Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Aztec Incident by Scott and Suzanne Ramsey

The Aztec Incident, Scott and Suzanne Ramsey, Aztec.48 Productions, Mooresville, NC, 221 pages, no index.

Let me say first that this was a fun book to read. I have been aware of the alleged Aztec UFO crash almost from the moment that I became interested in UFOs. I remember, while still in high school so many years ago, reading J. P. Cahn’s expose of the story in a back issue of True. I was especially interested because I was living in Aurora, Colorado which is, of course, right next door to Denver (and in fact, when most people ask about it I say Denver unless they are familiar with the area), and Denver had a prominent role in the original story.

That said, I found the book somewhat disappointing, but that might be a result of hearing, for the last several years, about a new investigation that had uncovered new and important clues. I had heard about new witnesses to the crash and new information that should be quite persuasive for those with an open mind.

There are two new first-hand witnesses, both no longer available for interview. One of them, Doug Noland, tells a robust tale, but is slightly contaminated because he approached William Steinman who wrote about the Aztec crash in the mid-1980s. While it certainly makes sense for a witness who knows something about the case to come forward, it isn’t as clear cut as if the Ramseys found him through investigation and there is nothing in the book to tell us that.

To make it worse, Noland’s tale mirrors part of the Frank Scully story as reported by Scully in Behind the Flying Saucers. Scully wrote of Dr. Gee and the scientists who watched the crashed saucer for two days before they approached and how, with a pole poked through a small hole in a porthole, tripped a switch that opened the craft.

In fact, the Ramseys go out of their way to avoid much of what Scully reported about the Aztec crash, seeming to ignore Scully’s first, tongue-in-cheek references in his newspaper column, the crashes in other parts of the United States and the world, or that the crew had been dressed in garb reminiscent of the 1890s, but they all had perfect teeth.

Anyway, Noland claimed, and the Ramseys reported, that those on the scene, including workers for the El Paso Oil Company, and an apparent horde of other on-lookers, climbed all over the craft. It was Bill Ferguson, a friend of Noland’s, who used the pole to probe the broken porthole, opening the ship.

It was sometime after that, after Noland and his pals got a look inside, that the military arrived. True, there were some police on the scene early, but they did nothing to dissuade the civilians from their close examinations. But Noland’s tale about the scene differs in these ways, from that told by Scully.

One of the policemen identified is Manuel Sandoval, who was from Cuba, New Mexico, not all that far from Aztec. The problem here is that the Ramseys did not interview Sandoval, though you wouldn’t know that from the book, and it was only a distant relative who suggested that he had heard Sandoval talk about the UFO crash.

The other first-hand witness, Ken Farley, came down to the Aztec area to pick up a friend and saw all the commotion. The friend with Farley, who is never identified, saw the craft and the bodies but the reason for being in the area is a little farfetched.

There is the tale of Virgil Riggs (though on a copy of orders published show the name spelled Virgel... but then, these sorts of things often contain misspellings), who lived in Aztec as a kid, heard the stories of the crash, but saw nothing himself. His own father didn’t believe it happened, but Riggs ran into a fellow while serving in the Air Force in England who had seen it all. This fellow airman, named Donald Bass but who was called Sam, told a first-hand tale, but Bass was dead, according to family, killed by a hit-and-run driver in Vietnam.

The Ramseys didn’t check out that story, and not being Vietnam Veterans themselves, probably didn’t realize that there are many such tales floating around. It took me about a minute to find a web site based on the names on the Vietnam Memorial that listed every American service member who died there. No one named Bass was killed in a hit-and-run in Vietnam and no one who served in the Air Force named Bass died in Vietnam. Clearly the story told to the Ramseys was untrue.

There were some other similar problems. There are many documents in the book, but there is little explanation about them, and some clearly have nothing to do with the Aztec case. One of them that I think of as the Hoover memo, is a handwritten note by Hoover that mentions "...full access to discs recovered. For instance, in the La case the Army grabbed it..."

But this is a reference to the Shreveport, Louisiana hoax of July 1947 and has nothing to do with Aztec. And, since it refers to a hoax, it does nothing to support any crashed disk recovery, regardless of location or time frame.

That is the real problem here, which is information is thrown at the reader, but some of it is irrelevant and some of it unexplained. That detracts from the overall message of the book, which is that Aztec is a real UFO crash.

