Talk:Lonnie Zamora incident

message: I have removed the Unsolved Mysteries link, as the Zamora case is no longer mentioned on the site.NickJones 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article's name, simply "Lonnie Zamora", in my opinion does not adequately describe or indicate that this an article about a UFO incident. IMO, the article's name should be changed to something that better indicates what the article is actually about - "Socorro UFO incident", or "Lonnie Zamora UFO incident" would be better and more adequate. Other Wikipedia articles on UFO incidents do normally use UFO in their article title. Just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.187.153 (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change?

message: This article seems to be extremely heavily infected by slanted and embellished accounts that have appeared in popular UFO books.
I propose to fix this by going to the best sources we have, Project Blue Book and Condon, then once the facts have been described going to the best of the many commentaries and describing those.  Essentially this will be a complete rewrite. --TS 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme bias

message: There seems to be an unnecessary focus on sources who adhere to the fringe "extra-terrestrial" view.  Sources include NICAP, Ann Druffel (a longtime NICAP member and author of "How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction"), Ray Stanford who has described himself among other things as a "research psychic", and Brad Steiger who says he "grew up in a haunted house with thumps, bumps, doors opening and closing, and men and women walking around all night in period costume".  There is a very serious problem.  Most of these references are valueless to Wikipedia because they are blatantly unreliable.
Some information comes from "The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial" by Jerome Clark.  That isn't so bad as sources go, but it's an encyclopedia so it isn't ideal, being a digest of other sources.  --TS 12:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Existing cited sources

message: Here are some sources that I think we could make more of:
* St Petersburg Times, April 29, 1964
** Just five days after the sighting, this includes a contemporary quotation from Hynek.
* Forbidden Science by Jacques Vallée (Google Books)
** "In the meantime the Air Force continues to look into a curious fact I have uncovered: the insignia seen by patrolman Zamora looks very much like the logo of AstroPower, a subsidiary of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation.  I found the logo in an ad they recently published in an engineering journal.  I am suspicious of this aspect of the sighting.  To my knowledge there has never been a genuine report of a saucer with an insignia painted on the side.  Could the Socorro object be a military prototype?" (p.110-111, Chicago, 27 September, 1964)
** "It bore an insignia which closely resembled the logo of Astropower, a company founded about 1961 as a subsidiary of Douglas, under the presidency of the propulsion expert Y. C. Lee." (p. 286)
** "I thought of AstroPower and the McDonnell Douglas company, who is rumored to have a secret team, employing a physicist named Stanton Friedman to collect physical data in a hush-hush manner." (p.304, Chicago, 2 August, 1967)
* Hector Quintanilla's personal account, also here.
* The Search for Life in the Universe by Donald A. Goldsmith, Tobias Owen
* Watch the Skies! By Curtis Peebles
I think it's very important to use reputable sources in this article.  --TS 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested sources

message: There is advocacy in the current version of the account, contained in the section called "The Encounter" (testimonial as to Zamora's trustworthiness, for instance) and there are misleading statements.  For instance, the account describes "two human-like figures" (suggesting that they were not human) whereas Zamora clearly described them as "two people", implying that they were human.  He also said they were "normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids."  He does not say or imply that the figures were non-human or merely "human-like".  --TS 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with summary of Zamora's sighting

