Why the Socorro UFO Case Remains Unresolved
The Socorro sighting of 24 April 1964 is one of the strongest unresolved cases in the history of the United States Air Force’s Project Blue Book. Socorro police officer Lonnie Zamora reported seeing a white, oval object resting in a desert gully, two human-like figures nearby, and a red marking on its side.
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The case matters not because it proves an extraterrestrial visit—it does not—but because its central witness reported the event immediately, investigators examined the site before it had substantially changed, and official enquiries failed to identify a conventional vehicle or other satisfactory cause. Project Blue Book ultimately recorded Socorro as “unidentified”, while later sceptics proposed explanations ranging from experimental aerospace equipment to a student prank. None has been demonstrated conclusively.[war.gov]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
What Zamora said happened
At about 5.45 p.m., Zamora was driving south through Socorro in pursuit of a speeding black Chevrolet. He then heard a loud roar and noticed a narrow bluish-orange flame descending towards an isolated area south-west of town. Thinking that a dynamite storage shed might have exploded, he abandoned the traffic pursuit and turned onto a rough track to investigate. His police car struggled on the loose gravel, requiring several attempts to climb one steep section.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
After reaching higher ground, Zamora saw a shiny white or aluminium-coloured object approximately 150 to 200 yards away. At first he interpreted it as an overturned car. He also glimpsed two figures in white coveralls close to it. One appeared to turn towards his police car and react with surprise. Zamora’s earliest recorded account did not describe these figures as obviously non-human: he said they appeared normal in shape, although they might have been small adults or large children. His view of them lasted only a few seconds.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
Believing that he had found a road accident, Zamora radioed the sheriff’s office and drove closer. After stopping, he heard two or three heavy thumps, which he compared to doors being shut. When he approached the gully, the figures were no longer visible. He then heard a much louder roar and saw the object begin to rise, with a light-blue flame and some orange colouring beneath it. Dust was disturbed, but he reported no smoke.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
Zamora became frightened and ran behind his patrol car, losing his glasses as he did so. Looking back, he saw the object climb to roughly the height of the car, after which the roar stopped. It then travelled south-west at low altitude, silently and without a visible flame, passing just above the dynamite shed before climbing towards distant terrain. During his radio call he described it as looking “like a balloon”, a comparison that appears to have referred to its receding shape rather than a conclusion about what it was.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
His account therefore contained several distinct observation phases:
- a descending flame and roar seen from the patrol car;
- a distant view of an apparently grounded object and two figures;
- a closer view of the object’s powered ascent;
- and a silent, low-level departure towards the south-west.
These phases are important because Zamora’s perceptions changed with distance, angle and circumstance. The object first resembled an overturned vehicle, later appeared oval from the side and finally looked balloon-like as it receded. Those variations can be interpreted either as the natural limits of a brief, stressful observation or as evidence that ordinary objects and visual ambiguity played a part.
The report was documented unusually quickly
The Socorro case did not emerge from a recollection recorded months or years afterwards. Zamora contacted the dispatcher while the event was taking place and requested assistance almost immediately. FBI Special Agent D. Arthur Byrnes Jr. happened to be conducting unrelated business at the state police office in Socorro when the call came through. Byrnes later recorded that the dispatcher reported an unknown object that had “landed and has taken off”.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
Byrnes reached the location at about 6 p.m., where Zamora and several other law-enforcement officers had gathered. His report described Zamora as sober, conscientious and not prone to fantasy. It also recorded that the officer appeared agitated by what he had experienced. This assessment does not establish that Zamora correctly identified everything he saw, but it weighs against simple explanations based on intoxication, casual fabrication or a witness seeking publicity.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
The proximity of the documentation to the event gives the case an evidential advantage over many famous UFO stories. Zamora’s detailed statement was obtained on the night of 24 April and during the early hours of 25 April. It includes mundane uncertainties and self-corrections: estimated distances, imperfect recollections, doubts about the figures’ size and acknowledgement that he had only glanced at some details. Such qualifications generally make the statement appear less rehearsed, although sincerity and observational accuracy are separate questions.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
There was, however, no second witness who shared Zamora’s close view of the object, its figures and its departure. Other officers corroborated his emotional condition and the state of the ground, not the central airborne event itself. Reports from people farther away who may have heard a roar or seen something in the area are less precise and do not independently reproduce the full encounter. The case consequently remains dependent on one principal eyewitness.
