tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post7171866921644605974..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Aztec, Scott Ramsey and Fred ReedKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43230186160776613342012-07-27T12:59:04.626-07:002012-07-27T12:59:04.626-07:00Yes, there were fiction (and reported as non-ficti...Yes, there were fiction (and reported as non-fiction) 'crash type stories' in <i>Amazing Stories</i> pre-July 1947. <br /><br />The Table of Contents of the June 1946 issue lists Luder Valley by Richard S.Shaver as a Novelet of 11,000 words, illustrated by Robert Fuqua: <i>If any man saw it fall, he called it another meteor; but it wasn't a meteor that crashed to earth...</i> <br /><br />Raymond Palmer: 'RICHARD S.SHAVER gives us "Luder Valley" this month. This one ought to surprise you - it isn't about the caves, or the Titans, or about deroes. It's just in the way of proving to you that he can write very swell science fiction without the use of a single dero! This one's about a space ship that crashes in the "Green Hell" and is found by Nazi secret service agents <i>before</i> it is found by Americans. Here's an interesting planetary yarn as good as any we've read, and we've read thousands.'Daniel Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02936796213773640538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47037597068149203882012-07-24T09:55:30.161-07:002012-07-24T09:55:30.161-07:00thanks Kevin; I have seen two different dates for ...thanks Kevin; I have seen two different dates for the original short story; the one I read said 1938 as you say, but other references to it have said 1948, which made more sense to me in the post war era; but you are probably right and I should have believed the date in the collection of Campbel's short stories from the library. The thing about the Plutonium still floors me! Laughable. And yes, before Gernsback folks like Wells were writing science fiction. I'm not an expert on the subject. Besides Hugo's mags, who else was publishing crash type stories? I recall a late victorian newspaper article about some Kansas cowboys finding the smoldering metal remains of a crashed machine; a gag from the paper's editor, ca. 1880s or 90s I think. Fun stuff. Thanks again.Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82275537240926653062012-07-20T09:41:27.334-07:002012-07-20T09:41:27.334-07:00Randel -
Actually, "Who Goes There," wa...Randel -<br /><br />Actually, "Who Goes There," was published in 1938 and has been made into three movies, the best of which is the 1950 version.<br /><br />Spaceship crashes have been a long staple of science fiction going back beyond Hugo Grensback... but then, science fiction in that era was seen as second class fiction and largely ignored by the public.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69007205208530620692012-07-12T21:18:46.584-07:002012-07-12T21:18:46.584-07:00Maybe everybody missed this: Plutonium. The Dood...Maybe everybody missed this: Plutonium. The Doodlebug's two antennae were supposed to be tipped with balls made of it. For which Newton was paying (on an installment plan!) $90,000. Ahem. The most controlled substance we have. No one is allowed to have any of it today. But it sounded "OOOOO!", and that was a reason he needed your investment money to pay for it so he could find your oil. <br /><br />As to landings and crashes, science fiction had been writing about that since the 1920s in Gernsback's magazines. And Campbell had published Who Goes There in 1949, then filmed as The Thing From Another World by RKO. So not only Roswell, but other sources abounded for the idea.Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7461967490511208922012-06-26T19:06:10.834-07:002012-06-26T19:06:10.834-07:00David,
According to Friedman there is a Scully ar...David,<br /><br />According to Friedman there is a Scully archive, and according to Frank Thayer it is at the University of Wyoming.<br /><br />Thanks for bearing with me in this discussion. As I noted in the previous discussion, I have not read much about Aztec. <br /><br />The Hollywood material I've been gathering may not have an immediate bearing on the reality or not of the Aztec saucer, but it is part of the story and so is a something more than circumstantial. I'll pull together an email.<br /><br />Thanks again.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-44858165070449957922012-06-26T12:05:29.477-07:002012-06-26T12:05:29.477-07:00Don,
