Monday, February 11, 2013

Aztec in Perspective by Monte Shriver - Part Three

(Blogger’s Note: The following is reprinted by permission. Given the length of the original article, I have broken it into three parts and will publish all three over the next week. It was written by one-time resident of Aztec, Monte Shriver, and provides an interesting insight into the alleged crash. This is Part Three, the final installment. Again, reprinted by permission of Monte Shriver.)

 
THE IMPROBABLE JOURNEY OF MANUEL SANDOVAL
 

Considering the timing related to the finding of the disc, I think it is reasonable to assume that it landed (crashed?) in Hart Canyon between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.  With sunrise being at 6:08 a.m., it had to be quite dark at the time the disc arrived. Why is this important? Because some time after the sun rose, Mr. Sandoval who followed the disc all the way from Cuba finally arrived at the site.  What we know about Mr. Sandoval is based upon interviews Mr. Ramsey conducted with Johnny Hernandez, Town Historian of Cuba, other residents of Cuba and from what Doug Noland told Mr. Ramsey. 

As related to Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Sandoval worked part time for the Cuba police department with the title of deputy sheriff. He replaced a Sam Sambrano who had been promoted to sheriff. These titles don’t make any sense. Bernalillo is the county seat of Sandoval County and that is where the sheriff’s office is located. In two visits with the Sandoval County sheriff’s office, they were unable to locate a Sam Sambrano who was sheriff in 1948. Normally, a sheriff is elected, not appointed unless there is a vacancy in the sheriff’s office. I suspect Mr. Sambrano was actually the police chief of Cuba. On page 2 of the Ramsey book, Doug Noland told Mr. Ramsey that “…Manuel Sandoval, explained that he was from the town of Cuba, N.M., and that he had followed the low flying disc-shaped craft in a northerly direction during the early morning hours…”. When Mr. Sambrano came to work on the morning of March 25, I suspect he wondered what happened to his night officer and his patrol car.

So what we are supposed to believe is that sometime after midnight on the morning on March 25, 1948, this craft flying very slowly and low enough for Mr. Sandoval to follow it, flew from Cuba to Counselors, turned north and headed down Largo Canyon towards Blanco. Don’t forget, Mr. Ramsey maintains that this was the correct route to Aztec in 1948 and that even today the trip (down Largo) is long and slow. So either the craft flew as slow as 20-30 miles per hour or perhaps it dropped bread crumbs for Mr. Sandoval to follow. Anyway, the craft turned left on SR 17 when it exited Largo Canyon, continued west through Blanco to Bloomfield. Why did the craft turn left on SR 17 when it exited Largo?  Because that is the only bridge over the San Juan River in the area. Why do I know it went west out of Blanco?  Because Sandoval said it almost hit a mesa near Bloomfield which is 9 miles straight west of Blanco. Now a Valentine Archuleta suddenly appears on the scene and says he saw the saucer pass over his ranch in the early morning hours(perhaps around 4:00 a.m.?), strike a ridge and head north towards Hart Canyon. I think this is the first time a Valentine Archuleta is mentioned in the Ramsey book so where did he come from? Is this the V. A. mentioned in Steinman’s book (page 258)? As related by Mr. Steinman, all V.A. could remember was that he saw the craft somewhere between 1948 and 1950!!!!!! In addition, V. A. lived in Blanco (although on the wrong river). So, did it hit the mesa at Blanco or at Bloomfield?

Let’s go back to Mr. Sandoval and the craft. After it hit the mesa near Bloomfield, it must have either turned north and went over Aztec or flew northeast from Bloomfield to Hart Canyon. This is apparently where Mr. Sandoval lost sight of the craft because if it crashed between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m., it took Mr. Sandoval another two hours or so to reach the crash site. If he followed the craft to Bloomfield from Blanco and if the craft flew to the northeast, the only logical way for him to go was through Aztec and then turn north on Highway 550. How did he know to turn up the Hart Canyon road? It must have been those danged bread crumbs again.  There is another option we should consider. Maybe the captain of the craft knew that SR 44 was paved all the way from Cuba through Counselors to Aztec and decided not to force Mr. Sandoval to drive that bumpy road down Largo Canyon in the dark.

