The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, March 09, 2012

Aztec: Revealed?


This weekend, the website will go live, anticipating the presses rolling on a book over two decades in research, three years in writing, and now ready for its release: The Aztec Incident: Recovery at Hart Canyon By Scott and Suzanne Ramsey, Frank Thayer, and Frank Warren

Less well known than Roswell (keeping in mind that the Roswell Incident was a one-day story in 1947 and did not become prominent until 1980, Aztec was revealed in 1950 in a best-selling book (how short is public memory), but the story was later dismissed as a hoax and was carried that way until now. The evidence is conclusive: a flying disc with dead "little guys" crash landed on a mesa in the Four Corners area of the Southwest and was recovered by the U.S. military. The book includes verified interviews of those who saw it, walked on it and were hours later "debriefed" by arriving military personnel and sworn to secrecy that they violated only in the last years of their lives.

I have posted an article on my website (www.frankthayer.net) introducing the book.

I know you are primarily interested in the film aspect of UFOs, but here is a proven story about the real thing, suppressed for 60 years. The order website goes live this weekend. Enjoy.
www.theaztecincident.com

Regards,
Frank Thayer, Ph.D.
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
USA

22 Comments:

  • Now we move further into the realm of the absurd.

    "Aztec was revealed in 1950 in a best-selling book (how short is public memory)"

    Well, a lot of us remember that the incident was shown to be a hoax by a con man. Yeah, that did sort of sour the public on it. But never fear, there will ALWAYS be some saucer zealot to pick back up EVERY broken UFO story.

    "The evidence is conclusive"

    Perhaps to the sorely deluded, not regular folks.

    "The book includes verified interviews"

    What are "verified" interviews? With no physical evidence or documentation (or hell, anything) was the verification just some other guy saying "yeah, that's right?"

    "here is a proven story"

    If your definition of "proof" is the opposite of the one used by regular people.

    Sad.


    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • Rich,

    Thanks for posting Thayer's blurb re the Ramsey book.

    To avoid any confusion–I merely assisted in the research (and am still researching Aztec); however, I am not a co-author, as it "seems" by the way book cover appears.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • Frank...

    Without your support and input, I don't Ramsey would have had the stamina to stick with his research.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • Lance,

    Shouldn't we read the book before making such non-objective comments?

    You can't be skeptical before you've eaten the meal.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • Rich,

    Thanks for the kind words; However, Scott is like the energizer bunny, and I only wish I had half his endurance.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • Rich,

    It's more a matter of, fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me twice, shame on me.

    In this case, it's more like the 4th or fifth time trying. I have heard Ramsey talk about this "case" before. It is supremely much about nothing, signifying less than nothing.

    Whenever you hear some jackass say some UFO case is "proven". you should probably start seeing red flags. Most people don't.

    Shame on them again and again.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • Lance...

    This is ufology, about UFOs.

    Aren't you getting a little overworked about such an oblique topic?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • I think it was the nonsense about "verified" interviews that set me on edge!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • Yah, that is irksome, sort of National Enquirer kind of thing.

    That's why I added the ? in my title for the release.

    Hype gets a little out of hand sometimes, providing a letdown after all is read and done.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • I have read the report by Frank Thayer on his website. He says that 'Witness to Roswell' by Carey and Schmitt "conclusively proves the extraterrestrial explanation for the Roswell Incident beyond anything the debunkers can field."

    He also accepts the Scully book and even the 625-page Steinman-Stevens book of 1986 (condemned as absolutely "brainless" by Jerry Clark)

    Here's another quote:

    "I know from my repeated reading of Scully that everything in his book has been proved accurate through the Ramsey book".

    And he accepts as gospel the usual tales of silencing of witnesses, death threats, and so on. Except this time it happened in 1948 not 1947, and in a different part of NM. Moreover, some witnesses actually peered inside the intact craft.

    And this man is a PhD! If the authors expect a new GAO search for documents and a new USAF investigation and report as happened with Roswell, they can forget it. The AF will steer well clear of crashed saucers this time.

    And the mainstream press? We can only hope they are so bored to death by the whole crashed saucer garbage that they ignore the book entirely.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, March 09, 2012  

  • I refereed to Thayer's PhD. An oversight. I ought to have realised that having a learned PhD is no bar to being a crashed saucerologist, as per Rudiak & Kevin Randle.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, March 10, 2012  

  • Mornin' Rich, et al,

    Well, I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that the criticism has been so mild. :>))

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Saturday, March 10, 2012  

  • From Thayer's "article":

    "It must be remembered that in 1952, a vengeful writer named J.P. Cahn set about to destroy Scullly and his sources after Scully would not sell him the Aztec flying saucer story. Cahn was wealthy and vindictive."

    Oh my... this is so far from being true that the mind boggles. The rest of it is equally well out in left field... and then some.