Although the Ramseys fail to prove the point, this is an amusing book. For those interested in UFO crashes, or the whole Scully story, this provides an interesting take on it. The evidence is very weak and certainly does not overcome the baggage of the Aztec case. For historical purposes, this is an interesting book. For evidence of a crash, it fails to convince.

40 comments:

Kurt Peters said...

Kurt Peters wonders why there is no 'reasoned' post by the 'CDA'.

Kurt Peters will not be mute about Roswell evidence....(unless you buy him a beef steak dinner)....

David Rudiak said...

To answer a query by CDA on another blog as to who the hell is "Kurt Peters", "Kurt Peters" was the pseudonym adopted by the late Karl Pflock (both initials K.P.--get it?) when he participated in a cattle mutilation hoax back in the 1980s.

He was outed in a skeptical book called "Mute Evidence" by journalists Daniel Kagan and Ian Summers, who were looking into the cattle mutilation claims. According to Kagan and Summers, Pflock was in some sort of alliance with two conmen and trying to get a book deal, claiming cattle mutilations were some secret government project to develop race specific bio-weapons (or some such thing--I'm going from memory here).

Anyway, Pflock was calling himself Kurt Peters and Kagan and Summers finally figured out who he really was, and the backgrounds of the two hucksters he was conniving with. Pflock never really lived it down, though few people know about the incident.

This is a little inside joke by our present "Kurt Peters", whoever he is.

"Kurt", are you there?

Steve M said...

It's amazing how any UFO crash story is never completely buried regardless of the evidence showing it never happened.

From what I have read on the Aztec UFO it was proved to be a hoax over 60 years ago so, why do UFOlogists keep wasting their time on it?

cda said...

As I said on the previous topic, we urgently need an enterprising film-maker to produce an autopsy film of the bodies recovered at Aztec. Then, perhaps, doubters like Steve will be convinced. So come on Ray Santilli II, get to it! Why are we waiting?

edithkeeler said...

You can read the Virgil Riggs story, supposedly written by the man himself in 2004, posted in 2007 to the UFO Chronicles website at the address below. In it, he gives more details about "Sam" although he does not identify him by last name. He does mention where they were stationed in England and that Sam was part of a crash retrieval team sent from Roswell to Aztec after the crash.

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2007/07/aztec-crash-england-connection.html

Kurt Peters said...

Why does not the Roswell Dream Team BEG for the assistance of the UFOlogical genius, 'Schlock' Vallee???

David Rudiak said...

The impersonator of the already fake "Kurt Peters" wrote:
Why does not the Roswell Dream Team BEG for the assistance of the UFOlogical genius, 'Schlock' Vallee???

I gave up on Vallee and his thoughts on Roswell after he wrote in "Revelations" that the Roswell "memory foil" properties could be duplicated with "aluminized Saran":

"Aluminized or Silvered Saran" was available for laboratory-scale work in 1948. It was paper-thin, not dented by hammer blows and restored to a smooth finish after crushing."

For starters, Roswell happened in 1947, not 1948, so we have the usual crash-dummy-type time travel "explanation" for Roswell.

There is no evidence that such material was used by balloon projects in 1947 (Vallee thought it a balloon crash). This point was actually raised by Lt. McAndrew, of USAF Roswell report infamy, in his interview Mogul engineer Charles Moore. Moore said they LATER experimented with mylar as a balloon material(not "Saran", I presume as in Saran Wrap, which is not mylar--mylar wasn't developed until 1952) but again not in 1947.

Whether mylar or Saran, neither really matches the physical properties of the memory foil as described by Marcel or others such as Brazel Jr. Both easily burn and are easily cut with knives. Neither returns to its original shape if as thin as aluminum foil on a cigarette package (Marcel's description), and in the case of mylar (which again didn't exist in 1947), if thicker such that it would be stiffer and more apt to spring back to roughly the same shape, it can still be easily creased.

Finally, the memory foil was usually described as dull grey in color, not the mirror shininess of aluminized plastics like myler (think potato chip wrapping material).

So not remotely a "match".

Kurt Peters said...

....as a young girl I was taught never to be rude, Dave... so PLEASE enlighten us all about your many research trips to Roswell, AND your one-on-one discussions with Haut, Dennis, Lytle, Little, Kaufman, Tungate, Rowe, Ragsdale, etc. ....

Steve Sawyer said...