We get into the various wheels-within-wheels...Don,<br /><br />We get into the various wheels-within-wheels scenarios.<br /><br />Suppose Scully did talk to somebody like Dr. Heiland, who confirmed that there was an Aztec saucer crash with little "men" recovered.<br /><br />Heiland, of course, could himself be lying about some or all of this, for unknown reasons. <br /><br />Or a physical scientist like Heiland could conceivably have been involved with the engineering aspects of such an event, including recovery and subsequent research, but had nothing to do with the body recovery. Maybe he was just told the story of the perfect little humans with no cavities in their teeth, a possible deliberate counterintelligence scheme to cast doubt on the story that Heiland did have personal knowledge of in case he ever leaked anything. Such a leak could also then be traced back to him, if other participants were told a different version.<br /><br />Of course, all of this is purely hypothetical with no evidence one way or the other. The basic question remains who did Scully talk to and what did they say? This was supposed to be in Scully's unpublished notes, which unfortunately have remained unpublished if they even still exist.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60207513979712942082012-06-26T11:09:02.848-07:002012-06-26T11:09:02.848-07:00David,
I think we can be certain there were no de...David,<br /><br />I think we can be certain there were no dead 19th century-looking uninformed, human proportioned and human looking, little men from Venus. So, there is a tale told that is at best inaccurate. Whether it is 'cover' for another story or is simply a hoax or "bait", is an issue.<br /><br />I recall in PBB in 1964, a civilian letter asking about whether they had any opinion on Scully's book. The answer was, we consider it science fiction.<br /><br />That is rather accurate; sort of an Amazing Stories feel to it. Somebody made it up. Who? Scully seems a likely candidate because he was a professional writer. Newton had an interest in literature, and may have known either Fort or those associated with him. He might have been capable of it. Based on really nothing at all, I feel Gebauer is not the type to write pulp fiction.<br /><br />One reason for wanting the transcript of the trial is to see whether the little men are mentioned. Same with the lecture. I don't think there is a quote from either Newton or Gebauer about them. Per the FBI "He [Newton] had also told CABOT that the discs had contained men", but there are no details.<br /><br />I assume by now the little men have become Greys. I don't know if that is useful. Probably not.<br /><br />I haven't internalized the chronology of the matter, so I'm just batting around in the dark, hoping to bump into something interesting.<br /><br />Since it seems everyone is off to Aztec, I'd want to look at the other saucers, the ones in Arizona. That is closer to Gebauer's activities.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34062039115400619872012-06-25T22:16:32.816-07:002012-06-25T22:16:32.816-07:00Blogger David Rudiak said...
Don,
So accordi...Blogger David Rudiak said...<br /><br /> Don,<br /><br />So according to your link and Wendelle Stevens, Scully's widow gave him full access to Scully's unpublished notes, where supposedly Scully did talk to some of the unnamed "Dr G." scientists and the old connection between Leo Gebauer and Dr. Carl Heiland was detailed.<br /><br />It would have greatly helped the book if Steinman had actually published Scully's notes of all this, because otherwise it is just Steinman's say-so, with no footnotes, references, or any thing else.<br /><br />And that's really at the heart of the matter. Was Aztec just Newton and Gebauer's story to Scully, or did Scully have independent verification from more reliable sources, such as Heiland, who admitted to being involved and giving their own details?David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-882368858923380542012-06-25T20:29:16.380-07:002012-06-25T20:29:16.380-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-11898525400500420342012-06-24T11:24:13.074-07:002012-06-24T11:24:13.074-07:00David, I can't comment on the Steinman/Stevens...David, I can't comment on the Steinman/Stevens account either, and it is not a good fit for whatever I can bring to the discussion. I haven't read the book, and probably won't for awhile. I did come across this<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/7386c8z<br /><br />which, if you already haven't read it, you may find interesting.<br /><br />I seem to have gotten onto the Hollywood end of the story and am following up on a few things. Hollywood is more Newton than Gebauer, but at some point they will intersect.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91123271795540119242012-06-23T19:17:09.946-07:002012-06-23T19:17:09.946-07:00Don wrote:
