UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Access Denied]

Instrumental evidence, physical evidence, biological evidence, independently sourced evidence… ALL constitute ordinary (mundane, everyday, garden variety) evidence! This is the same type of evidence that would be required to show the existence of anything.

Eureka!

Congratulations Rramjet, you may now move to the head of the class…

What makes it extraordinary is the fact that after 60 years we still don’t have any of this ordinary evidence!

Therefore, by your definition, "aliens" don't exist.

QED

 

[Rramjet]

Actually, you should be reading the book. Sturrock states there was quite the argument about what the panel would write and it took much longer than expected. Some of the scientists almost walked out on the first day! In the book "Here be Dragons:the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life", Dr. Eshleman (who was co-chair on the panel) is quoted as saying:

<If you snip out my citations – then I am at liberty to treat yours in kind>

Sound familiar?

Yes indeed it does… it sounds exactly like the formulation a UFO debunker believes that a serious UFO researcher might apply to UFOs.

Serious UFO researchers on the other hand often go to great lengths to point out to the UFO debunkers that the term UFO means no such thing. Still, the debunkers persist in their erroneous assessments and try to “tar with the same brush” serious researchers and the “lunatic” fringe”. Well, if science and logic were not on your side, what else COULD you do…?

Dr. Holzer stated on a Voice of America broadcast:

(…)

The panel concluded that

(…)

I have stated that I can wheel out academics to refute every one of your statements. We could then go on trading citations until the cows come home, but it would advance the argument precisely nowhere.

I think the major point to note is that you consider ANY point of view that differs from your own to be “biased”. You complain about “conspiracy theories” and how the adherents of such theories must be nuts. Perhaps you should look at your own conspiracy theory in this regard…

Moving away from the mere opinions of academics and on to something of actual substance… (I hope) …

However, you take too great a leap. Exactly how can you eliminate problems with the witness testimony? What if he/she is a good liar? Frank Kaufmann lied to a great number of UFO investigators for over a decade and many believed him. When he died, they discovered he had been lying all along when faced with the evidence in his garage. I can list Ed Walters, Billy Meier, contactees, abductees,etc.etc. All tell a convincing story but after close examination their stories turn out to be false.

I acknowledge that hoaxers and liars are a blight on the face of humanity. They “poison the pool” for serious research. They make the job of sorting the signal from the noise all the more difficult. This is why we need to concentrate on cases with unassailable provenance from reliable sources. I don’t believe even you would contend that the cases represented by Rogue River, White Sands and Tehran would represent hoaxes and lies. You MIGHT contend that for the Father Gill case… but my response to that would be that given his status, location and the number of witnesses involved, this would seem highly implausible as an explanation of the case.

However, not all can be explained this way. I point to Hendry's astute observation that what if the report is simply distorted to the point that no identification can be made? How can one tell what goes on in the human mind at the moment they see something they do not understand? I know you proclaim that this is simple but you have yet to present actual papers and sources of how it is done.

If the report IS “distorted to the point that no identification can be made” then we do as the researchers in the Battelle study did, we simply throw them out as unworthy of examination.

How can one tell what goes on in the human mind at the moment they see something they do not understand ?

Well, first we go through a process of escalating hypotheses. Is it a bird… is it a balloon…is it a plane… is wind blow debris… is it the moon…a star… a planet… a meteor… a satellite…an illusion… am I seeing things… and so on… but once we have exhausted ALL those possibilities, we become surprised and perplexed by the fact that we cannot identify what we are seeing, ONLY then do we consider it a UFO. Then because we are surprised the process from then is also well understood… and I just presented an example of just such a research paper from Scientific American a few posts ago… (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=learning-by-surprise)

If it can not be identified, it simply remains "unidentified". You can not make the leap to anything else. One can suggest possible solutions. In that case, one has to determine which is more likely. Using the ETH as a solution is the same as using a flying dragon because the evidence for each existence is the same.

Yes, a UFO is a UFO is a UFO…. But why do you persist with the ETH hypothesis? Although it is not an invalid hypothesis - ALL hypotheses are valid unless shown to be implausible based on the evidence – I have contended MANY times that the evidence does NOT necessarily indicate ET.

