As
those of you who visit here regularly know, I am not a fan of the Aztec UFO
crash of 1948. I have followed the story since I was in high school and
remember finding a copy of the True
magazine article in a Denver used bookstore in the early 1960s. To me, it was
the definitive investigation of the case. I watched in the 1970s as the story
was revitalized for a few months, and then in the 1980s when William Steinman
wrote his book about the case that was filled with misinformation, leaps of
logic, and a really bad organization without an index.
We’ve
seen another attempt at this with Stan Friedman leaping aboard the bandwagon of
Scott Ramsey’s parade toward the ridiculous. Although Ramsey has claimed he has
spent half a million dollars in his reinvestigation (and I have no reason to
doubt that figure) but his attempts at revitalizing the tale have fallen short.
He has no real documentation, he has some interesting historical facts that aren’t
all that relevant and a few relevant ones that he believes are unimportant and
some testimony that seems to be almost first hand but really isn’t.
While
I would like to join that parade, the evidence, at least to me, falls way
short, and I’m sure that I’ll be labeled just another debunker. It is far easier
to label those who disagree with you than to respond to the criticisms that they
might raise (Friedman called me an anti-abduction propagandist for my position
on that topic).
For example, I found the Donald “Sam” Bass tale to be
unreliable. Bass couldn’t be interviewed because he had allegedly died in an
automobile accident while serving in Vietnam. I cited the list of those killed
kept by the Park Service who maintains the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.
as my source to reject the tale. Bass’ name was not on it. Ramsey said that they
claimed that they might have missed some of the names though they had worked to
make sure the memorial contains list all those who died in Vietnam. I said that
if we had his serial number, we could gain his records as another way to check
the tale. While Ramsey said he did have the serial number, he wouldn’t supply
it to me so that I might verify the information about Bass.
 |
| Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. Picture copyright by Kevin Randle |
Ramsey
also used the “first-hand” testimony from Doug Noland. I was never sure if
Ramsey actually interviewed Noland or if he was using a tape of an interview
with Noland that had been made by John Lear. It is clear from the information
available that Noland had not gone into the interview “clean.” I mean he had
read Steinman’s book and was aware of the story. Noland didn’t seem to be a
real good source, but there was a tape made of his discussion with Lear.
Now
Monte Shriver in an email to me on April 30 he expanded on some of his
criticism. He wrote:
In comparing Scott Ramsey's video presentations and the Books, he
has Doug working for either El Paso Gas or El Paso Oil in 1948. In the book
"The Pipeliners - The story of El Paso Natural Gas" at page 151, the
company did not arrive in the San Juan Basin [which encompasses the Aztec area
and a large part of the Four Corners] until the summer of 1950 (I [this being
Shriver] have found several other inconsistencies between Scott's videos and
the books). In a publication by The New Mexico Geological Society it quotes
from a book by Thomas A. Dugan in a section called "The San Juan
Basin-Episodes and Aspirations" as follows: "In February 1950, the
Federal Power Commission issued a temporary permit to El Paso Natural Gas
Company to lay a transmission line from the San Juan Basin to the California
border. The final permit was issued July 14, 1950 and gas started moving
through the line during late summer of 1951...Farmington and the San Juan Basin
changed drastically and would never be the same again...El Paso immediately
became the most active company and the leader of development in the basin in
the fifties and sixties..." There is no record of any other company having
the name El Paso Gas or El Paso Oil except for the El Paso Natural Gas
Company.
In his book, Ramsey seems to indicate that he had interviewed
Manuel Sandoval who was a law enforcement officer in 1948, but Ramsey told me
that he had not interviewed him but members of the family and the story told
might be third hand at best. I don’t believe that Ramsey was intentionally
attempting to mislead here, but his writing style was not as clear as it could
have been. Shriver, however, added a note about this, telling me:
Ramsey also has Manuel Sandoval patrolling a Southern Union Gas
line from the San Juan Basin to Los Alamos in 1948. In Dugan's "The San
Juan Basin-Episodes and Aspirations" he notes that "On March 3, 1949,
The Atomic Energy Commission announced their plans to build a pipeline from a
point about 25 miles south of Bloomfield to Los Alamos, about 30 miles
northeast of Santa Fe. The gas would be purchased from Southern Union Gas
Company; the line was to be completed before winter". Ramsey's
source has Mr. Sandoval patrolling the line more than a year before it was
built".
