tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5540364587695083233..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Aztec in Perspective by Monte Shriver - Part ThreeKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63995589903254253122013-02-20T12:17:04.425-08:002013-02-20T12:17:04.425-08:00Mornin’ Anthony,
You wrote:
I shall keep an ey...Mornin’ Anthony, <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i> I shall keep an eye open for reviews etc of the recent books etc around Aztec - who knows, one of those might include reference to something that comes accross as suggesting some hard evidence might exist that is worth considering further. </i><br /><br />I find great irony in your posture and commentary: on one hand you give the impression that qualitative evidence is vital to you, and yet you’re willing to make assessments, conclusions from the opinions of others without your own examination, analysis of the data/evidence, this behavior is paradoxical.<br /><br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>. I obviously can't persuade you to share an example with us to tempt us though, at which point I provisionally conclude there isn't any.<br /></i><br /><br />You asked, originally:<br /><br /><i>Is there one piece of hard evidence[in the book] that even requires us to consider if a crash of anything took place?</i><br /><br />You then cited specific categories; in my reply, I explained that <b>Scott offers up minutiae in all categories your interested in. </b> I also stated that the merits of the evidence (or lack thereof) will fall to the respective reader. <br /><br />Given the fact that you’ve take the time to offer your thoughts on the matter, and that you have engaged me in our current colloquy, one would think that you do have an interest; however, it seems that you just don’t want to do your (proverbial) homework, and prefer that others do it for you. Of course we’re not in class and you won’t get a failing grade—it simply means that any conclusions you may come to without reviewing the data/evidence are by default—feckless.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i> Best wishes though - I really do think we all must be grateful for people prepared to do this amount of background work, even if, at the moment, we have different conclusions.</i><br /><br />Thank you, my best to you as well. <br /><br /> First, I respect everyone’s opinion and their right to make it; however, in that vein it’s presumed that the one offering their insight, or presenting their respective arguments is well versed in the subject matter; in this instance, by your own admission—you are not. Thus any conclusions, opinions you currently hold aren’t tenable. <br /><br />As to <i>my own conclusions,</i> you’re “assuming” those as well. Whether or not you choose to educate yourself on the subject matter of course is up to you; I hope the choice is for edification, as this, or any future discourse is or will be an exercise in futility. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52354418825267430372013-02-20T02:06:35.251-08:002013-02-20T02:06:35.251-08:00Hi Frank
Let's leave it at that. I shall keep...Hi Frank<br /><br />Let's leave it at that. I shall keep an eye open for reviews etc of the recent books etc around Aztec - who knows, one of those might include reference to something that comes accross as suggesting some hard evidence might exist that is worth considering further. I obviously can't persuade you to share an example with us to tempt us though, at which point I provisionally conclude there isn't any.<br /><br />Best wishes though - I really do think we all must be grateful for people prepared to do this amount of background work, even if, at the moment, we have different conclusions.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82535251026840559682013-02-19T11:33:45.718-08:002013-02-19T11:33:45.718-08:00Mornin’ Anthony,
You wrote:
Almost a sale...no...Mornin’ Anthony, <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i> Almost a sale...not quite yet though. I did say I'd leave it at that but your appeal to look at the evidence so nearly swayed me I thought I'd have one more go.</i><br /><br />Whether you choose to read the book or not is up to you. My argument is until you possess the all the facts on the matter your arguments/opinion/deductions are extraneous. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i> Sorry to awkward, but assertion isn't evidence . . ..</i><br /><br />No one said it was. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>. . . we all have to be to some extent selective as we can't read everything on every subject.<br /></i><br /><br />Of course you’re right, and in these instances (until you do familiarize yourself to the facts of the matter) your postulations carry no weight. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63920995173967464502013-02-19T08:20:44.448-08:002013-02-19T08:20:44.448-08:00Hi Frank