One point… ETH is as valid as hypothesising BOTH flying dragons AND mundane objects (blimps, planets, etc). EACH either HAS or does NOT have evidential support. We only CONSIDER the “flying dragon” hypothesis to be invalid because we DO have evidence that makes its truth implausible. But this is just the same evidential requirement that would make blimp, planet, etc, implausible also…

Then all UFOs are "unidentified" and we have absolutely no evidence they are aliens. Why are you wasting time here?

I don’t believe I am wasting my time. But that is merely a value judgement on my part and of course I could be wrong. If however you believe you are wasting your time here, then why continue posting?

Yes, Sturrock is biased because he is involved in the subject (he is the president of the Society for Scientific Exploration) and supports the ETH. This is why you have to read what the panel wrote and not what Sturrock wants you to read (for that matter the paper by Hoyt, who apparently could not get her facts correct on this issue).

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with the great Astrophotographer is automatically “biased”. Hoyt? I think I will have more to say on her research in due course. You may look forward to it?

No. I am not stating "nothing" happened. I am questioning why you feel that these older cases are so appealing when most of the principles are dead. If the evidence was never thoroughly examined in the first place, what good is it?

I think you mean “principals”, but let us not quibble about that. Now are you contending that just because the testimonials have come from people who have since died we should ignore them as evidence? I suggest you (again) take that reasoning to a Holocaust survivor (or the family of a victim) and see how far it gets you.

There are numerous cases of UFO events that were closely examined by UFO proponents only to discover that years later the stories were not as told in the UFO literature (Lakenheath, Trindade Island, Big Sur, Malmstrom, Roswell, etc. etc.). I find it intesting that when UFOlogists are asked to list their best cases, they always go back to the older ones.

You have a belief that all that is so, but your mere stating of that belief does NOT make it a true belief.

 

[tsig]

Rramjet, I'm sorry that you didn't understand Cuddles explanation of the difference between ordinary and extraordinary evidence. I thought it was pretty clear, but I know you sometimes have difficulty with reading comprehension, so let's see if I can clear it up for you.

We have two ordinary people making claims. One of these claims is ordinary whilst the other is extraordinary. The ordinary claim would ordinarily only require ordinary evidence, if any at all, whilst the extraordinary claim would ordinarily require extraordinary evidence in order to be accorded ordinary status. An inordinate number of ordinary claims are ordinarily made everyday, by ordinary people, in the course of their ordinary lives. Ordinarily, extraordinary claims are also made by ordinary people, some of whom may be in awe or overwrought. Ordinary evidence for ordinary claims ordinarily ought not to be thought to be all that importunate, since we are fortunate that the ordinary evidence of ordinary claims is ordinarily all around us. However, ordinary evidence for extraordinary claims ought to be thought to be inordinately insufficient, since an extraordinary claim is usually ordained to be inordinately short of ordinary evidence, but instead we ought to require the recording of extraordinary evidence in such a case.

In order to come to an accord we ought to coordinate our ordained ordinals in an orchestrated audience in order to organise a conformity of thought on ordinary and extraordinary evidence.

That ought to help.

In other words if it quacks and walks like a duck we should line them up in a row and see if their feathers are the same?

 

[tsig]

Your example is simply not analogous. That is, what term in your “example” is analogous to “extraordinary evidence”?

Presumably it cannot be the verb “jump”, because, well, that is a verb. We CAN however make your example analogous if we use “provide evidence” in place of “jump physically” and we can then end up with something like …to provide an extraordinary amount of evidence requires and extraordinary effort BUT that does NOT mean the evidence is extraordinary.

Nothing in your example defines extraordinary evidence.

I am looking for ANY logical definition of the term “extraordinary evidence”. NONE has been forthcoming (though many have tried). ( and of course you cannot advocate an “absolute definition of extraordinary evidence” …primarily because there IS none!)

To ask for a definition of terms in a statement of claim is reasonable and indeed logical and prudent.



Instrumental evidence, physical evidence, biological evidence, independently sourced evidence… ALL constitute ordinary (mundane, everyday, garden variety) evidence! This is the same type of evidence that would be required to show the existence of anything.

So NO definition or example of extraordinary evidence here either!


Now “extraordinary evidence” is “enough evidence”? But this just quantifies the term “evidence”, it does NOT define “extraordinary evidence”.

To ask for a definition of terms in a statement of claim (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) is reasonable and indeed logical and prudent.

Until ANYONE can define the term “extraordinary evidence”, Sagan’s claim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” will REMAIN a nonsensical claim.