On page 146, Mr. Ramsey again demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the New Mexico highway system. Don’t forget, Mr. Ramsey maintains that to get to Aztec from Cuba, the road turns north at Counselors and goes down Largo Canyon.  Yet Mr. Sandoval reportedly  watched for speeders on Highway 44 that connected Bernalillo to Farmington. This is the same road one uses to get to Aztec. SR 44 goes from Bernalillo through Cuba to Bloomfield. At Bloomfield you either continue north to Aztec or turn left and go to Farmington.

Mr. Hernandez told Mr. Ramsey that Andy Andrews, New Mexico State Police from Farmington and Mr. Sandoval got into an argument with Dr. Lincoln LaPaz from the University of New Mexico who was investigating “green light” sightings in the Cuba area. Mr. Hernandez said that one of the two officers “almost came over the table at LaPaz”. I asked Andy’s daughter, Evaleene, if her dad ever patrolled from Farmington to Cuba and had he ever mentioned anything about green lights and the incident with Dr. LaPaz. She said he did patrol to Cuba but that he never mentioned seeing any green lights or the incident with Dr. LaPaz. 

 

MOVING THE CRAFT TO LOS ALAMOS

 

In chapter nine, Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Metzger go into great detail about how one  could move the craft, separated into three pieces, using an Army M26 6X6 tractor and an M15 semi-trailer. I think the equipment as shown on page 159 would have worked quite well for the move of the craft.  According to Wikipedia, the M26 had a crew of seven, a top speed of 26 mph and a 140 gallon gas tank. To me, the devil is in the details and so I pose the following questions:
 

1.With the craft broken into three sections, were three M26’s used for the move?
 
2. Where were they located and how long did it take them to arrive on the scene?

3. If two 60 foot cranes were required, how were they transported to the site?

4. Assuming two bulldozers were required, were they driven to the site or hauled in on low-boy trailers?
 

Given the strange appearance of the M26 (the armored version) and M15 semi-trailer, how could they, along with the 60 foot cranes, not have been noticed on the way to the site, lumbering along at a top speed of 26 MPH.  

We are now all loaded and ready for the move. I assume we will have a convoy of three loaded M26’s, perhaps a fuel truck, 2 semi’s pulling low-boy trailers for the bulldozers (unless they were driven all the way) and an unknown number of support vehicles including outriders to clear the road ahead of oncoming traffic because of a load 50 feet wide. Let’s assume we make it down Pump Canyon to the San Juan River without being seen(Right!!!).  Pump Canyon enters the San Juan River just west of Archuleta, NM and east of Blanco, NM. Now I think it is important to discuss a little history of the area between Blanco and Archuleta.

The following information is taken from The Place Names of New Mexico -Revised Edition” by Robert Julyan: 1998 University of New Mexico Press

 ARCHULETA : “…settlement on S bank of the San Juan River…at Gobernador Wash…The Archuletas were among the first Hispanic settlers in this area in the 1870’s and their descendants still live in and around this tiny community…”.

BLANCO : When Hispanic settlers moved into the San Juan Basin in the 1870’s, Blanco was among their first communities, and because it was more centrally located with respect to Largo Canyon, site of much farming and ranching….”

 The point I wish to make here is that the area between Blanco and Archuleta has been continuously occupied and farmed since the 1870’s. On June 29-30, 2012 my wife and I drove both the north and south sides of the San Juan River from Blanco past Archuleta to the San Juan River Bridge (this bridge did not exist in 1948) on NM 173 and NM 173 did not run this way until 1963 when Aztec volunteers with help from the Ray L. Atchison Construction Company built the Navajo Dam road from Aztec. In 1948, NM 173  was a 14 mile long dirt road from Blanco to Aztec. When we drove the area we found that both sides of the river are extensively farmed and fenced.  I suspect that hasn’t changed much since 1948 or earlier. This is important when you consider how the convoy crossed the San Juan River.

 One can’t cross the river at the Pump Canyon entrance because of the high bluffs on the south side of the river. So you have to start moving down the north side of the river for a few miles until you can find a crossing. You may have to make your own road, go through fences, cross private property and ultimately find a place to cross the river. No matter where you cross the river, the bulldozers would be needed to blade an entrance into and out of the river for the crossing to be made. This convoy would have been the major topic of conversation in the valley and I suspect the property owners might have taken umbrage with their fences being cut and roads being cut across their property. Does anyone find it odd that there is no report of such an event ever happening in the area? Unless, of course, it didn’t happen at all. Certainly George Bowra would have reported it in the Aztec Independent Review. More about him later.

