Socorro

What the file holds

Project Blue Book’s papers on the case make up one unit in the National Archives catalogue, “Socorro, New Mexico, April 1964” (NAID 302532129, 168 images):

• the record card (image 4). Image 1 is the card of another sighting: a light seen on the night of 25 April, concluded “Other Ground light”;
• two letters from the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) to SAFOI at Headquarters USAF, of 13 May 1964 (images 8–10) and 28 May 1964 (images 13–16);
• the reply from the headquarters of Project Cloud Gap, 20 May 1964 (image 28);
• a letter of 29 April 1965 from J. Allen Hynek to Donald Menzel and Lyle Boyd (images 33–38), and Hynek’s report on a trip to Socorro on 12–13 March 1965 (images 39–48);
• the tabs of the investigation of April 1964, as listed on image 49: tab A, “Lt Holder Report”, with sketch maps, drawings and plans (images 50–58) and Zamora’s account (images 59–61); tab B, TSgt David N. Moody’s report (images 62–64); tab C, Hynek’s report (images 65–72); the soil analysis of the Aeronautical Systems Division (images 73–75); and a handwritten list of attachments D and E (image 76).

The rest of the unit (images 77–168) is press clippings, FTD’s letters of May 1964 asking aerospace firms about lunar module projects, with their replies, and papers of 1968 on a search for a tourist said to have seen the object (our survey of the images).

The FBI’s file 62-HQ-83894, in the US releases, holds what its Albuquerque office sent to Washington: an urgent teletype of 25 April 1964, a teletype of 27 April, two airtels of 28 April and a memorandum of 8 May (Section 9, pp. 221–238); the report of 8 May by Special Agent D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr., with Zamora’s account and two sketches of the site (Serial 438); and a letter from J. Edgar Hoover of 26 January 1965 (Section 10, pp. 37–38). The Blue Book papers spell the agent’s name Burns or Barnes.

24 April 1964, in Zamora’s account

The account that Byrnes typed “the night of April 24, 1964, and early morning, April 25, 1964” (Serial 438, p. 8) begins at “About 5:45 P. M.”, when Zamora “started to chase a car due south from west side of Courthouse. Car was apparently speeding” (p. 8). He “heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to the southwest some distance away--possibly a half mile or a mile. Came to mind that a dynamite shack in that area had blown up.” (p. 9) He gave up the chase and took “the rough gravel road” up a hill towards the flame (p. 10):

“Suddenly noted a shiny type object to south about 150 to 200 yards. It was off the road. At first glance, stopped. It looked, at first, like a car turned upside down. Thought some kids might have turned over. Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object.” (p. 11)

“These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.” (p. 12) He radioed the sheriff’s office, “possible 10-44 (accident)” (p. 12), got out of the car and heard a roar: “Flame was under the object. Object was starting to go straight up--slowly up.” “Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color.” The object “was smooth--no windows or doors”, and he “Noted red lettering of some type” (p. 13). It flew off low, “and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet” (p. 15). Of the second, close view he said: “possibly twenty seconds--just a guess” (p. 16).

The FBI’s teletype of the next day, 25 April, puts it at “ABOUT FIVE FIFTY PM MST” and has “TWO PERSONS IN APPARENT WHITE COVERALLS WERE ADJACENT TO OBJECT.” (Section 9, p. 226) It describes the object as “OVAL SHAPED, SIMILAR TO FOOTBALL, POSSIBLY TWENTY FEET LONG” and adds: “NO OTHER WITNESSES KNOWN TO NOISE, FLAME OR OBJECT.” (p. 228)

The agent’s report says that Byrnes was at the State Police office in Socorro on other business; that “At approximately 5:45 to 5:50 P. M.” the sheriff’s radio operator came in with Zamora’s call about an object which “landed and has taken off”; and that Byrnes went to the site after finishing his work “at approximately 6:00 P. M.” (Serial 438, p. 2). It says Zamora “was noted to be perfectly sober and somewhat agitated over his experience” (p. 2). Albuquerque’s airtel of 28 April records what the state police sergeant, M. S. Chavez, and the undersheriff, Jim Luckie, found when they answered his calls (Section 9, p. 235):

“They noted several small burning areas at the site and the indentations. No one else was noted in the area. Officer ZAMORA, a well regarded and capable officer, was noted to be perfectly sober and thoroughly frightened.”

