This
week I interviewed Robert Koford who has visited here frequently, commenting on
various aspects of the UFO phenomenon. This discussion was inspired by his
investigation into the Aztec UFO crash claim from March 25, 1948. This story
has
been around publicly much longer than the Roswell case but has far fewer
witnesses and virtually no documentation to substantiate the crash. In fact,
unlike Roswell where everyone agrees that something fell, with Aztec there are many
members of the community who deny that anything happened. You can listen to the
program here:
 |
| Robert Koford |
Bob
bases his interest on a series of documents that suggest that General Carl
Spaatz issued orders about an event on March 25. Although it seems to related
to “flying discs”, one of the names given to the flying saucers, there is
nothing to tie it to Aztec and apparently no one seems to know what triggered Spaatz’s
response. You can see the documents and some of Bob’s arguments at his website
found here:
As
I mentioned on the show, I have addressed the Aztec crash on a number of occasions
on this blog. For those of you interested in reading the background about the
case, you can find it here:
And
for those who would like to hear what Monte Shriver has to say about the crash,
I interviewed him on the radio show/podcast. You can listen to it here:
And
for those who worry about not providing Scott Ramsey with the opportunity to
refute many of these points, I will note that I have invited him on the program
several of times. He had refused all those opportunities. I have no plans to
invite him again.
I
hope that all this provides enough information for those interested in the
Aztec case to make some sort of intelligent decision about the reality of this
crash. Just for the record, I have copies of Steinman’s book UFO Crash at
Aztec, and, of course Ramsey’s book, not to mention a variety of other
magazine articles about it, including Coral Lorenzen’s investigation in the
mid-1970s reported in The APRO Bulletin.
Next
week, I’ll be talking with Michael Hall about his UFO experiences and his UFOiTeam.
If you have questions, send them as a comment here and I’ll get to them during
the show.
11 comments:
Kevin, Bob,
While multi-tasking I was listening to the interview, although I've only listened to bits and pieces so far, I thought I'd point out the the Scully/Newton libel suit against Flader, Cahn and Fawcett Publications was dismissed on 12-11-1961 ... Scully & Newton did not win.
Cheers,
Frank
... and the original complaint was filed on 8-30-1957 ...
Cheers,
Frank
For the record: Scott Ramsey has co-authored two books on the Aztec UFO crash: THE AZTEC INCIDENT: Recovery in Hart Canyon (2011) and THE AZTEC UFO INCIDENT: The Case, Evidence, and Elaborate Cover-up of One of the Most Perplexing Crashes in History (2015).
Hi Frank.
Thanks for the information. Scott tells me that the two of you have been going around on this fact for awhile.
He told me that he is pretty sure that the Colorado trial was dropped but that Scully, et.al., re-took it up in another state, where they won a settlement. He promises to get back to me on this, with more information, when we both have more time.
Thanks again for the comment.
\Bob
Hi Bob,
Pardon the sluggish response, aside from the global pandemic, I've also been on the road (before lock-down).
To make sure we're all on the same page, here are the facts as demonstrated by court records:
On 3 August, 1957, Frank Scully & Silas Newton filed a libel suit for six million dollars in the U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona against defendants: Fawcett Publications Inc, W.H. Fawcett Jr., Roscoe K. Fawcett, Lee Wilson, Roger Fawcett, Ralph Daigh, Gordon Fawcett, James B. Boynton, Ralph Mattison, Kenneth W. Purdy, Douglas S. Kennedy, J.P. Cahn, H.A. Flader and A.B. Kleyhauer, (the latter representing the defendants).
Within the five year period, and as libel suits go, there were many motions filed, e.g., to quash, to dismiss, change of venue etc., but to cut to the chase, the case against all the defendants, save Fawcett Publications Inc, was dismissed on 31 March, 1958. Finally, the case against the latter was dismissed on 11 December, 1961.
I shared this with Scott in passing, sometime back; however, as you know he is one extremely, busy individual; I'm sure he simply overlooked it.
Cheers,
Frank
Corrections: I've noticed I cited two dates re the "filing" date of the lawsuit; the correct date (according to court documents and newspaper reports) is Friday, August 30th, 1957. Also the span of case was 4 years, not 5.
Cheers,
Frank
Hi Frank.
You have duly informed us of the details, as you know them and we all thank you for that.
I would add the question of why would two supposed con artists seek, in any way, to perpetuate such a horrific undertaking as to continue going through it all over again, in the first place? For what? It seems too unreasonable. These people were genuinely showing signs of feeling wronged. They seemed to be seeking justice.
You help us to see that it was "finalized" in 1961, yet the "leak" began October 1949 through January 6 1950. Scully's book came after.
They should have crawled away with their proverbial tails between their legs and disappeared ASAP -yet they counter sue, dragging it into 1961.
Something in the picture of a con-gone-wrong scenario is missing.
Anyway, Frank
thank you again for your taking time responding to this. It is much appreciated.
