Socorro & the UFO symbol - 1964-2014

My old friend Ray Stanford circulated this communication today:

Ever since the death of the principal Socorro witness, Lonnie Zamora, after which I could then (without embarrassing Lonnie) tell of his agreement with Captain Richard T. Holder to substitute a fake red 'insignia' for what he actually saw, I have been accused by certain internet loudmouths of anything from being an outright liar trying for unexplained reasons to conceal what Zamora actually saw, to being totally deluded either by my own mind or by unnamed covert operatives out to deceive me and the world. But, if one looks closely as their statements and totally baseless claims, it should not surprise any intelligent, objective person that unfounded speculation and even paranoia is rampant among some internet persons pretending to make UFO-related revelations without due research, while using the internet as a playground.

You learned in my mass-mailed letter of yesterday, that Captain Holder's son was often told by his father that he obtained Zamora's agreement to not divulge the real 'insignia' he saw in red on the observed vehicle, so a bogus one was substituted.

My purpose today is NOT to tell you that I know exactly what Zamora really saw in red on the side of the ellipsoidal object he saw. I cannot accomplish that simply because I don't know for sure exactly what he saw in red on the object's side.  So let me be clear what my purpose is. I intend to simply show that the alleged red 'insignia' Zamora began describing only after his talk with Captain Richard T. Holder on the evening of Friday, April 24, 1964, that is, , was NOT what he really saw, but is the substitution he decided to describe after talking with Captain Holder.

As to how the red 'insignia' Zamora actually saw might have looked, David Rudiak's totally objective and honest search for the reality contrasts beautifully against the internet 'rif-raf-rattle' of those who had rather publish unfounded speculation instead of doing due research on this matter.  

There was even one internet-published speculation that I made up the story of the inverted V with three lines beneath it . Ignorant people can be awfully ridiculous at times. 

Rather that rewrite all I have written years ago about that matter, let me provide you the assemblage of facts David Rudiak very kindly sent me recently, with the links he  provided attached.

He very accurately reported:

The inverted V with three bars through it was being reported in the media before Ray even got to Socorro four days later and finally questioned Zamora (as I recall) on day 5.  So despite some nonsense on the Net, Ray certainly did NOT invent that insignia, somehow getting Zamora to change his story.  Examples of the media mentioning the symbol in the days immediately following:

1.  Zamora interviewed by Walter Shrode on KSRC, I think the day after the incident.  Transcript at my website and link to recording:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Socorro/Socorro_Zamora_interview.html

SHRODE: And someone said that the markings that you saw was an upside down “V” with three lines running through it.

ZAMORA:  No sir, I couldn’t tell you that, because they still don’t want me to say nothing about the markings.

2. Walter Shrode interviewing Hynek had him saying it (maybe April 29, after Hynek arrived at about the same time as Ray the evening of April 28), my transcript and link to recording:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Socorro/Socorro_Hynek_interview.html

SHRODE:  Well, about this marking, can you tell us how he described this marking and what the marking was?

HYNEK:  Yes, I see no reason why not.  He described it to me as an inverted “V” with a sort of a bar across it...

3.  AP quoted Hynek saying it:

AP Story, April 30 (e.g. Frederick MD News)

“The scientist [Hynek] also discussed the markings that Zamora said he saw on the side of the object, a red, inverted V with bars through it.”

4.  First responder and Zamora's friend Sgt. Sam Chavez was quoted saying it:

Hobbs NM Daily News, April 28, front page

“State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez said he was told by Socorro policeman Lonnie Zamora that the UFO he saw Friday… had red markings on its silvery side. Chavez said Zamora told him the design was an inverted V with three bars crossing it, but that the Air Force had told him not to discuss the markings.”

5.  AP attributed the description directly to Zamora himself:

AP Story, April 29 (e.g., San Antonio TX Light, Danville VA Bee)

“Officer Lonnie Zamora said the object he saw last Friday 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.” (San Antonio paper also showed a drawing of the object with the symbol, said to be based on "newspaper accounts")

6.  Ray has a recording of Socorro police dispatcher Mike Martinez saying it.  As Ray notes in his book:  "Martinez quoted Zamora in Spanish, "...un 'V' invertido, con tres líneas debajo," meaning exactly what it says, "an inverted 'V' with three lines beneath it"

In fact, I haven't been able to find a similar description of what became known as the real symbol in this early reporting.  That seems to have appeared later.
Thank you Dave Rudiak.

In the National Archive's files on the Socorro case, one sees contradictory drawings of the red 'insignia' Zamora allegedly saw, but there may be several rational explanations for those, including the fact that at least two of them look as though they conceivably might have been drawing experiments made by  Captain Holder and/or Zamora. That might have been done either with Zamora just trying, by drawing it, to figure out what he saw in those rushed  moments of observation, or maybe drawings made when he and Holder were trying to decide on the substitute 'insignia' Zamora would, thereafter, publicly claim he saw.  It seems conceivable that Holder mistakenly left them in the report, and that slip-up might have been induced by the long interview that went on into the night.

As you will see below, when movie producer James Fox and I were at the National Archive on August 3, 2013, just as James had  predicted in coaxing me to go back to the Archive with him for a second day, I made a discovery that thrilled me and filled me with great satisfaction, because the document basically confirms what I had been saying for fifty years, and it should show any realistic person that the  Zamora began  (on the April 25, 1964) drawing (in any of its slight variations) and telling the media and independent investigators he saw, was a bogus substitute instead of what he really observed.

Look below: James Fox asked to take that photo of me holding an important Hynek letter I had just discovered in the Archive's Socorro files, because he wanted to record for posterity the satisfaction on my face, that was a obvious as it could be.  I've set into James' photo, below, another document found in the Archive's Socorro files. It's Allen Hynek's Polaroid photo (and its enlargement, at upper-left) of me standing beside the SW Socorro object landing pad imprint.  Lonnie Zamora is at left, and N.M. State Police Sergeant Samuel Chavez, stands between Lonnie and me at age 25 on the morning of Wednesday, April 29, 1964. Thankfully,  Hynek, who had known me since 1959 insisted -- over Sergeant Chavez's objections --  that the Socorro police dispatcher Mike Martinez tell me I would be welcome to join them at the landing site during Hynek's on-site investigation. (See my Socorro book for details, pages 49 - 63.)