"Scenario 2, I'd need evidenc...Don wrote:<br /><br />"Scenario 2, I'd need evidence Gebauer knew these people, and how he could get close to something above top secret."<br /><br />I have the same problem as you do. Steinman in his book, Chapt. 3, pp. 84-85, "Security Leaks", claims Gebauer and Dr. Heiland knew each other from 1935 when they both spent a few months in the Antarctic studying the Aurora Borealis. He further claims they both worked during WWII on the MAD (Magnetic Aerial Detection) anti-submarine technology.<br /><br />I am not steeped in the minutia of Aztec as I am Roswell, so I can't render an opinion as to whether any of this is true or not. Steinman does not reference any of this or provide documentation. It might be true or it might not be. <br /><br />But he claims Heiland was involved in the recovery at Aztec and subsequent analysis and then innocently leaked this to his old acquaintance and fellow geomagnetics investigator Gebauer during casual conversation.<br /><br />Regarding Denver radio salesman George Koehler's connection, Steinman does have one document (pp.111-113) dated Jan. 23, 1950, where his saucer story was investigated by the USAF OSI inspector general. In this it is stated that Koehler said his sources of information was a Dr. XXXXX (Steinman presumes Gebauer) and he had met the other scientists involved through his (Koehler's) wife, who was either related to one of them or a friend of some of them.<br /><br />But Steinman also claims Gebauer got Heiland to get security clearance for him to see the recovered saucers, bodies, and assorted pieces, and the same for Koehler. All this seems a bit hard to believe that security could be so lax as to let such outsiders in, particularly Koehler, who would have had nothing conceivable to contribute to any scientific or engineering investigation.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56227124603209581192012-06-23T13:46:57.900-07:002012-06-23T13:46:57.900-07:00David,
Scenario 1 has no support I'm aware of...David,<br /><br />Scenario 1 has no support I'm aware of in the Flader case (which is the only doodlebug case). I assume business reasons inspired Cahn to go for the gusto and enable Flader, which, as it turned out, did not support his "bait" theory.<br /><br />I think it might have been possible that they targeted a mark (either an individual or a group) in Hollywood who actually would have been baited by the saucer story. Maybe Cahn should have let the story develop a bit.<br /><br />Scenario 2, I'd need evidence Gebauer knew these people, and how he could get close to something above top secret. <br /><br />Scenario 3...there are possibilities. What little I know about the FBI dossier concerns comments by Gebauer some months before Pearl Harbor that were pro-Nazi, anti-FDR. Such sentiments were not unheard of before the war. Did they have a file on Newton?<br /><br />What would be interesting is if the FBI associated Gebauer with German-American "bund" type groups. German-Americans were targeted in both World Wars as potential subversives. They were of significant interest to the FBI and the CIC (and their predecessor organizations). Through the Justice Department, civilian vigilantes and posses were organized to expose the disloyal and subversive among German-Americans. Cold War anti-communism replaced it.<br /><br />They also infiltrated such groups. A long shot would be Gebauer had been an informant for the FBI or CIC.<br /><br />In response to Cabot's information, the FBI forwarded it to the AFOSI. This indicates the FBI considered it to be a saucer story rather than a swindle, as that was FBI policy, and there was nothing in Cabot's story to indicate a scam. It appears the AFOSI did nothing much to follow up, no matter their opinion of their efforts noted in the report. I'd guess, instead, they kept their hand in.<br /><br />Regards, <br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78043812769459701762012-06-23T12:03:09.197-07:002012-06-23T12:03:09.197-07:00Paul wrote: "That is the kind of statement th...Paul wrote: "That is the kind of statement that true believers have tossed around for almost 6 decades in their attempts to smear Cahn, and bring some sort of moral and / or professional equivalence between him and Scully, and by extension Newton and Gebauer. It was shameful then, and it remains shameful now, because there is absolutely no basis for it."