None of this bodes well for the Aztec tale. I have mentioned in
the past that there are no local newspaper articles about it, and some of the
witnesses have altered their stories radically over the years and many of the
long-time residents say that the crash never happened. The town seems to be
split into those who believe the story and those who don’t, which is no real
surprise. It does seem, as mentioned in other posts here, that the weight of
the evidence suggests that this tale is not based in fact.
Shriver, who tells me he has “retired from rebutting Ramsey’s Aztec
UFO claims,” has provided another rebuttal to the new version of the book. It
is an interesting document, but for those without a board understanding of the
Aztec crash claims, it will be difficult to follow. It is just one more nail in
the coffin of a tale that should have been buried a long time ago.
For more information on the Aztec case, as published here in the
last couple of years, please see:
40 comments:
I agree there is no credible evidence to Aztec.
'..when William Steinman wrote his book about the case that was filled with misinformation, leaps of logic, and a really bad organization without an index...'
It's a 625-page book and there's a heck of a lot more to it than this description allows.
It is more a collection of articles and other documents than a straightforward book: the quality and credibility of the information contained within the articles and documents surely spans a range that could be rated between quite low and high.
Daniel -
Actually there isn't... unless you are referring to the articles that were reprinted, often without permission... and I suppose we should give him a nod for finding Sarbacher and that information has been corroborated by others.
This I can say with confidence:
Based on mounting evidence, it can be stated, unequivocally, that "something", UFO related (not just some Russian incursions) occurred on March 25, 1948! Whatever it was, it was big!
It also seemed to have an impact on the Army, more than any other agency. Namely, the Army General Staff.
I have attempted to trace all of the UFO related events to find the answer. Regardless of your bias against certain researchers, or information, if it wasn't the event that you are poo-pooing so fervently, I cannot find what it was.
It would be a truly massive coincidence to have this date mentioned by others, who never studied Air Defense history, or the history of the General Staff (it took me years of research to find it), to come with it as being the date of the occurrence, and have it match so perfectly.
No, it would appear to be more likely that the event in question, at least the general facts associated with it (including for the possibility of disinformation muddying the waters) happened.
Stay tuned, and you will see what I mean.
/Bob
Sarbacher?
Go through the history and I think you will find it was someone else who first located Dr.Sarbacher, and interviewed him, in spring 1982 I believe. I have never seen Steinman's book but if he claims he found Sarbacher you can mark that as another negative. It was indeed Steinman who eventually received that famous letter from Sarbacher and published it. And you may deduce from that letter that someone pro-ET had been in touch with him some time before. And who should that be? A certain nuclear physicist.
Bob -
I resent the implication that I'm biased in this. Biased implies that I have rejected the Aztec crash based on nothing more than opinion but I have looked at the case periodically for decades and do not find the evidence persuasive. Now you suggest some sort of UFO related event but provide nothing as to what that might be... until that evidence is presented, then I can reject Aztec for a lack of evidence. Although Frank Warren will disagree, it was started by two con men and I have seen nothing to suggest that any of their claims, or the subsequent investigations have provided anything of substance.
CDA -
I'll let the two of them fight it out. Both claim to have discovered Sarbacher and I really don't care who talked to him first... In either case, they both approach from the point of view that there was the crash of an alien craft, though I would think Sarbacher would be immune to their Jedi mind tricks.
Fair enough, Kevin. I apologize for using that phrase to describe your opinion.
I was affected by the "put it to bed" comment, and reacted to it.
Bob
I have no reason to believe Aztec was a real incident of any kind. I haven't read Ramsey's books, although there are some YouTube vids about his investigation over the years.
Anyone interested in a quick dive from Ramsey's perspective can start with this 2003 video which is well produced.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7qAHicFzqj8
It seems everything here is circumstantial or not quite first hand.
He does claim an article was published in the local paper, "The Hustler", but there are no archival records to support it. Seems to me if this got any local attention someone would have the clipping somewhere.
To all:
I enjoyed reading their new book, and I definitely got something out of it. I thought it was well written had some solid information in it. I loaned mine out to a friend who has family from Aztec, and since he is about halfway through it, I don't have it with me to reference.