Proudly, the 'slide' below illustrates my fifty years and early involvement in the Socorro case. THANK YOU, James Fox, for the wonderful opportunity that the situation be photo documented in my 50th year on the case.

PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE WRITTEN TEXT IN EACH IMAGE THAT FOLLOWS.

O.K., now that you've seen in James fox's photo of my unconcealed satisfaction, look closer at the letter I uncovered, as shown below.   You can now understand my satisfaction, because it contains, in Allen Hynek's hand-written letter (while he was enjoying a badly needed vacation) to Major Hector Quintanilla at the United States Air Force's Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB, Hynek's own drawing of the 'insignia' Lonnie Zamora reported

Was there a stamp thief at the National Archive or at the Air Force's FTD? ;o) We noticed immediately that the postage stamp Hynek had affixed had been cut out.:

The second page of Hynek's letter to the FTD contains only trivia, and is unrelated to the Socorro case, so although it's available on request, I don't want to cause this letter to be rejected by some systems because of large data content..

A closer look at Hynek's drawing of the 'insignia' he reports Zamora saw is included in the slide below, with its color changed to the red in which Zamora said he saw the 'insignia'. What you see as the background of that red enlargement is  the advertisement which Hynek enclosed with his letter to FTD, for a very new company seeking employees, that used a logo somewhat resembling what Zamora had described. Notice, too, that their logo was black and NOT RED. The FTD was hoping to find a company on earth that might have created the Socorro vehicle, but as major Hector Quintanilla told the CIA later, they never did.

Please notice what I tell in the blue area of the slide about that company's status.:

The USAF tried so desperately to locate a research facility that they hoped would explain what Zamora (and the other witnesses) saw, that they convened a highly classified conference at Holloman AFB, trying to find some terrestrial source for the high-performance object Zamora had seen within about 35 feet, with his glasses still ON, but they could find no source for the vehicle, and FTD's Major Hector Quintanilla told the CIA that despite all efforts, it was unexplained and unidentified. A copy of a declassified document concerning the secret Holloman meeting is in my files, from the National Archive visit with James Fox.

In closing, let me stress that I'm not trying to present the exact shape of the red 'insignia' Zamora saw on the side of the object. If you read my book, you know that all the persons to whom I spoke (including several law officers) told me the same thing, describing . And I have no doubt that the persons who told me that were actually told that  before Lonnie had his interview with Captain Holder.

Well, Hynek drew the following for the Foreign Technology division:  We plainly see that it is also an inverted V with three lines, but with some change in their lengths and placement. So whether Hynek's version was more accurate, or what first-arrivers at the landing site who talked to Zamora before he talked with Captain Holder said Zamora told them (and in at least one case drew) is more accurate, we can reasonably deduce that whatever the little variations might have been, it was the inverted V with three lines that Zamora saw and absolutely NOT the Zamora described to all media persons and other investigators after his agreement with Holder to provide a substitute 'insignia'.

My point here, again, is simply that, for example, the  Richard Hall of NICAP insisted on publishing for NICAP and asserted was what Zamora saw (despite my protests as their only on-site investigator) absolutely was NOT what he saw.  it's only what he and Captain Holder agreed he would tell people after their meeting on the night of Friday, April 24, 1964.

I don't know whether Zamora saw this , or this , or even if it was perhaps some variation from either of those as, if I understand him correctly, Richard T. Holder, Jr. feels he recalls his dad showing him. However,  as the only on-site-with-Hynek, Zamora, and Chavez investigator of the Socorro case, and the only living person who has studied the case in-depth for fifty years, and as the one who wrote the 211-page 1976 book of the case, I strongly recommend that the 'UFO community' realize the  was purposeful fiction, and that the red 'insignia' was actually some version of an inverted V with three lines.

There is more on the Socorro case which I hope to be sharing, and an important part of it is a video James Fox says will be in his forthcoming UFO movie, showing Hynek admitting to me something very significant about the Socorro case.  And, by the way, if what Hynek tells me (in the interview) that the U.S. Air Force told him is true, it proves that a certain guy's pretense that the Socorro event was a student hoax is utter bilge (foolish or worthless claim).

The central proponent of the silly idea that the Socorro, multi-witness case was the result of a student hoax, has made numerous flimsy excuses for not debating me or others about his Nth-degree fictional extrapolation from one man's closed-minded fantasy about the case. Well,  I've heard enough of his fiction which misrepresents a highly observant and intelligent man, Lonnie Zamora, as a blundering fool. Such misrepresentation of Lonnie Zamora are disgusting to anyone who really knew him, to his wife and children, and such claims are indefensible.

I CHALLENGE THE PRIMARY PROPONENT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE SOCORRO EVENT WAS TO RESULT OF A STUDENT HOAX TO DEBATE ME.

But, once again the primary proponent of that foolishness will surely not dare debate me, and likely (if he's still behaving as in the past) will hurl insulting excuses at me, as he did when I challenged him to debate me on Coast-to-Coast, and he chickened out.

I'm sick and tired of anyone trying to misrepresent the quiet but,  intelligent, and highly observant Lonnie Zamora as some stupid, unobservant fool.

Well, back to my main purpose of this letter. Now you have Hynek's hitherto unpublished letter confirming the inverted V with three lines. I hope future illustrators will not show the fictional, substituted 'insignia' on the object's side when the Socorro object is illustrated. It was only because 'researchers' everywhere, including NICAP,  had by 1976 convinced the public that the fictional 'insignia' was the real one, that, at my Socorro book editor's virtual insistence, we used the fictional 'insignia' on the side of the object on page 25 of the Socorro book.  He said that, otherwise, people under the influence of organizations like NICAP and APRO would come across the book and reject it, saying that the author didn't even know what was really seen on the object.  ;) For that reason, I wrote Appendix A: An Obfuscated Red "Insignia"?, pages 206 - 211, in the Socorro book's original Blueapple Books edition.

Now, fifty years after the Socorro event, I am happy to be able to set the record straight, yesterday with Richard T. Holder's important revelation, and, today, with J. Allen Hynek's letter to his employer, the Foreign Technology Division of the U.S. Air Force.

