Thursday, June 14, 2012

Aztec, Scott Ramsey and Fred Reed

After my book, Crash – When UFOs Fall from the Sky was published, Scott Ramsey told one radio show host that he wanted to debate with me about the Aztec UFO crash. I declined, but only because I hadn’t read his book so I wasn’t aware of what Ramsey might have learned. I try to keep an open mind, although the Aztec crash seemed to have been proved a hoax more than once long ago.

Since that time, I have seen Ramsey’s book, spoken with him twice, and exchanged emails with him. I didn’t want to review the book because it seemed to be filled with errors, some minor and some egregious. I suggested that it was a fun little book, which it is in a distorted, perverted sort of way, but it is also a dishonest book, leaving out information that would underscore the false nature of the Aztec case.

There is the story of Fred Reed (although he is identified as Art Reed in, at least, one place on page 198). Reed, according to Ramsey was a former OSS member (the OSS being the Office of Strategic Services, a World War II organization that gathered information about the Axis and operated behind enemy lines), who was sent into Aztec to clean up after the saucer either crashed or landed, depending on which interpretation of the event you chose to believe.

According to Ramsey, in a 1999 interview with Reed, he learned that Reed and his team "...were dispatched to aircraft crash sites from time to time, especially when they were prototype aircraft of something secret..."

Fair enough. Nothing too outrageous here.

Reed said that they were brought in to make it look as if nothing had ever happened. He said that one of those times was "in the area northeast of Aztec, something big had been removed. I can tell you that."

He talked about seeing large equipment tracks, areas where trees had been damaged and the like. They were told to pick up everything from cigarette butts, c-ration cans, or whatever and bury them 18 inches deep, which doesn’t seem all that deep to me and which would leave the evidence on site for others to find. In fact, had I been in charge, I would have had them remove anything like that rather than leave it behind, but then, that’s just me.

Reed said that he had cleaned up a lot of places over the years. He suggested that some of these were just experimental craft and they wanted nothing left for enemy agents (well, that’s my interpretation of it) to find.

But then Reed told Ramsey, "You have a bunch of young guys traveling and living in motel or hotel rooms, and at night we would talk. We never heard the word Flying Saucer or Flying Disc, but years later I ran into my old C.O. and asked him what the hell crashed up in Aztec back years ago. He responded it was no aircraft, but he hinted to a flying disc."

Okay, we now have a hint about it, but Ramsey asked Reed to be more specific and according to Ramsey, Reed said, "My. C. O. said it was no aircraft – nothing as far as the U.S. was concerned. He alluded that it was one of those flying discs."

Overlooking the fact that it seems strange that the C.O. would share classified information with Reed (which does happen after so many years), this is very good information from a first-hand witness... Or is it?

It seems that in the days prior to Ramsey’s interview with Reed, Reed wrote a letter to Aztec Local News. In the March 27, 1999 letter, Reed wrote:
Dear Sir,

Today, my wife and I took advantage of the big celebration and went out to the site of the UFO crash of late 1948 in Hart Canyon. The workers who dedicated their time to this presentation of an important part of New Mexico history are to be commended. The road signs to guide the visitors were strategically placed, and the plaque marking the spot was in the right place. The aliens had built stone cairns marking the path from the oil field road to the crash site. These cairns are still in place today. The trees around the crash site open to the south, which is a typical distress signal for extraterrestrials.

The area looked essentially as it had in 1948 when the OSS sent our group there. We were to make a detailed survey of the area and report back to them, which we did. We were then reassigned elsewhere. We were never told what the OSS was looking for.

But a traveling survey crew like that eats in cafes, sleeps in motels, has no close family, and knows intimately only the men they work with. So, of course, we spect many long nights trying to figure out just what did happen in Hart Canyon.

We had heard rumors that a UFO had crashed there. But it did not look like a crash site. And we had heard that army personnel had rushed in there and cleaned up the site. But it did not look like a clean-up site either. One thing did stand out. There appeared to be some heavy traffic - not on any graded road - leading through the large rock slides to the canyon northwest of the site.

So what it boiled down to was this: No UFO crash. Instead, the UFO landed there for some specific intent to place (bury?) some instrument or thing there. They they got into their saucer and flew away. All of the other stories were put out by the government to cover up what they did not know about it. I guess the answer might be found in the old files of the OSS. But not in my time.

Yours truly,

Fred Reed
  There is a great deal wrong with this, but look at the differences in the stories. Now he is talking about it being an OSS mission, unaware, at the time, that the OSS had ceased to exist in the months following the war, replaced by the Central Intelligence Group that was replaced by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).


Note also that he is not ambivalent about the object that crashed. It is alien, and the trees on the south side of the site are open which is "typical" of an extraterrestrial distress signal.

He also wrote, "The aliens had built stone cairns marking the path from the oil field road to the crash site. These cairns are still in place today." That observation is missing in his interview with Ramsey about a week later.

Although the letter was written in 1999, it would seem that a document, created prior to the first interview would be valuable. It would suggest that the investigator had not contaminated the witness... except in this case, the story changed radically. The letter should raise red flags about the importance and the reliability of the witness. Such radical alterations suggest that the witness is not being candid with the interviewer and is taking his cues from him.

Paul Kimball, who produced and directed a documentary about the Aztec UFO crash noted on his blog:
1. Reed, in his letter, specifically states that nothing crashed on the mesa. Instead, the "rumour" that he heard was that a flying saucer had landed, planted a device, and then flown away - NO recovery! After his interview with Scott, this had changed to "a crashed flying saucer" that had been recovered by the military.

2. Reed, in his letter, refers to several stone cairns which the aliens had left in place to mark the road from the oil road to the "crash site" (note the contradictory statement even within this letter - "crash site" vs. "landing site"). After his interview with Scott, we now have the "out of place, large concrete pad" that had been poured to aid in the recovery.

3. Reed, in his letter, states that the "clean-up" operation occurred in late 1948. After his interview withe Scott, this date has been "corrected" back to April, 1948.

4. Reed, in his letter, talks about how the trees around the crash site open to the south, which is a "typical distress signal for the aliens." This ridiculous statement, which shows more than anything else that Reed is blowing smoke, is nowhere to be found after his interview with Scott.

5. Reed, in his letter, states that his group was sent to the site to make a "detailed survey of the area" and "report back" to the O.S.S. After the interview with Scott, this has morphed into a "cleanup" operation, despite the fact that in his letter, Reed stated that "We had heard that army personnel had rushed in there and cleaned up the site."


This should drive a stake into the heart of this testimony. Given this letter, written days before the Ramsey interview, it is clear that Reed’s story evolved quickly and drastically. Since Ramsey had a copy of the letter, he should have reported on these problems but did not.

Yes, we all have been caught by "witnesses" who were spinning tales. Frank Kaufmann and Gerald Anderson spring to mind. But in those cases, neither had presented a story that was so clearly changed from the beginning so quickly. Anderson began to adjust his tale, adding information to cover discrepancies, but not within a week of his original interviews. Kaufmann was able to produce documents to support his stories because he had a stash of old military letterhead and a couple of vintage typewriters.

But the other side of that coin is that when I learn that a witness has fabricated some of his testimony, inflated his credentials by claiming military rank and awards that were unearned, or made other statements that can’t be verified, I expose them myself. Here we have a case in which the testimony is at odds with what was written just days earlier, but there is no indication in subsequent reporting that the man has radically altered his statements.

And yes, I know that the telling of a tale from memory often has little twists and turns and that is expected. But this goes far beyond that. While I could accept the OSS statement if the guy had served with them during the war and continued with them through their various permutations, the other changes are just too much. It should have raised red flags, as Paul Kimball suggested, but those seem to have been ignored.