message: Alone in his patrol car, Sergeant Lonnie Zamora  was chasing a speeding car due south of Socorro, New Mexico on April 24, 1964, at about 5:45 p.m, when he "heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to southwest some distance away--possibly a 1/2 mile or a mile."  Thinking a local dynamite shack might have exploded, Zamora broke off the chase and went to investigate.  
Though Zamora says he did not pay much attention to the flame, that the sun was "to west and did not help vision", and he was wearing green sunglasses over prescription glasses, in interviews with Air Force investigators for Project Blue Book he goes to some lengths to describe the flame:
He describes the noise as "a roar, not a blast. Not like a jet. Changed from high frequency to low frequency and then stopped. Roar lasted possibly 10 seconds" as he approached on a gravel road.  " Saw flame about as long as heard the sound. Flame same color as best as recall. Sound disctinctly from high to low until it disappeared." He explains that his car windows were down.  Zamora notes no other possible witnesses except possibly the car in front, which he estimates might have heard the noise but not seen the flame because it would be behind the brow of the hill from their viewpoint.
Zamora struggled to get his car up the steep hill, and on the third attempt, which was successful, he noted no further noise.  For the next 10-15 seconds he proceeded west, looking for the shack whose precise location he did not recall.  It was then that he noticed what at first he took to be an overturned car:
Zamora only caught a brief sight of the two people in white coveralls beside the "car":
Zamora drove towards the scene, radioing his dispatcher to say he would be out of his car "checking the car in the arroyo."  He stopped his car, got out, and attended to the radio mike, which he had dropped, then he started to approach the object.
Keeping the object in view he ran behind his car, bumping his leg on the rear fender and dropping his glasses, and continued running northwards away from the object, which was still near the ground.  He now gives a more detailed description of the object:
Zamora then describes how the object took off:
Zamora went back to his car and contacted the Sheriff's office by radio:
He then watched the object fly away, swiftly but silently and without flame:
Zamora inspected the area and was soon joined by a colleague, Sergeant Chavez, who did not see the object:
Zamora then says that he had noticed that the object had what looked like legs:
Zamora then tries to account for the disappearance of the two people:
----
This version quotes Zamora's own words extensively, avoiding the trap of filtering Zamora's account through personal preconceptions. --TS 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised summary

message: This section is sourced entirely to links to serpo.org. This looks like it fails WP:SELFPUB, partly because the source mentioned on the site is anonymous. Also, it breaches WP:OR. Furthermore, some of the material is simply copied from serpo.org - for example the paragraph beginning "As for Roswell, it occurred, but not like the story books tell." consists of two paragraphs taken from page 2 of this PDF with the only change being the two paragraphs in the original are merged into one. The paragraph beginning "We got the real startling news:" is also a copy, this time from page 122 of the same PDF where the first two paragraphs of the original are again merged into one for the article. The paragraph beginning "The landing date was set for April 24, 1964." is copied verbatim from the first paragraph of page 124 of the same PDF. This looks like a case of WP:COPYVIO. Autarch (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the above problems and the fact that the section relies on the one questionable source, I've removed the section from the article entirely. Autarch (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roswell connection section 

message: I removed the copyright violation notice, since this looks like a misunderstanding.  The website in question that was supposedly copied was itself merely reproducing Zamora's Air Force statement, which is public domain and has no copyright.  There was an illustration of the insignia on the original typewritten statement, so the website added "(see illustration)" to the statement, which seemed to be copied into the Wikipedia article when the statement itself was being quoted.  This is not some major copyright infringement, but I removed it anyway from the quote.Dr Fil (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation notice removal

message: Per discussion here, the article gives massively undue weight to unreliable sources, for example, NICAP and a credulous book written by non-notable ufologist Ray Stanford. In addition, there are excessive copypasted quotes from Zamora lifted from what is rumored on this Talk page to be a US Government/US Air Force source document (?) Other problems involve sections that synthesize an argument that calculations of speed and acceleration, local weather conditions, and evidence of "fused sand" rule out any conventional explanations. IMO the article is a good case for WP:NUKEANDPAVE and reconstruction using  independent sources to construct an objective article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lonnie Zamora incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640508_pg2.htmFBI
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123092032/http://www.caminorealheritage.org/PH/0808_socorro_ufo.pdf to http://www.caminorealheritage.org/PH/0808_socorro_ufo.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205220254/http://nicap.org/zamoradir.htm to http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article, as written, is quite sympathetic to pro-UFOlogy fringe views in general. No doubt that's because it is largely sourced to websites such as UFODigest.com, roswellproof.com, theparacast.com, Lulu.com, and Nicap.org, and books such as “Firestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science” (by UFO abduction proponent Ann Druffel), and “Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry” (by UFOlogist Ray Stanford). Additionally, large sections presenting pro-UFO evidence and analysis are unsourced. A massive cleanup is needed, and the article trimmed back to only what objective WP:FRIND sources can support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:UNDUE]] problems 