Still at it, after fifty years investigating what actually happened at Socorro on April 24, 1964,

Ray Stanford 

(Note: in the original mail out Ray had included inserts of the symbols within the text, but theses didn't come out here, but I think things are clear enough particularly if you pay attention to Ray's slides. Well done Ray - great anniversary present)

Ray Stanford's book on the case originally appeared as "Socorro Saucer in a pentagon pantry" and later in paperback as "Socorro Saucer" - well worth reading.

In search of the mark of the UFO (a tribute to Ted Phillips and UFO physical trace research)

I was saddened to hear of the recent passing of Ted Phillips, the well known Missouri based researcher who specialised in UFO landing “physical trace” cases.  In 2011 he indicated that he had collected over 4,000 cases of this type from 93 different countries.

  TedPhillips on Jay Michael's Conundrumstv

Here is a listing of “high strangeness” UFO physical trace cases that Ted Phillips compiled.  Many famous cases are included in this list such as Trancas, Socorro, Valensole, Tully, Falcon Lake, Delphos, Langenberg, and Trans en Provence:

Trancas recreation:

Dr. Bucher's drawing perspective with my added pink stick person

https://theozfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=Trancas

Socorro drawing: Copyright Ray Stanford/John Lucas (used with permission)

https://theozfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=Socorro

https://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/2010/12/valensole-france-ufo-encounter.html

https://theozfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=Tully

https://uforum.blogspot.com/search?q=Michalak

http://www.nicap.org/ar-711102dir.htm

the-langenburg-close-encounter

1981 Trans-en-provence

15/1930 Largentiere, France: multiple witness, cone-shaped, lands very close, projects beams, traces. 

8/??/1933 Nipawin, Sask., 0700: multiple witness, disc with 6 legs, occupants, 30 minutes, traces.


2/5/1934 Malselv, Norway: multiple witness, humanoids, footprints, traces.


12/25/45 Newland, MO: multiple witness, 2 minutes, house damage, traces.


7/11/46 Njurunda, Sweden: multiple witness, sphere, human effects, 7 ft crater liquid traces.


4/24/50 Varese, Italy: multiple witness, humanoids, human effects, metal fragments, four circular imprints, burns. 

1952 Lamonte, MO: multiple witness, 16 ft dehydrated ring.


8/27/52 Lumberton, NC, 0030: 5 witnesses, blue-white object 30 ft away, 30 ft diameter, depressed traces. 

11/??/53 Gjersjoen Bridge,Norway: multiple witness, human effects, EM, traces.


6/21/54 Ridgeway, Ont.: multiple witness, round 50 ft object, EM, dehydrated ring.


9/10/54 Quarouble, France, 2230: multiple witness, animal reaction, area heated to high temperature, imprints. 

9/24/54 Becar, France: multiple witness, humanoids, traces.


9/24/54 Ussel, France, 2300: multiple witness, 5 minutes, tree damage, traces.


9/27/54 Premanon, France, 2050: multiple witness, disc, humanoids, traces.


10/2/54 Benet, France, 2130: 2 discs, 5 minutes, oily traces.


10/3/54 Montmoreau, France 2250: multiple witness, oval object, traces.


10/4/54 Montceau, France: multiple witness, disc, 10 minutes, traces.


10/10/54 Donjon, France 1830: multiple witness, fired at glowing object, metal traces. 

10/14/54 Meral, France: orange disc landed, humanoid, 10 minutes, luminescent steam, layer of white, sticky substance at site.


10/20/54 Lusigny Forest, France 1830: 6m ovoid, intense heat, rain falling, steam, area dehydrated. 

11/5/54 La Roche-Brenil, France: multiple witness, orange object lands, humanoids, human effects, 12 ft ring, ash-like appearance.


12/12/54 Campinas, Brazil: multiple witness, 3 objects, liquid dropped from one object, like a silvery rain, brilliant glowing stain.


8/??/55 Cayerer, France 2200: multiple witness, egg-shaped object, humanoids metal traces.


8/21/55 Kelly-Hopkinsville, KY 2030: multiple witness, humanoids, luminous traces.


11/2/55 Williston, FL 2220: multiple witness, disc, humanoids, human effects, traces.


Fall, 1956: Bethel, CT: multiple witness, ring of burnt grass 18 ft in diameter, traces of nickel & chromium. 

5/10/57 Beaucourt, France 2250: multiple witness, 8 minutes, humanoids, traces.


11/4/57 Fort Itaipu, Brazil: multiple witness, EM, radiation, burns.


10/??/58 Stroudsburg, PA 1900: multiple witness, disc, beam, traces.


10/??/59 Mariannelund, Sweden 1855: multiple witness, disc, EM, humanoid, gray-white substance found at site.

12/9/60 Carignen, France 2030: multiple witness, glowing 14 ft object, animal reaction, humanoid, dehydrated ring. 

10/21/63 Trancas, Argentina 1900: multiple witnesses, disc on ground several minutes, animal reaction, EM effects, humanoids, numerous traces.


04/24/64 Socorro, NM 1745: daylight, egg-shaped object with four structured legs, primary witness, several confirming witnesses, humanoids, burns, imprints.


07/01/65 Valensole, France 0530: daylight landing, single witness, humanoids, human effects, dehydration and imprints + central shaft hole.


09/15/65 Silverton, South Africa 0000: multiple police, road landing, traces. 

01/19/66 Tully, Australia 0900: daylight sighting, single witness, 30 ft trace. 

05/??/66 Whiteman Air Force Base, MO: multiple witness, daylight landing in wooded area, humanoid, tree damage, burnt traces, imprints.


11/22/66 Roaring River State Park, MO 1000: multiple witness, daylight, photographs of object ascending 300 ft away, tree damage, multiple traces. 

3/20/67 Tuscumbia, MO 0630: daylight landing, single witness, animal reaction, occupants and object 15 ft away, central shaft, traces.


3/21/67 New Baden, IL 0200: multiple witness, landing, Air Force investigation, imprints, human effects, very odd liquid.


5/20/67 Falcon Lake, Canada : single witness, daylight, 0 ft away from object, human effects, traces.


07/13/69 Van Horne, Iowa 2300: multiple witness, disc, 40 ft circular area- dehydrated in soybean field. 

08/30/70 Itatiaia, Brazil 2145: multiple witness, 35 ft away, shots fired at object, light beam, severe human effects, dehydrated circular trace.


