Socorro police officer Lonnie Zamora reported a close encounter with an unfamiliar object on 24 April 1964. His account entered an official investigation that evening, and other investigators promptly examined ground impressions and scorched vegetation. Zamora was the sole identified witness to the close encounter in these records. Evaluating the case requires separating his description of the object from the physical features that others subsequently observed.
Socorro police officer and sole identified witness to the reported close encounter
The account recorded that night
The FBI's statement records information obtained from Zamora on the night of 24 April and early morning of 25 April. He said that, at about 5.45 pm, he abandoned pursuit of a speeding car after hearing a roar and seeing a descending bluish-orange flame. He initially suspected an explosion at a nearby dynamite store. Driving over rough ground, he then saw a shiny object that he took for an overturned car, approximately 150–200 yards away, with two figures beside it wearing what appeared to be white coveralls.
Zamora estimated that he saw the figures for about two seconds. He described ordinary human shapes, possibly small adults or large children, without facial detail. They were absent when he approached more closely. His statement records no observation of them entering the object. At the nearer position, he described an oval, aluminium-white body, a red marking and two slanted supports seen in a brief glance. The four ground impressions later found at the site should not be substituted for the two supports he reported seeing.
He said that a loud roar and flame beneath the object frightened him into running for cover. He bumped his car and lost his glasses, then looked back intermittently as the object rose. After the roar stopped, he described it travelling low towards the south-west without flame, smoke or noise. He retrieved his prescription glasses during this departure sequence. His statement explicitly labels several height, distance and duration estimates as guesses. The reported change from a noisy rise to quiet horizontal flight is consequential, but there was no instrumented measurement of its motion.
Evidence review
The statement's provenance gives it particular value. In a memorandum dated 8 May, FBI agent D. Arthur Byrnes Jr described typing the account during questioning that night and supplying it to the military investigator the following day. The surviving copy bears the later memorandum date; it preserves testimony obtained immediately after the report, rather than a recollection first elicited weeks later. It is a typed investigative account, not a recording that allows the wording and questions to be independently reconstructed.
Byrnes knew Zamora through several years of official contact and described him as sober, conscientious and visibly agitated when they met that evening. Air Force consultant J. Allen Hynek also judged him sincere after interviews and a site reconstruction on 28–29 April. These assessments bear on deliberate fabrication by Zamora. They do not establish the accuracy of every brief observation or exclude his being deceived by an event arranged by others.
The early reports agree on the main sequence, while preserving differences in distances, timing and descriptive detail. Hynek noted uncertainty about where and how often Zamora had radioed. Technical Sergeant David N. Moody's report describes four supports at one stage, whereas the FBI statement and Hynek's account record two seen. Zamora's attention was divided while driving; terrain interrupted his view, and fear and the loss of his glasses affected the departure observation. The surviving testimony therefore supports a sequence of observations with interruptions, rather than continuous inspection of the object and figures.
Reproduced FBI release. PDF page 12 records preparation during questioning on 24–25 April; pages 16–25 reproduce the statement under an 8 May 1964 heading. These pages inspected as scans. The typed account is not an audio transcript.
Memorandum dated 8 May 1964, PDF pages 14–15, inspected as scans. Describes the witness and site on the evening of 24 April; Byrnes did not observe the reported object.
Signed three-page report of the 26 April investigation, PDF pages 127–129, inspected as scans. Includes interviews, reconstruction, radiation check and inquiries into aircraft and radar activity.
Eight report pages at PDF pages 130–134 and 136–138, inspected as scans. Records the 28–29 April interviews and site examination. A telex is interposed at page 135.
Evaluation report MAY 64-8 and approval page, PDF pages 139–140, inspected as scans; accompanying work order at page 141 also inspected. Compares eight samples' gross elemental composition; full collection and analytical worksheets were not inspected.
PDF page 102 inspected as a scan. The card records an unidentified classification pending additional information. The classification notation has no separate visible decision date.
Oregon State University Special Collections article and full letter image inspected. Pauling explicitly names Zamora and 24 April 1964; Colgate's short annotation alleges a student hoax without naming the student or describing a mechanism. The reply itself is undated.