So now the convoy is headed up Largo Canyon as described by Mr. Metzger in his report to Mr. Ramsey: “The tightest clearance on Largo Canyon Road is 39 feet above ground level. Largo Canyon would have been the natural choice, since “U.S. HIGHWAY 550 HADN’T BEEN BUILT YET”(emphasis added) . He goes on to say it would be a simple matter to make it to Counselors. If this is the major road to Aztec, where is all the oncoming traffic and what about all the traffic following the convoy? How did they get around a 50 foot wide load? Apparently it was no problem.

Then Mr. Metzger makes one of the most incredible statements in the book when on page 158, he states “Once out of the canyon, traveling across the high desert north of Cuba, through Gallina, Abiquiu and Espanola northward around to the eastern slope of the extinct volcano where Los Alamos is located would be a relatively easy matter”. He obviously doesn’t know the difference between deserts and mountains and he overlooked the fact that you have to turn south at Abiquiu to head towards Espanola. I suspect he and the Ramseys have never even been on this road (SR 96).Before I get back to all the problems he overlooked in the easy drive from Counselors to Los Alamos, I wish you could all see the map of the recovery route as shown on page 160 of the Ramsey book. His route doesn’t even go through Gallina, Abiquiu and Espanola!!!! Instead, it goes from Cuba south to Bernalillo(not named on the map), through Santa Fe (not named on the map) and then on to Los Alamos. Credibility, Credibility, Credibility!

From Counselors, it is approximately 36 miles to where one turns left on NM  96 for the drive over to U.S. 84 so I will just mention a few issues worthy of consideration:

At Counselors, NM 44 goes SE towards Cuba. The load is 50 feet wide. I recently measured the width of old U.S. Highway 85 south of Socorro. This is the road on which I drove to college in 1952. The pavement is 24 feet wide. I suspect that in 1948, NM 44 was about the same width. That means that if the M26 drove down the center of the road, the load would extend 13 feet past the pavement on each side of the road - and this on the main road from Albuquerque to the San Juan Basin. The convoy could easily have been a quarter of mile long, perhaps even with a state police escort to clear the way of traffic. And no one saw it?????????

SR 96 from north of Cuba through Gallina to U.S. Highway 84 was a graded dirt road about 60 miles long. On this route, you pass by the villages of La Jara, Regina, Gallina and Coyote where you then had  to cross the Chama River to reach U.S. 84. These villages were settled between 1818 and 1911 (The Place Names of New Mexico, Second Edition 1998 by Robert Julyan). Surely, someone would have seen and reported this strange looking convoy. How did they cross the Chama River near Abiquiu? No mention is made of this feat.

North of Abiquiu, SR 96 ends at U.S. Highway 84, the major north/south route from Chama and Tierra Amarilla to Santa Fe, Albuquerque and points south. Again, here is a convoy going unnoticed with a 13 foot overhang on each side of the pavement on a major north/south route. The highway would have to be cleared. It seems that someone would have mentioned it.

And how about the town of Espanola? How do you get a convoy with a load 50 feet wide and 86.5 feet long unseen through a town the size of Espanola?     

How do you get from Espanola to Los Alamos? In the late 1940’s, I was returning to New Mexico from visiting relatives in Kansas. My uncle wanted to see Taos, so we drove from Taos to Espanola and my uncle decided to take a shortcut over the Jemez Mountains to Cuba. We went up a very steep and narrow road and ended up at the entrance to Los Alamos where we were turned around and ultimately found our way across the Jemez Mountains to Cuba. Remembering this steep and narrow road up to Los Alamos, I talked to the Los Alamos Historical Society, related my story to them about my trip with my uncle up the steep road and I asked them if, in 1948, it would have been possible for a load 50 feet wide and 86.5 feet long to have made it up that road. The answer was definite “No.” I was told that when they ultimately widened the road, the trucks moving the rocks had to backup several times just to negotiate the curves.
 