Almost a sale...not quite yet though. I ...Hi Frank<br /><br />Almost a sale...not quite yet though. I did say I'd leave it at that but your appeal to look at the evidence so nearly swayed me I thought I'd have one more go.<br /><br />I naturally wouldn't want you to go through all the details in the recent books, but could you give just one example from the list of lines of evidence you set out of the actual hard evidence that supports just one of these?<br /><br />Sorry to awkward, but assertion isn't evidence (and witness testimony doesn't really cut it either, on its own in something as controversial as this, but can be useful if supported by / consistent with other data). Where I'm coming from is that, as a general rule the default position stays with the more conservative assumptions unless there's a game changing piece of data...and we all have to be to some extent selective as we can't read everything on every subject.<br /><br />Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30861991943907693202013-02-18T13:21:08.342-08:002013-02-18T13:21:08.342-08:00-continued from above
You wrote:
actually I am ...-continued from above<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i> actually I am far more amenable to accepting data in this field that most people with scientific training would be, perhaps as I've formed my own conclusions over the years where I do think there is something going on.</i><br /><br />Admittedly I have an impish grin on my face as I write this; you state in essence that you “embrace” science (but are more amenable), yet at the same time—refuse to enlighten yourself to the facts of the matter in order to formulate a hypothesis. Your stated position are contrary to your actions. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i> Anyway I shall leave it at that. Very best wishes for your continued efforts and I really do hope that more comes to light and I can happily say I called it wrong at this time.</i><br /><br />Thanks again for the kind words; however, I find it disappointing that not only would you come to any conclusions on a matter that by your own admission—are ignorant to, but even worse you don’t see the error in your ways. <br /><br />Respectfully,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84201199423091270182013-02-18T13:17:50.823-08:002013-02-18T13:17:50.823-08:00Mornin' Anthony,
You wrote:
I suspect we ma...Mornin' Anthony, <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>I suspect we may be misunderstanding each other.</i><br /><br />You might be on to something. :^)<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>Thankfully there are people willing to spend many hours, like yourself, investigating individual cases with now way of knowing at the beginning how the case will develop. For this we must be grateful.</i><br /><br />Thanks for the kind words, and as mentioned above, I have been researching Aztec, coming up on 15 years. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>. . . given the problems many will have with Aztec given the well documented issues around the case, I was hoping there was some new facts so strongly supported by hard evidence that it would overcome the counter evidence.</i><br /><br />Anthony, in my view–there are "four" main treatises re Aztec in the public domain; the first is Scully's tome; the second, Cahn's articles; the third is Steiman's book and lastly we have Scott's offering. Again, please don't misconstrue my question, as I don't mean to appear to be brusque; however, have you read any of these dissertations? To which "documented issues" are you referring?<br /><br />Previously, you specifically asked <i>"Is there one piece of hard evidence that even requires us to consider if a crash of anything took place?"<br /><br />a) Any documentary evidence from any official source of any crash of anything in the location at that time<br />b) Any documented radar track of anything in the area at that time which may have been in trouble<br />c) Any ground effects, e.g crater, radiation trace, anomalous effects on plants or soil chemistry, or documented interference with electronic systems from a credible source.<br />d) Documentary evidence (perhaps including local newspapers) of unusual activity (e.g. military) in the area at around the time.</i><br /><br />As stated above:<br /><br />"Scott covers: <b><br /><br />• Documentary Evidence.<br /><br />• Ground effects.<br /><br />• Physical trace evidence.<br /><br />• Results from lab analysis of material found on-site (presumed to aid in vehicle removal). <br /><br />• Unusual activity during that time period and in that are</b> <br /><br />• Measuring for <b>radiation etc.,</b> in the book"<br /><br />The list goes on . . ..<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>. . . I am still left wondering why anyone should think anything, of any description, actually crashed?</i><br /><br />Nothing did "crash" per se, as ancillary evidence to date doesn't conflict with Scully's original description of an "intact" craft. <br /><br />Wonder no more–read the book! <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>Perhaps I am being a little harsh, but I'd rather err towards excluding many genuine cases for insufficient evidence than accept one ultimately flawed case.</i><br /><br />I don't think you're being harsh, you're just making judgments without possessing all the facts. I don't know if Mr Shriver has read the Scott's book cover to cover, but at least he cites page and verse for his arguments, and I for one am looking forward to Scott's rebuttal. <br /><br />If you’re referring to “Aztec as being ultimately flawed,” as mentioned above the (only) flaw is the Cahnian doctrine that the whole story was concocted by Newton & GeBauer, as told by (the dupe) Scully; the evidence quashes this notion, regardless of one’s (alternative) belief’s as to the origin of the anecdote.<br /><br />-continued belowFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39322856685725938912013-02-18T09:42:44.497-08:002013-02-18T09:42:44.497-08:00Hi