11/02/71 Delphos, KS 1900: single primary witness, 4 confirming witnesses, 40 ft away, several minutes, human effects, animal effects, 8 ft glowing ring + tree damage.


06/26/72 Fort Beaufort, South Africa 0800: multiple witness, long duration event, daylight, imprints.


08/17/72 Norton Sound, Alaska 0000: multiple witness, long duration landing, Air Force investigation, traces. 

9/14/72 Houston, MO 2000: multiple witness, two events, animal reaction, EM effects, scorched oval+3 imprints+tree damage.


06/28/73 Columbia, MO 0100: multiple witness, animal reaction, human reaction, EM effects, close approach, 35 minutes, tree damage, imprints. 

09/0174 Langenburg, Sask. 1100: single witness, daylight, 15 ft away, 5 objects, animal reaction, human reaction, 5 rings.


10/08/78 Jenkins, MO 0700: multiple (7) witness, two objects, one on ground two hours, 180 ft away, traces. 

12/29/80 Piney Woods, Texas 2100: multiple witness, object close over road, heat, possible radiation effects. 

01/08/81 Trans en Provence, France 1700: single witness, small disc lands briefly, 8 ft ring at site. 

01/20/88 Mundrabilla, Australia: multiple witnesses, multiple confirming witnesses, object attempted to lift car, witness touched base of object, damage to car + traces.


10/01/95 Piacabucu River, Brazil 2300: multiple witness, luminous object, 5 m circular site + four 10 cm x 15 cm imprints, 1.5 cm deep. 

It was the 1966 Roaring River State Park Missouri that drew Ted into a long research relationship and friendship with Dr. J. Allen Hynek. A witness from the case was known to his brother-in-law and by early 1968 he had conducted a phone interview with the witness. As the episode involved physical effects and UFO photos he contacted Dr. Hynek.  Hynek came to lecture at the University of Missouri in Columbia in October 1968, and a meeting with the witness was arranged, so Dr. Hynek could examine the photos and negatives.  In November Ted and his wife Ginger were invited to Chicago. Ted was invited to become a part of Hynek’s “invisible college” – a small collective of researchers. Ted agreed to specialise in “physical trace” cases. As the listing above confirms, Ted specialisation was a very productive research venture. 

Given that the Roaring River State Park case of 1966 was the catalyst I will quote Ted Phillips own report:

“On November 22, 1966, B & several friends were deer hunting near the Roaring River State Park, in southwestern Missouri. 

“They had been away from their camp site for about one hour. J B talked with a friend who had just passed by the camp & he stated that everything seemed to be normal at that time. 30 minutes later, between 09:00 & 10:00, B was returning to the camp site. When he was about 100 yards from the camp he noticed a faint column of smoke. He ran to the area & found the tent smoldering. He could see no flames or sparks, a pair of leather shoes & some records were still smoking. He could feel no great heat coming from the remains. In 30 minutes the tent & equipment had been destroyed. He noticed a dead tree about 15 feet 

from the tent which was burning at the top, it was about 15 feet tall. 

“He photographed the tree showing the burning top section after seeing the UFO. The tent was 12 x 18 feet in size. The aluminum poles supporting the tent were singed, but not burned, aluminum cots inside were melted. 

“The tent was under two trees & they were not damaged at all. 

                       

                        

(Ted Phillips' investigation file)

“As he was looking through the remains he heard a low humming sound & saw an object rising from a valley just beyond the tent area. When the object was first seen it was just above the horizon, it was at that time that the first photograph was taken. The second photograph was taken seconds later as the object began to gain speed & climb. 

“As the object climbed & gained speed the humming sound seemed to become more intense. The sighting lasted perhaps 20 seconds. When last seen the object was moving toward the northwest & was some 40 degrees above the horizon. B could see what appeared to be a dark band or rim around the center of the object. The UFO was aluminum in color & reflected the diffused sunlight. An antenna is visible at the top of the rear section. “The object was stable during flight. After the object disappeared the observer paced the distance from the point of observation to the area where it had ascended, the distance was about 300 feet. He estimated the diameter at 25 feet, with a thickness of 8 feet. About 15 minutes after the object disappeared, two F-104's flew over the area at very low altitude, they made one pass, flying toward the southeast. These aircraft were also seen by others in the area. 45 minutes after the incident, a single engine aircraft flew over the area from the northeast toward the southwest, it was not a military aircraft. The fire resulted in about $600.00 damage to the tent & equipment, B claimed.

“B stated that he always carried a camera around his neck while hunting in hopes of photographing a deer. The camera used was an Argoflex 620 twin lens. The main lens is an Argus Coated Verex, 75 mm f/4.5 Anastigmat. Shutter speeds from time to 1/200 second. Apertures f/4.5. f/6.3, f/9, f/12.7, f/18. Witness stated that he probably used a shutter speed of 1/50 second & an aperture of f/8 (which would be f/9). If the camera was focused at infinity (he said, he usually left the focus there in case he should see a deer & could grab a quick photo) the depth of field would be 41' to infinity. 

“The witness let Allen take the negatives to Northwestern University where it was examined & appeared to be normal in every respect. 

“Astronomical Data: Sun transit at 11h59 m, Az 149d, Alt 26d11 m N.
Weather Data: High scattered clouds, mostly thin, wind NNW at 5 to 10 mph, temperature at 1000 was 37d.” 

It was indeed a fascinating and compelling case and the beginnings a decades long focus on UFO “physical trace” cases for Ted Phillips.

One of my own earliest cases was also a “physical trace” case. I also would go on to focus on such cases. My case took place on the north coast of New South Wales at a place called Bungawalban.  