The marks, measured that evening

Byrnes described what he saw at the site:

“These depressions appeared regular in shape, approximately sixteen by six inches rectangular. Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line. Each depression was approximately two inches deep and pushed some earth to the far side.”

“There were three circular marks in the earth which were smooth, approximately four inches in diameter and penetrated in the sandy earth approximately one-eighth of an inch as if a jar lid had gently been pushed into the sand.” (Serial 438, p. 3)

Three burned patches of grass lay inside the four depressions and one outside them. Chavez, as Moody recorded it, “found four fresh indentations in the ground and several charred or burned bushes” (image 62). The teletype of 25 April puts the depressions in a “RECTANGULAR TYPE PATTERN AVERAGING ABOUT TWELVE FEET APART.” (Section 9, pp. 226, 228) It names the officer who took the matter in hand: “CAPTAIN R. T. HOLDER, UP RANGE COMMANDER, STALLION RANGE CENTER, SOCORRO, N.M., ADVISED AT ONCE APRIL TWENTY FOUR AND IS HANDLING.” (p. 228)

The Albuquerque office’s memorandum of 8 May says how the marks were recorded. Holder “observed the site of the incident, 4/24/64, and made measurements while SA D. ARTHUR BYRNES, JR. was placing rocks around the four earth indentations and around one other mark at the site.” And: “Captain HOLDER diagramed his measurements of the scene.” (Section 9, p. 237) The memorandum encloses “a copy of charts made by Captain HOLDER of the pertinent area” (p. 237).

Tab A of the Blue Book file holds those papers (images 50–58): two typed sketch maps of the sighting; Zamora’s signed drawings of the object and of the insignia, “This is the insignia I observed. Lonnie Zamora” (image 58); and plans of the marks. One plan gives the sides of the quadrilateral as 13 ft 2½ in, 9 ft 7½ in, 11 ft 10½ in and 14 ft 9½ in, with its angles (image 57); another places the four burns among the four marks, with a note, only partly legible on the scan, that no other indications of a blast were noted (image 56). The two sketches in the FBI’s Serial 438 carry no name, but they repeat the measurements of these two plans (pp. 38 and 40 against images 57 and 56); we read them as Holder’s drawings, the “charts” the memorandum encloses.

Hynek, whom FTD sent to Socorro on 28 April (image 14), wrote: “I questioned Mr Art Burns of the FBI, and several others who had been on the site within the first hours after the sighting as to the alleged freshness of the tracks. They were all of the opinion that the tracks were, indeed, fresh.” And: “Although Zamora was the only witness to the actual sighting, nine people in all saw the markings.” (image 70) By then the area “had been so badly trampled over” that he “could make no assesment [sic] of the burned areas” (image 69).

What the Air Force made of it in May 1964

Capt. Hector Quintanilla had TSgt David N. Moody assist; Moody went to Socorro with Maj. William R. Conner, “the Officer at Kirtland AFB responsible for unidentified flying object investigations”. FTD’s letter of 28 May reports the result: “Information obtained during this investigation revealed that the sighting was legitimate and there was no indication that a hoax was being perpetrated.” (image 13) Moody wrote: “No conclusion as to cause could be reached by myself or Major Conner.” (image 64)

FTD’s letter of 13 May 1964, signed for the commander by Col. Eric T. de Jonckheere:

“It is my belief that Mr Zamora is telling the truth and that hee [sic] did in fact see a man made object which probably belongs to one of the services. There is no indication that this vehicle which Mr Zamora saw came from outer space, now or ever.” (image 9)

