Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Aztec and Roswell

As those of you who visit here on a regular basis know, there has been a question of when the Aztec crash took place. It was stated that March 25, 1948, was the agreed upon date by nearly everyone. It was considered solid, but I seemed to remember a number of different dates being offered, so, on a lark, I began looking into that. And I did find a number of different dates being offered until William Steinman seemed to settle on March date in his book UFO Crash at Aztec. After the publication in 1986, the date became solid.

The Roswell "Saucer" in Ramey's office.
But that's not the point here. In the search, I reread the J.P. Cahn story, "The Flying Saucers and the Mysterious Little Men," (who BTW, were described then as perfect humans of small stature with perfect teeth and dressed in 1890 garb), published in True in September 1952, I found an interesting sentence or two in that article. Cahn wrote, "Back on July 9, 1947, only two weeks after private flyer Kenneth Arnold had alerted the nation with his nine disks seen skipping 'saucer-like' near Mt. Rainier, Washington, Southwest newspapers headlined that a 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. [which is seen in the photograph]."

Unless you're unable to read, that clearly is a reference to Roswell even though the town wasn't mentioned and it was made only a little more than five years later. I just found the reference interesting given that Cahn's article was about a different crash. I'm not sure that it means all that much, but thought I would mention it for what it's worth.

34 comments:

David Rudiak said...

I noticed that too, one among many direct and indirect references to Roswell after 1947. It's included in my list of Roswell/crashed disc media references pre-Friedman & Marcel:

www.roswellproof.com/post-1947-roswell-references.html

Most of these were very brief, most didn't use the word "Roswell", most did not take the story seriously and usually cited the weather balloon explanation, most made some factual mistakes, but Roswell was not totally forgotten. As one example, AP ran a brief mention of Roswell for about 8 straight years afterward in their syndicated “Today in History” column.

Cahn obviously saw the connection between the Roswell story and Aztec, treating Roswell as an earlier example of a military crashed disc recovery myth like Aztec (even if CDA insists they didn't use the word "crash" with Roswell). Other than that, I don't think anything else can be said about Cahn and Roswell.

Don said...

Kevin: [quoting Cahn] Southwest newspapers headlined that a captured disk that had fallen on a New Mexico ranch was a dud.

"Unless you're unable to read, that clearly is a reference to Roswell even though the town wasn't mentioned and it was made only a little more than five years later."

The only Southwest (or anywhere) newspaper to headline a captured disk during the wave was the Roswell Daily Record, which was not put on the wires, remaining local.
I wonder where he heard about the "captured" part.

Best Regards,

Don

cda said...

Since you bring up the topic of Aztec and Roswell, I decided to have another look at the famous reply from Robert Sarbacher to Wm. Steinman, dated Nov 29, 1983. I examined it again and despite the fact that it is often brought up as evidence that Sarbacher knew about Roswell and was involved, second-hand, in the post-recovery analysis of the bodies, there is nothing in this letter to say he was referring to Roswell at all. Also, there is no mention of Wilbert Smith. He does, however, mention an intermediary, Dr Bremner, of the Canadian embassy. This was in 1950.

What this means is that Sarbacher had no direct involvement with Roswell and no direct involvement with Aztec. The letter does indicate he had office discussions about Scully's book (new at the time) and, more importantly, Gerald Heard's book, also new. Heard had proposed the idea that the UFO occupants were insects, able to withstand the huge inertial forces, and this is exactly what Sarbacher talks about in this letter. He emphasises that at no time did he (Sarbacher) have first-hand knowledge of any saucer crashes or the "insects". He also refers to the machines as being of very light weight, exactly as given in Scully.

The upshot of all this is that Sarbacher cannot be taken as any kind of supporting evidence for the Roswell affair. There is zilch in that letter to show he had EVER HEARD of Roswell. But there are several indicators, as I said, that he DID know about Aztec (from Scully's book) and about the Martian bees (the insects in Heard's book).

I assume Sarbacher's letter appears in Steinman's book. Interesting that Steinman wants to connect it with Aztec, whereas the Roswell ETHers naturally want to connect it with Roswell. Sarbacher is recalling events of 33 years previous. But he still emphasises those insects. I wonder why?

cda said...

Don:

You may be wrong about that headline. Try the "Arizona Republic" for July 9, 1947. I think this was the paper Ray Palmer claimed had been suppressed because of its headline caption on the Rhodes photograph. Palmer put out some dotty tale in his magazine of how the authorities tried to confiscate all the copies that day because of that story!

On the same front page was another headline, on Roswell, saying (I believe) the words you quote about Roswell. So we got two 'disc tales' for the price of one.

Sometime, have a go at finding this newspaper, as I am not positive of it, or exactly when Palmer wrote about it.

Don said...