    Go ahead. Read the book. Then watch the film I made (which the distributor has made available for free on the Internet, so it won't cost you anything), where both sides are presented (including Scott's), and you'll see that Karl Pflock clearly and succinctly shows why it was all a con.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, March 10, 2012  

  • By the way, I see that in the sample chapter available at the book's website, the story of Frank Reed is referenced at length.

    Of course, the real story isn't mentioned. So here it is: http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/03/fred-reed-aztec-red-flag.html

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, March 10, 2012  

  • Frank...

    People have to read the book before they criticize its content.

    And they have to accept that hype is necessary to get it out there.

    Also, I have always been (since the book was published, and was my first oral book report in high school, as you know and we've discussed) a "believer" that the story Scully told was based in truth...an actual event.

    When one reads the book, and sees the exquisite detail and how it's told, they should be hesitant to dismiss it out of hand.

    And Scott Ramsey's dogged investigation, no matter what one believes, is not to be dismissed out of hand either.

    Some conclusions can be debated, but Ramsey, you, et al. putting your "findings" out there takes guts...as the the slings and arrows from the UFO crowd are to be expected, and many more are yet to come, I'm afraid....without taking the merits of Ramsey's work into consideration.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, March 10, 2012  

  • Rich,

    Mark this day down on your calendar: Paul Kimball is correct in his assessment of Thayer's comment re JP Cahn.

    This is a valid, accurate criticism, and one I agree with wholeheartedly.

    Additionally, you (Rich) of course are correct, aside from the psychics that might visit your site, one needs to sample the wine before condemning it.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Saturday, March 10, 2012  

  • Paul's link provides a snapshot that shows that Ramsey's basic story hasn't changed one iota in many years. I read the first poorly proofread chapter and noticed that the language is almost verbatim to the stuff Ramsey was selling seven years ago.

    He is still using a witness that Paul DEFINITIVELY discredited. That Frank Warren seems to also support this nonsense is par for the course, I suppose.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, March 12, 2012  

  • Lance,

    Just to clarify your position, which seems clear, but isn't quite.

    Is there a possibility, in your mind, that something extraordinary or outside the norm happened at Aztec? A possibility!

    I assume you've read the Scully book. Have you?

    What's your explanation for all the witness commentary, which I assume you think is sheer palaver?

    And what do you think Scott Ramsey's motive is for exhausting himself and his wallet to provide the Aztec story?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 12, 2012  

  • Hi Rich,

    If you are in the UFO mindset, you can take any case and add layers of rationalization to make it seem plausible (at least to your own satisfaction).

    Look at what we have here:

    Paul Kimball makes it clear that one witness, Reed, should be thrown out with prejudice (take a look at Paul's blog where he details how Reed earlier described the "aliens" building markers from the highway, etc. and that they left distress markers that were "typical for aliens"

    Total BS.

    And yet Ramsey holds onto Reed (with a now sanitized and slightly less stupid story). Why?

    So, seeing that Ramsey is performing so credulously and indiscriminately, it isn't worth looking into his other "research" since he has already shown himself to be horrible at doing research.

    Most of these kinds of bogus witnesses don't make such transparent mistakes as Reed. It often takes a lot of work to figure out that they are bogus.

    Now I have over and over again seen how Ramsey has worked for a long time and spent a lot of money on this case. It may seem a brutal response but so what?

    If, with just cursory examination, we can see fatal problems with one of his star witnesses seven years ago (featured heavily in Chapter One of the new book), why should we think that the QUALITY of the research is anything other than terrible?

    So no, there is no reason tho think there is anything to Aztec other than large dollops of stupidity and hubris.

    Best,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, March 12, 2012  

  • Lance,

    I am familiar with Scott Ramsey; we were to have dinner a year or so ago, but it fell through.

    But he is a Fort Wayne habitue, highly regarded by businesses here.

    So I don't think he's a raving lunatic or pathologically warped.

    Why would he spend a small fortune and a lot of time gathering material for a book, which will not recoup, for him, or others, the monies spent, not to mention the time lost?

    I agree with you that a flaw in an opening argument or book indicates that what will follow is likely to be equally flawed.

    But that is faulty on its face, as Paul Johnson explains in his book, Intellectuals.

    So I suggest that we all read the book then make a reasoned judgement.

    You didn't say whether or not you read Scully's opus.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 12, 2012  

  • Hi Rich,

    Saucer Buffs (and I might add Skeptics) are just regular people, for the most part, participating in a hobby.

    They aren't all crazy or raving.

    Sometimes they are just wrong.

    I did read Scully's book in high school.

    You'll have to make the decision as to whether or not this new book is worth reading for yourself. After all these years (and seeing the first chapter), I suspect that you know what is gonna be inside.

    For me, seeing that Ramsey decided to start out in such a dubious manner, I am willing to bet on the value of the additional chapters.

    Let me know, if I'm wrong.

    Best,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, March 12, 2012  

  • Thanks, Lance...

    You are always accommodating, and insightful.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 12, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home