I am providing ordinary evidence in the form of UFO case reports. These constitute evidence in support of my own claims. You may believe that they do not constitute evidence, but merely stating that belief does not make the belief true!

As soon as you get done arguing with Sagan could you give some ordinary evidence of aliens. A real live one would be OK but I'll settle for a dead body or the wreckage of an alien craft.

 

[Rramjet]

As soon as you get done arguing with Sagan could you give some ordinary evidence of aliens. A real live one would be OK but I'll settle for a dead body or the wreckage of an alien craft.

I have a suspicion that even if I DID provide you with such evidence, you STILL would not believe it.

Nevertheless, the fact is that I don’t know for sure that such physical evidence as you require actually exists. Sure there are claims made for such evidence, but I have as yet to verify those claims to my own satisfaction. I am sorry if this is not the answer that you might want, but I am a novice in the field of UFO research, and I have yet to personally explore any such claims. However, given also that my interest has now been definitely piqued by the “denial machine” - as represented by members of the JREF (insofar as they seem unable to put up a rational, logical or scientific case against the evidence for UFOs I have presented so far) - if I have the time, I most definitely do now (soon) intend to explore the claims that such evidence actually does exist. I might find for or against. Who knows, but I am definitely looking forward to conducting the research – and I will most certainly report my findings in this forum.

ETA: Oh wait... was there not a case SnidelyW presented containing physical evidence? Yes... here it is...
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm) (Not sure if it is the same link as he had but I am sure it is the same case).

...and what about this one?

(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)

...both cases contain physical evidence...

I seem to remember that the Lonnie Zamora case had physical evidence as well!
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)

So that should be good enough to get things started on the road to giving you physical evidence...

 

[Belgian thought]

“Look!”
“He has given us a sign!”
“He has given us…… a link.”
“A link is the sign! Let us follow his example.”
”What?”
“Let us like him…… hold up our link, for this is his sign. And all who follow him should do likewise!”
“No no no! The link is the sign…. We should gather links together in abundance”
Etc…

Here is one http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5198753&postcount=1 that still remains a mystery.

 

[Stray Cat]

I am sorry if this is not the answer that you might want, but I am a novice in the field of UFO research, and I have yet to personally explore any such claims.

Really? I'd never have guessed.

 

[Sledge]

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

Nevertheless, the fact is that I don’t know for sure that such physical evidence as you require actually exists. Sure there are claims made for such evidence, but I have as yet to verify those claims to my own satisfaction.

One of these things is not like the other. If you don't have evidence that you've verified to your own satisfaction, why are you so sure that aliens are visiting the Earth and why are you trying to convince other people?

 

[Stray Cat]

ETA: Oh wait... was there not a case SnidelyW presented containing physical evidence? Yes... here it is...
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm) (Not sure if it is the same link as he had but I am sure it is the same case).

Physical evidence of damage to a car is not physical evidence of Aliens

(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)

A claimed burned patch in the road which was supposedly 'fixed' the day after, with no photos of fresh tarmac to prove the claimed repair was even done and some apparent fingerprints embedded into a cars dashboard, which were similarly never photographed do not constitute physical evidence.

I seem to remember that the Lonnie Zamora case had physical evidence as well!
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)

There was no physical evidence in this case either.

So that should be good enough to get things started on the road to giving you physical evidence...

Heck, that was a short road.

 

[amb]

So, where's that evidence, Rramjet? We're up to 105 pages, I think we've waited long enough.

For the love of Apollo, will you stop asking for the impossible please.
You want evidence? I give you evidence. *cough* *snicker*

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1278200/fox_news_ufo_sightings_and_pilots_testimony/

 

[GeeMack]

I have a suspicion that even if I DID provide you with such evidence, you STILL would not believe it.

If? But you haven't. In over 800 postings you haven't. Is there some reason you're taking so long?

 

[Sledge]

My god! Why isn't this incredible footage everywhere?

 

[dafydd]

One of these things is not like the other. If you don't have evidence that you've verified to your own satisfaction, why are you so sure that aliens are visiting the Earth and why are you trying to convince other people?

It seems very unlikely that aliens are visiting the Earth.Where do they come from?The nearest star is 4.22 light years away? How did they detect us?

 

[amb]

It seems very unlikely that aliens are visiting the Earth.Where do they come from?The nearest star is 4.22 light years away? How did they detect us?

They can't be coming from Alpha Centauri, that star is a binary, it has a twin. Twin stars cannot support any rocky planet orbiting it as the orbit would more than likely send the planet into space or hurtling it into the star itself.