Absolutely right, CDA. I'm ebarrassed to have forgotten it.

"Sometime, have a go at finding this newspaper, as I am not positive of it, or exactly when Palmer wrote about it."

Just about anything about Rhodes is on my website, foreshadower.net.


Regards,

Don

Brian Bell said...

I've read before that the fictitious story of the Aztec crash (dead aliens and all) was the progenitor of what later became the Roswell legend of dead aliens and a crashed saucer.

In other words, the Aztec fable surfaced after Roswell was dead, and then was used as the basis for the claims witnesses made about Roswell in the 1970-80's.

Roswell didn't inspire the Aztec story, Aztec inspired the Roswell story 30 years after the incident!

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
Kevin: [quoting Cahn] Southwest newspapers headlined that a captured disk that had fallen on a New Mexico ranch was a dud.

The only Southwest (or anywhere) newspaper to headline a captured disk during the wave was the Roswell Daily Record, which was not put on the wires, remaining local. I wonder where he heard about the "captured" part.


Interesting observation Don. I can't think of another newspaper that specifically used the word "capture" either. However, the Gallup Independent 7/9/47 did use a similar word "captive" in their headline ("First Captive Flying Disc...."), and the Oklahoma City Oklahoman headline on 7/9 read "One Flying Saucer Is Caught..."

Other words used to describe obtaining the disc were "found", "discovery/discovered", "took the object into custody of the Army", "gain possession" (press release), "come into the possession of the Army Air Force", "recover the object", "fall into the hands of the United States Army air force", "passed to the Army authorities", "in Army possession".

Perhaps Cahn simply reinvented "captured" on his own as a synonym for the Army recovering or obtaining the object.

On the other hand, "dud" has a clear lineage, being used in the lead paragraph of one AP version of the story that was widely carried:

www.roswellproof.com/AP2_July9.html

FORT WORTH, Texas, July 8--(AP)--The discovery of a "flying disc" reported by an Army public relations officer proved a dud Tuesday when the object was identified as a weather balloon.

(BTW, in doing this search of my newspaper collection, I found ANOTHER example of "crash" being used by the Toronto Globe and Mail headline: "Crashed ‘Flying Saucer’ Just Weather Balloon": www.roswellproof.com/Canadian_Press_July9.html There are other instances where people claimed a disc "crashed" near their place, or the Roswell story "shattering" or "breaking into pieces" with the weather balloon announcement. Lot's of metaphors flying around in addition to saucers.)

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote:
You may be wrong about that headline. Try the "Arizona Republic" for July 9, 1947.

Score one for CDA. He is indeed right that the Arizona Republic also used "captured" in their headline for Roswell: "Captured New Mexico 'Disc'..."

http://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articleimages/pwrarizonarepublicfull.jpg

(And in my other post, I noted ANOTHER instance of the word "crashed" being used with reference to Roswell from the Toronto Globe and Mail, July 9, 1947: "Crashed ‘Flying Saucer’ Just Weather Balloon". So take that, CDA!)

Brian Bell said...

@ David

You know the funny thing about Haut's press release and how it got picked up by the press and the newspapers you referenced is this:

Regardless of whether they used the terms "disc", ""flying saucer", "captured" or whatever, the original press release never mentioned alien bodies.

I mean why not? If Blanchard intended to disclose they "captured" one why didn't they write something like this?

"The many rumors regarding the flying discs became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th (atomic) Bomb Group of the 8th Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves county. The flying disc contained small creatures presumably from the planet Mars or Venus, our closest space neighbors. The craft was constructed of strange metal containing symbols believed to be the writing of the creatures who piloted the disc."

I mean if you're going to spill the beans then spill them right?

Don said...

David: "(And in my other post, I noted ANOTHER instance of the word "crashed" being used with reference to Roswell from the Toronto Globe and Mail, July 9, 1947: "Crashed ‘Flying Saucer’ Just Weather Balloon". So take that, CDA!)"

That's three "crashed discs" and two "captures", re: Roswell. Just keeping count for new readers. 8-)

Brian: "If Blanchard intended to disclose they "captured" one why didn't they write something like this?"

I realize this is futile...but: the odds are the canonical (AP) press release does not read that the RAAF had a flying saucer in its possession.


Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Here's some more "captured", "dud" and "crash" examples, from two UP articles:

www.roswellproof.com/Charleston_NewsCourier_July9.html

Charleston, S.C., The News and Courier, July 9, morning, front page
Army's 'Captured' Disc Proves a Dud

New York Herald Tribune, Paris, July 10, front page (short version)
U.S. Air Forces 'Flying Saucer' Story Makes a Crash Landing

The Charleston News and Courier headline with "captured" and "dud" is almost exactly like Cahn's version: "Southwest newspapers headlined that a captured disk that had fallen on a New Mexico ranch was a dud."