CONCLUSION

 

This, dear reader, concludes my review of the three books mentioned earlier. When I started this review I was a skeptic, but now, like George Bowra before me, I have not seen anything to convince me that a UFO landed in Hart Canyon. In Mike McClellan’s article (as reprinted on page 213 of the Steinman book,)the following is stated about George Bowra: “Bowra had been in Aztec for 70 years. He ran the paper for 44 years. “Nobody could have gotten in there and out (Hart Canyon) without attracting a lot of attention…Bowra stated emphatically that the roads have never been cordoned by anyone. He became interested enough in the story to speak with what he estimates to be over 100 people…None of them recalls the UFO landing or subsequent military movement…”.

Mr. Ramsey relied in a large part on his interviews with Mr. Noland, Mr. Farley. Mr. Riggs and Mr. Hernandez. I don’t doubt their veracity,  but I certainly do question their memories. I have already given my opinion on some of Mr. Ramsey’s research, particularly the highway routing in northwest New Mexico and his lack of detail on how the disc could have been moved. When Mr. Steinman placed Blanco on the banks of the Animas River, he lost credibility with me immediately.

 It is my intent to give credit to everyone whose work I have used. If I overlooked someone, I apologize. I have not used any UFO sites or books other than those I have mentioned. My conclusions are my own. I would encourage everyone to buy and read the three books I have here reviewed and draw your own conclusions about what did or did not happen in Hart Canyon. I would love to hear rebuttals from Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Steinman and Dr. Friedman about my review of their work. I am sorry I never had the opportunity to challenge them during the Aztec UFO Symposiums but I do thank them for helping raise money for the new Aztec Library. It is a far cry from the old one room Altrurian Library where I gained my love of reading. 

If I were to give an overall opinion of the three books I have just reviewed, I would have to quote one of my favorite college professors, Dr.. Claude Dove who would describe something questionable as “PIFFLE, PURE DAMN PIFFLE”. 

I could not close without noting that I have seen three UFO’s but they were just that -- unidentified flying objects. The first one I saw was in the late 1940’s. It was later reported to be a weather balloon. In the mid-1990’s, my wife and I were camped at Snow Lake in the Gila National Forest of SW New Mexico. Well after dark, I pointed out to her what I thought was a satellite moving from east to west in the night sky but when it was directly overhead, it made an abrupt left turn and headed straight south. I had never seen a satellite do that before. The other sighting looked like a hot air balloon on fire moving at low level from east to west. It was a short distance north of our house but then it abruptly turned north and disappeared in the distance. Dear Reader, your guess is as good as mine.

 

POSTSCRIPT

 

Since finishing my review of the three books about the alleged Aztec flying saucer, I decided to check the internet to see what information was there about UFO’s. It appears there has developed quite a “cottage industry” about UFO’s. This industry seems to feed on itself. I think Frank Scully did a great job of describing this cottage industry, although in a different context when he said “Men stay with what they believe, or fight for buggy whips in an era of automobiles for the simple reason that their livelihoods are all tied up in buggy whips”.

A Mr. Kevin Randle, in a May 30, 2012 posted on the internet, had two very interesting comments about the Ramsey book. As noted in the Ramsey book, The Aztec Incident - Recovery at Hart Canyon, Mr. Ramsey relied quite heavily on information he obtained for Doug Noland and Virgil Riggs. Mr. Randle notes that “Doug Noland tells a robust tale, but is slightly contaminated because he approached William Steinman who wrote about the Aztec Crash in the mid-1980’s”. He also notes that Mr. Riggs relied on a story about the Aztec Crash that was told to him by a Donald “Sam” Bass who was in the Air Force with Mr. Riggs.

According to Mr. Ramsey, his research revealed that Sam Bass had been killed in a hit-and-run accident while in the Air Force in Vietnam. On the other hand, Mr. Randle notes “No one named Bass was killed by a hit-and-run driver in Vietnam and no one who served in the Air Force named Bass died in Vietnam. Clearly, the story told to the Ramsey’s was untrue”.

If Mr. Randle is correct in what he reported, then I think the veracity of both Mr. Noland and Mr. Riggs must be questioned.

Monte Shriver
Las Cruces, NM
2012

28 comments:

Anthony Mugan said...

Thank you Mr Shriver. I've enjoyed reading your article.