 

[Rramjet]

Physical evidence of damage to a car is not physical evidence of Aliens

So what then is it physical evidence of? Something caused the damage to the car and Deputy Sherrif Val Johnson. What was the cause of the damage? What caused independent timepieces to both be running 14 minutes slow? The investigators (Police, Ford, Honeywell) were baffled. How DO we account for the physical evidence?

"The patrol car had very peculiar damage. The inside headlight on the driver's side was smashed but not the one to its immediate left. There was a flat-bottomed circular dent on the left side of the front hood, about a half inch in diameter, close to the windshield. There was a crack in the windshield on the driver's side, that ran from top to bottom, with four apparent impacts. The electric clock was running 14 minutes slow, as was Johnson's wristwatch. The shaft of the roof antenna was bent over at a 60-degree angle, starting about 6 inches above its base. The trunk antenna was bent over at 90 degrees, but only near the top. No damage occurred to the car's regular antenna on the front hood. Essentially, all the damage to the car occurred on the left, or driver's side."​

(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)

A claimed burned patch in the road which was supposedly 'fixed' the day after, with no photos of fresh tarmac to prove the claimed repair was even done and some apparent fingerprints embedded into a cars dashboard, which were similarly never photographed do not constitute physical evidence.

Oh but there was verifiable physical evidence in the case.

"Over the next few hours Betty's skin turned red as if badly sun burned. Her neck swelled and blisters erupted and broke on her face, scalp and eyelids. She started to vomit and continued to do so through out the night. My morning she was almost in a coma.

Some time between midnight and 2 am Vickie and Colby began to suffer similar symptoms, although less severe. At first they suffered the sunburn like condition and then diarrhea and vomiting. It was a miserable night for all three victims.

The following morning Betty was moved to Vickie's house and all three were cared for there. Betty's condition continued to deteriorate and three days later she was taken to hospital. The burns and swelling altered Betty's appearance so radically that friend who came to visit her in hospital did not recognize her. Her hair began to fall out and her eyes became so swollen that she was unable to see for a week."​

(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)

There was no physical evidence in this case either.

You don’t say…

"Then Sergeant Chavez came up, asked me what the trouble was, because I was sweating and he told me I was white, very pale. I asked the sergeant to see what I saw, and that was the burning brush. Then Sergeant Chavez and I went to the spot, and Sergeant Chavez pointed out the tracks."

Socorro Deputy Sheriff James Luckie arrived a few minutes after Chavez, and he also confirmed the imprints and the still-smoking foliage.

Zamora had not paid much attention to the "legs" on the object at the time, but now they took on new significance. Four squarish indentations arranged in a trapezoidal pattern were visible. Four burned areas, three of them within the pattern of imprints, also were noted. Several small, shallow circular indentations adjacent to the other markings are labeled "footprints" in the Air Force case file.”

(…)

“In 1968, Dr. James E. McDonald, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Arizona, said that he had learned of an alleged patch of "fused sand" at the Socorro landing site:

"A woman who is now a radiological chemist with the Public Health Service in Las Vegas was involved in some special analyses of materials collected at the Socorro site, and when she was there, the morning after [Apr. 25, 1964], she claims that there was a patch of melted and resolidified sand right under the landing area. I have talked to her both by telephone and in person here in Tucson recently."

She had analyzed plant fluids exuded from the scorched greasewood and mesquite plants, and told McDonald, "There were a few organic materials they couldn't identify," but most of the sample was just sap. "Shortly after she finished her work," she told him, "Air Force personnel came and took all her notes and materials and told her she wasn't to talk about it any more." Analysis reports of physical evidence at the site have never been released to the public.” ​

(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/zamora.htm)

Heck, that was a short road.

Perhaps not as short as you thought?

 

[Rramjet]

It seems very unlikely that aliens are visiting the Earth.Where do they come from?The nearest star is 4.22 light years away? How did they detect us?

Very pertinent observation and questions Dafydd. We have the evidence that suggests "aliens" yet we also have the physics that seems to rule out ET.

So what do we do then? Do we merely throw our hands in the air, exclaim "It's impossible. Therefore it cannot be!" and write the whole thing off as "woo"?

Do we ignore the evidence outright, and try to force fit "mundane" explanations even where they do not fit?

