UFO Conjectures

Saturday, February 16, 2013

The 1964 Socorro/Zamora Symbol: Not Extraterrestrial

Copyright, 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

We have persisted in dragging the alleged symbol or insignia seen by Officer Lonnie Zamora on the craft he observed in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964 into the light of day too often, and here we go again.

This is the publicized symbol, the one everyone thinks that Officer Zamora saw and drew:


This is the symbol that Ray Sanford and a few fringe ufologists say is the actual symbol Officer Zamora saw and drew, but didn't make public at the behest of the Air Force (to deter copycatters, ostensibly):


The matter has never been adequately resolved. Officer Zamora's wife told me (once in a phone call) that the symbol her husband saw and drew was the first one above.

Whichever symbol or insignia is the right one, one has to remember that Officer Zamora was rather far away and wearing corrective glasses for inferior eyesight.

That aside, the symbol or insignia, both of them as shown here, can be found in this book:


Take your pick: both are alchemical symbols, representing amalgam or an alloy of mercury and silver, or a representational sign used to designate a disordered mind, or even Mars.

But neither symbol was created by an extraterrestrial culture; the symbols are too Earthian in construction.

Anthony Bragalia would propose that the symbols were put on a balloon by students of the Chemistry Department at New Mexico's Institute of Technology as part of a hoax to gull and torment Officer Zamora whom they didn't like.

We reject the hoax idea. the scenario is too ornate for a created prank.

But if that isn't the case and extraterrestrials are not the creators of the insignia, who or what is?

We have always proposed that Officer Zamora saw a Hughes Aircraft/CIA designed prototype. (See our archives here or at the RRRGroup blog for details.)

Even if our suggestion rankles, one must admit that Carl Liungman's litany of symbols in his book (pictured above) account, in some way, for what Officer Zamora saw an drew.

That means that the symbols -- either one -- are human in construction, and not an alien composition.



  • Zamora drew the first "insignia" (with modest variations) four times, twice on the same page within the text of his original statement, as found in PBB. He drew them for the USAF well before Sanford, the Lorenzens, or anyone else ufo-minded called on him. The Lorenzens drew a version of it for Hayden Hewes who thought it looked like a double hatch, and that perhaps the two beings had scooted up through it.

    There is simply nothing about the insignia to make it unusual enough to be rare, and can be found in various symbol sets (including air rescue). Jacque Fresco's Venus Project has a similar logo.



    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 16, 2013  

  • Yes, Don...

    The insignia/symbol is hardly alien, which one would expect to be the case if it was on a bona fide extraterrestrial craft.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 16, 2013  

  • ...to complicate this further, Allen Hynek caused the public release of a false symbol drawing, with the idea of using the real drawing as an attempt at a controlled verification experiment should ANOTHER Socorro-Like Object (SLO) event occur... rather clever...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Saturday, February 16, 2013  

  • Yes, KP, that's the back story and shows how Hynek with Sanford screwed up an important sighting with their "clever" machination.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 16, 2013  

  • ...I differ, R-squared.... nothing in the reported performance characteristics of what Lonny reported requires anything more than 1960s USA aerospace technology.

    Hynek has been unfairly smeared over the years, particularly by his successor "scientists" at his old research group, UFO Study Center!

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Saturday, February 16, 2013  

  • Yes, KP, you are right about the 1960 aerospace technology.

    As for Hynek, I was at his 1966 news conference (about the "swamp gas" sighting in Ann Arbor/Dexter) and watched reporters openly laugh at him.

    Hynek was a gentle, academic soul who lacked charisma and an intellectual patina.

    His interferences in UFO sightings were as damaging as Friedman's. maybe worse.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 16, 2013  

  • "That means that the symbols -- either one -- are human in construction, and not an alien composition."

    Sorry, RR -- that's a complete non sequitur. The fact that a geometric shape is known to human beings is not evidence that the same geometric shape is unknown to non-human beings.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • "The insignia/symbol is hardly alien, which one would expect to be the case if it was on a bona fide extraterrestrial craft."