As the Aztec case was clearly established to be part of a confidence trick related to the old 'doodlebug' scam, and led to a criminal conviction more than half a century ago, I confess I hadn't bothered to look at any of the recent publications on the subject. I had occassionally wondered if I was missing a trick somewhere with that, but evidently not.

Unfortunately this field is one in which the levels of rigour range from world class academic standards to utter delusional fantasy or worse. We shall just have to get on with it and make sure we don't accept anything without watertight evidence.

Frank Warren said...

Good Day Kevin, Mr Shriver, et al,

First let me state up front that I don't wish to open Pandora's box, as most of the particulars cited by Mr Shriver are suited for Scott to rebut and or comment on etc., as he has the minutiae committed to memory for the most part; however, I am compelled to point out the errors re Bass, as I was/am specifically involved in that research . . . will to get to that in a minute.

For the readers benefit here, it should be known that I proposed a debate between Scott & Kevin (re Aztec) sometime back and with their mutual compliance the idea was then presented to the producers (and hosts) at Coast To Coast AM given their large audience.

The e-mail was sent to C2C producers/hosts and Kevin, Scott and Stan Friedman were all copied; all subsequently chimed in (replying back to C2C in the e-mail) giving it their blessing. (Stan was copied given his relationship with C2C, and of course he wrote the forward to the Ramsey tome).

Kevin, Scott (and of course Stan) have all appeared on C2C numerous times over the years, hence I found it curious that –to date, the query/suggestion didn't even merit a courtesy reply to any one of us.

As to Mr Shriver's commentary on Aztec in general and review of Scott's book specifically, I have urged the latter to pen a rebuttal, and Scott (just moments ago in fact) said he would–when time permits.

Admittedly, I have not read Mr Shriver's review thoroughly, I have only skimmed it; however, I do appreciate his "specific" arguments, referenced by page and verse. Quite, frankly I found the presentation refreshing, rather then the old, tired rehashing of JP Cahn's article espousing the “conmen doctrine.” With that long held canon in mind, since the publication of the Ramsey's book, one key facet that is clear (IMHO), and that I have repeatedly espoused, regardless of whether the reader embraces Scott conclusions or no–is that the evidence makes it clear that the story did not originate from Newton & GeBauer.

Since the counter argument to The Aztec Incident, (i.e., exotic craft, beings etc) has always (and only) been the Cahnian edict, with that removed–then my argument is that this fact should give even the most skeptical (yet objective) great "pause."

As to Bass:

Shriver wrote (recounting Kevin's earlier comments):

Mr. Ramsey relied quite heavily on information he obtained for Doug Noland and Virgil Riggs.

Using the verb "rely" in regard to these two witnesses (IMHO) gives underlying innuendo that doesn't exist. Point of fact is–both men assert(ed) to be respective witnesses to Aztec minutiae in their own right and were treated as such.

Shriver wrote:

Mr. Randle notes that “Doug Noland tells a robust tale, but is slightly contaminated because he approached William Steinman who wrote about the Aztec Crash in the mid-1980’s”.

Doug Noland never approached Steinman, thus any argument based on this foundation is dead on its face.

Shriver wrote:

Mr. Riggs relied on a story about the Aztec Crash that was told to him by a Donald “Sam” Bass who was in the Air Force with Mr. Riggs.

Again, the innuendo is misleading; Riggs recounted his own experiences as a resident of Aztec, meeting Bass came much later, while in the service and there he conveyed what was told to him by Bass.

–continued below . . .

Frank Warren said...

–continued from above

Shriver wrote:

According to Mr. Ramsey ... Sam Bass had been killed in a hit-and-run accident while in the Air Force in Vietnam. On the other hand, Mr. Randle notes “No one named Bass was killed by a hit-and-run driver in Vietnam and no one who served in the Air Force named Bass died in Vietnam. Clearly, the story told to the Ramsey’s was untrue”.

If Mr. Randle is correct in what he reported, then I think the veracity of both Mr. Noland and Mr. Riggs must be questioned.


First, when Virgil told us of Bass–the hunt was on! We looked high and low for the man. Although his identity was confirmed (a picture of him appears in the book, taken at the base in England while serving with Virgil), we were faced with the daunting task of finding a man with a very common name . . . finally, a family was located that "fit the bill."