Karl Pflock, to his credit, had made it clear that he couldn’t name the source for the Newton diary and he couldn’t prove there was a diary. He thought the information should be published, probably with the hope that someone else, with similar knowledge would come forward to prove the case. Here, we just have the contradictory information ignored, but it should also be published.

What this means, simply, is that we have a compelling reason to reject the Reed testimony. The story is inaccurate, it is contradictory, and it detracts from the case for the Aztec crash. It should be published so that those who wish to judge the reality of the Aztec crash for themselves will have access to all information available. It shouldn’t be forgotten or ignored by the new primary investigator on the case.

And as an aside, I should make it clear that I do not believe there was a crash, landing, touch down, or anything else involving an alien craft near Aztec in 1948. The story is clearly the invention of a con man who hoped that the idea of alien technology would create interest in his oil finding (doodlebugs) gadgets. That the story survives until today is a testament to the lack of research capabilities of some of those in the UFO field.

55 comments:

Lance said...

Paul Kimball did some excellent work in putting together this story (back in 2005).

Not only was the letter known to Ramsey (he gave it to Paul) but it was also known to another stalwart Aztec supporter, Frank Warren.

In the blog post where Paul broke this story, Warren promises to respond to Paul's revelations but I can't find such a response (other than a lame excuse for the OSS mistake).

We are fortunate that Reed was such a bumbler and that the letter came to light. Most false witnesses don't make it so easy.

Ramsey shows himself to be highly unreliable and a terrible researcher, which reminds me of certain postman that we were warned about by a certain Roswell expert.


Lance

cda said...

Reed wrote:

"The aliens had built stone cairns marking the path from the oil field road to the crash site. These cairns are still in place today".

Did I read this right?

It means that actual structures, i.e. the cairns, stand today and that these were put there by ETs in recent times!

And we have guys like von Daniken going to all the trouble of travelling the world to find ancient artefacts put on earth by ETs of centuries and millennia ago.

Presumably there is a monument or plaque in Hart Canyon to tell visitors of this.

Kevin, you have wasted your energies these last two decades. You picked the wrong crash and the wrong location. No hardware at Roswell but plenty left behind (and intentionally so) at Aztec.

starman said...

"...these were put there by ETs in recent times!"

Sure, post '48, since all the aliens who crashed there died, lol.

Reed is crazy.

Don said...

In Scully, nothing crashed. The Aztec saucer "gently pancaked to earth like a slow motion of Sonia Henie imitating a dying swan."


"Those connected with the research, the speaker said, believed that all three craft landed under the guidance of their own instruments and did not crash, despite the fact that their crews were dead. They may have landed on instruments or they may have been guided the whole distance. But they did not crash and in only one ship was there any mark of imperfection."

At some point in ufo history, Aztec became a crashed saucer story, and at some point witnesses come forward and talk about the crash.


Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:

But those cairns were put there by ETs. So Reed tells us. However, Scully told us the ETs were all dead, even if there was no crash.

When did those cairns first enter the story? Were they there in the Steinman-Stevens book, which I have never read?

Don said...

Cairns mark trails. In Arches National Park, the trail to Delicate Arch is marked with cairns. Elsewhere, they are set up on native surface to mark jeep routes.

Is there an earlier mention of saucer crashes than the "Twining Memo"?

(h)2 The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these objects.

Among several curious things about h(2) is the notion that physical evidence has to come from a crash. It is very specific. My guess is there was a rumor of a crashed saucer known to AMC. It likely referred to Roswell -- if it referred to a known incident.

In 1956, when asked about saucers crashing, Edwards pulled up Roswell.

Like Roswell, Scully's saucers give the appearance -- in the writing, if not the fact -- of having crashed. From whenever...at some point in ufo history, Dr Gee's saucers become "crashed". People read everywhere about the saucer that crashed at Aztec. Some of them might tell the story of how they were involved in it.

Regards,

Don

Kurt Peters said...

Lance wrote:

"...to be highly unreliable and a terrible researcher, which reminds me of certain postman that we were warned about by a certain Roswell expert."

This sounds like an interesting story; would you please explain in some detail what you are hinting at?

Gilles. F. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gilles. F. said...

@ Don (and dear list members),
You wrote : "Is there an earlier mention of saucer crashes than the "Twining Memo"?"
There is none "SAUCER crashes" mention in the Twining memo, as you seems to state.
Where do you read it? Only "crash".

So, I'm not personaly surprised by the term "crash" here in the text, as I have already stated regarding the Twining Memo.

As you know, there existed "CRASH Intelligence" in the USAAF from WW2.

It have nothing to do with with your SAUCERS, or SAUCERS, or Roswell.

In the fall of 1942, the first twelve "Air Force" officers to receive ATI field collection training were assigned to Wright Field for training in the technical aspects of "crash" intelligence."
You think they were assigned to study the SAUCER or Saucer crashes? Seriously...

USA(A)F acquired "intelligence" by the German/Nippon CRASHES and there was a Service devoted/assigned for...

Taking into account domestic or soviet hypothesis regarding the saucers were the priviligiated (read ALL the Twiwing Memo), it is normal to wait "for crash" (Intelligence).

There is nothing "curious", "anachronic", "fortean" imho by the use of this term in that Memo.

Regards,

Gilles F.

Don said...

Gilles: "Where do you read it? Only "crash"."

Where do you read 'intelligence'?

"In the fall of 1942, the first twelve "Air Force" officers to receive ATI field collection training were assigned to Wright Field for training in the technical aspects of "crash" intelligence."
You think they were assigned to study the SAUCER or Saucer crashes? Seriously..."

I do not think so, and I do not know where you got the idea I did.

There is nothing at all in 2h to indicate anyone studied saucer crashes, because they said they didn't have any physical evidence to study. However, this is the earliest occurrence of 'crash', specifically "crash recovered exhibits", regarding the saucers ("SUBJECT: AMC Opinion Concerning "Flying Discs")...or, I think it is. I'm not aware of an earlier one. Landings? Sure. But not 'crash'.

Roswell is the only high profile saucer story from the wave that implies 'crash'. It is reasonable to assume Roswell inspired the notion of a saucer crash. A misreading of Scully is a source, as well. Eight years after Roswell, the issue of crashed saucers is in the air among ufo hobbyists. Edwards to a question about the issue responds with 'Roswell'.

The idea that there was a rumor in the AF in 1947 about a crashed saucer is controversial. I have some evidence for it, as yet unexamined which I intend to study.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote: (part 1 of 2)


Roswell is the only high profile saucer story from the wave that implies 'crash'. It is reasonable to assume Roswell inspired the notion of a saucer crash.

Military and intelligence interest in crashed "UFOs", or whatever you want to call them, both predates and closely follows Roswell.

Swedish military intelligence was chasing after reported crashed "ghost rockets" in 1946, and in November 1948, the USAF Europe inquired into their conclusions. It was reported, in a Top Secret memo, that it was the opinion of a number of their analysts that the ghost rockets were extraterrestrial in origin since their technical capabilities exceeded that of any nation on Earth. Greek physicist Paul Santorini 20 years later said they were similarly told this by U.S. officials and told to stop their own investigation into ghost rockets over Greece.