Or do we accept the evidence and try to bring our best and brightest minds into research to try and find out what on earth is going on here?

Well, of course the latter response would not be in keeping with human history would it. After all, history tells us that the responsible, rational approach is rarely if ever taken. Instead humanity, when confronted with seeming insoluble problems carries on with a lot of hand-waving denial, torture and general abuse of proponents, and generally makes a mockery of intelligent thought until it finally begins to dawn on enough people that something is not quite right here.

The past few decades have seen the "denial machine" in overdrive, but cracks are beginning to appear in the mechanism. More and more people are beginning to realise that there does exist a cogent body of evidence to suggest a very real phenomenon is occurring. They are beginning to realise that the ridicule dished out by the media just does not represent reality. Too many rational (and even expert) people are experiencing these things. They will, sooner or later, begin to demand answers. I merely hope it is sooner, but historical precedent suggests it will be later. The denial machine has a great deal of impetus behind it and such momentum is not easy to deflect and to turn around. But it will happen... history tells us this also.

 

[Rramjet]

The various military weapons range operators at Nellis A.F.B, in early November, 1994 using all their high-tech gear probably could be called accurate ones.

I'm going to post this link now to substantiate the premise that the Nellis techs were accurate in their observations.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_discussion.html

The rest of the information I shall let you draw your own conclusions on.

Interestingly, has anyone noted that all the videos of this incident have been "pulled" off the internet? It is no longer available...

...and the UFO debunkers wonder how conspiracy theories get started...

 

[dafydd]

Very pertinent observation and questions Dafydd. We have the evidence that suggests "aliens" yet we also have the physics that seems to rule out ET.

So what do we do then? Do we merely throw our hands in the air, exclaim "It's impossible. Therefore it cannot be!" and write the whole thing off as "woo"?

Do we ignore the evidence outright, and try to force fit "mundane" explanations even where they do not fit?

Or do we accept the evidence and try to bring our best and brightest minds into research to try and find out what on earth is going on here?

Well, of course the latter response would not be in keeping with human history would it. After all, history tells us that the responsible, rational approach is rarely if ever taken. Instead humanity, when confronted with seeming insoluble problems carries on with a lot of hand-waving denial, torture and general abuse of proponents, and generally makes a mockery of intelligent thought until it finally begins to dawn on enough people that something is not quite right here.

The past few decades have seen the "denial machine" in overdrive, but cracks are beginning to appear in the mechanism. More and more people are beginning to realise that there does exist a cogent body of evidence to suggest a very real phenomenon is occurring. They are beginning to realise that the ridicule dished out by the media just does not represent reality. Too many rational (and even expert) people are experiencing these things. They will, sooner or later, begin to demand answers. I merely hope it is sooner, but historical precedent suggests it will be later. The denial machine has a great deal of impetus behind it and such momentum is not easy to deflect and to turn around. But it will happen... history tells us this also.

I didn't quite get the bit about where they come from and how they detected us.Why would an advanced race take the time and trouble to come here just to damage a car?

 

[Astrophotographer]

One point… ETH is as valid as hypothesising BOTH flying dragons AND mundane objects (blimps, planets, etc). EACH either HAS or does NOT have evidential support. We only CONSIDER the “flying dragon” hypothesis to be invalid because we DO have evidence that makes its truth implausible. But this is just the same evidential requirement that would make blimp, planet, etc, implausible also….

Oh really? How do you determine that dragons do not exist? How do you determine that ET's are visiting the earth? Why is the ETH plausible and the DH (Dragon hypothesis) is not? Why not hypothesize that UFOs are angels, spirits, God, or some other beings? Why does it have to indicate "aliens"?

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with the great Astrophotographer is automatically “biased”. Hoyt? I think I will have more to say on her research in due course. You may look forward to it?

Well, she did not get her facts correct for her paper so I am sure it will be an issue with the rest of her work. If you want an evaluation of the evidence, the worst person to evaluate it is somebody close to the problem. Their personal bias will skew the results and they will see what they want to see. Sturrock did this in his public presentation of the Sturrock panels conclusions. He stated they overturned the Condon study but they really did not. They basically restated what Condon wrote and disagreed with his opinion that nothing could be learned from studying UFOs (although Condon also stated it was still OK to study UFOs if properly done).

I think you mean “principals”, but let us not quibble about that. Now are you contending that just because the testimonials have come from people who have since died we should ignore them as evidence? I suggest you (again) take that reasoning to a Holocaust survivor (or the family of a victim) and see how far it gets you.