    I wouldn't know if aliens used insignia or why they would put one on the outside of a ship.

    ET comes into the tale with the disappearance of the object, as reported by Zamora. If you believe Zamora was accurate, then you believe the object was ET. Othewise, no.



    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • The symbols, P, listed in Mr. Liungman's book derive from the evolution of writing -- Sumerian onaward.

    They are unique to human symbolic representations from cave art forward also.

    The Greek geometrics factor in too.

    That an extraterrestrial culture would evolve its writing or ideagrams similarly stretches credulity.

    It's a possibility not a probability.

    Throwing in a logic epithet -- non sequitur -- shows your desperation to make a point that isn't intellectually coherent.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • My point is quite coherent. You simply refuse to recognize it.

    You'd have a point if there was ANYTHING in the scribblings which could ONLY be derived by being human. Such is not the case here.

    All you have here are the most BASIC of geometric shapes -- shapes that any intelligent creature operating in 3D space would come to experience....and presumably learn to DRAW.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • "It's a possibility not a probability."

    Indeed. And you could have made that clearer by saying that the symbols are MORE LIKELY THAN NOT to be human in construction. But you left out that possibility completely in your sentence.

    I'm in agreement with Don, however. I am more surprised that an alien craft uses insignias, rather than that they use basic rudimentary geometric shapes and lines.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Don:

    I accept Officer Zamora's account as one of the best UFO witness accounts on record.

    Tony Bragalia and I disagree about Officer Zamora's credibility.

    Zamora's report is free of fuzzy details.

    But that report certainly doesn't smack of an ET explanation.

    That gloss comes from UFO buffs with an ET bias (Sanford and Rudiak among them.

    It's not an either/or proposition.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • "They are unique to human symbolic representations from cave art forward"

    That looks remarkably like affirming the consequent. You only know of a single space-faring species -- humans. While it is true that my cat probably doesn't understand/appreciate the 'beauty' of perfect geometric figures in that 'Greek' way, my cat isn't capable of flying a space craft either.

    I happen to find it rather implausible that another space-faring species would NOT have that Greek appreciation of such SIMPLE and BASIC geometric shapes...

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • P...

    I know you have a penchant to take debates into the esoteric universe of logic and philosophy -- your field.

    But my point is made by a knowledge of human scribbling and I doubt that an alien culture would evolve in such a way as to mimic human symbolic representation.

    It's not math we're talking about but scribbling....graffiti, as it were.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • And P...

    I've accommodated you here to be polite.

    But I'm overly familiar with your tendency to dilute discussions with obtuse philosophical minutiae.

    You would sidetrack a sensible point with a tangential blip that borders on psychopathology.

    The human experience is unique, as I see it.

    The linguistics of the race too, its art, music, and writing also.

    Human symbols, as those seen on Zamora's craft, have elements that could hardly be duplicated by a true extraterrestrial race.

    I've dealt with this at the RRRGroup blog and in a book.

    You would anthropomorphise a possible visiting ET race.

    That's loopy as hell....talk about non sequiturs.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • "The human experience is unique, as I see it."

    But experience, itself, may not be unique. As I said -- any space faring species would likely have an understanding of lines, curves, circles, triangles, etc.

    And no, I would not anthropomorphise (sic) a possible visiting ET race. And were you not so damn combative, you'd see that. I don't find it uniquely-human to understand rudimentary shapes of geometry. Insignias, however, are far more suspect...that seems more likely uniquely-human.

    Or, to put it another way... I don't find it the least bit surprising that a visiting ET race understands geometry -- they probably understand it every bit as much as we do, and then some! But I do find it odd that they would use insignias -- that's more of a BEHAVIORAL issue.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • I get your point, P...

    It is a behavioral issue, and one not likely applicable to a true extraterrestrial culture.

    As for geometry, a Euclidian discovery, an alien race would need an alien doppelganger to produce the same.