Immediately after Roswell, New Mexico astronomer, mathematician, meteor expert Dr. Lincoln La Paz was employed by USAF and Army counter-intelligence to chase after a number of fireball/UFO events to help determine origins, including trying to determine trajectories with the hope of recovering physical evidence. Since when is the military interested in helped a meteor expert recover meteorites? Some known examples:

1. La Paz led a expedition to find remains of a "meteor" fireball near the Four Corners area in early November 1947. Not so odd except the expedition was remarkably large (60 people) and included Civilian Aviation Patrol (CAP) from Kirtland AFB and "military personnel", who the Albuquerque Journal reported were "interested in 'any possible rocket aspects' of the meteor."

I wasn't aware meteorites had "rocket aspects". Why were "military personnel" so damn interested in a "meteor fireball"?

2. Feb. 1948: A real meteor fireball exploded over Kansas. Newspapers reported USAF planes combing the area, and La Paz was initially aided by the Army Counterintelligence Corp (CIC), before he decided it was a meteor and therefore not of interest to the CIC. But they certainly WERE interested in whatever blew up there before La Paz declared it a meteor.

3. The green fireballs, starting December 1948, with a giant one Jan. 30, 1949. The CIC, AFOSI, and the FBI were all involved with La Paz in the search for physical evidence, particularly the Jan. 30 event. An FBI Jan. 31 was informed by Army and AF intelligence that the flying saucers and fireballs were considered "top secret". La Paz concluded the green fireballs were almost definitely artificia devices of some sort, not real meteor fireballs, since they exhibited many anomalous characteristics.

Does anybody really think the military would classify real meteor fireballs "top secret" or again lend massive assistance to a meteor expert to try to find the remains of one?

Why were they so damn interested in these particular events and recovering physical evidence?

Of course, we also know several witnesses who implicated La Paz as being involved with Roswell itself. In fact, La Paz would later report a disc sighting by himself and his family on July 10, 1947, only 70 miles north of Roswell, just 2 days after Roswell blew up in the press. Brad Sparks has raised a real good question as to why La Paz was in this particular area at the time, well off the primary highway, Route 66, into Albuquerque. (He was returning from Oklahoma, and Route 66 was the logical direct way home.)

David Rudiak said...

A misreading of Scully is a source, as well. Eight years after Roswell, the issue of crashed saucers is in the air among ufo hobbyists. Edwards to a question about the issue responds with 'Roswell'.

Canadian radio engineer Wilbert Smith Sept. 15 1950 was being told by Dr. Robert Sarbacher that Scully's story of crashed saucers was "substantially correct" when the Canadian embassy in Washington arranged an interview with him.

Pan Am pilot Bill Nash, of the famous July 1952 Nash/Fortenberry sighting near Washington D.C. said that during the Air Force debriefing afterward it was confirmed the the Air Force did indeed have UFO debris in its possession.

As far as I'm aware, Nash first went public that he believed the AF had flying saucer debris in their possession in 1954:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Post-1947-Roswell-references.html#anchor_48

He also stated in this article, "From their maneuvers, there is no doubt in my mind these objects were controlled by intelligent beings,' Nash said. 'When you have seen them, you realize they were not made on this planet.'"

The point is that rumors of crashed saucers and some limited confirmation of same dates to the early 1950s, certainly not strictly Scully or Frank Edwards.

Steve Sawyer said...

"The point is that rumors of crashed saucers and some limited confirmation of same dates to the early 1950s, certainly not strictly Scully or Frank Edwards."

And, in a sense, even predates the Roswell incident by about a year, as per your mention of the Swedish "ghost rockets" affair. See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_rockets

The Top Secret 4 Nov 1948 "USAFE [Item] 14" letter to "OI OB" also intrigues.

See: http://bit.ly/KvdOgs [full rez]

David, do you know of any subsequent additional documents from this era that reference the "OI OB" response or reply to this letter, which concludes with "What are your reactions?" What might be "OI OB"?

See also: http://on.fb.me/KGje9L

[For 11 July 1946 incoming secret-level telegram to the U.S. State Department ref. the Swedish "ghost rockets" incidents.]

Anyone know if the retired Generals Jimmy Doolittle and David Sarnoff, who visited Stockholm, Sweden in August of 1946, ostensibly on private business, ever issued memoranda or imparted data on their conclusions about these incidents to Lt. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, head of the CIG at the time, and who subsequently wrote a Top Secret memo to President Truman about the alleged source of the "ghost rockets" being Soviet rocket experimentation at Peenemunde, the old V-2 Nazi launch site, although there were no postwar launches of any rockets from there known of or ever confirmed? If so, what cites or references are there to that question, or declassified docs?

See: http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/foia02.htm

[T.S. Vandenberg memo to Truman, first page]

Sorry for this tangent, but when the subject of "nuts 'n bolts" -type UFO phenomena and "crashed saucers" comes up, as in Roswell and the, IMHO, bogus 1948 Aztec "incident," the early to mid-1946 predecessor incidents over the Scandanavian countries and Greece always occur to me to be of some definite relevance and significance as the earliest postwar "wave" of unidentified flying objects, and where some apparent crashes of "something" occurred, and according to the historic records now available, were never proven or concluded objectively as either purely meteoric or as Soviet rocket experimentation in nature, despite initial military and intelligence speculations along those more prosaic lines.

Some other phenomenon, based on Swedish military observations and radar tracking of variations in speed and maneuverability, appears to have been part of the mix, or unknown UFO phenomena of some kind still not positively identified or confirmed, which is intriguing, to say the least.

cda said...

I think DR is wrong about green fireballs being 'Top Secret'. I have the minutes of the Los Alamos conference of Feb 16, 1949 on this very subject. This report is classified 'Secret' not 'Top Secret'. Similarly Dr La Paz's various reports that he submitted to the USAF on the fireball phenomenon are labelled 'Secret'. I expect that personnel in the FBI got confused over things like this.
Their own Roswell teletype of July 8, 1947 wasn't classified at all!

The reason for USAF concern over the incident at Four Corners was that they feared at first that it might be a downed or crashed military aircraft.

Wilbert Smith did not meet Dr Sarbacher face to face, but through an intermediary (a Lt Col Bremner). I do not say this devalues any of the information Sarbacher told him but it does mean it was secondhand and not firsthand.

Sarbacher did use the phrase "substantially correct", according to Smith's notes. In view of what has been known of Scully's tale, despite the very recent Aztec book, over the last 60 years, perhaps this phrase should be changed to "substantially incorrect". And if Sarbacher was wrong over Scully (which he certainly was), why should we trust his other remarks, such as the saucers being "classified two points higher even than the H-bomb"?

I would be interested to know if ANY July 1947 newspaper reports refer the Roswell affair as a 'crash'. As far as I can see, they only use the phrase 'light instrument' and the landing of such. Never a 'crash' (but I am open to correction).

I would also be interested to know if any of the Swedish ghost rocket documents use the word 'crash' and which document specifically refers to extraterrestrial craft in its conclusions.

cda said...

I have a further question, over the famous Twining memo mentioned by Don and Gilles.

The declassification note at the top of this memo gives the date of declassification as 5-4-78, i.e. May 4, 1978 in US notation.

But the Condon report published in Jan 1969 prints this memo in full. How did Condon and his gang manage to get hold of it if it was still SECRET?

Don said...

David, yes, the ghost rockets had already engaged the AF's attention. What I was wondering is when and how the idea of a crashed saucer engaged the public (or 'civilians') and ufologists

Obviously, Scully's Dr. Gee's story was transformed in the telling into a crashed saucer story, and it may be the origin, if it weren't for Edwards mention in 1956 of Roswell as a crashed saucer. I haven't found a mention in the press in the early 1950s referring to Roswell by name, nor any reference to a crash, though one comes across stories about something ufo-ish having happened in "New Mexico" or in the "Southwest" that sounds like Roswell.

