UFO Conjectures

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The Aztec/Roswell Aliens and The New “Evidence”?

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

Frank Scully, in his 1950 book Behind the Flying Saucers (which many of you haven’t read), describes the alleged extraterrestrial crew that “landed” in Aztec.

His details are fine-pointed and far from fictive; the descriptions seem realistic and without fictional ornamentation.

This image from the superb book, The Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, compiled and edited by Ronald D. Story [New American Library, NY 2001, Page 264] closely approximates Scully’s descriptive flying saucer pilots:


Scully’s depiction, written in 1949 for the 1950 publication of Behind…is the first representation of what has come to be known as the gray/grey UFO aliens.

Nowhere before had such a description been made – not among the hundreds of sightings in the Vallee/Aubeck compendium, Wonders in the Sky nor in any other publication.

One of the first images, in the modern era of UFOs, of a supposed flying saucer being is this one, also from Story’s book (above):


Nothing like Scully’s refined description.

As Nick Redfern, in his book tells us, Contactees of the 1950s didn’t employ Scully’s unique description, instead using exotic beings more like humans as their alien contacts.

And as Jose Caravaca’s flush examples of UFO encounters at his blog [The Caravaca Files] shows, beings debarking from UFOs reported in the 1950s, also did not resemble Scully’s saucer pilot; the accounts displaying robotic or human-like creatures and odd humanoids, but nothing like Scully’s little men.

Extraterrestrials, depicted as “grays,” did not appear until 1961, in the Betty and Barney Hill ‘abduction.”


Then not again until 1975 when Travis Walton was allegedly taken aboard a craft and his kidnappers shown looking like this:


Supposed alien abductees [experiencers] usually indicate gray-like beings were their tormentors.

And the grays have now transmogrified into this:


Scully’s Aztec beings were unique, at the time of his writing, which indicates either imaginative writing on Scully’s part or an actual account of what was seen in Aztec, in 1948…..but wait.

Scully only thought he was telling readers of an Aztec flying saucer “landing.”

That’s what he was told.

He was actually recounting the Roswell incident, disguised by his informants as outlined in out earlier posting here.

Those of you who want to know more about the rumored “new evidence” discovered by Kevin Randle’s Dream Team will find hints of that evidence in Scully’s Aztec rendering in his book.

But if you don’t want to employ ratiocination, you will get a major clue as to what the “new evidence” is on Page 505 of the Story book noted above.

(We've been informed that the clue appears on page 606 of the U.K. Robinson paperback edition of Story's book.) 

Yes, that’s right…..a major clue.

And these are our last comments on the matter, until the Dream Team brings forth what it has found and proven during its revived Roswell investigation.



  • hello, is not very clear (to me) what is the book you are referring to (pag 501):
    scully's book or vallee book?
    I've own both of them, so i'm very curious to search this page 501.
    thank you very much!

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • ilfakiro:

    It's Page 505 in the Ronald Story book noted in the opening paragraphs, not Vallee or Scully.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • Yup, he's a cute little guy to be sure.

    Rich, did you ever notice that in Scully's chapter 16 "The Question Box", he asks some fairly interesting questions. Question 13: "Did you ever see a radio like the one which was on the flying saucer that landed on a ranch in New Mexico?" Now this must be one of the very few references to Roswell to ever appear in print prior to the late 1970's. (Scully's book is 1950). Also, question 15: "What happened to the body of the man 3 and one half feet tall, taken dead from a saucer which had landed in New Mexico and exhibited in Chicago? Was that at the Rosenwald Institute?" Again,my guess is that Scully is sneaking in a reference to Roswell with that very cryptic "Rosenwald" mention. I've had the Scully book for decades and read it at least 3 times. Now I have to go back and read it again and look for (Roswell) clues that I may have missed.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • Dominick:

    I'm delighted to know that you are one of the few who has actually read Scully's book.

    It is filled with interesting, untainted flying saucer material, being published before UFO researchers mucked up the topic.

    The "clues' that caught my eye are almost subliminal, but there for the discerning UFO maven.

    I'd like to say more, but have already threatened a friendship by posting as much as I have.

    Let me know, however, if you find any other things that ring a Roswell bell.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • Is Scully's book still available? I'm not a Roswell buff per say, but my curiosity is way up on this one.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • Yes, Tim...

    And online as an e-book, rather inexpensive.