The letter of 28 May goes through the candidates. Military helicopters were eliminated, civilian ones not completely (image 14); VTOL aircraft were not eliminated, and lunar module configurations “conform not only to the description of the object but also have girder like legs or pods which would produce markings such as those found at Socorro” (image 15). Its conclusion: “Evaluation of the data contained in the various investigative reports confirms that a sighting definitely did occur. The description of the object and flight characteristics are coincident with that expected of a helicopter, VTOL or Lunar Module configuration. Current investigative efforts are being made to establish or identify the specific vehicle which caused the sighting.” (image 15) FTD asked its liaison officer at White Sands whether “a vehicle from a classified project at White Sands could have contributed to the sighting” (image 16), and wrote to aerospace firms about their lunar module projects (images 131–157). The record card, which looks back on what was “Initially believed”, ends that line of inquiry: “Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site.” (image 4)

Cloud Gap. The FBI’s first teletype added: “MILITARY PRESENTLY CONDUCTING OPERATION KNOWN AS CLOUD GAP WHICH IS JOINT OPERATION DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ARMY CONTROL, DISARMAMENT AGENCY IN SOUTHWEST STATES INCLUDING NEW MEXICO. NOT KNOWN IF ABOVE INCIDENT RELATES TO CLOUD GAP.” (Section 9, p. 228) Two days later, in a teletype that also reports an incident at La Madera on 26 April: “OSI, ALBUQUERQUE ADVISES INCIDENT NOT KNOWN TO BE CONNECTED WITH MILITARY OR OPERATION CLOUD GAP.” (p. 221) “MILITARY OFFICERS CONTACTED ADVISE THE TWO INCIDENTS REPORTED ARE NOT A PART OF A MILITARY EXERCISE TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND TO DATE HAVE NO EXPLANATION.” (p. 224) On 20 May 1964 Cloud Gap’s headquarters answered Blue Book: “Cloud Gap operations were conducted in an area about a hundred miles north of Socorro, New Mexico.” Of the Navy’s RA-5C surveillance flights in the area, “a check on such flights revealed none were flown on 24 April 1964 in connection with Cloud Gap.” (image 28)

What the FBI did

The teletype of 25 April ends: “ALBUQUERQUE CONDUCTING NO INVESTIGATION, IS MAINTAINING LIAISON WITH MILITARY.” (Section 9, p. 228) Two airtels went out on 28 April. The Director’s, to Albuquerque, reads: “Assure facts this matter are furnished to local Air Force.” Its note: “Our policy is not to investigate but assure that Air Force is cognizant.” (p. 232) Albuquerque’s, to the Director, reports that Conner and Moody were “impressed by Officer ZAMORA’s sincerity” and “cannot explain Officer ZAMORA’s observations” (p. 233). It says that a copy of Zamora’s statement was kept at the Albuquerque office “as well as a small sample of charred material taken at the scene”, and adds: “An unusual observation made at the Socorro scene was that there appeared to be no ‘blast’ effects. Between the burned spots were unburned areas, including patches of unburned brown range grass.” (p. 235)

In January 1965 Hoover answered a correspondent in London, J. A. Hennessey: “The presence of an Agent was simply to determine whether or not any violation may have occurred in which the FBI would have an interest, and for no other reason.” (Section 10, p. 37) The Bureau’s note on the letter: “The Albuquerque Office did not conduct any investigation other than to keep the Bureau advised and maintain liaison with the Air Force.” (p. 38)

The soil and the charred material

FTD’s letter of 28 May: “The soil samples obtained at the sighting were given to Dr J Allen Hynek by Capt Holder. They were turned over to Captain Quintanilla who in turn submitted them to ASD for analysis.” The analysis “revealed that there was no foreign material in the soil samples. Also, no chemicals were detected in the charred or burned soil which would indicate a type of propellant.” (image 14) The report of the Aeronautical Systems Division, dated 19 May 1964, gives its purpose as “Determination of the composition of the soil samples for the purpose of comparison” and concludes that there are “no significant differences in elemental composition between the different samples” (image 73). A check with a Geiger counter, Moody reports, showed that “no radioactivity count was present” (image 63).

