower also approved the addition of this strip of wasteland, known by its map designation as Area 51 to the Nevada Test Site.”

This would seem to be a fatal flaw in a document that has no provenance. We have a description of the area that would eliminate it as a site to send anything at that time. There was nothing there except an invisible facility. Doesn’t this one point actually make defense of the manual a very shaky proposition? Unless something else, with a proper provenance can be found, shouldn’t this guide our thinking?

Is there more?

Carlos Allende/Carl Allen
Well yes. We’ve just had another example which is the Allende Letters. I’m not going through that again but will say there is nothing left to this myth. Allende, who was born Carl Allen said that he had made it all up. Robert Goerman found Allen’s family and they said that Allen made up things like this all the time. Some of the problems discussed in the annotations in the book sent to the Navy have since been solved. Here I think of the disappearance of the Stardust, a BOAC passenger plane that disappeared allegedly in sight of the airport at Santiago, Chile. A decade and a half ago, the wreckage was found, providing us with a fatal flaw in those notations. For more details see:


How about the Bermuda Triangle?

Back in the early 1970s, I believed there was something mysterious going on in the Bermuda Triangle. The list of ships and planes that had been lost in the area seemed to be overwhelming and nearly every one of them was gone without a trace. I remember being at a conference in Denver, Colorado, when Jim Lorenzen explained that it was truly mysterious because there was a case in which five Navy aircraft flying formation all disappeared. There was just no way that mechanical failure, weather, or about anything else could explain that disappearance.

440th C-119 like this one lost
in the Bermuda Triangle.
In the mid-1970s I spotted a book, The Bermuda Triangle Mystery – Solved by David Lawrence Kusche. I bought it thinking that I needed to understand what the skeptics were saying if I was going to be able to intelligently refute their arguments. But the book was filled with documentation and explanations that made perfect sense. Couple that to my talking with members of the 440th Tactical Airlift Wing who had lost a plane in the Triangle and who told me the plane had crashed and the solution seemed confirmed. Not only that, they had bits of the wreckage to prove it… one of the mysteries solved to my satisfaction without having to read Kusche’s book. See:

Oh, and in the Navy records concerning the disappearance of Flight 19, we learn that five aircraft disappear when the flight leader orders it. He was hopelessly lost, flying around in circles and ignoring the advice from the rest of the squadron. Finally he said, “When the first man is down to ten gallons, we’ll all ditch together.” And that explains how five aircraft disappear at once.

I could go on, but need I? Sure there are those of us who are older that still subscribe to these things and there are those who are younger who do not. We older folks have learned ways of conducting the research that does provide us with some answers. Those younger folks are sometimes too willing to accept what they are told as the truth without asking some additional questions. I learned that lesson after believing some of those who told wonderful stories of their involvement in the Roswell UFO crash and reading Stolen Valor about all these people, men and women, lying about their military service, especially that in Vietnam. In other words, many of those telling us stories about the Roswell crash were lying about it and this included some of the most important witnesses.

Where does all this leave us? It would seem that we, of the old guard (aka old school) could provide some useful tips on conducting these investigations if those who are new school would bother to listen. This is where Rich slipped off the rails… we should be working together, those of us from years gone by providing information and guidance, and those who are relatively young providing new ways of looking at UFOs and providing new theories on what is going on. One group shouldn’t be forced out by another and all should be open to reevaluating what we sometimes think of as the proof positive. There is room for everyone if we’re all smart enough to recognize the abilities and experience of each other.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Brad Steiger and Real Visitors, Voices from Beyond and Parallel Dimensions

Back more years than I care to admit, I read a book, Allende Letters: New UFO Breakthrough (the title seems to be part of the advertising on the cover) written by Brad Steiger and Joan Whritenour. It was much more than just the story of the Allende Letters but it did spark an interest in me. It also raised some questions about all this sort of thing.