                         

The north coast area had become the focus of intriguing UFO phenomena during 1969.  There was something tangible for those like me who while curious enough had not actually witnessed UFOs.  There was a rash of unusual ground effects in the area, the most prominent being a large flattened saccaline crop site near Bungawalban found on April 17th.  The talk was of flying saucers and that this was a "saucer nest".   The fact the property involved, was owned by the local Member of Parliament, ensured the affair leapt into national prominence.   I joined the curious throng.  The 15-foot crop had been flattened in four distinct patches, the largest being about 60 feet by 15 feet.   Locals familiar with it ruled out lodging - a phenomenon that can affect crops in a similar manner.  Two night shift flood mitigation dredge employees working about a quarter mile north of the farm observed a glow in the sky in the direction of the saccaline patch, on the night of April 16th.   A neighboring farmer had also apparently observed "top-like objects" hovering or moving about in the area, on a number of nights prior to the discovery of the impressions.  While at the time direct evidence for a UFO correlation to the physical traces at Bungawalban was weak, I found the incident fascinating.  It helped galvanise my burgeoning interest into a more active research and investigation role.  A few years later I would learn of a striking UFO encounter at Harwood Island, also in the north coast region, which occurred on April 20th, 1969.  That incident suggested that the Bungawalban affair might indeed have been UFO related.   While intriguing the Bungawalban physical trace incident lacked one personal element for me.   I was not there when the crop was affected.  It was several days before I could get out there and certainly there were many people there before me. 

While fascinating the "nests" found lacked clear UFO connections. The case at Harwood Island, on the north coast, provided that missing dimension. The case remained hidden for a few years, until the witness, a local woman, wrote to me.

                        

On April 20th, 1969, 3 days after the Bungawalban find, the Harwood Island woman was out walking at about 7.30 pm.  She saw and heard a large patch of 2-year-old sugar cane rustling and waving violently, on what was a still night.  A very powerful beam of light came across the top of the cane and very slowly turned about a half circle until it was in front of the witness.  The woman felt as if some powerful force was lifting her off the ground and drawing her towards the source of the beam.  This "force" stopped when the "high beam" went out.  The woman found herself still on the ground.  She could then clearly see a strange object over the top of the cane. The "high beam" had been replaced by a sort of "low beam" and "cabin lights" emanating from a large helmet shaped object, situated only some 40 to 50 feet away, and about 8 to 9 feet above the top of the cane (which itself was about 8 to 12 feet high).  The woman described the object, "It was a dark shiny, grey colour all over, and the glow from the inside lights were pale yellow, pinkish red, and a very faint tint of green.  The glow came on to the brim of the object and around the head part of it.  Out of the top was this thin trail of smoke. Below the object the violent movement in the cane had given way to a mere slight rustling. It seemed that after about a minute the arrival sequence was totally reversed, with the violent movement in the cane reoccurring.  A whistling sound commenced then nothing.  The woman did not see the object depart, but assumed it just disappeared at fantastic speed.  Recollect that the witness said the experience had taken place at about 7.30 pm. Another woman and her daughter were fishing nearby, downstream from the Harwood bridge.  They saw "a very bright red light, with a whitish tail, which appeared to be suspended above the bridge.  We saw it for several seconds and then it just disappeared."  They said their sighting occurred around 8 pm, half an hour after the striking close encounter.  

                                           
When I came to live in Sydney in 1975 I was asked to join the committee of the UFO Investigation Centre by its co-ordinator David Buching. Given my experience in “physical trace cases” and my university background in chemistry David passed onto me a publication that had recently come into their hands. It was the 1975 Center for UFO Studies publication compiled by Ted Phillips – “Physical Traces associated with UFO Sightings.”  It listed 561 cases.  Its Australian listings were limited and I set about focusing on cases of this type in Australia.  In 1979 I presented a study of 237 accounts of Australian “physical traces.”  I included that study and expanded on it for a world wide review of such data, which was published in a 15 paged chapter – “Physical Traces” – in the 1987 book “UFOs 1947 – 1987 The 40-year search for an explanation” compiled and edited by Hilary Evidence with John Spencer. 

                                   

It was inevitable our paths would cross, because we were looking for the same things – physical evidence for UFOs. While we never met, Ted Phillips and I did correspond over the decades.  Our intersections, as it turned out, were more than just about UFO “landing” cases and physical traces. 

I would later see Ted turning to hunting UFOs in the field by way of trying to carefully evaluate if UFOs had a propensity to focus on specific localities, namely localised UFO flap areas, or UFO “hot zones.” Back in October 1975 I was presenting a paper to a UFO conference – UFOCON 1 in Terrigal, New South Wales (NSW): “The UFO Flap – a context for scientific study”, which built on my field work on the Dorrigo plateau in northern NSW, mainly at Tyringham-Dundurrabin and Kempsey during the early 1970s.

Bill Chalker at Tyringham

UFO sighting with photos late May 1973, at Tyringham

It was 1999 that Ted Phillips started investigating what he would call the “Marley Woods”, an area located in Oregon County, in the south of Missouri.  It became the subject of an extended study of what seemed a localised flap area – a UFO “hot zone” – it even had “physical traces.”

No wonder I admire the research and legacy that Ted Phillips has left us.  I hope we can make the full depth of it widely available.

One of Ted’s photos of his good friend Allen Hynek was recently incorporated in the cover of an excellent cultural study by MJ Banias “The UFO People – a curious culture” (2019).  

In my 1987 review I wrote, “The physical trace found in the wake of a UFO landing at Medford, Minnesota, on November 2, 1975, is an important one, particularly because of the nature of the analytical follow-up.  Dr. Edward Zeller, Professor of Geology, physics and Astronomy at the University of Kansas, Radiation Physics Division, Space Technology Laboratory, undertook thermo-luminescence testing of samples for radiation testing of samples.  “Some of the samples show almost ten times the amount of luminescence that others do and that’s unusual. We wouldn’t expect that level of variability in soil samples that under the microscope look very similar.  The Medford site samples look to be quite uniform initially, and therefore we expect them to have similar luminescent properties.  We find large scale variation in the glow curves, but no large scale variation in the microscopic appearance of the samples. The only thing we can say is that these high variability conditions are unusual.  Exactly what they mean, I can’t tell you.”  Dr. Zeller concluded, “Like so much of the other data which has been obtained on the UFO phenomenon, the results of the thermo-luminescence studies on the Medford case are inconclusive.  An anomaly seems to exist between the expected natural order of things and the observed relationships.  Unfortunately, inadequate information is at hand and convincing proof of the cause of the anomaly cannot be obtained.”  

Ted Phillips and Dr. J. Allen Hynek at the Medford site

My friend, Dr. Geoff Stevens, who worked at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Sydney site of Lucas heights undertook thermo-luminescence studies of at least 2 Australian UFO cases: Kettering, Tasmania in 1976 and Orange, NSW in 1977.  Neither indicated excessive temperature or radiation caused the “physical traces” found at each UFO encounter.  I had investigated the Orange case with Dr. Stevens on site.