@"Kurt Peters":

You're just trolling here now, "KP," so why don't you leave it alone? If you have nothing substantial to add to the discussion here, what's your actual purpose in making snarky comments? It's pointless, and rather boring.

cda said...

To reply to Kurt Peters, whoever he or she is, the dream team does not need any help from Vallee as the team already knows what the Roswell disc was. It is what it has been for the last 32 years (but not what it was the preceding 32 years).

The Aztec saucer, on the other hand, was nothing at all, then became a crashed spaceship in 1950, then became a hoax in 1952. This hoax lasted until 1986 or so when Stevens & Steinman decided it was a spaceship again, whereupon it was ignored and soon resumed its status as a hoax, until this year when it miraculously became a spaceship yet again (coupled with the usual conspiracy ideas). After a very brief revival I predict it will resume its hoax status.

Roswell, on the other hand, will always be a crashed spacecraft as it is inconceivable that the founder of the great idea (Stanton Friedman) will ever relent, or that the dream team will come up with anything else.

As for Vallee, he is certainly not one of the hard core of nuts and bolts ufology. And Roswell is pure nuts and bolts - you can even find them in the desert if you look hard enough.

starman said...

What other reason(s) if any, besides the erroneous one (Saran) did Vallee give for thinking it was a balloon crash?

Kurt Peters said...

...since it was a Friday night, I just thought you boys would like a little company.... ;)

Moving forward: No one knows what/if Vallee really thinks, since he has quit then rejoined UFO research more times than real UFO researchers can count...

BUT..since both Roswell and Aztec have claimed dates not long after the Arnold sighting that kicked off US media UFO interest, perhaps one of the self-important 'experts' here can tell the class what the direct connection between Arnold's report and the media popularity of 'Cattle Mutilations' is?

...anyone...anyone...Sawyer??

David Rudiak said...

Starman wrote:
"What other reason(s) if any, besides the erroneous one (Saran) did Vallee give for thinking it was a balloon crash?"

He doesn't say specifically. Here's one interview where he simply says he doesn't have an opinion one way or the other but is very skeptical of the UFO theory, acknowledging that some large quantity of material came down, it was "fragile" (whereas most debris witnesses say it was anything but fragile), therefore he would want much better evidence before jumping to the conclusion it was a UFO crash:

http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/ForbiddenScience.htm

In "Revelations," if I recall correctly, he expressed the opinion it was a radiation-monitoring balloon crash (or maybe a drone), proposed what I consider the nonsensical "aluminized Saran" explanation for the memory foil, and also said the "alien hieroglyphics" were probably a counterintelligence ploy in case the debris was found, adding he was surprised they didn't come up with something better. (Doesn't seem logical to me--why at the time would any ordinary person jump to the conclusion that symbols were alien unless something else pointed in that direction, such as material with highly anomalous physical properties?)

Vallee doesn't seem particularly familiar with the Roswell case and is merely expressing unsupported personal opinions for which he has no evidence at all. I'll listen to him whenever he has studied in detail some aspect of UFOs and therefore his opinion would carry some weight.

Kurt Peters said...

I would like to be enlightened as to why RudeDave's comment:

"Vallee doesn't seem particularly familiar with the Roswell case and is merely expressing unsupported personal opinions for which he has no evidence at all."

....is held as canon (Herr Professor Vallee, PhD is a geeeeeeeniiuuuuuussss), when non-PhD true hardworking experts such as Jerome Clark or Anthony Bragalia are shunted off to the side when what you boys call 'UFO crashes' are discussed?

cda said...

Kurt Peters:

1. Who are you?
2. D. Rudiak's comment is not "held as canon".
3. Vallee is not "Herr" as his origin is French not German.
4. Vallee is not a professor either.
5. Vallee is not a genius on UFOs (or anything else).
6. Jerome Clark is not an expert on Roswell.
7. Anthony Bragalia is not either (although he may think he is).
8. Exactly what is your position on (i) Aztec, (ii) Roswell ?

TheNurse said...

I don't think that Aztec is anything more than a pocket-change-making distraction.

Wade said...

Since Lance is conspicuously absent from comments in the last couple of posts, I wonder if he has gone anonymous as the new Kurt Peters.. probably not, but where is he?

David Rudiak said...

Based on hostile tone of posts, lack of even most rudimentary knowledge, such as Jacques Vallee being French, referring in various places to "himself" instead being "a girl" ("...as a young girl I was taught never to be rude, Dave"; "but then, a girl can be forgiven her mistakes..."), I would place my bets that "Kurt Peters" is a certain K.K. in drag.