message: I will shortly begin an effort to resolve the numerous problems of WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, verbosity, etc., that currently dominate this article. This will include the substantial removal of passages that can only be referenced to unreliable sensationalist/pseudoscience/woo sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Here's some sources to get you started: , ,  and also  by Curtis Peebles which has a chapter on the "Socorro UFO" that cites investigations by Philip Klass. I'll help as I can. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - those sources are quite helpful. I am now delayed by RL, but perhaps I can begin the process later today. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. No rush. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I have finally begun the process, my progress will be slow as I remain somewhat buried under RL. One thing is certain: content sourced only to that Ray Stanford book is going to disappear, as there seems no rational (earthly?) basis for believing anything Stanford ever said or wrote. Stanford is/was a truly unique practitioner of pseudoscientific woo, limiting himself not simply to other people's UFO stories, but reporting his own experiences with teleportation devices, CIA conspiracies, time travel, and psychic communications with not only extraterrestrials, but Jesus Christ himself. Colorful, yes. Reliable, no. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I restructured the opening narrative to be more encyclopedic and to report all that can be verifiably stated as fact, in WP's voice. The rest are claims, and should be attributed to Zamora or whoever made them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I am done, at least for now. New sources have been added, and material attached to unquestionably unreliable sources (e.g., Drufel, Milione, Clark, and of course Stanford) has been removed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much improved! Thanks for your attention to this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up attempt 

message: The symbol is a "this side up" symbol and is universal. It is on shipping boxes and other types of containers. https://vixra.org/pdf/2006.0089v1.pdf Airpeka (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of symbol seen on the side of the craft 

message: An IP earlier removed sourced content, since restored, concerning Zamora's request that a dispatcher look out a window. I'm uncertain if this is a reliable source (it probably isn't), but here (item 7) is a Project Blue Book reproduction of a clipping that supports the content. A possible answer to the IP's edit summary question ("") is that Zamora probably wanted someone to look out a window. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have sworn that particular detail was cited to the Socorro El Defensor Chieftain source last time I looked. But, you're right, the archives seem to support it. I'm not sure why it's significant enough to be highlighted, so it wouldn't bother me to see it go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose it helps support the perhaps unnecessary idea that Zamora wasn't a prankster. But I agree that it seems a minor detail. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, it's part of a section that describes the "incident" as objectively reported by the police department (i.e. various radio interactions with Zamora followed by officers arrival on site) — versus Zamora's claims of what happened. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have access to the 1964 source from El Defensor Chieftain (I have been unsuccessful in my searches for it), so it isn't clear to me if the information in that paragraph originates from the police department, directly from Zamora or Lopez, or a combination. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a repro of the 1964 Chieftan story . No mention of the dispatcher interaction. So I looked back thru the diffs to see where the material in that section came from: . It was uncited, but it is contained in an excerpt from Project Blue Book that was posted on the nicap.org site here. So, we could leave it in and cite it to the Project Blue Book reproduction archive link you posted above and call it WP:PARITY. Or take out the section altogether. I have no preference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are far better than me at finding sources! Thanks for that. I agree that Parity is reasonable here, at least for using the Blue Book reproduction(s) - I would have a tough time convincing my fingers to type 'nicap' as a reliable source. I will make the citation change. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sources changed to encompass the entirety (I hope) of the "Incident" section. Please improve/correct as necessary. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look out the window 

message: The article mentions a few people who have given explanations for the case. While these are valid theories and should be mentioned, I notice that the article lacks context that, in my opinion, renders these theories worthless. I believe that someone whose only source was this article would walk away from it with a horribly misinformed view.
I'm not gonna go tinfoil hat here, but as for the "mirage of a star" one, that doesn't even attempt to explain the indentations, footprints, and burn marks on the ground. The college student hoax theory is pure speculation and doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since there were footprints found at the site, but no footprints or tire marks were found leading away after a thorough investigation.
It just seems wrong that the explanation section is so heavily biased towards people who want to dismiss it as nothing, as if the only alternative is believing it's aliens. I feel that if I added these counterarguments myself, it would be in my own voice, and I would need to link someone else arguing with the debunking, which I doubt I could find on the internet. Adog312 (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article mention counterarguments to the "debunking"?