What investigators found at the site
The most significant corroborating feature was the presence of marks and burned vegetation in the gully. Byrnes recorded four roughly rectangular depressions, each approximately 16 by 6 inches and about 2 inches deep. The displaced soil appeared to have been pushed at an angle away from a central area. Investigators also observed three smooth circular marks about 4 inches across, pressed only slightly into the sand.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
Several clumps of grass within or near the marked area had been burned, while surrounding vegetation was apparently unaffected. The traces were consistent in a general sense with Zamora’s description of an object supported above the ground and producing a flame during take-off. They were not, however, unique signatures of an advanced aircraft. Shallow holes and localised burning could have been created deliberately or by comparatively ordinary equipment.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
The evidential strength of the ground traces lies mainly in their timing. They were seen by other people within minutes of Zamora’s radio report, before the case became nationally known. That makes later contamination an unlikely explanation for their initial appearance. It does not eliminate the possibility that the marks had been prepared before Zamora arrived, as a hoax theory would require.
No recovered fragment, fuel residue or mechanical component identified the object. Publicly accessible accounts of soil and vegetation examination have not produced a diagnostic material result capable of distinguishing a spacecraft from a conventional device or staged effect. Photographs and measurements document an unusual-looking site, but the physical evidence cannot establish what caused it.
The famous red insignia is similarly limited as evidence. Zamora drew a symbol shortly after the incident, and investigators reportedly restricted its circulation in order to test future claims. Different versions later entered print, creating continuing disagreement over which drawing accurately represents the original. The marking might suggest a manufactured vehicle, but because neither the vehicle nor a matching organisation has been identified, it supplies no verifiable provenance.
Why Project Blue Book left the case unresolved
Project Blue Book was the Air Force programme responsible for collecting and evaluating UFO reports. Its records are now held by the US National Archives. Of the 12,618 sightings received by the programme between 1947 and 1969, 701 were ultimately listed as unidentified; that classification meant that investigators had not found an adequate explanation, not that they had confirmed an extraterrestrial origin.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives…
Socorro was investigated by Blue Book personnel, its scientific consultant J. Allen Hynek, military representatives and law-enforcement officials. Investigators considered aircraft, helicopters, balloons, military tests and astronomical or atmospheric effects. Enquiries into regional aerospace activity did not publicly identify a vehicle matching Zamora’s description and reported flight behaviour. The case file therefore remained open to interpretation rather than being assigned a known cause.[DECUR]decur.orgSocorro / Zamora Blue Book Investigation ReportSocorro / Zamora Blue Book Investigation Report - DECUR…
Hector Quintanilla Jr., who directed Project Blue Book, was generally sceptical of extraordinary UFO claims. Yet in his later discussion of the subject he acknowledged both Zamora’s reliability and the failure to identify the stimulus that had frightened him. Quintanilla’s conclusion was not that an alien craft had landed, but that the Socorro report was exceptionally well documented and resistant to the ordinary explanations examined by his office.[CIA]cia.govThe Investigation of UFO'sThe Investigation of UFO's - CSI…
Hynek also regarded Socorro as an important case. His interest carried weight because he worked inside the Air Force investigation rather than approaching the event solely as a UFO advocate. Even so, official puzzlement should not be confused with positive proof. An “unidentified” classification records an investigative failure or evidence gap; it does not identify the unknown object.
Could it have been an experimental vehicle?
Socorro’s wider location encouraged speculation about classified aerospace testing. White Sands Missile Range and other military facilities in New Mexico were associated with rocket, missile and space research, while the early 1960s saw intense development of lunar-landing concepts. A compact vertical-lift test vehicle could, in principle, explain the roar, flame, support legs, suited personnel and rapid ascent.
This explanation is attractive because it accounts for several elements at once without requiring non-human technology. The two white-clad figures could have been technicians or pilots, the red emblem a manufacturer’s marking, and the ground traces the result of landing supports and exhaust.