    But we're not talking about geometry per se, but insignia or symbology of a specific human kind.

    You would thrust upon the insignia seen by Officer Zamora attributes it does not have.

    And writing "they probably understand it every bit as much as we do, and then some!" shows how you would make alleged ET visitors anthropomorphic.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Maybe a humanoid species from another planet would draw geometrical shapes. Would they draw one on their craft? We do so for purposes of identification or branding, and because there may be laws or regulations requiring it.

    Rich, Zamora was a good witness with decreasing odds of being accurate as the event developed, and especially during the disappearance when, from his account, he was shocked and disoriented. Before then, when he noted the insignia, the bright late afternoon sun in April in the high desert was shining directly on the object and the insignia in front of him.

    Due to the brilliance of the light on the curved white surface, the reflection and scattering of the light could have 'blown out' part of what he was seeing. He may not have seen the complete "insignia".

    It could even have been what he could see under those conditions of a USAF roundel.

    Well, that's the total of what I think about Socorro. The interesting part for me is, of course, Lincoln La Paz's relationship with Zamora. Now, that, I find very interesting.



    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Reverse it all and see what WE put on Pioneer 10 - a naked adult of either sex plus several symbols and intersecting lines, etc. Carl Sagan explained it somewhere. (All very subtle!)

    None of this of course means that any ETs would do the same on a craft sent out to land on earth.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Don...

    I addressed Zamora's visual acuity at UFO UpDates many years ago, and raised hackles there as Rudiak, a doctor or Optometry, neglected to deal with Zamora's eyesight when he lost his glasses near the termination of his sighting -- when the "object" departed.

    But as Zamora saw the insignia, he provided a rendition of it that may be accurate or flawed.

    I accept that he got it down rather accurately, but that isn't the issue.

    Your point and P's that it's a behavioral issue takes precedence perhaps.

    Why do a human thing and use a marking to "identify" your "craft."

    That's a Hughes Aircraft (or CIA/Raven) thing, not an ET thing.

    Although one can argue that an ET race might do so -- the operative word being "might."

    As for LaPaz and Zamora's association, it is a side-bar without relevance to my thesis or the 1964 sighting itself, but you like to digress.

    I won't be going there, as usual, but it is a topic your site might indulge in, even if just to assuage your oblique curiosity.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • CDA:

    You would be silly, right?

    Did Zamora's two white coverall-dressed beings hope to leave their insignia for human examination, as Sagan's disc engraving was meant to be used by an alien race?

    Were Zamora's beings in the process of cutting the symbol from their craft to leave for our inspection?

    You make me chuckle sometimes, Christopher.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • "And writing "they probably understand it every bit as much as we do, and then some!" shows how you would make alleged ET visitors anthropomorphic."

    You said it yourself -- it's a Euclidian DISCOVERY, not an INVENTION. There are enormous differences between those two terms, as you surely know.

    And yes, I would expect them to know geometry better than we do, IF they're here visiting us, rather than the other way around. That's not anthropomorphism -- it's simply the recognition that they're more expert in their traversing 3D space than we are.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • "I won't be going there, as usual, but it is a topic your site might indulge in, even if just to assuage your oblique curiosity."

    Eventually. Ufology has been kicking the Socorro can for longer than it has Roswell's. It is easy to take in the full story and find oneself where everyone else is: ET? No ET? Hoax? No Hoax? Where will new "revelations" come from? Identifying the insignia? How long have people been looking for it? What have they got?

    But La Paz tells the press he'd known and worked with Zamora for 16 years? Count it off: 16 years = 1948.

    But it is off-topic here. No problem.

    I take it no one asked Zamora about it. If not, it is right near the top of ufologists' missed opportunities, right next to Edwards, or Bloecher, or McDonald not making a few phone calls to Roswell in the 50s and 60s.



    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Don...

    I's like to know how a LaPaz/Zamora relationship impacts the 1964 sighting?

    LaPaz provided kudos for Zamora's reputation and/or credibility.