<br /><br />Maybe they do and maybe it is shameful. I have nothing to say about "moral or professional equivalence". Neither men were objective or disinterested. They both "talk up their position". Cahn was not just a reporter covering a story, but a player in it, a protagonist. He made himself so. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82277732521191924412012-06-23T11:55:50.349-07:002012-06-23T11:55:50.349-07:00Everyone knows about the famous letter Dr Sarbache...Everyone knows about the famous letter Dr Sarbacher wrote to Steinman (Nov 1983) in answer to his many letters of enquiry to Sarbacher. It has been published frequently, in many places.<br /><br />Has anyone ever seen any of these letters that Steinman wrote to Sarbacher? There were a few phone calls from Steinman as well but presumably no recordings were kept. I have never seen the Steinman-Stevens tome on Aztec.<br /><br />Moore, and maybe Friedman, first met Sarbacher long before Steinman ever contacted him; in summer 1982 I believe.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53570744915379260272012-06-23T10:05:51.864-07:002012-06-23T10:05:51.864-07:00Don,
Several hypotheses about the Aztec crash hav...Don,<br /><br />Several hypotheses about the Aztec crash have emerged from these discussions:<br /><br />1. It was dreamt up by con-men Newton and Gebauer as part of an elaborate scheme to impress potential marks about their oil-finding technology, and Frank Scully was a pawn to help advertize the genius of Newton and expand the number of potential marks (Cahn's theory of motive).<br /><br />2. Steinman's hypothesis, that Gebauer, who was no slouch in electronics, had contacts with Dr. Carl Heiland of the School of Mines in Colorado, who allegedly was part of the recovery team of a real Aztec crash, and involved in analysis of the alleged magnetic aspects of how the saucers worked. Heiland and his team members leaked information to Gebauer (thus Scully's claim that "Dr. G" was a composite of information from multiple scientists, though unknown/unlikely Scully actually talked to anyone but Gebauer), who then, with Newton, piggybacked this onto their oil scams. So basically scenario #1, but with the idea not made up by Newton/Gebauer on their own but coming from a real event that they weren't personally involved in as they claimed.<br /><br />3. Scenario #1 (or even #2), all or mostly faked by Newton/Gebauer, but with the added twist that the FBI early on was well aware these guys were con-men, but their story was nonetheless useful disinformation for the government and they let them run with it instead of hauling them in and prosecuting them for fraud. This would square with the fact that much of the large file the FBI has on Gebauer is still classified for national security reasons and also Pflock's claim of reading Newton's diary where Newton allegedly claims to have been approached and asked to continue promulgating the hoax Aztec story.<br /><br />(Feel free to add to the list of wheels-within-wheels possible conspiracy theories.)<br /><br />It is generally the argument that only #1 applies, simple con and hoax, and that may well be the case. But #2 and #3 are still on the table as far as I'm concerned. <br /><br />Even #3, total hoax but with government involvement to continue hoax, is incredibly interesting, as it begs the question why the FBI would possibly be protecting Newton & Gebauer and wanting them to continue to spread disinformation about a nonexistent saucer crash with their shady names attached to the story. (Such things are not unheard of where important informants or agent provocateurs are allowed to continue their dirty work/criminal behavior to further the agenda of the agency running them.)<br /><br />The most likely reason IMHO for a #3 scenario is a diversion from a real event and also to discredit same.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19043318160255835992012-06-23T09:18:01.874-07:002012-06-23T09:18:01.874-07:00As for Scully, people unfamiliar with his life and...As for Scully, people unfamiliar with his life and work, or who know him only through Ramsey's assertion that he was the "Dan Rather of his day", should have a look at what I wrote about Scully several years ago:<br /><br />http://redstarfilms.blogspot.ca/2005/03/being-frank-about-frank-scully-that-is.html<br /><br />An interesting man, to be sure, but hardly a paragon of top-notch journalism.<br /><br />PKPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37833731534685676932012-06-23T09:14:10.878-07:002012-06-23T09:14:10.878-07:00Cahn was as lacking in objectivity as was Scully.