As was explained to Kevin months ago, the "hit and run" anecdote comes from the family. It is “possible” that this isn't the right family (although highly unlikely given the parallels). Also, to be clear, Kevin checked the “Vietnam Memorial Wall data base” and didn’t find a Bass, in the Air Force that was killed by a hit and run driver in Vietnam—this does not mean it didn’t happen.

For those of you who think “data bases” are gospel, I say check your credit files! Most folks who have done archival or documentary research (or just those that have been on the planet long enough) have encountered erroneous or missing files, data etc. (Multiply that by a factor of 10 when it comes to the military and don't forget about the fire of '73 where approximately 16-18 million Official Military Personnel Files were destroyed).

All that said, whether Bass died like the family stated or not is irrelevant. Bass’ identity has been verified, along with his service at RAF Welford with Virgil. The Bass aspect is part of Virgil’s anecdote; it is hearsay, and the onus of its merits (or no) falls to Virgil Riggs and his credibility and or character—which is stellar by the way.

Finally, the veracity of both Mr. Noland and Mr. Riggs must be questioned because it’s “research 101,” . . . a matter of protocol, and was done. To proclaim that the story related to Scott was “untrue” based on the erroneous aforementioned comments/arguments is nonsensical.

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.

Cheers,
Frank

P.S. Kevin, Scott doesn’t think you would post his rebuttal (equal to Shriver’s platform), I assured him you would, of course.

KRandle said...

Frank -

First, the idea that Noland approached Steinman comes from John Lear. According to Lear, that was how he learned the name.

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.

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.

Frank Warren said...

Evenin' Kevin,

You wrote:

First, the idea that Noland approached Steinman comes from John Lear. According to Lear, that was how he learned the name.

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:

"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.
"


You wrote:

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.

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:

"The CCAF database is known to contain errors."

Furthermore, I don't reject it because some data bases flawed, I was merely correcting an erroneous statement.

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.

You wrote:

Third, Scott is certainly welcome to send a rebuttal and I'll be happy to publish it....

I assured him this was the case . . ..

Cheers,
Frank

Anthony Mugan said...

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.

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).

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.

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...

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.

Lance said...

Frank Warren knows (and as far as I know has never addressed) some of the most egregious silliness of the Aztec case.

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).

Paul's Original Story:

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

As far as I am aware, Frank's last word on Reed was this:

"Unfortunately, I can't respond properly at this time . . . but will do so ASAP."

at Paul Kimball's site.

That was 8 years ago!

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".

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!

Frank Warren is ever happy to discuss meaningless details and worthless opinions as above.

How about Reed, Frank?

Lance

Frank Warren said...

Good Day Anthony,

Selecting some of your comments:

"... I am always interested in hearing evidence . . .."

"In the case of Aztec I don't yet see anything concrete . . .."

"[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."

I was compelled to respond here to (a portion of) Monte Shriver's "review" of the book The Aztec Incident: Recovery at Hart Canyon which is the thesis of this post . . . I don't mean to be rude, however, have you read the book? 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.

Apologies in advance if I'm wrong . . ..

Cheers,
Frank

Frank Warren said...

Lance,

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.

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!

You wrote:

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 ….

Paul didn’t “uncover” the info; he received the copy of the letter (by Reed) from Scott.

You wrote:

Ramsey knew about the problems then as well and ignored them . . ..

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.

INMO the letter should have been addressed in the book.

Cheers,
Frank

Lance said...

Frank,

Having Scott Ramsey "vet" someone about Aztec is supremely silly.

Ramsey hid by omission Reed's original story.

In that story, Reed made a claim that could actually be checked (the stone cairns made by aliens) and shown to be ridiculous.

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!

This kind of "research" is, sadly, all too common.

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.

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?

That you apparently dully accept anything Ramsey says, despite the evidence, is quite revealing.

Lance

Anthony Mugan said...

Good morning Frank

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.

By firm evidence I don't mean hearsay from individual witnesses but (just as a few possible examples):
a) Any documentary evidence from any official source of any crash of anything in the location at that time
b) Any documented radar track of anything in the area at that time which may have been in trouble
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.
d) Documentary evidence (perhaps including local newspapers) of unusual activity (e.g. military) in the area at around the time.