    But most of us accept Officer Zamora's credibility as exemplary.

    That Tony Bragalia finds Officer Zamora wanting because he (Zamora) had a beer now and then has been a bone of contention between Tony and me.

    So, do tell -- what is the great clue that the LaPaz/Zamora association holds for you and the 1964 sighting itself?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • "So, do tell -- what is the great clue that the LaPaz/Zamora association holds for you and the 1964 sighting itself?"

    It has little to do with 1964, except as you note, Zamora's reputation as an observer. But for me, it has to do with La Paz. For example, Zamora could have resolved the issue of whether La Paz spoke Spanish. Zamora could have given us information about La Paz's hunt for Green Fireballs. He may even have known Rickett.

    But, it is off-topic here, I agree. I was indicating why I don't spin my wheels over Socorro, but find something in the account of interest which also refers to Zamora's observational skills.



    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • See Don...

    I luv ya, but you have a tendency to sidetrack topics with issues that you find interesting, but would better be served outside a particular venue or topic.

    You muddy the waters as it were.

    I have friends who, while we're in a deep discussion, interrupt to ask "what's for dinner?"

    I know you hope that someone in the group discussion might have some information for you (or know what's for dinner), but that's a debate imposition that borders on rude.

    I am only hoping to instill in you some genteel manners. I don't want you getting the reputation like that of David Rudiak or a few other guys we don't allow to input here.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Rich, I thought two mea culpas would be sufficient to end my participation in this discussion, but you have a message for me. Thanks.

    "I know you hope that someone in the group discussion might have some information for you (or know what's for dinner), but that's a debate imposition that borders on rude."

    My experience the past five years is that ufologists suffer from a 'guildy' conscience, holding everything close to their hearts, and, except for David, do not share, even if I share with them. So, I don't anymore.

    I thought I was gently and politely leaving the discussion. May I leave now, or do you still have a need to belabor me?



    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • I, Don, happen to like your asides.

    They have often taken me to areas of UFO stuff that I knew little or nothing about, and those asides are usually -- usually -- pertinent.

    But in the midst of a protracted comment series, asides irk.

    It's tough enough for Kevin or me (and others) who use Blogger to keep our responses in sequence.

    (Blogger often inserts my replies after an intrusion that sneaks in from someone else, even if my reply is typed before theirs. Kevin has the same problem.)

    Adding a peripheral comment merely exacerbates that aggravation.

    It's not a Mortal Sin but it is certainly Venial.

    That's all.

    Keep pushing your tangential detritus forward here.

    I'll judiciously see what is germane, even slightly so, and make sure it sees the light of day.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • After a half-century of looking, including near half that time being internet enabled looking, no one has matched Zamora's "insignia" to any insignia, logo, or symbol. This leads me to think either:

    a) Zamora did not recall it accurately
    b) The craft wasn't from around here

    The closest symbol set I've found to the "insignia" are IMO Fire Control symbols, and they aren't that close.

    I don't think the NMT hoax hypothesis will be proved, even if it is true. If true, I hope Tony proves it and nails the little sociopaths.

    There is no statute limitation on murder, but I don't know if it's the same for charges of conspiracy to murder a police officer, entrapment with the intent murder a police officer, and attempted murder.

    A bright assistant DA could have made a career out of it in 1964.



    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Don:

    You might look at this:


    As for the hoax idea, as much as I respect Tony Bragalia and his research regarding the hoax idea for Zamora's craft, that explanation is laughable on many fronts.

    I said, in my post above, that the scenario is too ornate for a hoax, and that remains my view, and that of others who know more about the sighting than I do.

    As you see from the link I've offered above, you are not familiar with much that has been offered about the insignia and evidently aren't familiar with the cogent arguments against the hoax thesis.

    That other egg-shaped UFOs were sighted in the time-frame has been noted by Jose Caravaca and Frank Warren, among others.

    That the insignia has been probed by others, such as Matt Gilleece and Leon Davidson...