(from "The Kettering Tasmania Landing - a study"

by Keith Roberts & Dr. Geoff Stevens, 

FSR, Vol. 24, No.3, November, 1978)

The Kettering UFO landing site (TUFOIC)

Orange 1977 investigators & site photo (UFOIC)

Striking UFO “physical trace” cases seem rare these days, but they do occur. When they do occur we should try to document them as best as we can. 

Here is one example I was involved with:
                                              

Coogee UFO landing 2008 

(my site photo with drawing (based on witness drawing) 

superimposed at event location)

(Bill Chalker, UFOIC)

 Bill Chalker at Coogee site at similar time of night (UFOIC)

Road surface repair at site of UFO encounter (UFOIC)

The incident occurred at about 4 am on February 29th 2008 at Coogee, a seaside Sydney suburb. A man walking down a street, observed a flash of light. In that direction he saw a large spherical shaped object sitting on the street T intersection. He could see a little man in a window at the top of object. The witness became frightened, retreating behind a large electrical signal box. The being appeared to move a lever, a “shutter” came down over the window area, and the object took off at tremendous speed at about a 45-degree angle. The bitumen road surface appeared to have a white circle effect left behind and at least one nearby tree appeared to have been burnt. The witness reported noticing heat coming from the object. The duration of the incident was about 5 minutes. The road surface was repaired soon after by local council road maintenance crew as the road is a very busy route mainly during the day. I met the witness on March 19th. I first visited the site on the night of March 19th and revisited the area on a number of occasions since then. I have samples of the burnt tree bark. I was also advised that soon after the incident a new electricity telegraph pole was placed at the intersection and repair work was undertaken on the electrical wiring connections. I was unable to establish if these matters are related to the February 29th event. The witness is a shy man of nervous disposition and seems unlikely to be the type that would make up a story of a UFO incident, and does not appear to have much knowledge of the UFO subject. I was therefore very struck by the similarity of the Coogee witness’s description and drawings to two overseas cases – Cussac, France (August 29, 1967) and Goffstown, New Hampshire, USA (November 2, 1973). The Goffstown NH 1973 encounter also occurred around 4 a.m.
                                    

The drawing of the Goffstown incident 

with the UFO hovering over the car 

was done by Brian James. 

See the APRO Bulletin January February 1974, pg. 6. 

The Cussac France 1967 encounter – the beings “floated” into the top of the UFO.

GEPA No.15, June 1968:

Fantastic interpretation of the entry of the "black dwarfs"

Boarding the sphere

(1) The first character rises, swings and enters, head first, 

in the sphere, imitates (2) by the second; the third straightens

(3) and does the same; the fourth rises and then descends (4).

This argues against the prevailing debunking explanation that the children saw a helicopter with commando crew re-entering via tethers. Yep, I’ve seen film of similar manoeuvres, but not quite through the rotor blades on top; usual to the lower sides, if you want your people to survive rotor blade chopping!
Compare the drawings of these encounters with the drawing based on the Coogee witness’s rough sketch, that I have superimposed onto the location the witness identified.
Even though UFO "physical trace" events seem rarer in recent decades, those that do occur should be carefully looked at.  I have been pleased to have contributed to helping define the UFO “physical trace” picture, that Ted Phillips so strikingly gave a strong focus to.  It reminds us that some UFOs or UAPs have a physical reality.  That is a strong and potent anchor point to investigate the wider and often stranger dimensions of the UFO mystery.
Ted Phillips provided a great legacy for serious UFO research – a focus on UFO landing “physical traces.” 

Ted Phillips (1942-2020) RIP

“The Phenomenon” unveiled

“The Phenomenon” is an excellent primer for people to get a good understanding of the nature of the UFO mystery.  It utilises a credible overview of the controversy, marshalling an impressive array of historical material, much of it striking, even to long time UFO researchers and historians of the field.  The end result is a compelling testament for the reality of UFOs, or UAPs, to utilise the more recent term for whatever is at the unexplained heart of the controversy. Since December 2017, when the New York Times effectively mainstreamed the debate about UFOs, with its story that focused on the sightings of “tic-tac” like objects observed doing impossible things during manoeuvres of the US Nimitz battle group off the coast of California during 2004, and the existence of a secret Pentagon UFO program – the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), much of discussion and commentary had focused on these two aspects, largely ignoring the extraordinary history of what had gone before. “The Phenomenon” provides a concise focus on the vast historical basis of the UFO controversy.  Remarkably, it goes beyond the threat imperative, presenting a fascinating historical trajectory targeted towards the premise of alien contact.  

When James Fox, the documentary’s director, allowed me to see the final edit on his new documentary “The Phenomenon” back in March 2020, I told him I was really impressed with what he and his team had achieved.

On my blog and Facebook I posted on 9 March 2020:

“I've had the opportunity to watch James Fox's new documentary "The Phenomenon" which is due out in September… The 1966 Westall school case is featured and in a way is book-ended with the fascinating 1994 Ruwa Zimbabwe case, with its theme of "contact" with some of the children of Ariel School - a potent way of ending the documentary. An extended credits follows, with a number of interspersed cuts of significant video comments. "The Phenomenon" is a strong UFO/UAP documentary, one of the best I think, which not only captures important key aspects of the current renaissance of UFO credibility, but also delivers a powerful summary of some of the classic touchstones of UFO reality. Through clever use of the extraordinary history of the UFO controversy as an empowering trajectory through a complex and troubled enigma - an entertaining, engaging and powerful statement about UFO/UAP reality. Be sure to check out "The Phenomenon" when it lands in a theatre or platform accessible to you.” 

With the impact of Covid, nothing was going to play out in an easy way.  Like almost everything we know and deal with, this UFO documentary release was affected. I held back on an extended review, particularly when there seemed to be distribution difficulties. However, now (October 2020), at last, its out there for all to see.

Here I share some personal takes on the documentary’s development and content, as they resonated with me, given my extended experience with UFO investigation, research and history.  It was clear to me that James Fox and his team worked incredibly hard to achieve an excellent final production.  

Back in early August, 2019, James shared with me his early cut on the 1966 Australian Westall school case, where a very large number of mainly school children, some teachers and locals had seen UFOs at or near the school.  Some also saw them at close range, others saw UFOs on the ground.