A couple of things I noticed though:
1. Mr. Cahn was disgruntled about not being the guy to break the story, and I feel this could be very significant. He sure seemed to have connections at the FBI.
2. There is also the fact that certain witnesses who did not know each other told very similar tales, and came up with the same date - 25 March 1948. This date, as it turns out, is very significant, as I mentioned on my first comment. It will be shown to be even more significant as time goes by.
Lastly, they seem like nice people, and from what I have seen, so far, they have done a lot of research. Like you, they found themselves "racing the undertaker."
/Bob
It certainly is a quaint story but far too many holes that have been left unresolved. The identity of this Bass character is very shakey. Oil pipelines patrolled by police before they were actually constructed. Third party hearsay that is unverifiable and what I think the most damaging is the reluctance of Scott Ramsey to address these discrepancies. All does not bode well for an Aztec UFO recovery.
@Bob
Your last sentence in #2 is a great representation of the worst kind of crap from the pro-ETH/conspiracy crowd. It is the kind of baloney that Jaime M dishes out. It says nothing but dangles the "I've got a secret". I hope that Kevin calls the halt to that type of dialog before it gets out of hand. Make your point and support you point, but drop the BS.
Rusty
I accept your complaint, because you are right. I spoke out before I was ready to present my point. I agree that the dangling thing is not helpful. I usually don't go near that kind of thing, and got caught up in emotion.
/Bob
Hi Kevin.
I just wanted to say that I had to check with a couple of people before I mentioned any of the new material I am working on. I don't want anyone here to think I am one of those "danglers" without any info, but I realized after I began that I should have checked with some fellow researchers first, but didn't.
When I return home from work, this evening, I am prepared to list some of those facts, so that readers here can see what I meant. I am sorry for sounding like one of those "phony-hypers". We've been there before, and I agree it leads to nowhere.
Thank-You,
Bob
Part 1
One easy to get at source for GSC background info:
United States Army in World War II the War Department CHIEF OF STAFF: PREWAR PLANS AND PREPARATIONS by Mark Skinner Watson-CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C. 1991 Library of Congress Catalog number 50-62983
UFO docs: www.bluebookarchive.org (since I downloaded them from there, and left the doc titles as they were so you could search for them yourselves)
ADC Historical info:
Searching the SkiesThe Legacy of the United States Cold War Defense Radar Program June 1997 (shows how after 1996, the date in question was later changed to 27th for some reason)
The Emerging Shield by Kenneth Schaffel 1991 (shows proper date)
The Closed World by Paul N. Edwards cr. 1996 (shows proper date)
_______________________________________________
I feel it should be pointed out that the United States Army, General Staff are the actuary arm, directly under the Joint Chiefs. They have a long history. They, through the Joint Plans system devised the JANAP directives, such as JANAP 146, the CIRVIS system. During the so-called Ghost Rocket phenomenon, the GSC were the over-seers. AAC Colonel H. H. McCoy most likely answered to Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Group (CIG) Colonel Edwin K. Wright, GSC, who was compiling information for General Vandenberg.
Part 2 of 3
Pertinent to this comment is the fact that, of all the principle characters in the Aztec story, not a single one of them had access to what we have access to, today. The Blue Book files did not exist for them to look at. They were living in the times where the Air Defense history, and the UFO history were being played out, in real time. They couldn't have known that on 25 March, 1948, Chief of Staff Carl Spaatz ordered all available Air Defense units, world-wide, on immediate 24-hour alert.
Yet that is the date they ALL agree was the date a craft came to rest on a mesa in New Mexico.
In the histories compiled by the Air Force, themselves, it is noted that General Whitehead, in charge of the Far Eastern quadrant of Air Defense, was concerned about Soviet incursions. But generally, at that time, most of those in charge were aware of the Russians, and tensions were high. Also mentioned in the same historical material, regarding the reasoning for the Air Defense alert was, what were termed, "strange occurrences." If you go to the Blue Book archives, and search, you will find what these strange occurrences were. They were indeed related to, what the GSC termed: Unconventional Aircraft, and "Flying Discs." (by the way, the term "Flying Discs" is always in quotes in the Army GSC files)
On the same date, 25 March 1948, several Air Defense letters and directives were issued in response to the alert ordered by the General Staff, and dictated by General Spaatz, such as ADL 200-1 (later to become AFR 200-2), CoNAC/ADC Directive 45-5, and most notably, United States Army, General Staff Corps letter 452.1, with control number A-1917. For several years after, other "Unconventional Aircraft" reports were sent to the GSC, by AMC (as per the order in directive 452.1), and in all of them, the date 25 March 1948, is cited.