Cahn, though obviously aware of Roswell, didn't get it exactly right either, confining the story to just "southwest newspapers". It was a national and international story.

Two more instances of "captured":

www.roswellproof.com/AP3_Main_July9.html

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7/9, p. 1, Headline Story

Captured 'Disk' Merely Weather Kite
Foil-Covered Star Causes Military Flurry in N. M.
Second Similar Device Found in Missouri

Fort Worth Star-Telegram July 9, 1947

www.roswellproof.com/FortWorthST_July9.html

IDENTIFIED AT ARMY AIR FIELD HERE
New Mexico Rancher's 'Flying Disk'
Proves to Be Weather Balloon-Kite

A New Mexico rancher's discovery which for several hours Tuesday rocked the disk-conscious nation was identified at Fort Worth Army Air Field Tuesday night as a weather balloon-kite, exploding a rumor that a flying disk finally had been captured.


A "captive" example:

www.roswellproof.com/INS2_July9.html

Syracuse (NY) Herald-Journal, July 9, 1947, p. 1
---SAUCERS---Captive 'Disc' Only Wind Balloon
'Captive' Saucer Just a Balloon


So since Don is keeping a running count, we now have four (4) examples of "crash"/"crashed" and five (5) examples of "captures/captured" being used, two (2) "captive"s, one (1) "caught".

David Rudiak said...

Still more "capture/captured" examples:

www.roswellproof.com/AP_Chronology.html

Daily Illini, July 9, 1947

AP Wires Burn With 'Captured Disk' Story


www.roswellproof.com/UP_Earliest_July8.html

Alameda (CA) Times-Star, July 8, evening, headline story
Flying Saucer Found in New Mexico
$3000 Offered for Capture of Mysterious Discs


Obviously this term used for getting or obtaining an actual disc was more common than Don or I initially thought, and thus not too surprising that Cahn might use it a few years later.

Don said...

David: "Obviously this term used for getting or obtaining an actual disc was more common than Don or I initially thought, and thus not too surprising that Cahn might use it a few years later."


Excellent, David. It seems many (all?) of the 'capture' references were published after the Reveal in Ramey's office...except for the RDR. Is that what you see?

Best Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don,

I don't think Ramey's big reveal had anything to do with it. The Alameda newspaper headline, e.g., used "capture" in reference to the offered reward for getting their hands on ANY disc. The other references had to do with the Army announcing they already DID have one, including the RDR's use of "capture".

Don said...

All the Roswell references we have so far for 'capture' or 'crash' refer to it being a "dud" or similar term, meaning they were written after Ramey's big reveal, except for the RDR headline (the 'reward' story isn't a Roswell reference). If that holds true for other references that may be found, then we know that the idea of a Roswell crash/capture was 'out there', but not published until after the disc was ID'd by the AAF as a rawin, when, perhaps it was okay to do so.

Best Regards,

Don

Don said...

David: "The other references had to do with the Army announcing they already DID have one, including the RDR's use of "capture"."

Setting aside the RDR story, the press did indeed think the Army had a flying disc, but that's not how the PR (aka "Haughts Statement") reads. All the full text quotes of the PR I've found read the AAF has in its possession "a disc" except for one in a recap that reads "the disc" (maybe you have more examples of it with "the disc").

"The disc" can be the rumored flying disc, but "a disc" means they have a disc that will explain what the rumored flying disc is in reality (a rawin, we will learn).

Sometime in the development of the Roswell ufology story, after The Roswell Incident, "the disc" is assumed. News stories about the Oct 1992 Irving TX ufo meeting discussing Roswell quote the PR with "the disc".

The UP has "the "disc"", which amounts to the same thing as "a disc".

Only the RDR is specific about the AAF having captured a "flying saucer"

Best Regards,

Don

Don Maor said...

CDA thought over:

,"The upshot of all this is that Sarbacher cannot be taken as any kind of supporting evidence for the Roswell affair. There is zilch in that letter to show he had EVER HEARD of Roswell. But there are several indicators, as I said, that he DID know about Aztec (from Scully's book) and about the Martian bees (the insects in Heard's book)."

Really CDA? And Vannevar Bush as involved in analyzing the "modus operandi" of flying saucers in which book appears? Does it appear in Heard's or in Scully's book?

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
All the Roswell references we have so far for 'capture' or 'crash' refer to it being a "dud" or similar term, meaning they were written after Ramey's big reveal, except for the RDR headline (the 'reward' story isn't a Roswell reference). If that holds true for other references that may be found, then we know that the idea of a Roswell crash/capture was 'out there', but not published until after the disc was ID'd by the AAF as a rawin, when, perhaps it was okay to do so.