The site evidence and official assessment
Sergeant Sam Chavez arrived after the reported departure. Moody's account of his interview puts the interval at about three minutes. Chavez found four impressions and charred vegetation, judged the marks fresh and took photographs. Although the vegetation appeared smoky, Moody recorded that it was cold to the touch, with no visible coals. Byrnes independently inspected the location later that evening, recording four rectangular impressions about 16 by 6 inches and approximately two inches deep, with displaced soil. He also described burned grass and three smaller circular marks. Neither man saw the object. Their observations establish a physical scene examined promptly, while the marks' attribution to landing supports depends on Zamora's account and the investigators' interpretation of their arrangement.
The site's condition changed rapidly. Hynek reported that, by his visit, trampling prevented him from assessing the burned areas. He relied partly on earlier observers and photographs, while recording scattered charring and burned cardboard. His judgement that the impressions were fresh drew on interviews with people present during the first hours. Immediate documentation therefore has greater evidential weight than features interpreted after visitors had disturbed the ground.
The Air Force Materials Laboratory's 19 May analysis found the submitted soil samples alike in gross elemental composition, with silicon the principal element. The comparison therefore gives no support to claims that an unusual residue distinguished the reported landing site. Identifying the cause of the charring is a different analytical task from comparing elemental composition. Moody's negative radiation check on 26 April adds a separate, limited measurement to the field investigation.
Investigators considered a terrestrial vehicle. Moody reported inquiries into helicopter activity and radar tracks without finding an identification. Hynek asked for operational records and, if a new device were responsible, a reconstruction that could reproduce the observation and ground marks. The Blue Book record card carries the case as unidentified, explaining that investigators could not place a vehicle at the site and were awaiting additional information. That classification records the investigation's failure to identify a cause; it supplies no positive determination of an extraordinary origin.
A student-hoax allegation has an identifiable documentary history. In Pauling's letter of 19 June 1968, his handwritten postscript explicitly asks about Zamora and the 24 April 1964 report. Colgate's undated reply on the same sheet states that he has a good indication of the student responsible and that the student has left. Oregon State University's archive published the letter image in 2009. The allegation is thus attached to a dated private inquiry, although the document does not establish when Colgate added his reply. The annotation names no student, describes no apparatus and provides no supporting account. It records Colgate's position, with the basis for his confidence absent from the inspected document.
Key dates
24 April 1964
Zamora reports an unfamiliar object near Socorro. Chavez and other officials arrive after the reported departure and examine ground marks and scorched vegetation.
24–25 April 1964
Byrnes types an account during questioning that night; the military investigator receives it the following day.
26 April 1964
Moody and Major Conner conduct interviews and a site reconstruction; a radiation check produces no positive finding.
28–29 April 1964
Hynek interviews Zamora and Chavez and examines the site. His report notes substantial disturbance by visitors.
8 May 1964
FBI memoranda record the early account's provenance and Byrnes's immediate site observations.
19 May 1964
The Air Force laboratory reports no apparent significant elemental differences among the submitted soil samples.
19 June 1968
Pauling asks Colgate about Zamora's report. Colgate adds an undated student-hoax allegation to the letter.
2009
Oregon State University's archive blog publishes the Pauling correspondence, giving the later hoax debate an inspectable documentary source.
Reproduced FBI release. PDF page 12 records preparation during questioning on 24–25 April; pages 16–25 reproduce the statement under an 8 May 1964 heading. These pages inspected as scans. The typed account is not an audio transcript.
Memorandum dated 8 May 1964, PDF pages 14–15, inspected as scans. Describes the witness and site on the evening of 24 April; Byrnes did not observe the reported object.
Signed three-page report of the 26 April investigation, PDF pages 127–129, inspected as scans. Includes interviews, reconstruction, radiation check and inquiries into aircraft and radar activity.
Eight report pages at PDF pages 130–134 and 136–138, inspected as scans. Records the 28–29 April interviews and site examination. A telex is interposed at page 135.
Evaluation report MAY 64-8 and approval page, PDF pages 139–140, inspected as scans; accompanying work order at page 141 also inspected. Compares eight samples' gross elemental composition; full collection and analytical worksheets were not inspected.
PDF page 102 inspected as a scan. The card records an unidentified classification pending additional information. The classification notation has no separate visible decision date.
Oregon State University Special Collections article and full letter image inspected. Pauling explicitly names Zamora and 24 April 1964; Colgate's short annotation alleges a student hoax without naming the student or describing a mechanism. The reply itself is undated.