But I've been wrong before in my guesses about identities, as Lance will attest.

David Rudiak said...

"TheNurse" wrote:
"I don't think that Aztec is anything more than a pocket-change-making distraction."

Oh great, another anonymous poster making the usual inane comment that people are only in it for the money.

Scott and Suzanne Ramsey are both straight-arrows, have spent thousands of hours and several hundred thousand dollars of their own money (Scott over 25 years) chasing down leads, doing lab analyses, and hiring experts. They just did a 1100 copy self-published run of their book. Unless they manage to sell all of them for several hundred dollars a copy, they are getting a rather poor return on investment. Scott better keep his day job.

William Steinem and Wendell Stevens in the 1980s did a 500 book run and couldn't sell those.

The Aztec UFO Conference is a low-key affair, not nearly as well-known or attended as the Roswell UFO Conference. I've been there once as a speaker, it is attended mostly by interested locals, is run by very nice and sincere people (who feed you in their own homes), and has trouble making expenses, such as putting us up in a local motel and paying our travel expenses.

Perhaps TheNurse can inform us of who is making all that money off of Aztec.

David Rudiak said...

Getting back to the real subject of Kevin's blog, Aztec, I haven't had an opportunity to get the book and read it yet.

The most interesting part of Scott Ramsey's research, as I recall, is the witness who said he was from Roswell base and told him about the concrete slab at the crash site used to support the crane used to remove the craft.

The concrete slab was no longer visible but Scott and an associate found the previously unknown slab at the suspected site by probing the soil. One clue to the location of the site was a road off the main road up onto the mesa that the witness said was created to get equipment up to the site.

In addition, it turns out the slab could be dated through the rebar in it, something I had never heard of before. (The lab test was one of the major expenses that Scott had to pay out of his own pocket.) It dated to 1948! What a coincidence.

While this doesn't prove a flying saucer crashed there, I find this pretty damn interesting. We have physical evidence that dates to the right time and was found only because a witness saying he was associated with the crash recovery pointed them in the right direction.

Other experts hired by Scott Ramsey have told him there was no good reason for the slab to be there. Although it is a gas field area and old gas wells are plugged with concrete, there was no gas well at the top of the mesa. The concrete slab is totally out of place.

So I'm not so quick to dismiss the Aztec crash. There is some good circumstantial evidence that indicates something unusual did happen there in 1948.

starman said...

"I haven't had an opportunity to get the book and read it yet."

I just began reading the pdf online. :) I see Stan wrote the forward. Yeah the slab is intriguing; I heard about it some time ago.

cda said...

The person I marvel at is General Vandenberg. After the huge Roswell hysteria, which in view of the many conferences, reports, analyses by scientific consultants and of course the need for the utmost secrecy throughout (not one iota to appear in his daily logs or diaries), no sooner does the hysteria begin to recede than Aztec lands on his lap, with the ghastly process being repeated throughout most of 1948, and then being followed by the "Estimate of the Situation" (whose contents he naturally has to deny & reject to protect the great secret).

What dedication to the cause! Some guy. I certainly would not have wanted to stand in his shoes.

KRandle said...

David -

I have talked to Scott on the phone and emailed him, and according to what he told me, the analysis of the slab material has yet to be completed.

All others -

This was a review of Scott and Suzanne Ramsey's book about Aztec... and once again, you all have moved far afield.

I will note that some of this is my fault. I had a book due to the publisher on June 1 and was busy attempting to complete that.

So, this is about Aztec and not about James Carrion or any of those other things...

And I don't believe Kurt Peters is one whose initials are KK because the Peters postings are not written in the same over the top style with capitalizations running rampant.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
"And I don't believe Kurt Peters is one whose initials are KK because the Peters postings are not written in the same over the top style with capitalizations running rampant."

Kevin, the "KK" I had in mind is female and not "KKK", who I think you are referring to.

"I have talked to Scott on the phone and emailed him, and according to what he told me, the analysis of the slab material has yet to be completed."

They may be running other tests on the slab now, but when I was there in 2005 I seem to remember Scott telling me the rebar dated to 1948.

There may be another way to date the site (tree rings) and see if anything unusual happened in 1948. The same technique was applied to the 1965 Kecksburg "crash site" where witnesses said the object was found. This showed decreased tree growth in 1965 at the site.