Don, here's an evening, west coast July 8 newspaper (found by electronically searching Ancestry.com newspaper collection) using "captured" BEFORE Ramey's weather balloon "reveal". The main Roswell story (blazing headline) used "possession", as used in the canonical press release. But there was an auxiliary story about people's theories and old UFO sightings dating back to the 19th century, which started out referencing Roswell and the Army capturing a flying saucer:

San Mateo (CA) Times, July 8, 1947, p. 1
Headline story: ARMY SAYS HAS DISC
Missile Found By Rancher in New Mexico
Turned Over to Atomic Group and Flown to Headquarters

ROSWELL, N.M., July 8—(U.P) – Possession of a “flying disc” was disclosed today by the intelligence office of the Five Hundred Ninth bomb group of the Roswell army airbase...

Bottom page 1:

COAST MAN SAYS HE SAW DISCS, WAY BACK IN 1885
Despite the reports this afternoon that the army air forces had finally “captured” a flying saucer and is flying it to higher command for experimental purposes, residents of San Mateo county today continued to hazard guesses and suggestions as to the mystery behind the apparition which has been allegedly seen in most of the 48 states, Canada, and Mexico...


Notice that "captured" is placed in quotes and also used with "flying saucer" instead of "flying disc", much like the RDR headline July 8. It makes me wonder if there wasn't some other widely carried bulletin out there using the phrase and quoted that we are not aware of, perhaps a radio network. Or is "captured" in quotes instead being used somewhat ironically, that they were dramatizing slightly what had really happened?

Also "captured" here is used atypically in the text body, not the headline as in the other examples, thus not the result of a headline writer trying to attract attention.

I don't know how much to make of these semantic arguments or how much they can tell us. Is "captured" being used as a simple synonym for "taking possession of", as in the press release? Or is it more nuanced in the sense that "captured" is often used in the English language for something elusive and hard to get, perhaps mysterious, perhaps even slightly menacing, like an escaped prisoner being finally "captured"?

On another semantic note, also note the sub-headline in the main story using the word "missile" for the "disc". "Missile" was also used originally for Kenneth Arnold's discs/saucers, and gives an indication of some of the public/media mindset--these were some sort of new, exotic, unknown flying aircraft or missiles, thus possibly menacing.

David Rudiak said...

Don Maor wrote:
Really CDA? And Vannevar Bush as involved in analyzing the "modus operandi" of flying saucers in which book appears? Does it appear in Heard's or in Scully's book?

Quite, and CDA also left out that Vannevar Bush and his highly secret group within in the U.S. Research and Development Board looking into the "modus operandi", were mentioned not once but MULTIPLE times in various Canadian documents from 1950/51, most having to do with them reviewing and providing clearance for an article Donald Keyhoe wanted to write for TRUE magazine on Smith's theories of how they operated.

Of course, this begs the questions, why would Bush and the RDB (also their Canadian equivalents) have to provide any sort of clearance for a magazine article on the topic? And why would their names pop up in multiple documents if they weren't involved in such a highly secret U.S. government project?

These documents go back 30+ years BEFORE Steinman found Sarbacher. The reason Sarbacher was even being looked for was because the Smith Canadian documents started circulating only a few years before (turned up by Canadian researcher Arthur Bray in the late 1970s), and confirmation from Sarbacher of the original interview with Smith and contents was being sought. CDA has the sequence of events upside down.

www.roswellproof.com/smith_papers.html

The original 1950 Wilbert Smith notes of the interview with Sarbacher had Sarbacher responding that the facts in the Scully book were "substantially correct", followed by Sarbacher confirming that the saucers did indeed exist. It does not say that Sarbacher confirmed a particular crash had taken place (or that he was even aware of the specifics), only that Scully's claims that at least one such U.S. crash recovery had taken place was indeed correct and the saucers were quite real.

Smith's subsequent top secret memo to the Canadian Dept. of Transport mentions both Scully's book and Donald Keyhoe's first book, which came out about the same time, both saying the saucers were real and extraterrestrial. It then notes Scully's book says one such saucer "fell into the hands" of the U.S. government and was found to operate on magnetic principles, which was one of Smith's key interests, in that in his field of expertise, he might have something to contribute in figuring out how they worked. Before he approached his people asking for funds and support, Smith wanted high-level confirmation that he wasn't wasting his time, namely were the saucers real or not? That was the primary purpose of the Sarbacher interview.

David Rudiak said...

Another "captured" example from 1947:

Ogden (Utah) Standard-Examiner, July 9, 1947, p. 1:

"'Captured' Flying Disc Proves To Be Spent Weather Balloon

FORT WORTH, Tex., July 9 (AP)-- An examination by the army revealed last night that a mysterious object found in a lonely New Mexico ranch was a harmless high-altitude weather balloon--not a grounded flying disc..."