The FBI kept its own “small sample of charred material” in Albuquerque (Section 9, p. 235); Hynek enclosed charred cardboard found at the site (image 69), and the list of attachments has “three (3) scraps burned cardboard” (image 76). Neither file holds any of the samples.

The photographs

Moody: “Sgt Chavez took polaroid pictures of the holes and area. These are available to us.” (image 63) He adds that Conner’s report would carry as attachments “Photos of the area, and specific slides taken that evening by a state Trooper accompanying Sgt Chavez to the scene” (image 64). Hynek’s report refers to a “Photograph No 12” as “a close-up of one of the markings, made very shortly after the craft had departed” (image 69), and also says: “Second is that no photographs were taken.” (image 72) The card answers “Photos” with “No” (image 4). The list of attachments has, under attachment E, two photographs of Zamora and 27 more black-and-white prints in three sizes (image 76, our reading and count).

None of those prints is in the scanned unit. Its photographs of the site are two printed reproductions, both captioned “Landing area at Socorro, New Mexico, taken April 25.” (images 115–116), and newspaper pictures. There were photographs of the marks; there is no photograph of the object; the originals are not in the file.

The hoax hypothesis

The file knows the hoax hypothesis from a letter of 19 February 1965 by Donald Menzel and Lyle Boyd. The letter is not in the file; Hynek’s reply of 29 April 1965 begins “At long last I am prepared to make a reply to your letter of February 19” (image 33), and his report on the trip of March 1965 sums it up: the speeding car was “a deliberate decoy”, and hoaxers released “a balloon with a cardboard or aluminum flying saucer attached thereto” (image 46).

The file’s answers:

• April 1964. The investigation by Moody and Conner, as FTD reported it, found “no indication that a hoax was being perpetrated” (image 13).
• The wind. “the wind was from the south, and the object went west. A balloon released at that time would have gone directly over town.” (image 46) Hynek had written the same in 1964: the object “had taken off either at right angles to the wind, or partially into the wind” (image 70).
• Who would have had to be in on it. “It is Quintanilla’s and my opinion that both Chavez and FBI agent Byrnes must have been in on the hoax if we adopt the hoax hypothesis.” (image 34) The search of the area that evening found “no automobile tire markings or markings of any sort in the area other than those located at the site of the alleged landing” (image 14).
• The apparatus. “No paraphernalia of a hoax were ever found. It would be rather hard to have done away with all tell-tale evidence, such as tubes of helium, release mechanism, etc.” (images 46–47)

One point in the file works the other way. As the object flew off, Zamora radioed the sheriff’s radio operator and, asked what it was, answered: “It looks like a balloon.” (Serial 438, p. 15) In Hynek’s report of 1965, “Chaves says that Zamora never described the thing as looking like a balloon.” (image 46)

In Hynek’s papers the would-be hoaxers are the town’s high school students: “Some of the high school students do have walkies-talkies” (image 34); “I do not believe that the Socorro high school students could have kept a secret this long.” (image 47) He did not close the question: “Sometimes confessions come years afterwards.” (image 38) Within the files there is no apparatus, no admission and no reconstruction that reproduces the marks, the flame and the sound.