    ...which we have presented here goes to the heart of research.

    If you present a view, I suggest you know what has gone before.

    Zamora saw an exotic craft, and reported it diligently.

    If it was an ET or prototypical device is open to question, surely.

    And that it may have been the product -- Zamora's experience -- of a hoax is possible but in light of all we know about the incident unlikely.

    Your views are always insightful, but, in this instance, not quite up to par.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • You are right that I am not up on the study of the insignia, but I have made the cogent argument against the NMT Hoax, and on Iconoclasts to Frank Stalter, which is that Zamora's account of the "hot pursuit" of a "speeder" is not supported by Zamora's original statement, which means the hypothesis that Zamora was led to the site by the "speeder" is incorrect.

    That's about all I have to say on Socorro, Rich...except to wonder whether Hynek ever drew Zamora's insignia for La Paz.



    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Hahahahaha....one parting shot, Don?

    You are an imp.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • My view of this event takes into a larger context as I suspect what he saw was neither terrestrial or extraterrestrial which is discomforting to somewhat ironclad theories that are based on root causation as to the origination by location. Like countless other variants that are a differentiation of a pattern of what was seen, this is best described, although poorly, as a ghost phenomenon.
    Unless you are able to discount living in three dimensions, the insignia could have been created elsewhere as child's play. However, why bother to differentiate it with an insignia? In earthly terms, you do not want your craft bearing traceable "license plates" if it is an X craft..and if it is an X craft, why bother to do so if it is a unique prototype, easily discernible by it's uncommon characteristics if it is not capable of intercontinental flight?
    In precise terms, how debilitated was Zamoras eyesight? Does anyone have this information? If you replicated the distance between himself and the object, what was the level of clarity he was able to obtain? Another factor is the history of the development of tripods in avionics compared to their once fairly common presence in landing reports, that were evidenced by visual observation and ground traces. Another is the presence of prosaic fuel evidenced by the type of propulsion noted by the presence of flame, which is, a uniquely terrestrial utility for our particular availability in being able to refine this resourced fuel and adapt it to the particulars of our atmosphere. Extraterrestrials would have an impossible task to gather up the ingredients for a highly refined ( and short flight time) fuel. This is an example of an observation of a parody, a poor mimicry fraught with contradiction comparable to the free association of dreams is it not? Ghost ships, ghost avionic devices, cars, cats, dogs, strange mutations, humanoids,apes, humans, the list seems inexhaustible..so I think if anything this is a case of analogous poor eyesight trying to make a round peg fit into a square hole. BTW..I have that book as well..a great resource. The metaphysical significance of the number three, the tree points of the triangle and the horizontal "stripes" repeated twice is great..but here, this is ( I suspect) off topic.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Bruce:

    A couple of things...

    Zamora saw his craft as sitting on two legs, not three....odd.

    His eyesight, as discussed eventually by David Rudiak, an optometrist, showed that with corrective glasses was good enough to cop and to see things rather well.

    It's when Zamora lost his specs, at the craft's departure where observation gets iffy.

    The size of the insignia and his distance from it allows for misinterpretation but I think Zamora got the gist of it.

    If it were not for other egg-shaped UFO sightings in the time-frame, one could dismiss the sighting as a hoax or terrestrial craft from nearby air bases.