Whatever occurred, regarding Unconventional Aircraft, on 25 March 1948, it was still the cause for many other reports, referencing 452.1 as late as 1951, three years later.
So, again I point out, that there is no way all of the different witnesses interviewed, coupled with the early players (Newton, Scully, etc.) could all have known anything about the alert generated by the events of that day, yet that is the day mentioned by all of them.
Forgot this:
some docs that reference 452.1
MAXW-PBB4-219
MAXW-PBB5-413
MAXW-PBB75-742
MAXW-PBB7-1549
Kevin.......i respect your all the research you have done for all your many years looking into this stuff, and the fact that you have all kinds of military experience makes this a HUGE plus like no previous researcher has had. one thing that has fascinated me about this UFO crash however is the witnesses who were at this crash site were describing the same kind of light weight strange metal fragments and hieroglyphs as in the Roswell event which first was mentioned in the 1980s, while the Aztec tale was fist mentioned way back in Frank Scullys book BEHIND THE FLYING SAUCERS in 1950.
Bob Koford:
You talk about the magic date March 25, 1948.
"Yet that is the date they ALL agree was the date a craft came to rest on a mesa in New Mexico."
Who is ALL in this instance? Who are these people who all agree a craft (of some kind) came to rest on a mesa near Aztec on this date? Is there any contemporary press report telling us that something fell to earth on March 25, 1948? Even a meteorite fall would be something.
@ CDA
"Is there any contemporary report that tells us something fell from the sky on March 25, 1948?"
Yes.
Tornados fell on Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, causing massive destruction to B-29 bombers that cost the USAF $56 Million in damage using today's dollar.
This was the first successful tornado forecast to predict that a tornado would strike. Lives were saved but dozens of bombers were destroyed as they were on June 20 to another tornado.
The place was wrecked and out of commission - a good reason for USAF officials to initiate an alert.
-revised slightly
CDA
The aztec story has been told several times, by several authors over the years. The people involved have been discused so many times, and you probably knew of them long before me. I do concede that, there is one principle who mentioned April 4, 1949 as the date. He also said it took place in Mexico.
Brian Bell
(any relation to Colonel Paul Bell? He shows up in the files I've been going through quite a bit)
I presented enough information in my comment to show that the air defense alert, whose directives were global in scope, had to do with "Unconventioal Aircraft" and "Flying Discs", along with soviet incursions overseas, as well as strange goings on in the "Far East" (General Whitehead). Directive 452.1 was a directive to AMC to pass along all seious "Unconventioal Aircraft" sightings, by reasonable individuals, directly to GHQ, on 25 March 1948.
Though I am sure the aircraft destruction you mentioned caused severe apprehension, they knew the cause, as you also pointed out: tornado.
Unless someone wants to believe that a "Flying Disc" caused the destruction at the Air Field, then it can't possibly account for the air defense alert that genereated the files I referenced. They reside in the BB files. I provided several documents to check, with their names attached as they are filed, that can be easily verified.
Bob -
I have been through Scully's book and while I did scan it rather than reread it, I was unable to find a precise date for the Aztec crash, other than 1948. I also noticed that in Scully's first article about UFO crashes he mentions two, neither in Aztec, and he doesn't seem to believe the tale. In the J.P. Cahn article, there is no precise date either, other than 1948.
Robert Spencer Carr seemed to think that the crash took place on February 13, 1948. I see no consensus on a date until sometime after 1976.
So, I guess the question becomes, when did March 25, 1948 become the accepted date. Did Scully mention it and I missed it, or did it become acceptable sometime after the publication of his book?
Oh, and did you mean April 4, 1948 or was that date actually 1949?
Hi Kevin.
First of all, thank you for providing a forum to discuss this kind of thing.