I suspect we may be misunderstanding each other...Hi<br />I suspect we may be misunderstanding each other. Thankfully there are people willing to spend many hours, like yourself, investigating individual cases with now way of knowing at the beginning how the case will develop. For this we must be grateful.<br />My request for a specific example of new data wasn't based on any sense that everything would hinge on one piece of evidence, far from it. Rather, given the problems many will have with Aztec given the well documented issues around the case, I was hoping there was some new facts so strongly supported by hard evidence that it would overcome the counter evidence. I was hoping for something like ( just as an example) local news items from the time of unusual activity in the area. The example gave, suggesting an earlier origin for the story could well be interesting. As no evidence to support this assertion is given here I'm not going to attempt to form a view on it at the moment, but I am still left wondering why anyone should think anything, of any description, actually crashed?<br />Perhaps I am being a little harsh, but I'd rather err towards excluding many genuine cases for insufficient evidence than accept one ultimately flawed case. This perhaps reflects my own personal research focus which is more towards statistical and other quantitative analysis aspects of the data. In this context data cleanliness is both crucial and a major problem in working with UFO data sets. So perhaps I do sound a bit harsh, but actually I am far more amenable to accepting data in this field that most people with scientific training would be, perhaps as I've formed my own conclusions over the years where I do think there is something going on.<br /><br />Anyway I shall leave it at that. Very best wishes for your continued efforts and I really do hope that more comes to light and I can happily say I called it wrong at this time.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52680294803862445612013-02-16T10:06:35.204-08:002013-02-16T10:06:35.204-08:00Mornin' Kevin,
Thanks for posting Mr Shriver...Mornin' Kevin, <br /><br />Thanks for posting Mr Shriver's reply, and he in part wrote:<br /><br /><i>my response to Mr. Warren when he said "using the verb "rely" in regard to these two witnesses gives an underlying innuendo that doesn't exist". I haven't the foggiest idea as to what he means.</i><br /><br />I'll explain: "My" impression of the statement(s) as a reader was that Mr Shriver was insinuating that Scott was taking the statements of the a fore mentioned witnesses as gospel and not giving it a second thought. As I wrote above, "both men [Noland & Riggs] assert(ed) to be respective witnesses to Aztec minutiae in their own right and were treated as such."<br /><br />Mr. Shriver wrote:<br /><br /><i>My Webster's New World College Dictionary (third Edition) defines rely as "1) to have confidence; trust and it is evident to me that Mr. Ramsey did have confidence and trust in those people he interviewed.</i><br /><br />"Confidence and trust" between people is usually earned; in research and or an investigation these positions come from evaluation of said witnesses, e.g., their backgrounds, character, positions in the community, regard from their peers etc. <br /><br />Obviously Scott puts credence in the statements of these men, but that posture wasn't arrived at in a cursory fashion as was impression given by Mr Shriver's description (IMHO).<br /><br />As stated above:<br /><br /><b>The strength (or weakness) of anecdotal evidence is demonstrated by verification of the facts stated and the character of those making the statements. So far, re Noland & Riggs, nothing has been offered to disparage either.</b><br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52437314777199868972013-02-16T08:58:28.008-08:002013-02-16T08:58:28.008-08:00Mornin' Anthony,
You in part wrote:
"I...Mornin' Anthony, <br /><br />You in part wrote:<br /><br /><i>"I suspect the difference in our interpretations may rest with how we interpret evidence . . . evidence as you put it, being sufficient in civil legal cases ... For scientific matters a much higher level of confidence is needed"</i><br /><br />I have a feeling our "requirements" for evidence in such matters are commensurate; however, my argument is that our differences re our respective interpretations is moot, as only one of us possesses the information. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89303250073420064942013-02-16T05:05:50.896-08:002013-02-16T05:05:50.896-08:00Hello Frank