Although only one chapter actually discussed the Allende Letters in detail, it did
Brad and Sherry Hansen Steiger
mention that a researcher, Steve Yankee, who written to the Chief of Naval Operations in an attempt to learn more about them. Part of the Allende Letters case was a copy of Morris K. Jessup’s The Case for the UFO, filled with annotations apparently made by three individuals. Yankee apparently received a copy of that book with the notations from the Navy. I figured if Yankee could get a copy, I should have one as well and wrote to the Navy. They told me to contact a fellow at Varo Manufacturing in or near Fort Worth, Texas. Since I was living in Mineral Wells, Texas, near Fort Worth at the time, I made the contact and eventually received a copy of the annotated book as well, which I mention here for no other reason except to point out that I have a copy of the book and interviewed one of the Navy officers who was responsible for having the annotated book reproduced.

Given all that, given what I knew about the case from the Navy end of it and having read quite a bit about it, I concluded that the Philadelphia Experiment, which was the underlying force behind the Allende Letters, was a hoax. I knew that Brad had been involved in some research into them but didn’t know how deeply all that went until I received a copy of Real Visitors, Voices from Beyond and Parallel Dimensions.

I had written off Al Bielek, who had made a career out of the Philadelphia Experiment as just one more of those people who claim extraordinary adventures but have nothing to prove their tales. I learned that Bielek had been a friend of Brad and Sherry Steiger. As they worked on a book in 1990, Brad wrote, “We had to admit that Bielek was so convincing in his details that even experienced researchers such as we found ourselves entertaining thoughts of an alternative reality, of other dimensions of time and space overlapping.”

It seemed that Brad and Sherry were giving some credence to this whole idea especially since they knew Bielek. They were laying out the information that made it seem that Bielek was credible and that some aspects of the Philadelphia Experiment, as described by Carlos Allende were true. They even wrote, “On August 22, 1986, The News of Greeley published his ‘deathbed statement,’ in which Carlos insisted that everything that he had claimed in his annotations in The Case for the UFO were true. He also suggested that he had been Dr. Jessup’s uncredited coauthor,” which also seemed to underscore the validity of the Philadelphia Experiment.

But then they mentioned the work of Robert A. Goerman, the work he had done tracking down Allende, who as I have pointed out elsewhere was Carl Allen. The Steigers tell more of that story and then conclude, “It was all a hoax, a fantasy, molded by a former sailor who loved to read about UFOs and strange, unsolved mysteries so much that he created one that may live forever.”

This is, of course, a sad commentary on the critical thinking skills of many, and the inability to comprehend what they read. It is clear that the whole Allende Letters mystery was created by Carl M. Allen, that others jumped on the bandwagon and added detail by plugging themselves into the story, but when all was said and done, there isn’t a shred of evidence that any of this took place. Brad, who you might say contributed to the mystery in the 1960s before we had all the information we now possess, has done his part to eliminate this from our consciousness. To read his whole story about it, take a look at Real Visitors, Voices from Beyond and Parallel Dimensions. It solves a few other mysteries as well and clears up the misconceptions about others.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Ben Moss/Tony Angiola (Zamora Sighting)

This week’s show concerned the Socorro, New Mexico UFO landing and occupant sighting of April 24, 1964. My guests were Ben Moss and Tony Angiola of MUFON Virginia and their website can be found at The interview can be found here:

True Symbol
What was interesting in this interview, or what caught my attention was the discussion of the symbol that Lonnie Zamora reported on the side of the object. According to Moss and Angiola, the symbol that we all believed to be the correct one, the symbol that has been featured in magazines and documentaries, is wrong. Zamora was forced, by the Air Force, according to Moss and Angiola, to change the symbol from the inverted “V” with three horizontal lines through it to what I think of as the umbrella over an arrow. Moss and Angiola said they had found newspaper references to the correct symbol in the days that followed Zamora’s report. Rich Reynolds over at the UFO
Fake Symbol
blog has explored this question several times.

The other points they made were that there had been reports of the object made to the Socorro police before Zamora’s sighing, that other police officers had seen something as well, that two men had reported seeing the same object as Zamora, and that others had seen similar objects around the area before and after Zamora. I have explored some of this in the past. See:

The program airs on Saturday and Sunday nights at 9:00 p.m. and at various times during the week over several different aspects of the X-Zone Broadcast Networks. For a complete listing, see:

Next week’s guest: Curt Collins
Topic: The Roswell Slides and the Cash/Landrum UFO sighting.

For those who have questions, you can leave them in the comments section of this blog.