The AF was the major source for the ETH, and can be said to have originated the concept of the flying saucer (or disc or ufo). During Roswell, Ramey (or 8th AAF Hq) informs us that the Roswell object (the 25 foot disk) wasn't a flying disc because it didn't have a place for a pilot nor did it have a power source. The Daily Record's version of the Brazel interview follows this line. And that leads to the Twining "memo".

The Twining memo is a report on sighting reports. The reports probably included the to-date reports found in the "Analysis" a year later, and possibly other reports we do not have.

The AF insists on its characterizations, no matter the witness disagrees. This is evident in the Rhodes case. Rhodes was explicit in the FBI interview. He didn't think what he photographed had anything to do with the flying disk wave; he thought it an unusual aircraft. Nothing he reported about its performance was out of line for the time. Yet the AF and project saucer insisted he reported a flying disc because that's how the AF interpreted the photographs.

If the AF generated speculation about ET and flying saucers, they seem a good candidate for being a source for the crash saucers, too.

I guess my original point was if someone tells a tale about a saucer crash near Aztec NM, they have either gotten the Scully account from at a minimum second hand (meaning, they didn't read the book), or they're referring to another Aztec saucer unrelated to Dr. Gee's story.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Did the AF make the association between the ghost rockets and the green fireballs? They seem similar, if not the same. The AF propagated the opinion the ghost rockets were Soviet. Before the green fireballs, they were attempting to associate the flying saucers by describing to the FBI how disks could be borne aloft by airplanes and launched. LaPaz seems to have gotten similar descriptions for the origin of the green fireballs. Later, according to Hynek, LaPaz believed they were due to domestic r&d, not Soviet. LaPaz had been familiar with Fritz Zwicky's experiments, and he might have reached his later opinion beginning with that.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Keyhoe in The Flying Saucers Are Real, refers to Koehler's "crashed" saucers. He also mentions the Mexico City saucer crash story. In 1966, Edwards starts off with Roswell, and then moves forward to the 1950s for examples in the chapter Pick Up The Pieces, in Flying Saucers -- Serious Business, the first being in 1954, Campinas Brazel, which has similarities to Dahl's Maury Island story.

I think we can trace many of the later crashed saucer stories to Newton and Gebauer. The question remains were there any earlier ones. Like Aztec, the Roswell incident implies 'crash'. According to the FBI the "original" Maury Island story was of a saucer that came to earth and disintegrated on Maury Island -- which is a crashed saucer story -- rather than the account we are more familiar with, that the saucer ejected some material and recovered control.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote (part 1 of 2)
I think DR is wrong about green fireballs being 'Top Secret'. I have the minutes of the Los Alamos conference of Feb 16, 1949 on this very subject. This report is classified 'Secret' not 'Top Secret'. Similarly Dr La Paz's various reports that he submitted to the USAF on the fireball phenomenon are labelled 'Secret'.

Subject matter with a maximum classification of "top secret" can generate all sorts of paperwork at a much lower classification. So your examples prove nothing.

I expect that personnel in the FBI got confused over things like this.

This is just another example of CDA refusing to accept what is clearly written because he doesn't want to believe it. The FBI memo states the subject of the flying saucers and the fireballs was classified "top secret" by Air Force and Army intelligence. That's hard to get "confused" about if you are the reporting FBI agent. And there certainly are some known examples of "top secret" UFO documents from this period, such as the November 1948 USAF Europe memo so classified about the opinion of Swedish military intelligence that many of their analysts believed the "ghost rockets" and "flying saucers" were extraterrestrial.

Their own Roswell teletype of July 8, 1947 wasn't classified at all!

Hmmm. The Dallas FBI was told it was just a weather balloon and attached radar target being shipped to Wright Field, not a crashed saucer. This was the exact same information the press was given, so no need for classification.

The reason for USAF concern over the incident at Four Corners was that they feared at first that it might be a downed or crashed military aircraft.

The military didn't know for sure whether one of their own aircraft was missing?

Actually the stated reason for military participation, according to the Albuquerque Journal, was they were interested in the "rocket aspects" of the alleged meteor fireball. This looks to me like a very flimsy cover story.

Wilbert Smith did not meet Dr Sarbacher face to face, but through an intermediary (a Lt Col Bremner). I do not say this devalues any of the information Sarbacher told him but it does mean it was secondhand and not firsthand.

It's unclear exactly how the meeting took place. Smith's handwritten notes state the interview was done "through" Bremner, but the questions bear Smith's initials, further there were follow-up questions to some of Sarbacher's answers. Further, at the end of his notes Smith states the following:

"The above is written out FROM MEMORY following the interview. I have tried to keep it as nearly verbatim as possible."

I interpret this to mean Smith WAS at the interview, then Smith wrote down his notes of what was said immediately afterward from memory.

http://www.roswellproof.com/Smith_9_15_50.html

Sarbacher did use the phrase "substantially correct", according to Smith's notes. In view of what has been known of Scully's tale, despite the very recent Aztec book, over the last 60 years, perhaps this phrase should be changed to "substantially incorrect".

Smith's question: "I have read Scully's book on the saucers and would like to know how much of it is true."

Sarbacher: "The facts reported in the book are substantially correct."

So Scully was not entirely correct, which isn't surprising, but "substantially" so.

The basic subject matter of the book was the recovery of several crashed saucers and alien bodies, though Scully's theories about magnetic principles, which Smith was interested in, are clearly amateurish.

Smith/Bremner then followed up with:

"Then the saucers exist?"

Sarbacher: "Yes they exist."

My interpretation: If you have physical debris and/or bodies, then you know with absolute certainty that they exist.

David Rudiak said...

Response to cda, part 2 of 2
And if Sarbacher was wrong over Scully (which he certainly was), why should we trust his other remarks, such as the saucers being "classified two points higher even than the H-bomb"?

If you have absolute certainty of their existence because Scully's book about having crashed saucers and bodies was "substantially correct", then there will necessarily be a program of extremely high classification to deal with it, just like with atomic secrets, which are born classified.

There was also follow-up communications from Smith, the Canadian embassy, and so on about the need for secrecy and about going through security review by Vannevar Bush and the Research and Development Board (RDB) to OK an article that Smith wanted to do with Keyhoe for True Magazine on the magnetic principles of saucer propulsion. Why the high-level security review by Bush and the DRB for a stupid magazine article on the flying saucers, if there is nothing to it? The article was also to undergo high-level review by the Canadian counterpart of the RDB, the Defence Research Board under Dr. Omond Solandt, who later admitted to having discussions with Bush on the flying saucers.

http://www.roswellproof.com/smith_papers.html

Smith's "top secret" Dept. of Transport memo mentions a secret group under Bush looking into the "modus operandii" of the saucers, but this isn't in Smith's handwritten notes of the meeting with Sarbacher, so possibly this information came from another source. In any case, Bush and the RDB keep coming up in the Smith correspondence in regard to the security review of the Keyhoe article.

Gilles. F. said...

@ Christopher (and others)

Regarding the "Ghost Rockets", I recently take many pleasure and gaigned knowledge reading Joel Carpenter "chronology" and mammouth historiographical work.

http://www.project1947.com/gr/grchron1.htm

Doctor David Rudiak mentionned the "famous" declassified USAF in Europe document, but there is the Vandenberg to Truman one too, evokating not the ETH as one the source or not Zeta reticuli as one the launching site regarding the ghost rockets^^

http://www.project1947.com/gr/gr2.gif

Anyway, it was to share this Joel Carpenter's work if Kevin's blog follower didn't know it, not to polemic.

Regards,

Gilles Fernandez

cda said...