The problems are substantial. No specific vehicle, flight log, test unit or responsible organisation has been securely connected to the location and time. Flying an experimental craft close to Socorro, without a clearly controlled range or recovery team, would also have involved operational risks. Known lunar-landing research vehicles tended to be noisy, conspicuous machines with flight characteristics and support requirements that do not neatly match the small, smooth object Zamora described.
Military secrecy can explain why documentation might initially have been withheld, but it becomes less persuasive as decades pass without a matching programme being established. The hypothesis remains possible at the level of category—some form of experimental equipment—but it lacks the documentary link needed to solve the case.
Was it a student prank?
The most discussed modern sceptical explanation is that students from the nearby New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology staged the incident. Physicist Stirling Colgate, who was the institute’s president in 1964, later indicated that he had heard the event was a student hoax. Sceptical investigator Robert Sheaffer argued that lightweight materials, pyrotechnics or a balloon-like device could have produced a brief spectacle and left prepared impressions in the ground.[Wikipedia]WikipediaLonnie Zamora incidentThe Lonnie Zamora incident was an alleged UFO sighting that occurred on April 24, 1964 near Socorro, New Mexico whe…
A hoax has several strengths as an explanation. It could account for the apparent figures, artificial marking, ground depressions and limited duration. Zamora did not watch the object continuously during his approach, giving participants time to move or conceal themselves. The students would also have known the terrain and might have expected that an unusual display would attract local attention.
Yet the theory remains evidentially incomplete. No identified participant has provided a detailed, verifiable confession explaining how the apparatus worked, how it departed at the speed and altitude Zamora reported, or how the pranksters escaped without being encountered by responding officers. Colgate’s later statement concerned what he had been told rather than an event he personally witnessed or organised.[Wikipedia]WikipediaLonnie Zamora incidentThe Lonnie Zamora incident was an alleged UFO sighting that occurred on April 24, 1964 near Socorro, New Mexico whe…
A candle-powered balloon or simple pyrotechnic device might explain a flame, but it does not easily reproduce the reported combination of controlled vertical rise, intense roar, level low-altitude movement and rapid climb. Conversely, those demanding features come from Zamora’s perceptions under stress and were not instrumentally measured. A staged event need only have produced enough confusing sights and sounds for the officer to interpret its motion incorrectly.
The student-prank theory is therefore plausible but unproven. It demonstrates that a terrestrial deception is conceivable; it has not supplied a reconstruction tied to named perpetrators and contemporary records.
Other proposed explanations fall short
Some alternatives isolate one part of the experience while leaving the rest unexplained. A balloon could match the receding appearance and perhaps the slow initial movement, but ordinary balloons do not produce the reported roaring launch, ground indentations and directed low-altitude departure. A helicopter could create noise, dust and rapid movement, yet Zamora described no rotor, tail, cockpit or conventional aircraft structure, and the departing object reportedly became silent.
Astronomical explanations are particularly weak for the close-range portion. A bright star, planet or mirage might be misjudged at long distance, but it cannot straightforwardly account for figures, nearby flames, physical traces and the immediate reactions of the witness. Such explanations would require Zamora’s account to combine a distant optical phenomenon with unrelated ground features.
A conventional road vehicle also fits the officer’s initial impression, but only briefly. An overturned car would not rise from the gully and fly away. The importance of that initial interpretation is instead psychological: Zamora approached the scene expecting an accident, not a spacecraft. Advocates regard this as evidence against imaginative embellishment; sceptics note that it shows how uncertain the early visual information was.
Claims that the event was devised to promote Socorro as a tourist destination have even less support. The rapid police and federal documentation shows that Zamora reported a disturbing incident, but there is no persuasive contemporary evidence of a coordinated municipal scheme. Broad conspiracy theories create more participants and assumptions without explaining the mechanics of the reported object.
How strong is the case?