O.k., I'm seeing more clearly what is being asked, and how I might better answer, I hope.
It was my research in general that led me here, I am not an Aztec expert. To better hone in on the point I would make: although many could complain that other witnesses are second hand, third hand, etc., several now have seemed to agree on the date: 25 March 1948. It could have begun with Steinman's book, but I would have to admit that I thought it was before.
After re-looking up the story, on-line, and looking in material I have kept over the years, my confirmed own time-line goes like this:
Last week of 1949, Wilkie Conner's article, in SPACEWARP issue #34, puts the landing on 4 April 1949, in Mexico.
On 6 January 1950, the Wyandotte Echo's article (I don't believe says the exact date -I will go back to the BB files to confirm) is published with very similar details as Conner's except it is now New Mexico (admittedly, as has been mentioned, Newton's data says there were possibly at least 3 recoveries, "...two in the southwest")
According to newer information: (see: the last two books on subject, last being Ramsey, et al.) Written on the side margin of Newton's notes, for the famous speech, is penned or penciled in, "...Spring of 1949". Perhaps this simply refers to the time the information began to be "leaked", as the Conner article would seem to confirm.
Several interviewed since have all seemingly agreed on the 25 March 1948 date. Some of them have apparently never met one another, to compare for an agreed upon date, yet it remains 25 March 1948.
This is where my question arises: Even with these "later" witnesses, that appear in several places (from Steinman on, at least), it still seems rather horrible odds that they would all get the same exact time and date. When, as I stated, my own historical searches led me to the information I shared about the 24 hour global air defense alert. It just struck me that the day wasn't just about a tornado, or the Russian buildups, but had a "Conventional Aircraft" component to it, as is confirmed in project BB files, and which appears to have had an impact on Air Defense and the Army GSC for several years after.
/Bob
Bob -
The connection to all these independent witnesses are the investigators... Do we know if these alleged witnesses gave the date as March 25, 1948 or if the investigators, having decided that is the date, just ran with what they believed to be the date rather than gathering that data from the source? Or, in other words, it wasn't the witnesses who validated the date but those investigating who did.
Over the weekend, I posed the direct question of when the time period, if known, that the exact date (March 25, 1948) became known, to a researcher who specialized in the Aztec story. Since I came in through the back door, and base that part of the story on their research, and the research of those who came before them, I thought it best I inquire from them.
There are a few witnesses that can not yet be named because they are still alive, but their story was checked to see if it could actually work, and it all seems to fit.
There are a few others that were found, as you mentioned in your comment, in the mid seventies, before Steinman's book came out, so that when the book seemed to confirm that specific date, which had been given to this particular researcher (I talked to) by individuals who had good reasons to be sure of the date, it seemed to take off from there.
Since then, other people were located after exhaustive searches, and they too confirmed that date, without prodding.
Also, it would appear that Scott Ramsey did indeed locate Mr. Bass. Once he was located, and an attempt was made to interview him, his supervisor at work intervened, oddly, and would not allow anyone to talk to him. His friends who knew him confirmed it was him, so it was definitely the right guy. Odd that, given the understandable consideration that he probable had nothing to do with it, he wasn't allowed to, or asked not to be, interviewed about it.
There is also something else I noticed, in regards to Steinman's work. Some of the facts he related (not that I am saying, "see, he was right"), that he said were acquired after his book was published, almost match what I have now found, in regards to the air defense alert. He claimed he had been told that Marshall canceled an alert, yet I have found the exact opposite (granted, given it it indeed the same date). An alert was initiated, not canceled, which makes a lot more sense to me.
I will continue now on this vein, to see if I can better nail down an exact time frame for the precise dating as March 25, 1948.
Bob -
Let's see if I have this straight. We still don't know when the March 25, 1948, date was solidified. I too have made inquiries to those who should know and have not received a response. I say again, because if I'm wrong, someone will point it out, that there is no firm date in Scully's book. I know that in 1976, the date was given as February 13, 1948, which is close.
Now we're told that there are additional witnesses but they can't be identified because they're still alive... an unnamed witness at this point is no witness at all. There is no way for the rest of us to verify the information and this case, like Roswell, is crowded with changed stories and unverified "facts."