I have several official documents on the green fireballs. Some are written by La Paz, some by other scientists (including the Project Twinkle final report by Louis Elterman), some by various military personnel. Also the minutes of that Los Alamos conference.

Every one, without exception, is either 'Secret', or 'Confidential'. None are 'Top Secret'.

So if DR still insists the subject was Top Secret (on the strength of one FBI memo by someone who perhaps was not familiar with the topic) it is he who needs to furnish the proof.

How can the minutes of a conference on a 'Top Secret' matter be only 'Secret'?

Sarbacher's "two points higher than the H-bomb" is meaningless. What is 'one point'? And could anything be 'three points' higher? The mind boggles. I would go so far as to say that Sarbacher did not know what he was talking about. Or did Smith make up this statement?

If the H-bomb was top secret (as it certainly was in 1950) what did 'two points higher' mean? Even Stan Friedman would likely be baffled with that.

But we are straying, yet again.

KRandle said...

Geez -

You people are like a bunch of little kids playing telephone. I write a posting about Aztec and Fred Reed and now you're arguing about the security classification of Project Twinkle...

Okay, here's how it works. There could be elements of the investigation that were classified top secret. If you are in a meeting discussing aspects of it but no top secret information is shared or recorded, then the classificiation could be at a lower level. It would depend on the classification agency (here meaning the security officer or manager for Twinkle) to determine the level of classification.

For those keeping score at home, I believe this idea that something is "two points above top secret" is something of a misnormer. There are ways for it to work, however.

Let us say you have a top secret project and you want to restrict access to only certain people. You add a code word so that the project is now classified top secret - salt (which I just made up). It means that only those people who hold a top secret clearance with the salt endorsement are privileged to see the material.

Now, if you want to restrict it further because some people have a need to know everything and others inside the salt circle do not, you classify it top secret - salt and then add a second code word, say Denver. Then only those with a top secret salt/Denver clearance could access the material... and that, my friends, is something classified two points above top secret.

Well, not really because it is more lateral than above, but it gets us to the point. There are very few projects that have a double code word restriction.

And now, if you have nothing to say about Aztec, Scott Ramsey or Fred Reed, save it for another time.

cda said...

I have nothing further to say about Aztec except that it was probably classified two points above Roswell and maybe three above the H-bomb.

But perhaps Scott Ramsey can enlighten us on this.

Lance said...

Sniff,

I don't even get a gold star for actually being on topic (for once)?

Lance

Don said...

I have something to say about Aztec.

I realize what is of interest here is -- I'll call them Scully's saucers and the little men, whether the story is true or not. Probably we all agree or nearly so, it is not true. I'd like to find out where Newton and Gebauer got the story (assuming they didn't make it up themselves), and, second, why they would use a saucer story in order to grift a doodlebug.

JP Cahn, in Flying Saucer Swindlers doesn't make a strong argument for 'why saucers?'. The saucers are hardly necessary in the swindle of Herman Flader. It's Gebauer's proof (the water wells), plus Newton's inferior $800K machine, that sells the doodlebug...a classic grift...not alien technology.

It is possible their saucer story had another purpose, perhaps another kind of swindle unrelated to oil, or maybe something else altogether. It just seems so unlikely they would invent "Aztec" in order to sell some black boxes.

Cahn's story about the swindle and the saucers just isn't very convincing.

http://www.ufomind.com/area51/desertrat/1995/dr27/rat_27_s3.html

This comment: "Steinman writes that Broman [The prof. or instructor at U. Denver to whose class Newton told the saucer story] was contacted by a representative of the FBI or Army intelligence--Broman does not remember which--right after the lecture. The caller reportedly wanted to know what he and others thought of the lecture. When we asked him about this on July 1, Broman confirmed the book's account. The caller tried to reach him by telephone at his home soon after the 10 am. lecture. Since Broman had to drop off his laboratory assistant before he could go home, he missed the call. Broman was called back a second time soon after he arrived home. The caller did ask what Broman and others thought about the lecture. Broman replied that he didn't believe the crash story and didn't think many others did either. That seemed to satisfy the caller."

Did any other investigators interview Browman? If so, is this story supported? I'm surprised he wouldn't remember the FBI, but a CIC agent undercover as a "government agent" might create confusion. This agent wanting immediate feedback puts me in mind of Pflock's 'memoir'.

Regards,

Don

Paul Kimball said...

On Aztec, some key resources:

J. P. Cahn's first article exposing the con can be found at: http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/UFOs/Scully/Cahn1.pdf


His follow-up article can be found at:
http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/UFOs/Scully/Cahn2.pdf


Also of interest are these talks by Cahn:

http://debunker.com/sounds/Cahn_BAS_1.mp3

http://debunker.com/sounds/Cahn_BAS_2.mp3

http://debunker.com/sounds/Cahn_BAS_3.mp3


Best,
Paul

David Rudiak said...

Thanks to Paul for the links to the True Magazine articles.

I noticed reading through the first article that J. P. Cahn, in writing about Scully and Aztec, notes that it was preceded by the Roswell crashed disc story, though doesn't mention it by name (with deference to CDA, he doesn't use the word "crash" but "fallen-saucer"):

"Fallen-saucer stories weren't, in fact, new even at that time. Back on July 9, 1947, only two weeks after private-flier Kenneth Arnold had alerted the nation with his nine disks seen skipping "saucer-like" near Mt. Rainier, Southwest newspapers headlined that captured disk that had fallen on a New Mexico ranch was a dud. That one, when delivered to the Eighth Army Air Force, was identified as a tinfoil-covered reflector from a weather balloon."

So yet another post 1947 reference to Roswell. A minor quibble I have with the reporting is the statement that the story was confined to southwest newspapers, when it was in practically every newspaper in the country, and even many abroad.

Paul Kimball said...

I have absolutely no doubt, to the point of existential certainty, that Cahn was right, and Aztec was part of a con run by Newton and Gebauer. They either fooled the credulous Scully (wouldn't have been the first time, if you look at Scully's career), or that he went along with because it made for a good, sensationalist story that would sell (again, wouldn't have been the first time).

The interesting thing is that there is a more intriguing case in the Aztec area that Karl Pflock highlighted in the Aztec film - the 1950 Farmington "armada". Karl rejected Aztec, as I do, but did give some credence to the Farmington case as a genuinely anomalous event that remained unexplained... and, much to his chagrin, overlooked.

PK

Daniel Transit said...

Mr.Kimball, You are distorting the true history of what happened in the quote I've copied below. You refer to "Scully" as if there were one person involved, named Scully. There were two adults involved named "Scully" - Frank Scully and his wife, Alice Scully. They also had children and friends - other people that they discussed these matters with, and who were also supposedly "fooled". The very fact that you are casually editing Alice Scully out of consideration demonstrates your LACK OF OBJECTIVITY on this matter.

'..They either fooled the credulous Scully (wouldn't have been the first time, if you look at Scully's career), or that he went along with because it made for a good, sensationalist story that would sell (again, wouldn't have been the first time)...'

Paul Kimball said...

And to think that some people wonder why I stay away from ufology.

As for fooling people, yes, indeed - Newton and Gebauer, with Scully's assistance, fooled a lot of people. Scully's book was, after all, a best-seller.

But even if Scully was a really, really sharp guy, and a crack journalist (he was neither), people can still be fooled. Hugh Trevor-Roper was one of the finest historians of the 20th century, and he was taken in by the Hitler Diaries. Why? Because he wanted to believe. It almost always comes down to that.

PK

Don said...