...<i>Cahn was as lacking in objectivity as was Scully.</i><br /><br />That is the kind of statement that true believers have tossed around for almost 6 decades in their attempts to smear Cahn, and bring some sort of moral and / or professional equivalence between him and Scully, and by extension Newton and Gebauer. It was shameful then, and it remains shameful now, because there is absolutely no basis for it.Paul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67413419148146941972012-06-23T08:59:50.789-07:002012-06-23T08:59:50.789-07:00I did find a few news stories last night that have...I did find a few news stories last night that have info about the trial testimony.<br /><br />***<br />Flader testified that while driving to Carbon County, Wyo., to inspect some of Gebauer's oil sites, the defendant told him he had seen a flying saucer from outer space, and the bodies of three midget "men" near the wreckage.<br /><br />Gebauer claimed the flying saucers operated on the force around the earth, which was the same principle that operated the doodlebugs," Flader said.<br /><br />***<br /><br />The stray " is in the paper, not my typo.<br /><br />Someone who knows the chronology can chime in here and tell us whether the Wyoming trip was, as I suspect, well after the hook was set, and, if Flader is saying this was when the saucers were first mentioned, then the saucer story was not "bait" on the hook for the doodlebug scam as Cahn asserted.<br /><br />The point of contention in the case were the war surplus tuners Flader said was the device.<br /><br />Newton and Gebauer denied their device was anything like what was in the courtroom and presented witnesses, including someone who had been employed by Flader at the time, to testify to it.<br /><br />Obviously, the jury didn't believe them. However, we have Bruce Cabot's account to the FBI from November, 1949 about the "magnetic radio" as an independent source.<br /><br />So, I am not existentially certain Cahn was right. Cahn was as lacking in objectivity as was Scully. Fascinating.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1863187079112332882012-06-22T19:53:47.372-07:002012-06-22T19:53:47.372-07:00David, regarding Steinman/Stevens, the first quest...David, regarding Steinman/Stevens, the first question that pops to mind is how someone with Gebauer's FBI dossier could get near any classified project, much less one above top secret.<br /><br />I guess the earliest stories were Scully's articles in Variety in October and November, 1949 (or so I've read. I haven't got copies), but contemporary with them is Bruce Cabot's call to the FBI about Newton's comments on the golf course one day. Newton displayed a "magnetic radio" which came from a flying disk and that he was using to find oil deposits in the ground.<br /><br />This device was not like the one Gebauer is said to have used in the Flader case. It was "about 7x2x2 inches". Cabot, who would have known, did not say anything about it being war surplus kit.<br /><br />I don't accept Cahn as an authority. He's just another professional writer putting food on the table. I'd rather read the case report myself. What Cahn describes is a classic and common con game, what he called "crossfire". Newton was the "shill".<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73917143033891137492012-06-22T15:42:51.346-07:002012-06-22T15:42:51.346-07:00Don wrote:
Despite whatever point Gilles was makin...Don wrote:<br /><i>Despite whatever point Gilles was making, no one then is referring to saucer crashes except the AF.<br /><br />"It is unlikely that positive proof of their existence will be obtained without examination of the remains of crashed objects"(Unidentified Aerial Objects Project "Sign", Feb 1949)</i><br /><br />The point of one of my earlier posts here was that military counterintelligence units like the Army CIC and Air Force OSI were employing and assisting Dr. Lincoln La Paz to search for crash remains in various "fireball" cases. The military does not look for meteorites. They were obviously looking for something else, namely physical remains of something technological. (That would be true even if they were chasing after something quite earthly, such as downed foreign aircraft or spacecraft.)<br /><br />Remember La Paz's search for fireball remains in the Four Corners area in November 1947 (only 4 months after Roswell)? The Albuquerque Journal said the large expedition included military people who were going along because they were interested in the possible "rocket aspects" of the fireball. <br /><br />Meteors with "rocket aspects"? I think not. Doesn't matter whether the fireball really was caused by a meteor. They were looking for something else.<br /><br />AF Chief of Staff Gen. Twining in 1953 spelled it out in AF Reg 200-2 when he defined the term "Unidentified Flying Object" (that which was anomalous in shape and/or performance and REMAINED unidentified after scrutiny by experts) and said they were to be studied for national security reasons and for their "technical aspects". Meteors, mirages, lenticular clouds, Venus, pelicans, balloons, etc.? I think not.