    I also think Google offers it free in its library for Google members, an electronic version of course.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • I have read Scully's book, but decades after it was first published.

    The mention of the radio found on the ranch may or may not refer to Roswell. There is no indication of the location, other than the phrase "on a ranch". There was a cylindrical device found on Brazel's ranch, but not mentioned at all until decades afterwards. The AF assumed it was a sonobouy.

    The question about the 3 and a half-foot tall man "exhibited in Chicago" was answered by a spokesman for the Rosenwald Institute who states that the only one he knows about is a plaster model exhibited at the World's Fair in 1933.

    Looking through Scully's book for Roswell clues is bound to turn up suggestive things because you are conditioned to search for them and will therefore take anything remotely linked to something found at Roswell as the 'smoking gun'. Odd pieces of writing and metallic components, for example. Look through the book and you will soon find clues to Adamski's 'scout craft'!

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • CDA:

    It might be productive if we (or someone) would align segments of Scully's material that bespeaks Roswell material -- in the time-frame of course.

    The 1978 intrusion of certain UFO researchers has corrupted information -- early and late -- to the point that one has a hard time separating what they know from what they think they know.

    A true thinker can part ways from what they've been propagandized with to find some intriguing nuggets that allow one to see a Roswell story in the Scully book.

    Try not to be overly negative.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • Hello Rich and all,

    Rumored “new evidence” is "only" evidence of a rumor until the so-called evidence(s) your blog became a "teaser", are not released ;)



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • I agree Gilles...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

  • Rich you have threatened more than just a friendship (so you say) by posting up what you have here. I feared as much. Your credibility has now gone so far south, that it's not there at all.


    You've lost it. A true nadir.

    By Blogger Lawrence, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • Lawrence:

    I feel worse than Velikovsky.

    I'k glad I only made a bizarre suggestion or conjecture.

    I hate to think how you'd feel if I had killed someone.

    (Actually, thanks for the note,)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • For reference


    By Blogger Ross Evans, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • Amazing. Roswell dusts of and recycles the Aztec crashed saucer myth. Now, we are told that Aztec was just Roswell in disguise.
    The Roswell story dried up long ago. The fact that some UFO authors built their careers on it is not enough of a reason to keep hanging on to this dead case.
    Let's move on!

    By Blogger carddown, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • @carddown,

    Old UFO cases never really die.

    Roswell, and others, appear to be Ufology's version of shingles.

    It simply lies dormant for a period of time then mutates into a different variety.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • This post is not one of RRR's best, it seems like a lackluster fog based on the reader (already weary of the whole creaking threadbare mythos)having to find obscure references in vintage books that are vague inferences to a equally vague suggestion of a theory.
    If it were an engine, it would be running on fumes.This blog seem to be stuck in a rut and I would not care but it has reached some higher bar for material in the past and this seems like a nadir. Pouring from the empty into a void.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • I'll try to do better...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • Well, UFO myth(s) and Roswell myth in particular have X version.

    Saler/Ziegler and Moore's book: UFO Crash at Roswell, the genesis of a modern myth have already pointed, from an anthropologists point of view/paradigm, several versions of the Roswell myth and how the narrative processes are operating in the Roswell myth.

    I think we are assisting in a x version of the myth and in accordance with the narrative mecanisms Saler&all "analysed", then "scheduled".

    I'm noticing too a little point: when the Roswell DreamTeam announced a re-investigation, I believed all pists would be investigated without prejudging or to go directly in what is their preference.
    Of course, due to the composition of the team, I didn't expect 4 of them will be in an "agnostic" re-investigation.

    In French, we say : c'est dans les vieux pots que l'on fait la meilleure soupe (the best broths are cooked in the oldest pans).



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, May 30, 2013  

  • RRRGroup,

    Am I reading the right part 'Roswell (New Mexico) incident'? No page numbers on ebook.

    By Blogger Ross Evans, at Friday, May 31, 2013  

  • Yes, Ross...

    I hope the e-book has the illustration; that's the clue.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 31, 2013  

  • RRRGroup,

    ee -yi- ee -yi-oh

    By Blogger Ross Evans, at Friday, May 31, 2013  

  • okay guys, you forced me to purchase the ebook version. I found several illustrations. this is the first time I see an alien with FIVE fingers.....

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • ilfakiro:

    Forget the five fingers.