An interesting point about Cahn's Flying Saucer Swindlers is he didn't support the title. Cahn had ideas about why Newton's doodlebug operation came with a saucer story, but his account of Flader's encounter with Newton and Gebauer all he writes is Gebauer mentioned it to Flader. The "crossfire" operation didn't need a saucer story. It is definitely not "bait", as Cahn presents Flader's story.

Who is Flader? According to Cahn, Newton shows up for some medical treatments from an electrical device of Flader's, which Cahn assures us Flader provided free to all, to benefit mankind.

Cahn wanted a saucer story, but in his second article, he is really reaching for one. I'm not impressed that the saucer story and the oil cons are so tightly bound together as Cahn asserts.

Has anyone read the transcript of the trial?

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don, Cahn's theory was that Newton hooking Scully into the crashed saucer story gave Newton a million dollars worth of free publicity when Scully published his book and access to new marks to scam.

I think your question is more to the effect of what did the saucer story do for Newton pre-Scully? Maybe he was trying to tie the oil-finding doodlebug technology in with saucer technology to make it sound more impressive. Based on the timing, it seems Newton added the saucer pitch to his story in late 1949 and Scully was already beginning to report it in late 1949 in Variety magazine.

My question is where did Newton get the idea of a crashed disc story to begin with? Cahn mentions Roswell as a possible predecessor, but I have my doubts about that, since the story was so short-lived at the time and just about everybody bought into the weather balloon explanation.

It could be that Newton/Gebauer heard the Aztec story from elsewhere and then made it their own. I vaguely (and perhaps incorrectly) remember Steinman hypothesizing that maybe Newton was socializing with people in Colorado who did know something and got the story from there. Of course, even if this was true, if Scully got all his information from Newton and Gebauer, very little of it was likely to be correct.

I still can't shake the feeling that there was something to the story, even though Cahn presents a highly convincing case that Newton and Gebauer were con men.

First there was the FBI telex of three crashed saucers which is similar to the Scully book but with some major differences. E.g., the FBI has identical sizes for the three crashed saucers instead of Scully's power of 9 variable sizes. The number of bodies is very different, and the FBI refers to them as human-shaped and dressed in something like metallic cloth pressure suits instead of Scully's perfect little people dressed in 1890's garments. The informant is said to be with the Air Force, not a civilian.

Then there was the briefing that Wilbert Smith got from Dr. Robert Sarbacher in Sept. 1950 right after the Scully book came out, where Sarbacher states that the facts in Scully's book were "substantitally correct," the saucers were indeed real, and spoke of the extreme high classification on the subject. The strongly suggests that Sarbacher was confirming the central thesis of Scully's book that there had been several saucer crashes with recovery of bodies.

Dr. Olavo Fontes received a similar briefing in 1957 from two Brazilian naval intelligence officers, who Fontes said told him that the saucers were known to be very real because there had been multiple crashes recovered, including 3 in the U.S., and the beings were the same small size of 3-4 feet reported earlier. Fontes was likewise told that the subject was classified up the wazoo by every government in the world because the beings were believed hostile.

So nothing specific about Roswell or Aztec, but the general notion of 3 U.S. crashes was still being reported.

David Rudiak said...

I wrote:
It could be that Newton/Gebauer heard the Aztec story from elsewhere and then made it their own. I vaguely (and perhaps incorrectly) remember Steinman hypothesizing that maybe Newton was socializing with people in Colorado who did know something and got the story from there. Of course, even if this was true, if Scully got all his information from Newton and Gebauer, very little of it was likely to be correct.

I still can't shake the feeling that there was something to the story, even though Cahn presents a highly convincing case that Newton and Gebauer were con men.


To amplify a bit on my shaky memory, here is an excerpt from the Steinman/Stevens book where they claim Gebauer was in contact with and got the Aztec story from Dr. Carl August Beiland, geophysicist and magnetic sciences expert, Head of the Geophysics Department of the Colorado School of Mines, allegedly part of the recovery team and involved afterward in trying to figure out the magnetic principles of propulsion, which also makes up a big chunk of the Scully book:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=889

"We can see also how Mr. Leo Gebauer, who was associated with Doctor Carl A. Heiland in some magnetics research, came into his knowledge of the Aztec crash and some of the details. Gebauer was the unintended "leak" outside of the group of scientists sworn to secrecy, who really had all Gebauer said they had and much, much more. Gebauer picked his information up from Dr. Heiland, staff and associates who were working on magnetics aspects of the problem at hand, hence the heavy emphasis on a magnetics aspect to the phenomenon. Gebauer carried the information out as "scuttlebutt", with a little of the residue he was able to get hold of. Dr. Heiland was now "confiding" in Gebauer, not Silas Newton, and probably thought little of a "leak" until Scully published the story. Then there was a lot of back-tracking to repair the damage done. Heiland was eventually separated from the main research project because of this..."

I know many will dismiss this, very understandably so. The simple explanation was that Gebauer and Newton were swindlers, made the whole thing up, end of story. But I don't really think this gets to the heart of it--where did they dream up this very elaborate story to begin with?

The point is these guys were basically crooks and liars, yet there still could be something to the story. They heard about it and incorporated it into their various oil scams, not much different than people lying about their military battles when they were never there, usually to enhance their personal image. But the lies are based on real events. A hoaxer doesn't necessarily make something else a hoax (although it certainly doesn't enhance the credibility of an otherwise unverified event either).

Don said...

"I still can't shake the feeling that there was something to the story, even though Cahn presents a highly convincing case that Newton and Gebauer were con men."

Neither can I.

I don't understand why anyone would think the saucer story could be "bait" unless it was aimed at a specific target. Besides being a "red" in the early 1950s, hardly anything was more likely to get you branded as untrustworthy than testifying to one's belief in the reality of saucers and little men from Venus.

The saucer story doesn't add anything to Gebauer's doodlebug con, at least as we have the Corsun and Flader stories from Cahn.

It's Gebauer's story, not Newton's or Scully's. We don't know much about him, although it appears the FBI does and aren't telling -- or so the story goes. As we know, the idea of a saucer crash is not common at the time. Cahn didn't refer to Roswell as a crash, but a few years later Edwards would. If it was invented by Gebauer, then he had more imagination than I'd expect.

Despite whatever point Gilles was making, no one then is referring to saucer crashes except the AF.

"It is unlikely that positive proof of their existence will be obtained without examination of the remains of crashed objects"(Unidentified Aerial Objects Project "Sign", Feb 1949)

So, I think it is a good hypothesis that a saucer crash was rumored in the AF, whether or not there was one, which leads me to wonder when something like a saucer crash turns up, whether the AF is involved in the story. Which reports might have contributed to the idea? Roswell, obviously. Less obviously, Maury Island. Perhaps, as well, something we do not know about.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
Despite whatever point Gilles was making, no one then is referring to saucer crashes except the AF.

"It is unlikely that positive proof of their existence will be obtained without examination of the remains of crashed objects"(Unidentified Aerial Objects Project "Sign", Feb 1949)


The point of one of my earlier posts here was that military counterintelligence units like the Army CIC and Air Force OSI were employing and assisting Dr. Lincoln La Paz to search for crash remains in various "fireball" cases. The military does not look for meteorites. They were obviously looking for something else, namely physical remains of something technological. (That would be true even if they were chasing after something quite earthly, such as downed foreign aircraft or spacecraft.)

Remember La Paz's search for fireball remains in the Four Corners area in November 1947 (only 4 months after Roswell)? The Albuquerque Journal said the large expedition included military people who were going along because they were interested in the possible "rocket aspects" of the fireball.

Meteors with "rocket aspects"? I think not. Doesn't matter whether the fireball really was caused by a meteor. They were looking for something else.