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33542779440310823442012-06-22T13:43:20.661-07:002012-06-22T13:43:20.661-07:00"I still can't shake the feeling that the..."I still can't shake the feeling that there was something to the story, even though Cahn presents a highly convincing case that Newton and Gebauer were con men."<br /><br />Neither can I. <br /><br />I don't understand why anyone would think the saucer story could be "bait" unless it was aimed at a specific target. Besides being a "red" in the early 1950s, hardly anything was more likely to get you branded as untrustworthy than testifying to one's belief in the reality of saucers and little men from Venus.<br /><br />The saucer story doesn't add anything to Gebauer's doodlebug con, at least as we have the Corsun and Flader stories from Cahn. <br /><br />It's Gebauer's story, not Newton's or Scully's. We don't know much about him, although it appears the FBI does and aren't telling -- or so the story goes. As we know, the idea of a saucer crash is not common at the time. Cahn didn't refer to Roswell as a crash, but a few years later Edwards would. If it was invented by Gebauer, then he had more imagination than I'd expect. <br /><br />Despite whatever point Gilles was making, no one then is referring to saucer crashes except the AF.<br /><br />"It is unlikely that positive proof of their existence will be obtained without examination of the remains of crashed objects"(Unidentified Aerial Objects Project "Sign", Feb 1949) <br /><br />So, I think it is a good hypothesis that a saucer crash was rumored in the AF, whether or not there was one, which leads me to wonder when something like a saucer crash turns up, whether the AF is involved in the story. Which reports might have contributed to the idea? Roswell, obviously. Less obviously, Maury Island. Perhaps, as well, something we do not know about.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78026561619339677902012-06-22T13:14:01.682-07:002012-06-22T13:14:01.682-07:00I wrote:
It could be that Newton/Gebauer heard the...I wrote:<br /><i>It could be that Newton/Gebauer heard the Aztec story from elsewhere and then made it their own. I vaguely (and perhaps incorrectly) remember Steinman hypothesizing that maybe Newton was socializing with people in Colorado who did know something and got the story from there. Of course, even if this was true, if Scully got all his information from Newton and Gebauer, very little of it was likely to be correct.<br /><br />I still can't shake the feeling that there was something to the story, even though Cahn presents a highly convincing case that Newton and Gebauer were con men.</i><br /><br />To amplify a bit on my shaky memory, here is an excerpt from the Steinman/Stevens book where they claim Gebauer was in contact with and got the Aztec story from Dr. Carl August Beiland, geophysicist and magnetic sciences expert, Head of the Geophysics Department of the Colorado School of Mines, allegedly part of the recovery team and involved afterward in trying to figure out the magnetic principles of propulsion, which also makes up a big chunk of the Scully book:<br /><br />http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=889<br /><br />"We can see also how Mr. Leo Gebauer, who was associated with Doctor Carl A. Heiland in some magnetics research, came into his knowledge of the Aztec crash and some of the details. Gebauer was the unintended "leak" outside of the group of scientists sworn to secrecy, who really had all Gebauer said they had and much, much more. Gebauer picked his information up from Dr. Heiland, staff and associates who were working on magnetics aspects of the problem at hand, hence the heavy emphasis on a magnetics aspect to the phenomenon. Gebauer carried the information out as "scuttlebutt", with a little of the residue he was able to get hold of. Dr. Heiland was now "confiding" in Gebauer, not Silas Newton, and probably thought little of a "leak" until Scully published the story. Then there was a lot of back-tracking to repair the damage done. Heiland was eventually separated from the main research project because of this..."<br /><br />I know many will dismiss this, very understandably so. The simple explanation was that Gebauer and Newton were swindlers, made the whole thing up, end of story. But I don't really think this gets to the heart of it--where did they dream up this very elaborate story to begin with?<br /><br />The point is these guys were basically crooks and liars, yet there still could be something to the story. They heard about it and incorporated it into their various oil scams, not much different than people lying about their military battles when they were never there, usually to enhance their personal image. But the lies are based on real events. A hoaxer doesn't necessarily make something else a hoax (although it certainly doesn't enhance the credibility of an otherwise unverified event either).David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70833853806189406722012-06-22T08:37:44.970-07:002012-06-22T08:37:44.970-07:00Don, Cahn's theory was that Newton hooking Scu...Don, Cahn's theory was that Newton hooking Scully into the crashed saucer story gave Newton a million dollars worth of free publicity when Scully published his book and access to new marks to scam.