Again, there is supporting evidence for the Holocaust. There is no supporting evidence for these cases other than what the witnesses state happened.

You have a belief that all that is so, but your mere stating of that belief does NOT make it a true belief.

Really? Prove me wrong. Show me a UFOlogist who lists the ten best UFO cases that are not predominantly populated with cases dating before 1980? In Paul Kimball's film, he selected only two that were 1980 or later. One was Rendelsham, which one of the lead investigators, Jenny Randles, now calls Rendelshame (others have referred to it as RendleSHAM). The other was a case up in the Yukon in 1996. The rest all predated 1980. I have seen others come up with similar lists but very few date after 1980.

 

[wollery]

So what then is it physical evidence of? Something caused the damage to the car and Deputy Sherrif Val Johnson. What was the cause of the damage? What caused independent timepieces to both be running 14 minutes slow? The investigators (Police, Ford, Honeywell) were baffled. How DO we account for the physical evidence?

"The patrol car had very peculiar damage. The inside headlight on the driver's side was smashed but not the one to its immediate left. There was a flat-bottomed circular dent on the left side of the front hood, about a half inch in diameter, close to the windshield. There was a crack in the windshield on the driver's side, that ran from top to bottom, with four apparent impacts. The electric clock was running 14 minutes slow, as was Johnson's wristwatch. The shaft of the roof antenna was bent over at a 60-degree angle, starting about 6 inches above its base. The trunk antenna was bent over at 90 degrees, but only near the top. No damage occurred to the car's regular antenna on the front hood. Essentially, all the damage to the car occurred on the left, or driver's side."​

(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)

It's evidence that the car was damaged. What it absolutely is not, is evidence of what damaged the car.

Oh but there was verifiable physical evidence in the case.

"Over the next few hours Betty's skin turned red as if badly sun burned. Her neck swelled and blisters erupted and broke on her face, scalp and eyelids. She started to vomit and continued to do so through out the night. My morning she was almost in a coma.

Some time between midnight and 2 am Vickie and Colby began to suffer similar symptoms, although less severe. At first they suffered the sunburn like condition and then diarrhea and vomiting. It was a miserable night for all three victims.

The following morning Betty was moved to Vickie's house and all three were cared for there. Betty's condition continued to deteriorate and three days later she was taken to hospital. The burns and swelling altered Betty's appearance so radically that friend who came to visit her in hospital did not recognize her. Her hair began to fall out and her eyes became so swollen that she was unable to see for a week."​

(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)

So, where are the photos and hospital records? And even if you can supply those, again, it's evidence of that she suffered extreme UV exposure, but it isn't evidence of the source of the UV.

You don’t say…

"Then Sergeant Chavez came up, asked me what the trouble was, because I was sweating and he told me I was white, very pale. I asked the sergeant to see what I saw, and that was the burning brush. Then Sergeant Chavez and I went to the spot, and Sergeant Chavez pointed out the tracks."

Socorro Deputy Sheriff James Luckie arrived a few minutes after Chavez, and he also confirmed the imprints and the still-smoking foliage.

Zamora had not paid much attention to the "legs" on the object at the time, but now they took on new significance. Four squarish indentations arranged in a trapezoidal pattern were visible. Four burned areas, three of them within the pattern of imprints, also were noted. Several small, shallow circular indentations adjacent to the other markings are labeled "footprints" in the Air Force case file.”

(…)

“In 1968, Dr. James E. McDonald, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Arizona, said that he had learned of an alleged patch of "fused sand" at the Socorro landing site:

"A woman who is now a radiological chemist with the Public Health Service in Las Vegas was involved in some special analyses of materials collected at the Socorro site, and when she was there, the morning after [Apr. 25, 1964], she claims that there was a patch of melted and resolidified sand right under the landing area. I have talked to her both by telephone and in person here in Tucson recently."

She had analyzed plant fluids exuded from the scorched greasewood and mesquite plants, and told McDonald, "There were a few organic materials they couldn't identify," but most of the sample was just sap. "Shortly after she finished her work," she told him, "Air Force personnel came and took all her notes and materials and told her she wasn't to talk about it any more." Analysis reports of physical evidence at the site have never been released to the public.” ​

(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/zamora.htm)

Perhaps not as short as you thought?

Let's see if you've been paying attention. What is this physical evidence of?