Thanks for your reply. I suspect the ...Hello Frank<br /><br />Thanks for your reply. I suspect the difference in our interpretations may rest with how we interpret evidence and what level of confidence we are looking for. This does vary considerably between professions, with the balance of probability, or preponderance of evidence as you put it, being sufficient in civil legal cases (I'm British, not sure if that is a U.S. term). For scientific matters a much higher level of confidence is needed, even higher than the beyond reasonable doubt used in criminal cases.<br /><br />I'll come back with a fuller reply on, probably, Tuesday. Thanks for your time and thoughtsAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41101910153082152252013-02-15T17:14:40.012-08:002013-02-15T17:14:40.012-08:00Frank -
This from Monte:
I don't have a Goog...Frank -<br /><br />This from Monte:<br /><br />I don't have a Google account so here is my response to Mr. Warren when he said "using the verb "rely" in regard to these two witnesses gives an underlying innuendo that doesn't exist". I haven't the foggiest idea as to what he means. My actual quote in my conclusion was "Mr. Ramsey relied in a large part on his interviews with Mr. Noland, Mr.Farley, Mr. Riggs and Mr. Hernandez".I stand by my comment of using "relied". My Webster's New World College Dictionary (third Edition) defines rely as "1) to have confidence; trust and it is evident to me that Mr. Ramsey did have confidence and trust in those people he interviewed.<br /><br />And as a PS:<br /><br />If I read Mr. Warren correctly, he said that to question Messrs. Noland and Riggs' veracity is "nonsensical". I assume he is referring to my comment in the postscript. He overlooks my qualifier when I stated the sentence by saying "If Mr. Randle is correct etc."<br />KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12413496633792670892013-02-15T11:32:48.181-08:002013-02-15T11:32:48.181-08:00Mornin' Anthony,
Your question (given my int...Mornin' Anthony, <br /><br />Your question (given my interpretation of it) in my experience is the most commonly asked pertaining to Ufology “in general,” e.g., I'm often <i>erroneously</i> asked "what is the best case or evidence in support of the reality of UFOs?" (Of course UFO's aren't in question–they are matter of fact. The debate pertains to their origin and who or what is piloting them). <br /><br />Second to the general question (in my experience) is specific to Roswell, i.e., "what is the most significant evidence in support of the crashed craft and (presumably) ET bodies (and perhaps some still living)?"<br /><br />My answer is the same for both and Aztec as well, which is the <b>"preponderance of the evidence."</b><br /><br />Like any case, it’s hard to make relevant arguments unless the recipients are erudite re the facts of the matter; from your perspective and or anyone who is only cognizant of the surface story, the significance of various examples of evidence may not carry the same weight, not knowing the all the details. With that in mind, here is what I’ve argued since the publication of the book (reiterating what I stated above): <br /><br /><b>Regardless of whether the reader embraces Scott’s conclusions or no–the evidence makes it clear that the story did not originate from Newton & GeBauer.</b><br /><br />The Cahnian doctrine and accepted conclusion of the Aztec Incident with both UFO mavens and abecedarians alike is that the Aztec narrative was concocted by lowly conmen Silas Newton & Leo GeBauer—the evidence, in its totality (a good majority presented in the book) quashes this long held tenet.<br /><br />The Cahnian doctrine (since its inception) has always been the <b>“ONLY”</b> (counter) explanation for the Aztec anecdote, with that removed from the equation, then one must (at the very least) re-examine the problem. <br /><br />Having been heavily involved in Aztec research for about 15 years, I’m confident in saying that “an exotic craft of some sort” came down on Hart Canyon rd in the Spring of ’48; was retrieved by the PTB and covered up by same, the research continues . . ..<br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3722020145459653472013-02-15T04:18:52.547-08:002013-02-15T04:18:52.547-08:00By the way, and off topic. Events in Russia seem r...By the way, and off topic. Events in Russia seem relevant to the discussion a few days ago regarding the Nevada fireballAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79133468399138521632013-02-15T00:22:26.299-08:002013-02-15T00:22:26.299-08:00Hello Frank
Would you be able to give a specific ...Hello Frank<br /><br />Would you be able to give a specific example, including why a particular piece of evidence should be considered secure?<br /><br />ThanksAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86794109123283544102013-02-14T10:51:27.109-08:002013-02-14T10:51:27.109-08:00Mornin’ Anthony,