AF Chief of Staff Gen. Twining in 1953 spelled it out in AF Reg 200-2 when he defined the term "Unidentified Flying Object" (that which was anomalous in shape and/or performance and REMAINED unidentified after scrutiny by experts) and said they were to be studied for national security reasons and for their "technical aspects". Meteors, mirages, lenticular clouds, Venus, pelicans, balloons, etc.? I think not.

Don said...

David, regarding Steinman/Stevens, the first question that pops to mind is how someone with Gebauer's FBI dossier could get near any classified project, much less one above top secret.

I guess the earliest stories were Scully's articles in Variety in October and November, 1949 (or so I've read. I haven't got copies), but contemporary with them is Bruce Cabot's call to the FBI about Newton's comments on the golf course one day. Newton displayed a "magnetic radio" which came from a flying disk and that he was using to find oil deposits in the ground.

This device was not like the one Gebauer is said to have used in the Flader case. It was "about 7x2x2 inches". Cabot, who would have known, did not say anything about it being war surplus kit.

I don't accept Cahn as an authority. He's just another professional writer putting food on the table. I'd rather read the case report myself. What Cahn describes is a classic and common con game, what he called "crossfire". Newton was the "shill".




Regards,

Don

Don said...

I did find a few news stories last night that have info about the trial testimony.

***
Flader testified that while driving to Carbon County, Wyo., to inspect some of Gebauer's oil sites, the defendant told him he had seen a flying saucer from outer space, and the bodies of three midget "men" near the wreckage.

Gebauer claimed the flying saucers operated on the force around the earth, which was the same principle that operated the doodlebugs," Flader said.

***

The stray " is in the paper, not my typo.

Someone who knows the chronology can chime in here and tell us whether the Wyoming trip was, as I suspect, well after the hook was set, and, if Flader is saying this was when the saucers were first mentioned, then the saucer story was not "bait" on the hook for the doodlebug scam as Cahn asserted.

The point of contention in the case were the war surplus tuners Flader said was the device.

Newton and Gebauer denied their device was anything like what was in the courtroom and presented witnesses, including someone who had been employed by Flader at the time, to testify to it.

Obviously, the jury didn't believe them. However, we have Bruce Cabot's account to the FBI from November, 1949 about the "magnetic radio" as an independent source.

So, I am not existentially certain Cahn was right. Cahn was as lacking in objectivity as was Scully. Fascinating.

Regards,

Don

Paul Kimball said...

Cahn was as lacking in objectivity as was Scully.

That is the kind of statement that true believers have tossed around for almost 6 decades in their attempts to smear Cahn, and bring some sort of moral and / or professional equivalence between him and Scully, and by extension Newton and Gebauer. It was shameful then, and it remains shameful now, because there is absolutely no basis for it.

Paul Kimball said...

As for Scully, people unfamiliar with his life and work, or who know him only through Ramsey's assertion that he was the "Dan Rather of his day", should have a look at what I wrote about Scully several years ago:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.ca/2005/03/being-frank-about-frank-scully-that-is.html

An interesting man, to be sure, but hardly a paragon of top-notch journalism.

PK

David Rudiak said...

Don,

Several hypotheses about the Aztec crash have emerged from these discussions:

1. It was dreamt up by con-men Newton and Gebauer as part of an elaborate scheme to impress potential marks about their oil-finding technology, and Frank Scully was a pawn to help advertize the genius of Newton and expand the number of potential marks (Cahn's theory of motive).

2. Steinman's hypothesis, that Gebauer, who was no slouch in electronics, had contacts with Dr. Carl Heiland of the School of Mines in Colorado, who allegedly was part of the recovery team of a real Aztec crash, and involved in analysis of the alleged magnetic aspects of how the saucers worked. Heiland and his team members leaked information to Gebauer (thus Scully's claim that "Dr. G" was a composite of information from multiple scientists, though unknown/unlikely Scully actually talked to anyone but Gebauer), who then, with Newton, piggybacked this onto their oil scams. So basically scenario #1, but with the idea not made up by Newton/Gebauer on their own but coming from a real event that they weren't personally involved in as they claimed.

3. Scenario #1 (or even #2), all or mostly faked by Newton/Gebauer, but with the added twist that the FBI early on was well aware these guys were con-men, but their story was nonetheless useful disinformation for the government and they let them run with it instead of hauling them in and prosecuting them for fraud. This would square with the fact that much of the large file the FBI has on Gebauer is still classified for national security reasons and also Pflock's claim of reading Newton's diary where Newton allegedly claims to have been approached and asked to continue promulgating the hoax Aztec story.

(Feel free to add to the list of wheels-within-wheels possible conspiracy theories.)

It is generally the argument that only #1 applies, simple con and hoax, and that may well be the case. But #2 and #3 are still on the table as far as I'm concerned.

Even #3, total hoax but with government involvement to continue hoax, is incredibly interesting, as it begs the question why the FBI would possibly be protecting Newton & Gebauer and wanting them to continue to spread disinformation about a nonexistent saucer crash with their shady names attached to the story. (Such things are not unheard of where important informants or agent provocateurs are allowed to continue their dirty work/criminal behavior to further the agenda of the agency running them.)

The most likely reason IMHO for a #3 scenario is a diversion from a real event and also to discredit same.

cda said...

Everyone knows about the famous letter Dr Sarbacher wrote to Steinman (Nov 1983) in answer to his many letters of enquiry to Sarbacher. It has been published frequently, in many places.

Has anyone ever seen any of these letters that Steinman wrote to Sarbacher? There were a few phone calls from Steinman as well but presumably no recordings were kept. I have never seen the Steinman-Stevens tome on Aztec.

Moore, and maybe Friedman, first met Sarbacher long before Steinman ever contacted him; in summer 1982 I believe.

Don said...

Paul wrote: "That is the kind of statement that true believers have tossed around for almost 6 decades in their attempts to smear Cahn, and bring some sort of moral and / or professional equivalence between him and Scully, and by extension Newton and Gebauer. It was shameful then, and it remains shameful now, because there is absolutely no basis for it."

Maybe they do and maybe it is shameful. I have nothing to say about "moral or professional equivalence". Neither men were objective or disinterested. They both "talk up their position". Cahn was not just a reporter covering a story, but a player in it, a protagonist. He made himself so.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

David,

Scenario 1 has no support I'm aware of in the Flader case (which is the only doodlebug case). I assume business reasons inspired Cahn to go for the gusto and enable Flader, which, as it turned out, did not support his "bait" theory.

I think it might have been possible that they targeted a mark (either an individual or a group) in Hollywood who actually would have been baited by the saucer story. Maybe Cahn should have let the story develop a bit.

Scenario 2, I'd need evidence Gebauer knew these people, and how he could get close to something above top secret.

Scenario 3...there are possibilities. What little I know about the FBI dossier concerns comments by Gebauer some months before Pearl Harbor that were pro-Nazi, anti-FDR. Such sentiments were not unheard of before the war. Did they have a file on Newton?

What would be interesting is if the FBI associated Gebauer with German-American "bund" type groups. German-Americans were targeted in both World Wars as potential subversives. They were of significant interest to the FBI and the CIC (and their predecessor organizations). Through the Justice Department, civilian vigilantes and posses were organized to expose the disloyal and subversive among German-Americans. Cold War anti-communism replaced it.

They also infiltrated such groups. A long shot would be Gebauer had been an informant for the FBI or CIC.