"Captured" is AGAIN placed in quotes, again suggesting this is a quoted word from some statement/bulletin from somewhere, not just headline writers putting their own spin on a story.

If it's some early wire service bulletin, we have no surviving copy of it. The closest I can find is the July Daily Illini chronology of early Roswell AP bulletins, with their own headline, "AP Wires Burn With 'Captured Disk' Story", with "captured" again in quotes. But there is no further use of the word in their chronology:

www.roswellproof.com/AP_Chronology.html

Another example, another headline for another AP Roswell story ("captured" NOT in quotes):

Denver Rocky Mountain News, July 9, 1947, pp. 1, 3

"Captured 'Flying Disk' Turns Out To Be Kite"
"Captured 'Flying Disk' Proves a Weather Kite"

From the evidence so far, I would guess, however, that one of the COMPLETE AP bulletins DID use the word, perhaps as an introduction to the bulletin, and maybe that stuck in the mind of J.P. Cahn 5 years later when he mentioned the Roswell incident in his Aztec expose. Cahn worked for the San Francisco Chronicle at the time, and the Chronicle also ran an AP Roswell story July 9.

Also note use of "harmless" in the opening paragraph of the Ogden AP story, and "not a grounded flying disc", again a hint of how the mysterious discs were then viewed as some sort of possible real craft (that could be "grounded") and potentially menacing (hence emphasizing how the "mysterious object" turned out to be "harmless", as harmless as a balloon).

Don said...

David: "It makes me wonder if there wasn't some other widely carried bulletin out there using the phrase and quoted that we are not aware of, perhaps a radio network."

I think the other story was what the RDR published: there was an announcement at noon. How this announcement was made is unknown. My guess is reporters at KGFL and KSWS put Haut's phone calls (or what they made of them) into a noon bulletin. If the noon announcement story (army captures flying saucer) made it out to the wire services, I would expect them to confirm it with the Pentagon before publishing (apparently, the RDR had all the confirmation it needed). What they got was the press release which begins the Ft Worth lineage of Roswell stories.

Dick Pearce on the 9th in the SF Examiner refers to the press release (which he quotes) as "the first sober announcement", implying there were less "sober" rumors about Roswell before it, and a story about the army capturing a crashed flying saucer would fit the bill.

Best Regards,

Don

cda said...

DR and Don Maor:

It is true that Wilbert Smith, in his famous memo, mentions Vannevar Bush as heading a small team looking into the 'modus operandi' of the UFOs. To this day, nobody knows for sure who dropped Bush's name to Smith. My guess is Keyhoe, but others may disagree. The implication is that Bush had an actual captured UFO to examine, which was pure fiction and gave rise to the MJ-12 forgery.

It is NOT true that any of the other references to Bush in the various 1950-51 documents say anything about Bush and his so-called team looking into the 'modus operandi' of the saucers. They merely refer to Bush possibly having an interest in Keyhoe's proposed article, because of its mention of magnetic power associated with possible UFO propulsion. Bush's speciality was electricity & magnetism. He also had an early interest in UFOs. Whether he ever received Keyhoe's article for approval we simply do not know, but he never seems to have given any response to it.

Also, Smith never met Sarbacher direct. His notes are copied from notes made by a Mr Bremner, a contact at the Canadian embassy in Washington DC. It was this Mr Bremner, not Smith, who actually spoke with Sarbacher. These handwritten notes do not mention Bush at all. And Sarbacher's response to Steinman in 1983 likewise does not mention either Wilbert Smith or Roswell.

David Rudiak said...

CDA outrageously commented:
It is NOT true that any of the other references to Bush in the various 1950-51 documents say anything about Bush and his so-called team looking into the 'modus operandi' of the saucers. They merely refer to Bush possibly having an interest in Keyhoe's proposed article, because of its mention of magnetic power associated with possible UFO propulsion.

Here we have a very good example of extreme CDA spin. CDA is claiming that Bush merely had "an interest" in the article, and it was all very innocent. Really?!!!!

Please go to my website and see what was REALLY said in those various 1950-51 documents:

www.roswellproof.com/smith_papers.html

Sept. 15, 1950: Smith's handwritten notes of meeting with Sarbarcher
Sarbacher confirms saucer reality and high classification (most highly classified U.S. project—2 points higher than H-bomb). Asked about truth of Scully’s book, he replies that "the facts reported in the book are substantially correct." (Since the major theme of the Scully book was crashed saucer retrieval, Sarbacher would seem to be confirming that there had indeed been at least one crashed saucer.)

Nov. 21, 1950: Smith's Top Secret memo to the Dept. of Transport
First document to name Bush as heading highly secret UFO group looking into "modus operandi" of saucers. States flying saucers definitely existed. The subject was classified higher than the H-bomb. Also mentions U.S. looking into "mental phenomena" associated with saucers. Discusses conversations with Dr. Solandt of the Canadian DRB [Canadian Defence Research Board, the equivalent of the U.S. Research & Development Board, with Solandt being the equivalent of Bush) giving the green light to Smith's proposed research and promising DRB help.