    That has nothing to do with what is important.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • come on, give me a little help: spacecraft illustrations?

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • ilfakiro...

    Readers/visitors here have gotten more information, from me, than they should have gotten.

    (Now forget the spacecraft idea too.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • double R, you are terrible! are you in business with the dream team? ah ah!
    please, if you want you can drop me an email to ilfakiro@libero.it.

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • ilfakiro:

    You are like a kid who wants to open his Christmas presents before Christmas Day.

    I don't think Kevin Randle's Dream Team would have me.

    I have gone rogue with some confidential information, to further my "Aztec is Roswell" conjecture.

    But the Roswell "evidence" has grabbed all the attention for those still obsessed with the incident there in 1947.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • ok, Xmas is far away, but, your theory is roswell = aztec = a true et event?
    tell us more!

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • ilfakiro:

    You haven't been paying attention.

    My whole (silly?) conjecture is online here a few posts down from this one.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • Gilles Fernandez placed these comments in a another post which was not the topic.

    We've moved them here, where they belong:

    "You advocate the "Grey" Alien were first appearing in literature by the Scully's book.

    I'm not sure of this.

    For why knowledge, the first mentioning grey skin creatures with "big" head, was H.G. Wells in 1893 in an article/essay. But in my knowledge, it was not really "aliens", but future terrians (Humans). The article is "l'Homme de l'An million", in French (the Man of the Year Million?).

    But Wells reiterated 8 years after, with the (Lunar aliens), grey-skinned, large black eyes and big heads Aliens in another book, "Les Premiers Hommes dans la Lune", in French (The First Men in the Moon (1901).

    I heard a Swedish witness in the 30's made a S.F. book where his aliens sounds as "Grey" for the face. Will try found the title.

    So again, and if I'm correct (will verify), anteriority of S.F. versus Ufology (one constation of the SPH) concerning the Greys (and all aspects/thematics of UFO).

    There were already Grey/Grays in the S.F. literature. That's all.

    If your argument is only "not associated with Flying Saucers", it doesn't minimize the Greys/Grays already existed in S.F. literature ;) Which was my point (and a SPH one).

    As I have a good collections of "Pulps" pictures pre-Arnoldian representating "Saucers" shaped crafts.

    It reinforce the anteriority of the S.F. (and other genres) regarding any aspect/thematics we retrieve in Ufology a posteriori.

    BTW, dunno if you and our readers knows this article Are UFO Alien Faces an Inborn Facial Recognition Template? :



    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 01, 2013  

  • The author of this article said: "Scully’s depiction, written in 1949 for the 1950 publication of Behind…is the first representation of what has come to be known as the gray/grey UFO aliens.

    Nowhere before had such a description been made – not among the hundreds of sightings in the Vallee/Aubeck compendium, Wonders in the Sky nor in any other publication".

    This is not correct. The first mention of a large headed, large eyed gray creatures was in fictional literature in the late 1800's. From the Iron Skeptic [http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/gray/gray_history.htm]:

    "The first appearance of little gray aliens, though at the time they were not known as such, was in 1891. That’s right. The UFO enthusiast would have you believe that this image is a recent phenomenon, from when spaceships began sneaking down and snatching people, but this is simply not correct. More than 110 years ago a book was published called Meda: A Tale of the Future by a Mr. Kenneth Folingsby. The book described tiny gray men with heads shaped like hot air balloons, some of who needed sandbags strapped to their small bodies to keep them from floating away."

    In 1892 H.G. Wells, wrote a story called “Of a Book Unwritten, The Man of the Year Million." The story conjectured what human beings would look like after another million evolution.
    Wells concluded that the “Human of the Year 10 Million” would have no hair, mouth, or nose, an enormous lightbulb shaped head, and a small body.
    with machinery to do all our heavy labor, our bodies would get smaller and our brains get larger.

    A few other examples from the Iron Skeptic (with illustrations):

    David H. Keller's The Conquerors wasxcz a fascinating tale of short, huge-headed dwarfs from the center of the earth. Somewhat popular in its time. 1929.

    From If Tomorrow Comes by Louis Aaron Reitmeister. Depicts a creature that looks like a "classic" gray.

    The large headed alien has become a cultural icon and existed long before the modern UF era (post 1947).


    By Blogger Unknown, at Thursday, June 04, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home