Stay well, All
Bob
Mornin’ Bob,
You wrote:
“You have duly informed us of the details, as you know them and we all thank you for that.”
You’re very welcome.
After discovering the fact (by way of newspaper reports) that Newton and Scully initiated a libel suit, admittedly I was frustrated by not immediately finding its conclusion, not even a footnote (although it may exist). Consequently (and much later) I went straight to the horse’s mouth (court records).
You wrote:
I would add the question of why would two supposed con artists seek, in any way, to perpetuate such a horrific undertaking as to continue going through it all over again, in the first place? For what? It seems too unreasonable. These people were genuinely showing signs of feeling wronged. They seemed to be seeking justice.
When you say two con-artists, I assume you mean Newton and GeBauer, not Newton and Scully, the plaintiffs in the libel suit.
• FYI: Prior to the libel suit Newton and GeBauer went back to court for requesting a new trial (albeit arguing statute of limitation applied to the fraud charges they were convicted of).
There is a strong argument for Newton wanting redemption, as he put his feelings in writing. Moreover, Scully certainly was tainted by the whole ordeal. GeBauer was not part of the libel suit.
Also for the record:
• GeBauer is pronounced “Gay-Bauwer” Cahn, is pronounced “Con” (no pun intended).
Bob you in essence said that Newton and GeBauer didn’t get anything from the con—that’s factually inaccurate. Had no money changed hands, there would have been no case for fraud.
• In court, Herman Flader argued that he invested a total of $50,000.00 with GeBauer on “oil testing doodle-bugs.”
• GeBauer was a “radio parts dealer" (not a TV repair man).
Kevin said: "It seemed to me that they were ... they created the idea of the crashed saucer, so that they could convince investors, in the piece of equipment they had, that would allow them to detect oil deposits far below ground. And it was the alien technology that was supposedly giving them that ability, and that would have been part of the con."
• This ideology is not only demonstrably false, it is and has been the promoted mythology of the court case—since the court case, and has become more convoluted as the years go by. What became nick-named “doodle-bugs” “birds” or “fingers,” i.e., magnetometers were leading edge technology after the war (during the war, Magnetic Anomaly Detectors [MAD], classified top secret were used to successfully hunt U-boats) for oil exploration among other things. Newton entered the “oil business” in 1918 (he remained in it until the day he died), and made a fortune. As he put it, “I’ve made and lost millions in the oil business….” He was often a contributor to petroleum trade magazines and wrote about (then) exotic methods, this beginning in the mid ‘40’s long before “Flying Discs," "Saucers" and or "UFOs” became public fodder. "Alien technology" was never mentioned in court, nor in the reporting thereof. Conversely, the court case and the previous media attention of Newton, being the mysterious Dr. X, re the lecture concerning Flying Saucers and the publication of Scully's book (which became a best seller in short order) along with Cahn's proclamations has all been melded together.
Kevin also stated that J.P Cahn was with the San Francisco Chronicle.
• This is incorrect. Cahn was attempting to get his job at the Chronicle back. And in the beginning he just saw a flying saucer story, as a method to do so. In fact, the Chronicle initially wouldn't touch the story, thus Cahn found a buyer in True Magazine. It wasn't until after the trial that the Chronicle (re)embraced Cahn, and published a six-part series entitled, "The Great Flying Saucer Bunco."
–continued below–
–continued from above–
Kevin also said, "Silas Newton is a fascinating guy." No truer words were ever said.
• As Kevin notes, Newton was well educated, moreover, he came from money; his first job was in his father's Insurance company (which still exists today). There he learned how to separate people from their money, a skill that he would use his entire life.
He was very successful, but like many, was a victim of the crash of '29. Ironically, '29 was also the year that Newton was at his apex. In February of that year, his company's purchase of the Grayburg Oil company was complete, and the combined assets were estimated to be worth 20 million dollars, or in today's dollars, $302,547,368.42.
So, was Silas Mason Newton a wealthy, successful business man? YES! Was he a conman? YES! Both of these statements are true, albeit in different times in his life. That said, as I have often declared, Newton and GeBauer can be removed from the equation altogether and ample evidence remains that an exotic craft of some sort came down near Aztec in the Spring of '48 or thereabouts.
Cheers,
Frank
A little late on this topic, but. . .
Richard Dolan has interviewed the Ramseys at these links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S-m6yqDuLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SClpvg5ajUM
I was able to listen to them at 2X speed without needing too much concentration.
These interviews sound fairly "convincing" to me as far as the vibe given off by the Ramseys. They seem to say that they've obtained documents that better confirm their work.
I've looked through the many posts here at A Different Perspective on Aztec and the Monte Shriver posts seem quite convincing. But I wonder if the Ramseys have actually found information that sustains their proposal. I do not have enough background to judge these two interviews fairly. So maybe someone else would? Pretty please? Thanks.
I could not afford to renew the dot com site. Just to be open about it, I provide the proper address here: https://robertkoford.wixsite.com/unconventionalsky
Post a Comment