Nov. 24, 1950: Smith's memo to Dr. Solandt about Keyhoe's proposed TRUE magazine article
Mentions PERMISSION WAS REQUIRED first by the U.S. RDB before it could be published. Also requests review by Solandt and others at the DRB COMMENT: Clearly states that CLEARANCE WAS REQUIRED by Bush/RDB & Solandt/DRB before the article could be published/

Jan. 3, 1951: Letter from Smith to Gordon Cox (high level official) at the Canadian embassy
Smith inquires as to what has become of the Keyhoe article. Says the article was first to be returned to the embassy, after which "Keyhoe was to take it to it to Dr. Bush for CLEARANCE." Again mentions that Solandt and the DRB were to review latest revisions and make changes "which they might consider in Canadian interests." COMMENT: Again SECURITY CLEARANCE is stated as being needed, not Bush merely adding some comments because he had an interest. Sheesh!

Jan. 6, 1951: Gordon Cox reply to Smith
Tells Smith that Keyhoe's article was returned to Keyhoe by Dr. Wright (embassy liaison with DRB). Wright hadn't heard further from Bush or what he did. Cox wanted to get in contact with Keyhoe to learn more, with Lt. Col. Bremner arranging contact (military attache who conducted the original interview with Sarbacher). Smith would probably hear more via the Wright/Solandt channel. Official position was that nobody at the embassy knew anything. By the Canadian ambassador's instruction, only Cox and Wright were to discuss the matter with anyone. (COMMENT: Canadian embassy personnel were also under SECURITY RESTRICTIONS.)

Thus the documents clearly state that the Keyhoe article HAD TO GO THROUGH CLEARANCE by Bush and the U.S. RDB, and also Solandt and the Canadian DRB. Not surprising if the subject matter was classified two points higher than the H-bomb! CDA tries to make it sound like nothing but Bush’s hobby, a SEVERE distortion of what was clearly going on here, namely potentially sensitive material in a civilian magazine article requiring VERY HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE from both U.S. and Canadian government R&D agencies before it could be published.

Don Maor said...

CDa said:

"To this day, nobody knows for sure who dropped Bush's name to Smith. My guess is Keyhoe, but others may disagree."

Yes CDA, I disagree. For start, you do not have any evidence of that. Of course, pops the question of why Keyhoe would not have mentioned Bush's involvement in one of his many books.

Morever, even in the unlikely case that Keyhoe dropped Bush's name to Smith, it does not make it a false information. Again, why did not Keyhoe mention this information in one of his many books?

CDA continued:

"Also, Smith never met Sarbacher direct."

Really? Then great because we know that Sarbacher also said that Bush was "definitely involved". So according to your statement that Smith never met Sarbacher, we would then have two independent indications of Bush involvement (just following your logic).

So again, we see more samples of CDA trying to deny the simply undeniable, getting irremediably lost in his own forest of irrelevancies and "logical" tips.

cda said...

Don Maor:

The reason Sarbacher said Bush was "definitely involved" is because Wm Steinman SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED Bush's name (among other names) in his numerous letters to Sarbacher. Hence Sarbacher's reply. And where did Steinman get Bush's name? In case you didn't realise, it was (guess what) from Smith's 1950 memo which had recently been made public. So much for "independent indications".

If you look at Smith's handwritten notes about that Sept 1950 meeting you will see at the top the following: "Notes on interview through Lt Col Bremner with Dr Robert Sarbacher".

See also Sarbacher's reply to Steinman where he says "I recall the interview with Dr Bremner of the Canadian Embassy". Sarbacher got it slightly wrong in that Bremner was not a doctor, as far as I know.

Thus this interview was NOT with Wilbert Smith, was it? And the stories are not independent. Exactly the opposite in fact.

David Rudiak said...

CDA,

The FACT is Bush's name came up in MULITPLE 1950/51 Smith documents, including those from the Canadian embassy to Smith. It was clear that Bush was the go-to guy within the U.S. RDB, heading up the supersecret saucer study group (remember, 2 points higher classification than the H-bomb, as stated even in the original notes of the Sarbacher interview).

Another FACT is that multiple documents state that Keyhoe's article for TRUE magazine, based on Smith's theories of how they might work, had to receive SECURITY CLEARANCE from Bush and the RDB before it could be published, and similarly reviewed and cleared for publication by Dr. Solandt and the Canadian DRB. You tried to spin this is nothing more than some sort of personal "interest" in the subject by Bush, rather than what was clearly being treated as an official national security matter by not just Bush, but the RDB, Solandt, and the DRB. That's what would be expected when the subject matter (according to the original interview with Sarbacher) was the most highly classified project in the U.S. government.