I commented: “Hi James, thanks for sharing this. You have done a good job with Westall particularly getting ___ (the science teacher who had witnessed part of the sighting and who was subsequently pressured not to talk about it) and ____ (a Melbourne engineer/business man who had taken an intriguing UFO photo 4 days earlier, that many thought was similar or identical to what was seen at the school) to talk. 

"The only concern I have is that on your commentary (I know you say your voice is temporary, but presumably somebody will be doing commentary narratives) just as you are saying that _____ asked that he not be identified you are floating in on (a newspaper story) centring his picture, his name in bold caption for the picture and his name is in the text of the story directly under the photo caption. Plus, in his own interview he self identifies himself in his voicing of the female student rushing into his class room saying "Mr. ____, Mr. ____". Given (he) still doesn't want to be identified I think the (newspaper story) should not be used like that and his own inadvertent self identification should be "cut out". I suspect … he would not be happy to see that level of identification, particularly when you acknowledge he doesn't want to be identified. Probably "the science teacher" would be enough? Anyway, you've done a great job. Look forward to seeing the end product. Best regards, Bill.”

James Fox interviewing the Westall school science teacher

James advised, “That will be taken care of in post (production). Absolutely will respect that. It’s rough-cut only. Blurry out name and when he says his name too. It will be handled 110% for sure.”

Indeed, it was.  That segment comes across as a powerful moment in the account of the Westall event, when the science teacher states, “It was not a mirage. There was something physical in the sky.  It was silver, it could hover, it could move slowly, it could move very rapidly. Eventually it moved away to the other side of the oval down behind some pine trees.  I was not then, nor ever have been able to use my knowledge of the world, nor my scientific training, to provide a rational explanation.”  He added, “There was a knock on the door one night, two older men, one in uniform, asked for my description of what I had seen. I was then told that I hadn’t seen anything, that I had made it all up, possibly because I was drunk, and that they would have to report that back to the education department and I would lose my job.  After that I was told that I would be prosecuted under the official secrets act, and I was told that there wasn’t anything there, when I knew there was, and that I had to keep quiet about it. Why did I have to keep quiet?” 

Early on, James Fox sent me a brief 23 second edit of myself talking about the 1966 Westall event, he indicated he was including in the documentary. 

James' editing of myself & and a drone view of the Westall Grange area

James Fox & Bill Chalker in Sydney 

on 14 September 2017

during filming for "The Phenomenon"

It had me stating: “A whole complex of events occurred surrounding this school at Westall, and I guess today, it kind of represents one of the more extraordinary cases where you have in excess of a hundred school children, locals in the area, school teachers, and others, reporting that they observed UFO activity at the school.” Ultimately, for the final version of the documentary, my interviews, which included Westall, the 1954 Sea Fury case and the 1959 Reverend William Gill case, did not make it in.  Such edits were sensible, given the limits of time.  In most cases, the witnesses themselves give an excellent account of the events and they didn’t need researchers adding commentary.

(images above and below: from "The Phenomenon")

Terry Peck demonstrating the size of the object 

she saw on the ground (aerial view)

Terry Peck drawing what she saw for "The Phenomenon"

In the case of the Westall event, Terry Peck’s account of encountering the UFO up close on the ground in front of her is striking, and when she stated it rose and turned on its edge, before departing at high speed, it may be an impressive validation of the Melbourne business man’s UFO photo taken a few days earlier at nearby Balwyn. He had captured it on edge. I had discussed his experience with him on a number of occasions. It was great to see him talking about it with James Fox and showing the original Polaroid photo. 

He concluded from the interactions with air force officers interviewing him and showing him other UFO pictures, that what he had seen and photographed back in April 1966, “did not come from Earth.”   

In an added nice touch, spanning generations, in James Fox’s documentary young students from the current Westall student body stood in as extras to recreate the excitement of the events back in 1966, while some of original student witnesses looked on describing what they had seen.  

From my blog in 2014: Westall '66 - UFO or HIBAL? The answer is perhaps not "blowing in the wind"

http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2014/08/westall-66-ufo-or-hibal-answer-is.html

During November, 2019, one of James Fox’s posts drew from me the following comments: “Congratulations James on the Phenomenon. The shot of you in front of the UFO tower - Dalian China? I have my own shot there… Looking forward to your take on the Phenomenon. Best wishes from OZ, Bill.” 

(I can't find the image that features James at the Dalian "UFO tower" site, 

but here is my photo at the same site taken during my visit in 2005)

He replied, “I’m going to include everyone (names and images) during credit roll that played a key roll in helping make this film a reality. We had to cut over an hour out in the past year.”

“Thanks James… I'm glad its preliminary release will take place this year (2020) - 50 years since 1969 -which for me, and I guess a lot of people, was an incredibly formative year. So much happening - the Condon report tried to bury the subject. Reading it for me was transformative. It was clear to me back then there was a huge disconnection between reality and the report's conclusions - Jack (Nicholson) got it back in 1969 with Easy Rider: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gSUNHive-o

“Easy Rider Talks UFO Cover-up” (even if he was a little chemically assisted)”

“We cover Condon (Dr. Edward Condon).  With Condon himself on camera!”

“Good one.”

“Saunders” (David Saunders, who was removed from the university study staff, when he exposed some of the deep problems with the Colorado University UFO study – he would publish his own dissenting report “UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee went wrong”).

“Even better”

“James McDonald too.”

“Looking forward to it.”

“Jacques Vallee was very involved helping guide us along the way.”

“I've just done a review of his latest forbidden Science calling it Mumurations of the Invisible College”

http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2020/06/ufos-and-paranormal-in-focus-today.html

By 16 December 2019:

“Hi James, I've been asked by New Dawn to do a piece for their upcoming UFO special. They want me to do something on the Chinese scene. I thought this would be an interesting way to also plug your doco as you went there and also attended the China gathering in Chongqing in July 2018 and also interviewed my friend Zhang Jingping as well. Did he elaborate on the 1997 Datong "UFO Crash" story? What can we expect in terms of what cases in China you may be covering? My deadline is only a couple of days, so I would be grateful for any input. Best wishes & keep us posted on release times and availability, Bill”

My friend Zhang Jingping 

with the 1997 Datong "UFO crash" witness

(photo by  Zhang Jingping)

The Phenomenon crew interviewing Zhang Jingping in China

“Bill, it comes with a heavy heart to say (at the 11th hour) we ditched most of China.  There simply wasn’t room. We can include a few broad stroke statements only at the end. It was yet another “kill your darlings” moment. PS typing this from a dark hotel room without glasses.”