KRandle said...

David -

Oh, I see who you mean be KK... I usually ignore her.

As I mentioned, I spoke to Scott just a few days (a week or more) ago, and according to him, the analysis has not been conducted. I wonder if he meant only the analysis of the concrete had not been conducted. But then, you'd have thought he would have mentioned the other analysis.

Rather than try to figure this out, I'll shoot him an email to learn where we stand on this.

David Rudiak said...

Regarding the possibly identity of "Kurt Peters", Kevin wrote:
Oh, I see who you mean be KK... I usually ignore her.

I think we are discussing the same person now.

As I mentioned, I spoke to Scott just a few days (a week or more) ago, and according to him, the analysis has not been conducted. I wonder if he meant only the analysis of the concrete had not been conducted. But then, you'd have thought he would have mentioned the other analysis.

Rather than try to figure this out, I'll shoot him an email to learn where we stand on this.


Well, I was going from memory here from over 6 decades--I mean 6 years ago when Scott Ramsey took us out to the site when I was at the Aztec Conference. I thought he said they had dated the rebar to 1948.

I just did some Googling and found a Dec. 2005 UfoChronicles article by Scott where he mentions digging out a chunk of concrete and rebar in 2002 that they had since sent to undisclosed concrete experts for analysis, but not the results of such analysis.

In a 2007 interview with Dennis Balthauser he states the rebar was from the 1940s, but not specifically 1948.

So my ancient memory of a specific 1948 dating could be wrong. (Though I remember being quite surprised that rebar could be dated when Scott told me about this technique.)

But the story of Scott being led to the then unknown and hidden concrete slab by a Roswell intelligent officer who said he was involved in the recovery I think is still extremely interesting and worthy of serious consideration.

I know Karl Pflock thought it was a plug for an old natural gas well. I remember Scott telling us that Pflock thought they were crazy to drill into the thing, fearing an explosion.

I think the idea that it might be such a well plug has since been discredited, which leaves the question, what is a heavily reinforced concrete slab doing all by itself on top of a mesa, only discovered because a witness saying he was involved led them to it, also giving them information about the newly-cut dirt road leading up to the mesa top (which is still there)?

It may also be possible to date the road from geological survey maps or photos. I don't know if this has been done.

Don said...

David wrote "...which leaves the question, what is a heavily reinforced concrete slab doing all by itself on top of a mesa..."

I don't know anything about this matter, but I have come across the remains of mining operations out in the high desert, one atop a mesa. It appears they were using gravity to sluice out copper (I think). At the bottom of the mesa were several large concrete "bins". These were small operations, not big corporate sites.

Are there photos of the slabs online?

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
I don't know anything about this matter, but I have come across the remains of mining operations out in the high desert, one atop a mesa. It appears they were using gravity to sluice out copper (I think). At the bottom of the mesa were several large concrete "bins". These were small operations, not big corporate sites.

Don, try here for starters, photos of site, area, and concrete slab.

http://www.jaybarrymore.com/Pages/AztecCrash.aspx

There is no evidence of any mining operation there that I remember or was told of.

Below the mesa along the main road are various natural gas wells.

Don said...

Thanks, David. If I'd been there I'd have agreed with Pflock not to drill. The hole was drilled on the edge rather than in the center of the slab, which might be an expression of caution.

Since it is in a gas drilling area, I would ask an engineer in the discipline to examine the stratigraphy of the mesa to determine if it was a likely spot to have drilled a test, based on the practice at the time.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don,

If you have Google Earth, the Hart Canyon turnoff to the "crash site" is about 5 miles NE of Aztec and the site is supposed to be about another 6 miles up Hart Canyon Road.

If you zoom out, you will see a gridwork of maybe several thousand natural gas wells in the area (and no, I didn't sit there and count them all, just guesstimating). I don't know the full history, but there weren't nearly this many gas wells back in the 1940s. Real boom times in gas exploration have been much more recent.

If you Google Earth up Hart Canyon road, you will see many short side roads off the main canyon road leading to gas wells. The "crash site" is on a bluff overlooking the canyon, but you'll notice as long as the main road doesn't go up and onto the bigger mesa, the gas wells all seem to remain down in the flats of the canyon near the main canyon road.

The point is, it doesn't make sense to carve a road up onto the top of a mesa overlooking the canyon if you could do a well right off the main road. In fact, there is such a gas complex immediately below the bluff where the Ramsey's think the "crash site" is.