And Bass is alive, has been found, and we know it is the right guy but he isn't allowed to talk about it... come on, Bob, this is preposterous on the face of it. What about the guy allegedly killed in Vietnam? He wasn't the right guy? Was this just an invented story to prevent attempts at verification?
Without some solid information... why should we accept any of this?
Kevin:
"Without some solid information... why should we accept any of this?"
With a bit of luck these anonymous guys will make deathbed confessions. Then we shall all be much the wiser. Reminds me of those Roswell witnesses (a few) who also made deathbed confessions.
July 8, 1947 and March 25, 1948. Two dates that will surely go down in history as never before, or since.
My original comment was that I had good, reliable evidence that something important, of a UFO nature, occurred on, and generated important letters of instruction on, 25 March 1948. This is a true statement, and I provided some of the evidence.
The only thing still in conjecture about it is whether or not it was because a "Disc" landed on a mesa in New Mexico, on that date, as per witnesses interviewed over the years.
If Scully had mentioned that exact date, in his book, the complaint would have been that all the other witnesses were simply copying his date.
Even if we start with the year 1980, to mark the beginning of the usage of that exact date, we still have to confront the idea that it is now 2016, and only now are we arguing about this, because I pointed it out. If any of the authors and/or investigators had known this information back then, even in the the 1980s, they would have certainly used it to bolster their cases. They did not...at least not that I have ever seen.
Lastly, I happened to be able to get a hold of Scott Ramsey over the weekend, and asked him about the Bass information, on behalf of your readers, since it was brought up. He was kind enough to tell me what he had found, and gave me permission to report it to you, and your readers. This I have done.
Have a Good Evening,
Bob
Bob.
I've never taken too much notice of Aztec, but wasn't there supposed to have been a large bushfire nearby on the same day the saucer was supposedly found?
Did you ever find any evidence of this fire and on which date it was burning?
Bob -
You put the March 25, 1948 date in play and suggested it had been verified by others who, independently gave the same date. We have shown that such is not the case. There is no real consensus to that date until much later.
The idea is that J.P. Cahn was a disgruntled reporter is untrue. I have seen nothing to suggest that, other than from those who believe Aztec is a real crash. I suppose that I can be labeled as a disgruntled abduction researcher for suggesting that abductions are more likely a terrestrial problem than some kind of long-term, on-going research program by alien creatures. Trying to publish accurate information does not make someone a disgruntled person.
Yes, Scott has a new Bass, not the guy he reported was killed in Vietnam in a bizarre hit and run accident, which he insisted was true even when I pointed out that there was no one named Bass on the Vietnam Memorial... and now Bass is alive but refusing to talk about it but he's the right guy. How do we know? I had thought Scott had the right guy the first time around.
To me, there is no exact date for the event and anything found that relates to some big UFO sighting or event on March 25, 1948, is irrelevant. While you may have something important here, you tied it to the Aztec crash and I do not see any evidence to suggest that the crash took place... How does Scott explain that Nolan and his pal were working for a company that would not enter the area for a couple of years?
Hi Paul.
As I have stated previously, I am not an Aztec expert. I can only speak from what I know, or have read. I don't have the latest book in front of me, to verify, but if I recall correctly, the latest bit of information is that oil workers were notified that there might be a fire out at Hart Canyon. Since there were wells around the area, at least two workers went out. As it turned out, there was no huge fire. Given that the statements are true, and accurate (obviously), it would be more likely that if a disc landed, as has been offered, then it could have been a combination of a large dust cloud, and smoldering brush from being scraped...you know, from friction.
Kevin
Im pretty sure they dealt with that in the last book, clearing it up
@ Bob
Unless the story has changed, I believe Scott claimed there was a fire and some witnesses stated they saw the fire, but told the rest who arrived what they really needed to see was the saucer up on the mesa.
Yes Brian, I believe you are correct.
Still, they were small brush fires up at the top, I believe, not a big brush fire down below.
Hope your day is a good one.
The published interview with Frank Scully at the link below refers to '..three flying saucers taken in New Mexico in 1948-49...'
Wright Field is clearly identified as the (or a ) place the craft were taken.
Frank Scully is quoted saying that '..The Aztec saucer was found in the spring of 1949...'