<br /><br />I think your question is more to the effect of what did the saucer story do for Newton pre-Scully? Maybe he was trying to tie the oil-finding doodlebug technology in with saucer technology to make it sound more impressive. Based on the timing, it seems Newton added the saucer pitch to his story in late 1949 and Scully was already beginning to report it in late 1949 in Variety magazine.<br /><br />My question is where did Newton get the idea of a crashed disc story to begin with? Cahn mentions Roswell as a possible predecessor, but I have my doubts about that, since the story was so short-lived at the time and just about everybody bought into the weather balloon explanation.<br /><br />It could be that Newton/Gebauer heard the Aztec story from elsewhere and then made it their own. I vaguely (and perhaps incorrectly) remember Steinman hypothesizing that maybe Newton was socializing with people in Colorado who did know something and got the story from there. Of course, even if this was true, if Scully got all his information from Newton and Gebauer, very little of it was likely to be correct.<br /><br />I still can't shake the feeling that there was something to the story, even though Cahn presents a highly convincing case that Newton and Gebauer were con men. <br /><br />First there was the FBI telex of three crashed saucers which is similar to the Scully book but with some major differences. E.g., the FBI has identical sizes for the three crashed saucers instead of Scully's power of 9 variable sizes. The number of bodies is very different, and the FBI refers to them as human-shaped and dressed in something like metallic cloth pressure suits instead of Scully's perfect little people dressed in 1890's garments. The informant is said to be with the Air Force, not a civilian.<br /><br />Then there was the briefing that Wilbert Smith got from Dr. Robert Sarbacher in Sept. 1950 right after the Scully book came out, where Sarbacher states that the facts in Scully's book were "substantitally correct," the saucers were indeed real, and spoke of the extreme high classification on the subject. The strongly suggests that Sarbacher was confirming the central thesis of Scully's book that there had been several saucer crashes with recovery of bodies.<br /><br />Dr. Olavo Fontes received a similar briefing in 1957 from two Brazilian naval intelligence officers, who Fontes said told him that the saucers were known to be very real because there had been multiple crashes recovered, including 3 in the U.S., and the beings were the same small size of 3-4 feet reported earlier. Fontes was likewise told that the subject was classified up the wazoo by every government in the world because the beings were believed hostile.<br /><br />So nothing specific about Roswell or Aztec, but the general notion of 3 U.S. crashes was still being reported.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24388893078236494372012-06-21T16:59:33.725-07:002012-06-21T16:59:33.725-07:00An interesting point about Cahn's Flying Sauce...An interesting point about Cahn's Flying Saucer Swindlers is he didn't support the title. Cahn had ideas about why Newton's doodlebug operation came with a saucer story, but his account of Flader's encounter with Newton and Gebauer all he writes is Gebauer mentioned it to Flader. The "crossfire" operation didn't need a saucer story. It is definitely not "bait", as Cahn presents Flader's story.<br /><br />Who is Flader? According to Cahn, Newton shows up for some medical treatments from an electrical device of Flader's, which Cahn assures us Flader provided free to all, to benefit mankind.<br /><br />Cahn wanted a saucer story, but in his second article, he is really reaching for one. I'm not impressed that the saucer story and the oil cons are so tightly bound together as Cahn asserts.<br /><br />Has anyone read the transcript of the trial?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63081570663680219232012-06-21T15:43:12.648-07:002012-06-21T15:43:12.648-07:00And to think that some people wonder why I stay aw...And to think that some people wonder why I stay away from ufology.<br /><br />As for fooling people, yes, indeed - Newton and Gebauer, with Scully's assistance, fooled a lot of people. Scully's book was, after all, a best-seller.<br /><br />But even if Scully was a really, really sharp guy, and a crack journalist (he was neither), people can still be fooled. Hugh Trevor-Roper was one of the finest historians of the 20th century, and he was taken in by the Hitler Diaries. Why? Because he wanted to believe. It almost always comes down to that.<br /><br />PKPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.com