    And the craft's terrestrial-like propulsion and that insignia makes it Earth-oriented, except for those other egg-shaped UFO sightings, far and wide of Socorro.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • I meant tripods in the generic sense which is a bit of wordsmith laziness on my part.Of course two tripods essentially underlines my last comment as to the nature of the craft is a caricature rather than representing utility based on the physics involved in cushioning a craft on uneven or even terrain to prevent damage while, more importantly, balancing it's weight to remain upright due to gravity. If what he saw was accurately portrayed, and if he did not confabulate the report what we have is a nonsensical craft. How many egg shaped craft with a similar platform have been demonstratively flown and more importantly, what is the advantage of going to the trouble of creating an egg shape unless we are looking at it in terms of atmospheric friction or drag? What was reported was nonsense that borrows some here, and a little there to create a representation of a hybrid of origins, that very neatly keeps the same old divide very alive between terrestrial and extraterrestrial origins being self referential in terms of our own knowledge and yet it has been apparent for decades neither explanation is viable. Why? Because of the evidence in it's full context is not in any repeatable pattern except by transients of trending in a parabola. The differentiation of mismatched parodies, exaggerated cartoons, etc that play on desire bias projection and expectations, that do not fit into any pragmatic causation or origin. They "cannot be" so therefore they appear as nonsensical while having a equally cogent pattern of being observed. Jung would have a field day with eggs in this egg hunt but the issue as I see it is that every theory has the baggage of philosophy behind it. We are trapped in investigation terms by what we are comfortable with..what we know rather than the inverse to think outside of our own referents and it's so speculative we fall back into old habits of analysis by a proverbial force of gravity in this. Our wax wings melt in the face of the full context and there is a sort of stubborn determination to domesticate the non sensible.
    We have literally thousands of puzzle pieces that do not fit, and so a mythos is a compelling retort as a half hearted belief system as the viral import of what these events suggest create a sort of anti virus of skeptics, belief systems, dead end realms of "hard" evidence..As Nietzsche opined.."all too human."

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • If you told me when I woke up this morning that I'd being cited as source in an ongoing UFO controversy for an image I found four years ago, I would have called you crazy.

    But crazier things have happened!

    By Blogger Matt G. (NYC), at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Yes, Matthew, your work and fame has not gone unnoticed, even after all these years -- four is it?

    Wow, how time flies.....just like Officer Zamora's UFO.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Four years come April! And we're still no nearer a resolution that satisfies everyone.

    ...which is good, it means we're all still thinking and challenging each other's analysis and conclusions. Without that crucible, nothing of substance can emerge.

    By Blogger Matt G. (NYC), at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Rich I thought the top sign was an Italian Adult Art symbol denoting comic features many scenes of wives bending over in kitchen.

    The bottom sign [so to speak] symbolising the venetian blinds salesman's the only character who doesn't score.

    As for a terrestial symbol not being used by 'others' why not?

    A) it might means something totally different to them as either a symbol or language b) it might be part of a psychological cueing system we don't even suspect c) as Charles Fort observed many traditional societies and indeed individual mystics such as Giordano Bruno and John Dee believed themselves in contact with non terrestial entities so maybe such events and symbols [both overt and unsuspected] communicate something to terrestial based groups to whom they make perfect sense.

    By Blogger alanborky, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Alan...

    Your observations are not goofy, but I'm of the persuasion that an alien culture's ideagrams or sribblings would be totally different from ours for evolutionary reasons, cultural evolution.....if that alien culture used such a primitive mode of communication.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • We never let aliens actually be "alien", which is what's so out of whack with all this symbol discussion. Aliens would be highly unlikely to share ANY biological characteristics with us including sensory organs. The chances that we can conceive of what a "symbol" would be or mean for a non-human life form are smaller than those for winning the Mega Millions jackpot.

    This is a human symbol, designed by humans. The only question is whether they were contemporary humans or whether this was a time traveling craft from sometime in our own future.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Oh no.....the time travel scenario.

    Would future humans still be using such an archaic communication method?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • As has been pointed out a number of times here, those two symbols are of earthly origin, and have aeronautic function:

    - The first symbol, with the semi-circle is designed to allow an aircraft to align its yaw, pitch and roll with that of another craft (try it!).
    - The second symbol, chevron intersecting with lines, is a device that with the use of a strobe allows the measurement of relative speed between two craft.

    They would be used in combination during docking maneuvers, such as during in-flight fueling, or some such.

    Painting them red would make them both easier to see by the human eye and by computer vision systems of the kind used in the late 60s/early 70s.

    By Blogger Pliny The Elder, at Wednesday, March 20, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home