'..Scully showed this writer two small aluminum scale models of the three flying saucers taken in New Mexico in 1948-49. He also displayed detailed blueprints and specifications given him by his scientist friends. These excite the imagination, but Scully says that sober aircraft experts who have examined them say they are entirely feasible...'
What has happened to the two models of the saucers and the 'detailed blueprints and specifications...'? What has happened to the photographs that Alice Scully told William Moore that she had seen?
This commentary from the website owner distorts the article to create a falsely negative impression by not mentioning the models or the fact that the blueprints/specifications had been shown to the journalist - by their account:
'..Typical of Scully's extravagant yet vague claims, the existence of the unnamed book has never been verified. Nor have the alleged "blueprints" Scully says were given to him ever publicly shared, nor have the "sober aircraft experts who have examined them" who "say they are entirely feasible" been named or publicly made themselves known...'
http://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articlehtml/saucsum8.html
Daniel
Thanks for bringing up the interview, as published at the Saturday Night UForia sight.
some interesting points:
1. It is interesting to see how boldly Harold Watson is lying, and not just mildly so. You could comb through even just SOME of the official reports, especially those being compiled for the GSC, and come away feeling that something important was being sighted, and taken seriously by the military. This isn't to say that the entire scope of the files are made up of serious sightings, or events. This is simply describing what is there...included with the garbage are some very serious reports, made by credible witnesses.
2. This doesn't mean, obviously, that we are being visited by humans from Venus, but when you read what Scully has to say, and then see how broadly Watson paints his "there's nothing to it" statements, one can't help but feel some empathy for anyone who might feel a little angry about the secrecy, at the time.
3. the "in the spring of 1949" statement matches both what was written in the margin of Newton't written down speech, as well as the date given by Wilkie Conner. Not only was Mr. Conner the first to speak out, he was the only one to immediately porvide a precise date: 4 April 1949. I'd say that could be interpreted as equal to "the spring of 1949".
4. As for the 25 March 1948 date, I am not certain what to think. Obviously I feel I have found some important information about that date, but it does not agree with the original statements, and I want to find out more information in regards to it
Hopefully its ok for me to add at least one more comment here: this is something that has nagged at me for quite some time. Though it is most offered that Scully was taken in by two con artists, this quote should demonstrate otherwise.
(Again it is from the Saturday Night UForia website link, as above - emphasis mine)
Scully said in the interview,
"I'm just a writer, and not an authority on anything," Scully says of himself, "but on this flying saucer deal I do know several disgruntled top-ranking scientists and engineers who were called in by the Air Force to aid in the 'Project Saucer' investigation.
"These authorities are my close friends and they told me much of the inside story about the mysterious space ships, the interplanetary cruising ships that they have actually seen and helped take apart. They have even touched the small human bodies of the pilot crews. They gave me the inside dope on this terrific story which is being kept from the public." ".
Bob -
Scully didn't supply a definitive date. Some information suggests it was in early 1949 while a couple have said March 13, 1948. Seems there really is no consensus with the date swinging about in about a one-year span.
Kevin
Since I said that I felt the evidence suggests then Colonel Watson was not being truthful, for whatever reason, I felt the need to add this:
In the articles done immediately after the release of Scully's book, first with Scully, but immediately following up with Colonel Watson (who completely rips any thought of a reality behind even just the sightings of Unconventional Aircraft), there is presented, by the Air Force, an obvious need to stop the public from believing anything in regards to the saucers.
Why? Why bother at all? So what if Scully's book was successful? If it is all nothing, then why not just let it die off naturally?
To add to the mystery, as Colonel Watson speaks those words, experts have produced their Project: TWINKLE report, examining the pros and cons of continuing the investigation. On page 11, notation 3, they state, "There are still "incredible reports by credible observers" that have not been and should be thoroughly explained."
But Watson is telling this reporter and the readers of the paper that the whole thing is an illusion -that there are no saucers.
So who are these credible observers, and if what they have been reporting are nothing at all, why did the project continue on for so many years afterwards?
I noticed I somehow forgot to add a line from my text. Before, "On page 11" it should say: "In the Project Blue Book Staff Study, which included the TWINKLE information".
Sorry if anyone tried looking it up in the TWINKLE report. /Bob
Post a Comment