Beginning, with your last sente...Mornin’ Anthony, <br /><br />Beginning, with your last sentence, you wrote:<br /><br /><i> Goodness, I find myelf sounding like a sceptic these days, don't I!</i><br /><br />“Objective” skepticism is part of scientific method and is a prerequisite to research/investigation in general, and Ufology specifically. It also is no stranger to investigative journalism. That said, as there are folks who see aliens in their soup, there are those with a flat-earth mentality who are wrapped up in their own belief systems, or the status quo, which is the end result of parental upbringing and societal programming (we all begin at the same starting line). Point of fact is either extreme is examples of ideologues and <i>usually, </i> “facts” won’t shake one’s faith if you will. The irony is that both parties are cut out of the same cloth; both are “believers,’ or ideologues in their own right.<br /><br />In my friendly criticism above I pointed out that Kevin’s post is of Monte Shriver’s (critical) review of Scott’s book on Aztec, in other words the thesis of this particular publication (Kevin’s post) is “about the content of the book,” good bad or indifferent; in stating the obvious, since the discussion is of the book, and it’s contents—reading it is a prerequisite. <br /><br />At the same time, the book aside, I have always urged people to do their own research in general, and specifically with various cases, and Aztec is no exception. Part of the problem with Ufology (and other research) is that folks tend to rehash the tenets of those that came before them without a second thought (this couldn’t be truer in this instance [with Aztec]). <br /><br />In your latest post you’re now questioning if there is enough content to motivate you to buy the book, yet you were willing to denounce it without reviewing the content, forgive me, but this pattern of behavior is akin to putting the cart before the horse.<br /><br />In any event, to your questions, Scott covers: documentary evidence, ground effects, physical trace evidence, unusual activity, measuring for radiation etc., in the book Additionally the transcript of the interview between OSI agents and George Koehler is in the book, and that has never seen the light of day prior to its publication. <br /><br />Of course the merits of the evidence presented therein is left to the “reader.” <br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3334367887225871852013-02-14T09:50:35.081-08:002013-02-14T09:50:35.081-08:00Lance -
While I agree with most of what you say h...Lance -<br /><br />While I agree with most of what you say here, about this case, I do not understand why you can't make your points in a civilized way. Why must you retreat into snarky comments? All you do is annoy the readers who might reject your points because of your attitude.<br /><br />Notice that Frank can disagree without getting nasty. Please try to do the same, or I will delete what you write, even if the points are valid and I agree with them.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89414610043082834562013-02-14T07:12:49.283-08:002013-02-14T07:12:49.283-08:00Anthony Mugan:
Don't be afraid to be 'har...Anthony Mugan:<br /><br />Don't be afraid to be 'hard' on the hard evidence. If Aztec really happened as described in any of the books, there would be plenty of hard evidence of it - i.e. the actual craft, the bodies and literally tons of documentation. And it certainly would not all be stashed away in secret vaults after 65 years either.<br /><br />That no such hard evidence is available after all this time (and no likelihood it ever will be) is good enough proof for me, and the scientific world, that the said incident never happened. <br /><br />Exactly the same can be said about Roswell, but I'll not go over this ground again & again ad nauseam.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51949257592754314862013-02-14T05:44:37.281-08:002013-02-14T05:44:37.281-08:00Good morning Frank
You are quite right that I hav...Good morning Frank<br /><br />You are quite right that I haven't read the new books on Aztec. Is there one piece of hard evidence that even requires us to consider if a crash of anything took place? I'd be more than delighted to invest in them if there is.<br /><br />By firm evidence I don't mean hearsay from individual witnesses but (just as a few possible examples):<br />a) Any documentary evidence from any official source of any crash of anything in the location at that time<br />b) Any documented radar track of anything in the area at that time which may have been in trouble<br />c) Any ground effects, e.g crater, radiation trace, anomalous effects on plants or soil chemistry, or documented interference with electronic systems from a credible source.<br />d) Documentary evidence (perhaps including local newspapers) of unusual activity (e.g. military) in the area at around the time.<br /><br />The list could on, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.<br /><br />Roswell hits two out of four and some (non-crash related) UFO cases such as the 1953 Ellsworth AFB case, Tehran 1976 or Trans-en-Provence 1981 hit one or two of these (as well as other lines of evidence). Even then that doesn't prove much in itself, although a pattern begins to emerge from these higher quality cases. Does Aztec hit any of these criteria (or similar)?<br /><br />Goodness, I find myelf sounding like a sceptic these days, don't I!Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64418033601276477172013-02-13T14:47:18.214-08:002013-02-13T14:47:18.214-08:00Frank,