The list could on, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

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)?

Goodness, I find myelf sounding like a sceptic these days, don't I!

cda said...

Anthony Mugan:

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.

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.

Exactly the same can be said about Roswell, but I'll not go over this ground again & again ad nauseam.

KRandle said...

Lance -

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.

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.

Frank Warren said...

Mornin’ Anthony,

Beginning, with your last sentence, you wrote:

Goodness, I find myelf sounding like a sceptic these days, don't I!

“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 usually, “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.

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.

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]).

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.

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.

Of course the merits of the evidence presented therein is left to the “reader.”

Cheers,
Frank

Anthony Mugan said...

Hello Frank

Would you be able to give a specific example, including why a particular piece of evidence should be considered secure?

Thanks

Anthony Mugan said...

By the way, and off topic. Events in Russia seem relevant to the discussion a few days ago regarding the Nevada fireball

Frank Warren said...

Mornin' Anthony,

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 erroneously 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).

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)?"

My answer is the same for both and Aztec as well, which is the "preponderance of the evidence."

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):

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.

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.

The Cahnian doctrine (since its inception) has always been the “ONLY” (counter) explanation for the Aztec anecdote, with that removed from the equation, then one must (at the very least) re-examine the problem.

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 . . ..

Cheers,
Frank

KRandle said...

Frank -

This from Monte:

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.

And as a PS:

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."

Anthony Mugan said...

Hello Frank

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.

I'll come back with a fuller reply on, probably, Tuesday. Thanks for your time and thoughts

Frank Warren said...

Mornin' Anthony,

You in part wrote:

"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 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.

Cheers,
Frank

Frank Warren said...

Mornin' Kevin,

Thanks for posting Mr Shriver's reply, and he in part wrote:

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'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."

Mr. Shriver wrote:

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.

"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.

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).

As stated above:

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.

Cheers,
Frank

Anthony Mugan said...

Hi
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.
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?
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.

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.

Frank Warren said...

Mornin' Anthony,

You wrote:

I suspect we may be misunderstanding each other.

You might be on to something. :^)

You wrote:

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.

Thanks for the kind words, and as mentioned above, I have been researching Aztec, coming up on 15 years.

You wrote:

. . . 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.

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?

Previously, you specifically asked "Is there one piece of hard evidence that even requires us to consider if a crash of anything took place?"

a) Any documentary evidence from any official source of any crash of anything in the location at that time
b) Any documented radar track of anything in the area at that time which may have been in trouble
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.
d) Documentary evidence (perhaps including local newspapers) of unusual activity (e.g. military) in the area at around the time.


As stated above:

"Scott covers:

• Documentary Evidence.

• Ground effects.

• Physical trace evidence.

• Results from lab analysis of material found on-site (presumed to aid in vehicle removal).

• Unusual activity during that time period and in that are


• Measuring for radiation etc., in the book"

The list goes on . . ..

You wrote:

. . . I am still left wondering why anyone should think anything, of any description, actually crashed?

Nothing did "crash" per se, as ancillary evidence to date doesn't conflict with Scully's original description of an "intact" craft.

Wonder no more–read the book!

You wrote:

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 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.

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.

-continued below

Frank Warren said...

-continued from above

You wrote:

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.

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.

You wrote:

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.

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.

Respectfully,
Frank

Anthony Mugan said...

Hi Frank

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 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?

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.

Frank Warren said...

Mornin’ Anthony,

You wrote:

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.

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.

You wrote:

Sorry to awkward, but assertion isn't evidence . . ..

No one said it was.

You wrote:

. . . we all have to be to some extent selective as we can't read everything on every subject.


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.

Cheers,
Frank

Anthony Mugan said...

Hi Frank

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.

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.

Frank Warren said...

Mornin’ Anthony,

You wrote:

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 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.


You wrote:

. 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.


You asked, originally:

Is there one piece of hard evidence[in the book] that even requires us to consider if a crash of anything took place?

You then cited specific categories; in my reply, I explained that Scott offers up minutiae in all categories your interested in. I also stated that the merits of the evidence (or lack thereof) will fall to the respective reader.

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.

You wrote:

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.

Thank you, my best to you as well.

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.

As to my own conclusions, 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.

Cheers,
Frank