From: Kyle King <kyleking.nul>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:00:25 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:03:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Socorro & Balloons - King


>From: Rich Reynolds <rrrgroup.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:59:43 -0500
>Subject: Socorro & Balloons [was: Experts Divided On The UFO Dilemma]

<snip>

>Neither Jerry nor David think the material is there. But even a
>cursory glance at the Goddard material and document listings
>from the database show that balloon hybrids existed in the early
>1960s which were similar to that which Lonnie Zamora
>described... and they were heavy too!

Rich, The craft noted on the Nott site are indeed heavy...and
they have enormous envelopes to carry them. If you are implying
that Zamora somehow confused a giant gossamer gas-filled
envelope for an overturned car, I think you are trying to shoe-
horn an explanation, and not even that...you want others to find
the shoe-horn. And I would sincerely like to see the hybrid
balloon which is similar to that which Lonnie Zamora described.
Nothing I have found thus far fits.

>My general position, over the years, is to lead persons to the
>watering hole so they can drink for themselves. My telling
>people that their thrist is quenched doesn't convince them that
>is is. But if they dig out information on their own, they will
>know that it's valid...or not.

Rich, the danger of this approach is that you haven't found such
evidence, and pointing others to a voluminous database and
saying "there ya go" is a weak substitute for saying the case
isn't closed. And if you have evidence that is compelling, the
evidence will quench the thirst, not your telling. Produce the
evidence. Don't just throw a bone and yell "fetch".

>My argument here is that David Rudiak and Jerry Clark seem to
>have dismissed the balloon possibility for Socorro. The matter
>is closed for them, pretty much. But I'm thinking it may not
>be... that's all.

Rich, I think David and Jerry, and Ray Stanford for that matter,
listened to Lonnie Zamora's report. If he says he saw something
that "looked like a balloon", then he obviously knew what a
balloon looked like, and that what he saw was not a
balloon... but something that looked like one. Kenneth Arnold
didn't see saucers flying in the air. He saw something that
looked like saucers, since he knew what a saucer looked like. In
fact, he didn't say they looked like them, but that they moved
like them (when skipping across a pond). From then on though, he
saw "flying saucers". Zamora saying the thing he saw looked like
a balloon is a similar statement in my view. How would you
describe what he saw except by way of that with which you are
familiar. His reactions were not that of a person who saw a
balloon.

Zamora didn't say it was a balloon, but that his first
impression was of an overturned car. I would accept a balloon
hypothesis if there were a balloon of any era that could carry
two men and a substantial undercarriage with an envelope that
could in any circumstance be termed as appearing as an
overturned car from even a few hundred feet away. I will add
that this is assuming that the balloon was not being launched.
When the envelope is laid out for filling, there is a period
where the envelope has such an appearance, but it is far from
the gondola, and in the Zamora sighting, the balloon had touched
down only minutes before... the envelope was obviously not
mostly deflated, since the platform and the men would have
literally hurtled to the ground if so. And if it was only
partially inflated, it could not have taken off as described in
the time alotted. Remember that these early balloons were
extremely fragile. Two men couldn't deflate it in the field and
refill it in minutes, on hard rough-scrabble terrain without
damage.

I have gone over the database you cited, plugging in many
different search terms.

I have found no record of any balloon able to carry what was
required, without having an envelope too large to be mistaken
for an overturned car. And I mean much too large. Zamora would
more likely have described a huge silver ball bearing, a
gigantic one-cup brassiere, or an enormous chrysalis or cocoon
than a car. Again, the balloons cited in your database which
could have carried the required payload would have been enormous
at ground level. If not in girth, then in length. I find it
beyond comprehension that someone could see such a thing and
confuse it for an automobile in any condition.

Was the Socorro sighting a balloon? Maybe. Is the answer in the
database you cite? Well, I don't know, but I am fairly certain
that no balloon has yet flown which exhibits the characteristics
noted by Zamora. Your database does not seem to reveal one that
I can locate.

One thing is clear. New Mexico is one balloon-laden state. I
read in your database where even balloons launched from Japan
crossed over New Mexico. And of course the largest annual
balloon event is held there. New Mexico obviously seems a good
place for balloons.

Maybe what's good for the ballooning "goose" is good for the UFO
"gander".


Best Regards,

Kyle