Having Scott Ramsey "vet" someon...Frank,<br /><br />Having Scott Ramsey "vet" someone about Aztec is supremely silly. <br /><br />Ramsey hid by omission Reed's original story.<br /><br />In that story, Reed made a claim that could actually be checked (the stone cairns made by aliens) and shown to be ridiculous.<br /><br />Hilariously, Ramsey (if I am understanding you) decided that this part of the story was a little joke but that most of the rest of his story was true!<br /><br />This kind of "research" is, sadly, all too common.<br /><br />I note your pedantic discussion of who uncovered the story. How incredibly disingenuous of you to suggest that Ramsey was the one who uncovered it.<br /><br />Ramsey gave the letter to Paul (possibly by accident) but Paul published the first story about it. Ramsey has never mentioned it and still tries to hide it. Can you point to anywhere that he has ever discussed it publicly?<br /><br />That you apparently dully accept anything Ramsey says, despite the evidence, is quite revealing.<br /><br />Lance<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30501391910619065522013-02-13T13:58:37.067-08:002013-02-13T13:58:37.067-08:00Lance,
It never fails to amaze me that in asking ...Lance,<br /><br />It never fails to amaze me that in asking a question or offering your opposing opinion, commentary etc., to someone you disagree with—it always comes with sarcasm and or pejoratives attached. <br /><br />I know it's possible to have a civil conversation with you, as we've done it in the past. Moreover, I’m happy to (civilly) discuss Aztec with you, and or other UFO topics “time permitting.” However, if "your choice" is to insert cynicism and impudence at every opportunity in your discourse—please exclude me from the conversation!<br /><br /> You wrote:<br /><br /><i>Reed's story, as most anyone familiar with the case knows, was shown to be hugely problematic long before Ramsey's book. Paul Kimball uncovered the info ….</i><br /><br />Paul didn’t “uncover” the info; he received the copy of the letter (by Reed) from Scott. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i> Ramsey knew about the problems then as well and ignored them . . ..</i><br /><br />Yes he did know about the letter and its contents; however, he didn’t ignore them. What he did do was vet Reed and interview him on multiple occasions. Generally speaking the letter to the paper was written in jest; there were some particulars that were going on at the time (when the letter was written) concerning (festive) events that were happening at the crash site which were/are attributed to his motivations. Scott of course is the one to ask about the particulars.<br /><br /> INMO the letter should have been addressed in the book.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39009426283896102242013-02-13T10:46:27.511-08:002013-02-13T10:46:27.511-08:00Good Day Anthony,
Selecting some of your comments...Good Day Anthony,<br /><br />Selecting some of your comments:<br /><br />"... I am always interested in hearing evidence . . .."<br /><br />"In the case of Aztec I don't yet see anything concrete . . .."<br /><br />"[Aztec]. . . it will never reach the level of credibility needed. I do hope I am missing something fundamental here and stand more than ready to be corrected, if the evidence is there."<br /><br />I was compelled to respond here to (a portion of) Monte Shriver's "review" of the book <i>The Aztec Incident: Recovery at Hart Canyon</i> which is the thesis of this post . . . <b>I don't mean to be rude, however, have you read the book?</b> I'm guessing by your commentary (in its entirety) that you haven't, and to state the obvious–it would be prudent to do so before condemning it's content. <br /><br />Apologies in advance if I'm wrong . . ..<br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33331033380842442962013-02-13T07:44:54.314-08:002013-02-13T07:44:54.314-08:00Frank Warren knows (and as far as I know has never...Frank Warren knows (and as far as I know has never addressed) some of the most egregious silliness of the Aztec case.<br /><br />I have asked him several times about Fred Reed, for instance. Reed's story, as most anyone familiar with the case knows, was shown to be hugely problematic long before Ramsey's book. Paul Kimball uncovered the info (and you can read about it here on Kevin's site as well). <br /><br />Paul's Original Story:<br /><br />http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/03/fred-reed-aztec-red-flag.html<br /><br />As far as I am aware, Frank's last word on Reed was this:<br /><br />"Unfortunately, I can't respond properly at this time . . . but will do so ASAP." <br /><br />at Paul Kimball's site.<br /><br />That was 8 years ago!<br /><br />Ramsey knew about the problems then as well and ignored them, in the typical UFO buff manner. Reed appears in Ramsey's book as a star "witness". <br /><br />Note also how, despite supposedly doing super careful research over many years, Ramsey's account of Reed's story in his amateurishly written book is almost verbatim the same as what he wrote back in 2005! That is UFO research at it's finest!