To this you resort to a bunch of inane quibbling whether or not Smith was present or not at the Sarbacher interview with Bremner, even claiming Smith's own handwritten notes were "copied" from Bremner's. In the REAL world, Smith's handwritten notes have ALL questions to Sarbacher identified with Smith's initials "WBS", not Bremner's initials.

Further, it reads at the beginning, "Notes on interview through Lt./C. Bremener with Dr. Robert Sarbacher," ends with: "Note: The above was written out from memory following the interview. I have tried to keep it as nearly verbatim as possible."

Sarbacher also suggests to Smith in the interview (in answer to Smith's questions how he might receive further information to aid in "our work"), "...YOU could be cleared through your own Defense Department and I'm pretty sure arrangements could be made to exchange information."

This evidence within the notes themselves ALL points to Smith indeed being there, maybe having to ask HIS questions indirectly through Bremener and not being allowed to take notes during the interview, thus having to write everything down from memory immediately afterward. But he WAS there and carrying on a give-and-take interview with Sarbacher, NOT Sarbacher simply responding to pre-written questions by Smith presented by Bremner.

www.roswellproof.com/Smith_9_15_50.html

While it's true that the original notes don't mention Bush or the RDB, Smith and officials at the Canadian embassy (Bremner, Cox, Dr. Wright) obviously soon learned about the Bush/RDB connection, as the follow-up documents made perfectly clear, regardless of the source of the information.

Saying this information came from Keyhoe borders on preposterous. There would have been no cooperation from Bush/RDB unless their identity had come through OFFICIAL channels, not unofficially through one of Keyhoe's leakers.

Don Maor said...

CDA:

Basically, you are suggesting that the name of Vannevar Bush came out from the air, appearing in Keyhoe 's brain, who in turn contaminated Smith 's mind. The Problem with your theory is that you have not yet answered the question of why Keyhoe did not mention Vannevar Bush in one of his books. You are here in great debt .

So like the great jedi Stan Friedman in 1980, who brainwashed Marcel and many others; Keyhoe was a 1950 's Jedi, able to brainwash Smith. Another less known jedi, Steinman, in a frenzy of letter sendings, convinced engineer Sarbacher that Bush was "definitely " involved. The existence of various Jedi masters is required in CDA's parallel universe.

Also, because CDA has a crystal ball, he knows that Sarbacher could not possibly have known circa 1950 that Bush was involved. Given that CDA knows for sure that aliens can not possibly be visiting the earth, any skeptical scenario imagined by CDA must be true, no matter how preposterous, unlikely and baseless it is.

cda said...

DR:

You are taking this Smith-Sarbacher-Canadian Embassy stuff far too seriously. I have all the documents you mention, without the need to go to your website.

These documents say NOTHING WHATEVER about any crashed disc, either at Aztec or Roswell. They say nothing about any actual hardware being captured. Some of them are indeed marked SECRET but so what? It was Smith's Canadian saucer construction project that HE wanted to keep secret, that's why.

Smith's memo implies Bush had an actual captured UFO 'disc' to examine, namely something he and his team (if such ever existed) could analyse for its propulsion methodology. This is pure fiction. Bush never had any such disc to examine. If you still think he had, please provide a genuine reference. (And not MJ-12 either!).

These letters during 1950-52 provide an insight into the thoughts and ideas of various participants into this so-called secret magnetic project Smith was engaged in, i.e. the actual 'saucer' he was then hoping to construct. Keyhoe's article (later revised by Smith) was intended to give publicity to this Canadian project and as such, needed various approvals before it could be published. It never was, chiefly because Smith told Keyhoe his project had become classified. More fiction maybe. I don't suppose for a moment that any actual hardware ever came out of this project.

The origin of Bush's name is still a mystery, but I assume his name was provided by someone at the Canadian Embassy at Washington (Smith's "discreet inquiries"), or possibly by Keyhoe.

The person giving Smith his name probably never said anything about Bush having a flying disc in his possession. That was pure Smith invention, based on Scully's book and the rumors arising out of it. Where is this disc now, if it ever existed?

Smith later became a contactee and wrote several pseudo-scientific papers for FLYING SAUCER REVIEW. And yes they WERE pseudo-scientific twaddle for the most part.

cda said...

Don Maor:

If you accept, or to at least partially accept, the truth of MJ-12 as you have stated you do in the past, what is the point in continuing to debate with you?

Obviously Vannevar Bush DID lead a small team to discover the propulsion methodology of the flying discs, and therefore had one in his possession. Therefore MJ-12 is true and the rest of the Smith-Sarbacher-Bush tale follows, by backwards reasoning.