In response to Cabot's information, the FBI forwarded it to the AFOSI. This indicates the FBI considered it to be a saucer story rather than a swindle, as that was FBI policy, and there was nothing in Cabot's story to indicate a scam. It appears the AFOSI did nothing much to follow up, no matter their opinion of their efforts noted in the report. I'd guess, instead, they kept their hand in.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:

"Scenario 2, I'd need evidence Gebauer knew these people, and how he could get close to something above top secret."

I have the same problem as you do. Steinman in his book, Chapt. 3, pp. 84-85, "Security Leaks", claims Gebauer and Dr. Heiland knew each other from 1935 when they both spent a few months in the Antarctic studying the Aurora Borealis. He further claims they both worked during WWII on the MAD (Magnetic Aerial Detection) anti-submarine technology.

I am not steeped in the minutia of Aztec as I am Roswell, so I can't render an opinion as to whether any of this is true or not. Steinman does not reference any of this or provide documentation. It might be true or it might not be.

But he claims Heiland was involved in the recovery at Aztec and subsequent analysis and then innocently leaked this to his old acquaintance and fellow geomagnetics investigator Gebauer during casual conversation.

Regarding Denver radio salesman George Koehler's connection, Steinman does have one document (pp.111-113) dated Jan. 23, 1950, where his saucer story was investigated by the USAF OSI inspector general. In this it is stated that Koehler said his sources of information was a Dr. XXXXX (Steinman presumes Gebauer) and he had met the other scientists involved through his (Koehler's) wife, who was either related to one of them or a friend of some of them.

But Steinman also claims Gebauer got Heiland to get security clearance for him to see the recovered saucers, bodies, and assorted pieces, and the same for Koehler. All this seems a bit hard to believe that security could be so lax as to let such outsiders in, particularly Koehler, who would have had nothing conceivable to contribute to any scientific or engineering investigation.

Don said...

David, I can't comment on the Steinman/Stevens account either, and it is not a good fit for whatever I can bring to the discussion. I haven't read the book, and probably won't for awhile. I did come across this

http://tinyurl.com/7386c8z

which, if you already haven't read it, you may find interesting.

I seem to have gotten onto the Hollywood end of the story and am following up on a few things. Hollywood is more Newton than Gebauer, but at some point they will intersect.


Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Rudiak said...

Blogger David Rudiak said...

Don,

So according to your link and Wendelle Stevens, Scully's widow gave him full access to Scully's unpublished notes, where supposedly Scully did talk to some of the unnamed "Dr G." scientists and the old connection between Leo Gebauer and Dr. Carl Heiland was detailed.

It would have greatly helped the book if Steinman had actually published Scully's notes of all this, because otherwise it is just Steinman's say-so, with no footnotes, references, or any thing else.

And that's really at the heart of the matter. Was Aztec just Newton and Gebauer's story to Scully, or did Scully have independent verification from more reliable sources, such as Heiland, who admitted to being involved and giving their own details?

Don said...

David,

I think we can be certain there were no dead 19th century-looking uninformed, human proportioned and human looking, little men from Venus. So, there is a tale told that is at best inaccurate. Whether it is 'cover' for another story or is simply a hoax or "bait", is an issue.

I recall in PBB in 1964, a civilian letter asking about whether they had any opinion on Scully's book. The answer was, we consider it science fiction.

That is rather accurate; sort of an Amazing Stories feel to it. Somebody made it up. Who? Scully seems a likely candidate because he was a professional writer. Newton had an interest in literature, and may have known either Fort or those associated with him. He might have been capable of it. Based on really nothing at all, I feel Gebauer is not the type to write pulp fiction.

One reason for wanting the transcript of the trial is to see whether the little men are mentioned. Same with the lecture. I don't think there is a quote from either Newton or Gebauer about them. Per the FBI "He [Newton] had also told CABOT that the discs had contained men", but there are no details.

I assume by now the little men have become Greys. I don't know if that is useful. Probably not.

I haven't internalized the chronology of the matter, so I'm just batting around in the dark, hoping to bump into something interesting.

Since it seems everyone is off to Aztec, I'd want to look at the other saucers, the ones in Arizona. That is closer to Gebauer's activities.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don,

We get into the various wheels-within-wheels scenarios.

Suppose Scully did talk to somebody like Dr. Heiland, who confirmed that there was an Aztec saucer crash with little "men" recovered.

Heiland, of course, could himself be lying about some or all of this, for unknown reasons.

Or a physical scientist like Heiland could conceivably have been involved with the engineering aspects of such an event, including recovery and subsequent research, but had nothing to do with the body recovery. Maybe he was just told the story of the perfect little humans with no cavities in their teeth, a possible deliberate counterintelligence scheme to cast doubt on the story that Heiland did have personal knowledge of in case he ever leaked anything. Such a leak could also then be traced back to him, if other participants were told a different version.

Of course, all of this is purely hypothetical with no evidence one way or the other. The basic question remains who did Scully talk to and what did they say? This was supposed to be in Scully's unpublished notes, which unfortunately have remained unpublished if they even still exist.

Don said...

David,

According to Friedman there is a Scully archive, and according to Frank Thayer it is at the University of Wyoming.

Thanks for bearing with me in this discussion. As I noted in the previous discussion, I have not read much about Aztec.

The Hollywood material I've been gathering may not have an immediate bearing on the reality or not of the Aztec saucer, but it is part of the story and so is a something more than circumstantial. I'll pull together an email.

Thanks again.

Regards,

Don

Randel Smith said...

Maybe everybody missed this: Plutonium. The Doodlebug's two antennae were supposed to be tipped with balls made of it. For which Newton was paying (on an installment plan!) $90,000. Ahem. The most controlled substance we have. No one is allowed to have any of it today. But it sounded "OOOOO!", and that was a reason he needed your investment money to pay for it so he could find your oil.

As to landings and crashes, science fiction had been writing about that since the 1920s in Gernsback's magazines. And Campbell had published Who Goes There in 1949, then filmed as The Thing From Another World by RKO. So not only Roswell, but other sources abounded for the idea.

KRandle said...

Randel -

Actually, "Who Goes There," was published in 1938 and has been made into three movies, the best of which is the 1950 version.

Spaceship crashes have been a long staple of science fiction going back beyond Hugo Grensback... but then, science fiction in that era was seen as second class fiction and largely ignored by the public.

Randel Smith said...

thanks Kevin; I have seen two different dates for the original short story; the one I read said 1938 as you say, but other references to it have said 1948, which made more sense to me in the post war era; but you are probably right and I should have believed the date in the collection of Campbel's short stories from the library. The thing about the Plutonium still floors me! Laughable. And yes, before Gernsback folks like Wells were writing science fiction. I'm not an expert on the subject. Besides Hugo's mags, who else was publishing crash type stories? I recall a late victorian newspaper article about some Kansas cowboys finding the smoldering metal remains of a crashed machine; a gag from the paper's editor, ca. 1880s or 90s I think. Fun stuff. Thanks again.

Daniel Transit said...

Yes, there were fiction (and reported as non-fiction) 'crash type stories' in Amazing Stories pre-July 1947.

The Table of Contents of the June 1946 issue lists Luder Valley by Richard S.Shaver as a Novelet of 11,000 words, illustrated by Robert Fuqua: If any man saw it fall, he called it another meteor; but it wasn't a meteor that crashed to earth...

Raymond Palmer: 'RICHARD S.SHAVER gives us "Luder Valley" this month. This one ought to surprise you - it isn't about the caves, or the Titans, or about deroes. It's just in the way of proving to you that he can write very swell science fiction without the use of a single dero! This one's about a space ship that crashes in the "Green Hell" and is found by Nazi secret service agents before it is found by Americans. Here's an interesting planetary yarn as good as any we've read, and we've read thousands.'