<br /><br />Frank Warren is ever happy to discuss meaningless details and worthless opinions as above.<br /><br />How about Reed, Frank?<br /><br />Lance Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12918283406794243052013-02-13T01:42:10.730-08:002013-02-13T01:42:10.730-08:00Whilst I am always interested in hearing evidence ...Whilst I am always interested in hearing evidence I can't help but feel that evidence based on personal testimony is not going to cut it in this case, given the counter arguments that are available regarding the conviction of Silas Newton.<br /><br />For something, which, lets face it, is actually rather unlikely to be true (as, a priori, is any individual UFO report)we do need something a bit more solid. Some cases do provide such a level of data, although nothing yet which conclusively prooves the ETH (an almost impossible level of evidence whilst the current paradigm remains in place would be needed for that).<br /><br />In the case of Roswell, for example, there is no doubt that something crashed and we can get into quantitative analysis of the possible Mogul flight 4 trajectories which, in my opinion, falsifies that hypothesis. We could also debate the extent to which analysis of the Ramey memo might allow hard evidence to be presented, or not. In that case also we can get to an interconnecting web of high reliability witness testimony (e.g. Marcel, Haut, DuBose etc. (plus much that is less reliable, of course). In short, we get the beginnings of a possible case.<br /><br />In the case of Aztec I don't yet see anything concrete which requires us to consider if a crash of anything actually occurred in the first place and, outside of witness testimony, the only concrete piece of firm evidence I'm aware of is the conviction of Newton...<br /><br />Even if one feels the case may be genuine, I suspect it isn't profitiable to spend much more time on it as it will never reach the level of credibility needed. I do hope I am missing something fundamental here and stand more than ready to be corrected, if the evidence is there.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7290750943917374722013-02-13T00:41:23.950-08:002013-02-13T00:41:23.950-08:00Evenin' Kevin,
You wrote:
First, the idea th...Evenin' Kevin,<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>First, the idea that Noland approached Steinman comes from John Lear. According to Lear, that was how he learned the name.</i><br /><br />You and I discussed all of this before (last May); to refresh my memory (back then) I reviewed (again) the interview that Lear conducted with Noland, I (then) wrote:<br /><br /><b>"In listening to the interview, it's clear that Noland didn't know Steinman, and the latter has confirmed this. Additionally, Scott verified early on that he (Noland) wasn't aware of Scully's book. Moreover, it was also made clear by Noland in the interview that he wasn't aware of Steinman's book, as it was loaned to Noland (by Lear) during the visit for the interview. In fact, during the interview, Noland referred to it as 'your book [presuming he (Lear) was the author],' speaking to Lear, and Lear corrected him.<br />"</b><br /><br />You wrote: <br /><br /><i>Second, the database for those who died in Vietnam is quite accurate and covers all manner of death by the US military in Vietnam, including those that were from natural causes (heart attacks) and those by accident. You can't just reject this because some databases are flawed.</i><br /><br />First, accuracy of the information found within the database does not reflect "missing data or files." The site itself is currently, maintained by volunteers and by their own admission state:<br /><br /><b>"The CCAF database is known to contain errors."</b><br /><br />Furthermore, I don't reject it because some data bases flawed, I was merely correcting an erroneous statement. <br /><br />Point of fact is there is "conflicting information"; as stated above perhaps the "Bass family" was not the correct one. My argument the last time we discussed this and as stated above, whether he died in Vietnam or not is irrelevant. This doesn't affect Virgil's anecdote. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>Third, Scott is certainly welcome to send a rebuttal and I'll be happy to publish it....</i><br /><br />I assured him this was the case . . ..<br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55573480124590943092013-02-12T18:11:49.055-08:002013-02-12T18:11:49.055-08:00Frank -
First, the idea that Noland approached St...Frank -<br /><br />First, the idea that Noland approached Steinman comes from John Lear. According to Lear, that was how he learned the name.<br /><br />Second, the database for those who died in Vietnam is quite accurate and covers all manner of death by the US military in Vietnam, including those that were from natural causes (heart attacks) and those by accident. You can't just reject this because some databases are flawed.<br /><br />Third, Scott is certainly welcome to send a rebuttal and I'll be happy to publish it, as long as we don't degenerate into name calling and the like.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com