This argument obviously doesn't preclude the possibility of a gas well be drilled on top of the mesa directly above the other one that is down in the canyon, but at first sight it doesn't make a lot of sense to do that when you have easier access and less drilling to do below.

Don said...

David wrote: "If you have Google Earth, the Hart Canyon turnoff to the "crash site" is about 5 miles NE of Aztec and the site is supposed to be about another 6 miles up Hart Canyon Road."

I may be confused because I found myself NW, rather than NE of Aztec on a road parallel and to the west of, more or less, route 550, in the middle of a grid of wells, I think.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Names of geologic layers are still not standardized, and I've been matching the New Mexico Aztec region with the Utah layers I'm familiar with.

I don't think there is any compelling reason for someone to have bored into the mesas for gas exploration.

The other issue in the link David posted concerned tree damage. Usually tree damage in such places is due to lightning. I'd want to eliminate that before considering other possibilities.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Heh. Managed to get turned around on Google Earth, David. NE from Aztec it is.

Regards,

Don

starman said...

Who was "the Roswell intelligent officer" who led Scott Ramsey to the slab? Has his background been checked?

cda said...

We have a new Aztec book. We also hear of 'blockbusting discoveries' to be revealed at MUFON conference.

Any connection?

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
The other issue in the link David posted concerned tree damage. Usually tree damage in such places is due to lightning. I'd want to eliminate that before considering other possibilities.

You would want to check age and growth patterns of trees immediately adjacent to the suspected crash area vs. trees somewhat removed from the area (for controls). Also, one of Scott Ramsey's military witnesses, who said they cleaned up crash areas to make them look like nothing happened there, said they replanted some trees from elsewhere to replace trees that had been destroyed. That might show up in a tree survey as well.

One thing that caught my eye looking through the Ramsey's witnesses were the unnamed Roswell intelligence officer ("George") who said he was never at the crash site, but was involved in covering it up by falsifying the records of people who were there, making it seem like they were somewhere else at the time.

The workers and test pilots at Area 51 in Annie Jacobson's book also said the same thing. They couldn't prove their work histories there with documents because they were all falsified. E.g., their paychecks would be with a company like Boeing even though they worked for the CIA. The test pilots had falsified flight records saying they were flying an ordinary aircraft at some other base at the same time, rather than some secret spy plane at Area 51.

Unfortunately, documents, like statistics, can be made to mislead, not help us verify or disprove claims. They don't call counterintelligence a hall of mirrors for nothing.

starman said...

@David Rudiak: you said, above, that the intelligence officer led Scott Ramsey to the slab. Who did if he wasn't there?

cda said...

"One thing that caught my eye looking through the Ramsey's witnesses were the unnamed Roswell intelligence officer ("George") who said he was never at the crash site, but was involved in covering it up by falsifying the records of people who were there, making it seem like they were somewhere else at the time."

So we have an unnamed Roswell intelligence officer who was at the Aztec site but who claimed he was not. And he also falsified the records of those who were at Aztec to say they were not. Is it possible that this guy's own records were falsified to show he was not at Aztec when he was actually there, or vice-versa?

So presumably those at Roswell who disclaim any knowledge of the Brazel ranch crash site (and other sites) were actually there but had their records falsified to show they were somewhere else.

The converse is that those few (Marcel, Cavitt, Rickett & maybe others) who DID claim to have been at the Brazel ranch had their records falsified to show they were there, when in fact they were somewhere else.

This was all done deliberately to confuse future investigators as to who really was there and who was not.

Marcel's military records already have one serious omission (suggesting falsification by someone) as there is no mention in them that he ever took part in the recovery of an ET craft.

Lance said...

There is good evidence that Scott Ramsey does not use good practices in his "research" even when compared to the generally low standard amongst UFO writers.

In 2005, Paul Kimball eloquently and thoroughly demolished one of the main witnesses, Fred Reed.

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/03/fred-reed-aztec-red-flag.html

Reed was shown to have earlier told other elaborate and contradicting stories about Aztec. Disturbingly, I am told that Ramsey doesn't address this AT ALL in his new book. This shows him to be more of zealot, ignoring evidence that doesn't suit his premise.

That reminds me a lot of the Roswell myth.

Lance

Sweet Fairy said...

The concrete slab was no longer visible but Scott and an associate found the previously unknown slab at the suspected site by probing the soil. incident management