“Thanks James for the Update. Sounds like there could be a lot "extras" on the DVD release - …. Do you recollect if Zhang Jingping raised the Datong crash from 1997 in talks with you, or was it lost somewhat in translation? Its sounds like the China/Russian initiative was "still born" with a partial resurrection via Gary Heseltine of UFO Truth magazine. He told me that the Moscow/China thing, fuelled by the Chongqing event of July 2018, failed to deliver, so the non-mainline China parties, including Moon Fong of Hong Kong ufology … have made new alliances. The original initiative, driven by … the earnest Jan Fan & his son - a World ET Contact Coalition, seemed to be mirrored by what I experienced at Jan Fan's World UFO conference in Dalian in 2005… Something may emerge from the new Contact initiative, but egos & pride will be damaged if it preceded without main land connections.”

My New Dawn article emerged as “Lost in Translation or the Devouring Dragon?” covering these and other aspects of the Chinese UFO story.

 

Some of the edited out material is interspersed amongst the closing credits.  These and the credits are well worth your close attention.  They are full of fascinating details. So watch the documentary to very end.

I further wrote, “Sounds like you were drawing in good stuff ... a difficult edit job.”

James indicated, “Will do a 10-part miniseries with everyone as they all ended up on edit room floor which killed me. Film was too long and we had to make some tough decisions.”

In March, 2020 I wrote to James, “I understand and appreciate its a great moment for you. I really am looking forward to seeing what you and your team have put together. In the last few years I've seen the view of the phenomenon skewed and narrowed via the new "UAP" lens and focused around the Nimitz/AATIP/TTSA "threat" narrative.” 

James responded, “You will NOT be disappointed. Remember Jacques Vallee was intimately involved.”

I replied, “I'm hoping your documentary will expand that currently skewed narrative and restore the worldwide narrative and its rich and complex history. I admired Jacques involvement with “Witness of another world” - a brilliant documentary, but of course that was focused on the individual experience of one man, but beautifully done.”

 

Given my physical science chemistry background, I was pleased to see James Fox’s documentary cover aspects of the question of whether cases yield physical evidence. Dr. Jacques Vallee and Dr. Garry Nolan are filmed discussing their work on UFO related material samples collected by Vallee, which utilised Stanford University’s (School of Medicine) multi-parameter ion beam imager, which appears to be yielding intriguing results, that focus on what seems to be specific manufactured utilisation of unusual element isotope ratios. Their words were understandably cautious and await peer review and eventual detailed publication. While tantalising, no real information or data was supplied on this sample work, but one can see from some of the sample identification, which includes Council, Bogota, Muestra, Sierra & Gateau, that some intriguing cases are being examined.  

(images from "The Phenomenon" dealing with the Vallee/Nolan material testing)

The best case in this category, covered in the documentary, is described as “the case that changed everything”, namely the 1964 case of police officer Lonnie Zamora at Socorro. Controversy haunts this case, but it deserves attention.  Several aspects get addressed, but unstated in the documentary is the controversy about “material” recovered at the Socorro site. My old friend Ray Stanford addressed some of this in his research, but material went missing, including some that had been made available for analysis. James Fox hints he pursued this angle and its seems that maybe Lonnie Zamora himself may have had some of the material and perhaps some of it it may be made available for further analysis, this time in a more controlled fashion.  Let’s hope so.

Ray Stanford supplied me with 

this striking drawing of the Zamora event 

(drawing by John Lucas & colourised by Ray Stanford)

The Socorro UFO recreated in "The Phenomenon"

Lonnie Zamora at the site of the Socorro event

The powerful nuclear “threat” connection is presented in some detail with due credit given to the outstanding research of Robert Hastings, referencing his book “UFOs and Nukes.”  The “threat” thread is continued with the more recent focus on the Nimitz case.  

The litany of “lost opportunities” for real open and focused serious science gets covered. It is an area I have addressed often, such as recently in UFO Truth, “1969: The Great UFO Daze of Oz”, and expanded on my OZ Files blog: 

http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2020/09/1969-great-ufo-daze-of-oz.html  

Here was a focus on the Condon Report which tried to bury the UFO mystery in 1969. 

“The Phenomenon” addresses this with interviews and commentary by Colonel William Coleman (a former public information officer for the USAF Project Bluebook), a great contemporary interview with Dr. James McDonald, Dr. Jacques Vallee and Colonel Robert Friend (head of Project Bluebook (1958-1962)). The collective impact of their commentary was that the Condon Report was a sham.   

As I pointed out in my opening paragraph, remarkably it is the documentary’s fascinating historical trajectory, targeted towards the premise of alien contact, that will probably leave the biggest impact. Bolstered by the coverage of the 1964 Socorro case and the 1966 Westall school case, the contact trajectory leads us to the “contact enigma”, prefaced briefly with a tilt to the fascinating Rev. Gill sightings at Boianai Papua New Guinea of 1959, then ending with the striking events in Zimbabwe in 1994 at Ariel school. 

http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2015/01/rev-william-gill-and-1959-boianai.html

The Ariel school coverage is powerful and emotive. I recollect Dr. John Mack and his associate Dominque Callimanopulos showing Peter Khoury and me, in Australia, the uncut interview footage they had just secured in Zimbabwe. 

Lisel & John Mack

Lisel's sketch

Lisel in "The Phenomenon"

It was remarkable then, and still is now, with the impressive juxtaposition of then and now, as many of the young students are interviewed again, revealing they are still deeply affected by the 1994 events. It is wonderful to learn that the Randall Nickerson’s long awaited documentary “Ariel School Phenomenon” will soon be emerging.

Dr. John Mack, Peter Khoury, Bill Chalker & Dominque Callimanopulos

“The Phenomenon” is well worth your viewing attention and more importantly it merits your deeper contemplation and confrontation with the well over due fact that UFOs (or UAPs) deserve serious attention.  It is gratifying that the documentary is emerging at a time when that serious attention is gathering significant momentum and traction in the mainstream.