What the file says about its label

The record card marks “Unknown” with an “x” and types “UNIDENTIFIED” on the “Other” line. Its comment:

“Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type cofiguration [sic]. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data.” (image 4)

FTD’s letter of 28 May 1964 proposes a statement by Capt. Hector Quintanilla “which may be released to the press”:

“Conclusion: The investigators at Wright-Patterson have not been able to identify or determine what type of vehicle or object Mr Lonnie Zamora observed on 24 April at Socorro, New Mexico. The object or vehicle displayed flight characteristics well within the State-of-the-Art and the sighting cannot be attributed to atmospheric or astronomical phenomena. In this respect, I can categorically state that the vehicle or object observed by Mr Lonnie Zamora was not an inter-planetary space vehicle visiting the planet Earth. This case is still open and the investigation is still in progress.” (image 15)

Hynek, in his report of April 1964, gave the view of one consultant: “It is therefore essential to consider this one of the major UFO sightings in the history of the Air Force’s consideration of this subject” (image 69). He warned that it would not be enough to call the object a new craft being tested or a secret manoeuvre “unless the log of such maneuvers is produced” (images 69–70), and set a condition for closing the case: “that the device finally selected as the culprit, be indeed capable of producing the marks observed.” (image 71) A year later, after Menzel and Boyd’s letter: “Both Quintanilla and I find it impossible to dismiss it as a hoax unless we have some evidence that there was a hoax.” (image 37)

Where it was

The FBI’s report places the call at “an area about one mile southwest of Socorro” (Serial 438, p. 2); in Zamora’s account the flame “was possibly a mile south of Socorro, in isolated area” (p. 9). Holder’s sketch maps place the site against the road and the dynamite shack but carry no coordinates (images 50–51), and no document gives any. The pin is our point about a mile southwest of OpenStreetMap’s point for Socorro (relation 171289, 34.0573° N, 106.8931° W), rounded to 34.05° N, 106.91° W. It marks a point about a mile from the town, not the site.

Why this scores where it does

Witnesses: 4. A police officer on duty, who reported by radio as it happened and gave a long account that night under questioning by an FBI agent and an officer from Stallion Range; the marks were seen within hours by officers who answered his calls. Not 5: he alone saw the object, “NO OTHER WITNESSES KNOWN TO NOISE, FLAME OR OBJECT.” (Section 9, p. 228), and the tourist reported by a service-station owner was never found: “Efforts to locate the unidentified tourist have not been successful” (image 16).

Radar: 0. Holder checked with the local radar sites and “was informed that there was no unidentified activity in the area during the time of the sighting” (image 14); in Hynek’s words, “no radars picked up the object” (image 72).

Optics: 1. Photographs of the marks were taken that evening and the next day (images 63–64, 115–116). None shows the object, and the original prints are not in the file.

Physical trace: 4. Four depressions, circular marks and burns, measured and drawn that evening, described by the FBI agent, sampled and analysed. Not 5: the analysis found nothing that sets the samples apart, the samples cannot be examined today, and the site was trampled before Hynek arrived.

Multi-channel: 2. One witness’s account, by sight and sound, and marks on the ground found by others within the hour. No instrument recorded the object.

Documentation: 5. The card, the agent’s report, the account taken that night, the plans of the site, two FTD letters, Moody’s and Hynek’s reports, the soil analysis and the FBI’s teletypes and airtels can all be opened.

Anomaly: 3. An object with legs that rose with a flame and a roar and flew off low, and two people beside it. Nothing beyond the marks was measured, and FTD found the description “coincident with that expected of a helicopter, VTOL or Lunar Module configuration” (image 15).

Data today: 4. The papers are enough to test a candidate vehicle against the marks, which is Hynek’s condition. Not 5: the photographs, the samples and Conner’s report are missing.

The overall is 2.8: class B, strong documentation.

What would settle it

• The original photographs: Chavez’s polaroids, the state trooper’s slides and the prints listed under attachment E (images 63–64, 76).
• Maj. William R. Conner’s report, which Moody says would carry the FBI’s report, Holder’s report and the photographs as attachments (image 64). It is not in the unit.
• The samples: the “small sample of charred material” kept by the FBI in Albuquerque (Section 9, p. 235) and the soil samples analysed by the Aeronautical Systems Division (images 14, 73).
• Menzel and Boyd’s letter of 19 February 1965, which the unit lacks (image 33).
• Hynek’s condition of 1964: a device shown to be “capable of producing the marks observed” (image 71).