Socorro is stronger than a typical anecdotal UFO report in several respects. Zamora was a recognised police officer; he communicated during and immediately after the event; federal and local witnesses documented his condition; and physical traces were present when others arrived. The description was recorded before sustained media attention could reshape it.[U.S. Department of War]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
Its limitations are equally important. Zamora was the sole close witness. There was no photograph of the object, no radar record publicly tied to it, no recovered hardware and no laboratory result uniquely pointing to an extraordinary vehicle. Estimates of distance, size, speed and altitude came from a frightened observer during a short event. The figures were seen only in passing, and the physical traces could theoretically have been created by ordinary means.
A balanced assessment separates three propositions that are often merged:
- Zamora probably reported a genuine and frightening experience. His immediate behaviour, reputation and the testimony of those who saw him strongly support sincerity.
- Something had altered the landing area. Multiple observers documented depressions and burned plants, although their cause was not established.
- The object was extraterrestrial or non-human. The available evidence does not demonstrate this conclusion.
The first two propositions make the case unusual. The failure of the third is why it remains an unresolved UFO report rather than proof of alien visitation.
The enduring significance of Socorro
The Socorro sighting survives because it occupies an uncomfortable middle ground. It is too well documented to dismiss as a vague light in the sky, yet too incomplete to identify confidently. The official file supports a narrow but meaningful conclusion: Lonnie Zamora made a prompt and apparently sincere report of an unfamiliar object, investigators confirmed fresh physical effects at the scene, and the Air Force did not determine what caused the event.[war.gov]war.gov65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438…
Later explanations show how unresolved cases evolve. The experimental-vehicle hypothesis draws strength from New Mexico’s aerospace environment but lacks a matching programme. The student-hoax hypothesis offers a credible human motive and setting but lacks a documented mechanism and first-hand confession. More reductive proposals explain only fragments of the testimony.
Socorro therefore remains valuable less as evidence for a particular extraordinary answer than as a lesson in evidential limits. Credible witnesses can encounter events they cannot identify. Physical traces can corroborate that something occurred without revealing what it was. An official “unidentified” finding can be justified while still falling far short of proof that the object came from beyond Earth.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why the Socorro UFO Case Remains Unresolved. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry
Cited by the New York Review of Books as "the best brief for visitation," this classic study presents an analysis of UFO reports and conc...
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, written by Captain Edward Ruppelt in 1956, was the first serious, unbiased account written abo...
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Re...
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • Impeccably researched, this riveting journalistic investigation separates fact from fiction, and documents th...
The Demon-haunted World
Rating: 4.5/5 from 43 Google Books ratings
Are we on the brink of a new Dark Age of irrationality and superstition? In this book, the writer shows how scientific thinking is necess...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromNew Mexico travel poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: war.gov
Title: 65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438
Link:https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/65_hs1-834228961_62-hq-83894_serial_438.pdf
Source snippet
U.S. Department of War65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438...
2.
Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos
Source snippet
National ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives...
3.
Source: decur.org
Title: Socorro / Zamora Blue Book Investigation Report
Link:https://decur.org/documents/socorro-blue-book-investigation-1964
Source snippet
Socorro / Zamora Blue Book Investigation Report - DECUR...
4.
Source: cia.gov
Title: The Investigation of UFO’s
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-10-no-4/the-investigation-of-ufos/
Source snippet
The Investigation of UFO's - CSI...
5.
Source: Wikipedia
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident
Source snippet
Lonnie Zamora incidentThe Lonnie Zamora incident was an alleged UFO sighting that occurred on April 24, 1964 near Socorro, New Mexico whe...
Published: April 24, 1964
6.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/rg-615
7.
Source: cia.gov
Title: STUDIE S IN INTELLIGENCE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/02931610
8.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/rg-collections
9.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/catalog-bulk-downloads/uap-bulk-download
10.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/textual-and-microfilm
11.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/photographs
12.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/publications
13.
Source: archives.gov
Title: Do Records Show Proof of UFOs? | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/do-records-show-proof-of-ufos
14.
Source: archives.gov
Title: ¿Registros muestran prueba de ovnis? | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/espanol/ovnis
15.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary
16.
Source: prologue.blogs.archives.gov
Title: ufos natural explanations
Link:https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2018/04/16/ufos-natural-explanations/
17.