Once you accept MJ-12, everything follows from it, doesn't it? People like Keyhoe don't matter any more. Of course Bush was "definitely involved" since he was the leader of MJ-12. Simple!

Further debate is pointless.

cda said...

Don:

As a follow up, why not look at any biography or in his various papers, and see if there is any mention that Vannevar Bush ever had a captured flying disc to examine, as part of his work. After all, this would be the biggest, most amazing, thing ever to appear in the writings of a famous scientist or engineer. The world would be truly astounded.

Go on, have a good look, and tell us all when you find it. (The reference, not the disc). Oh I forgot, it is all still Top Secret, isn't it?

Don Maor said...

Cda said:

"Obviously Vannevar Bush DID lead a small team to discover the propulsion methodology of the flying discs, and therefore had one in his possession. Therefore MJ-12 is true and the rest of the Smith-Sarbacher-Bush tale follows, by backwards reasoning."

Come on CDA, don't try to reverse things, those Smith documents are from 1950. they are smoking gun documents, they are independent of the MJ-12 documents. You are the one who is reasoning backwards here, trying to make as if the hoax of some MJ-12 documents could travel backwards in time and make the Smith documents to be false. The real world does not work that way CDA. GET REAL.

Don Maor said...

CDA ordered:

"Go on, have a good look, and tell us all when you find it. (The reference, not the disc). Oh I forgot, it is all still Top Secret, isn't it?"

Why don't you do it for yourself CDA, you a retired gentleman, and have plenty of time. I really have many things to do now on my life.

CDA, regarding your fully unsupported idea that Keyhoe mentioned Bush's name to Smith, here I have got a clue.

In his book "Flying Saucers from Outer Space" (1953), Keyhoe wrote:

"Since 1950, Smith had given me several valuable leads. The Canadian Situation had changed, I knew; security could have muzzled him. But if not, I might get a clue that would lead to the final answer."

Later in the book, Keyhoe wrote:

"About twice a year since the fall of 1950, Smith had flown to Washington on official
business."

All of this tells that the flow of information was much more likely to be from smith to Keyhoe, rather than from Keyhoe to Smith. It also tells that Keyhoe was really working with Washinton regarding this topic. So RIP to your idea.

Brian Bell said...

@ Don and David (and CDA):

As you debate Wilbert Smith's "smoking gun" report (or memo), you might want to consider information which suggests Smith may have suffered from psychiatric issues.

For Don and David:

First, many ufologists don't agree this memo is really a "smoking gun". That's just your ET mindset taking over again.

Yah sure, Friedman thinks the document is genuine, but he thinks the MJ12 documents (many) are genuine too (and it's been proven they aren't real at all).

Even Kevin has written his perspective on Smith's memo which you can find here (2012):

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/02/wilbert-smith-and-project-magnet.html?m=1

In summary he says:

"It [Smith's saucer project] wasn’t an official government study approved up and down the chain. It wasn’t designed to prove anything about UFOs one way or another. It [Smith's memo] was simply a report by one man about a conference he attended and he mentioned the UFOs as part of the discussions that took place there, unofficially. In other words, it is interesting, but it doesn’t provide the evidence of either flying saucers or government cover ups. It is a document composed of rumor without foundation, and unfortunately, that is all that can be said for it."

The key phrase here is "rumor without foundation". That's all it is. It proves nothing....well almost nothing.

It proves Smith was smitten with fascination over "flying saucers", "aliens", and his very own antigravity saucer project. It's the reason he wrote what he did. He was inclined to believe the rumors just as much as you are.

Here are a few notable (laughable) facts about Smith which explain why you shouldn't take him too seriously.

1) Wilbert's oldest son "claims" his father told him he saw alien bodies and a crashed flying saucer outside of Washington.

2) Smith claimed he frequently communicated with "occupants" of UFOs through an alien contact who provided him with certain "metaphysical secrets".

3) From instructions provided by his alien contact, Smith built a "binding meter" which let him "divine" places where "binding forces" were weak. He tried to get the Canadian Government to take notice, and they ignored him thinking he lost his marbles.

4) Solandt stated Smith thought everything he worked on was "top secret" and stamped the words all over his documents to impress himself.

5) His antigravity saucer project never amounted to anything and it wasn't ever officially sanctioned by the Canadian Government. The effort was approved outside his official duties (at DOT) despite his claims about being the lead person in Canada's official saucer investigation effort.

cda said...

Brian:

Yes, I see I had a bit of a debate with David Rudiak as well. Oh how it would be so easy to slip into this all over again!

Which means that I am reluctant to go over, and over, the Wilbert Smith 'legend'. You may care to look through his writings in Flying Saucer Review during 1958-62 to see what sort of scientist he really was. They are either online or, more likely, on Grant Cameron's website. If not, I can probably send them as attachments.