Source: cia.gov
Title: STUDIE S IN INTELLIGENCE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78t03194a000200010001-2
18.
Source: unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov
Title: project blue book ufos in home movies
Link:https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2013/10/28/project-blue-book-ufos-in-home-movies/
19.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78-03921a000300280001-4
20.
Source: cia.gov
Title: STUDIE S IN INTELLIGENCE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78t03194a000200030001-0
21.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Investigation-of-UFOs.pdf
22.
Source: cia.gov
Title: STUDIE S IN INTELLIGENCESTUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78T03194A000200010001-2.pdf
23.
Source: cia.gov
Title: Studies in Intelligence
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/
24.
Source: cia.gov
Title: Center for the Study of Intelligence
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/
25.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/
26.
Source: cia.gov
Title: UNCLASSIFIED EXTRACTS Studies Vol 70. No 2 June 2026
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/11be5da71cd3445f9713db8167fb406a/UNCLASSIFIED-EXTRACTS-Studies-Vol-70.-No-2-June-2026.pdf
Published: June 2026
27.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/declassified-articles-studies-intelligence-ic%E2%80%99s-journal-intelligence-professional
28.
Source: decur.org
Title: Socorro / Lonnie Zamora Incident
Link:https://decur.org/cases/socorro-1964
29.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Robert Sheaffer
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sheaffer
30.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Hector Quintanilla
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Quintanilla
31.
Source: uforeleases.com
Title: 65 hs1 834228961 62 hq 83894 serial 438
Link:https://uforeleases.com/topics/fbi-flying-discs/65_hs1-834228961_62-hq-83894_serial_438
32.
Source: ufojapan.org
Title: 65 HS1 834228961 62 HQ 83894 Serial 438
Link:https://www.ufojapan.org/Release_1/65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_438.pdf
33.
Source: wiki2.org
Title: Robert Sheaffer
Link:https://wiki2.org/en/Robert_Sheaffer
Additional References
34.
Source: uap-files.org
Link:https://www.uap-files.org/blog/socorro-ufo-fbi-file-zamora/
Source snippet
June 10, 2026 — Socorro UFO Case: The FBI File on Lonnie Zamora, Read Line by Line · UAP Archives ← Blog Socorro UFO Case: The FBI File o...
Published: June 10, 2026
35.
Source: nicap.org
Link:https://www.nicap.org/640424socorro_dir.htm
Source snippet
UFO ReportUFO Report Lonnie Zamora / Socorro Landing Case April 24, 1964 Socorro, New Mexico Brad Sparks: April 24, 1964; 1 mile SSW...
Published: April 24, 1964
36.
Source: usubjects.com
Title: The Socorro UAP Incident | Unexplained Subjects
Link:https://usubjects.com/article/the-socorro-uap-incident-2604
Source snippet
May 30, 2026 — The Socorro UAP Incident | Unexplained Subjects The Socorro UAP Incident tophereles.substack.com May 30, 2026 ILLUSTRATIVE...
Published: May 30, 2026
37.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Lonnie Zamora UFO Incident (Socorro, New Mexico; Aliens?)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1FOPCs8Kps
Source snippet
UFO Evidence No One Can Explain | Close Encounters 110...
38.
Source: youtube.com
Title: The Best Documented UFO Case: Lonnie Zamora | blameitonjorge
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZRu3Ao6zK8
Source snippet
Lonnie Zamora UFO Incident (Socorro, New Mexico; Aliens?) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World...
39.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Episode 328 LIVE: The Socorro Landing, aka the Lonnie Zamora UFO Incident
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_Hf-utGcJw
Source snippet
What Can Explain This New Mexico UFO Sighting?...
40.
Source: youtube.com
Title: What Can Explain This New Mexico UFO Sighting?
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERxNsoYwF3E
Source snippet
The Best Documented UFO Case: Lonnie Zamora | blameitonjorge...
41.
Source: archive.org
Link:https://archive.org/stream/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla_djvu.txt
42.
Source: projectblackecho.com
Link:https://www.projectblackecho.com/incidents/close-encounters/lonnie-zamora-socorro-close-encounter
43.
Source: en-academic.com
Link:https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1444021