UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, April 09, 2016

The Roswell to Aztec Transmogrification

Toward the denouement of the May 5th, 2015 Roswell mummy fiasco, I was transfixed by the idea that the original owners of the so-called Roswell slides were connected to Silas Newton who was instrumental in providing Frank Scully with the Aztec hokum as delineated in Scully’s 1950 book Behind the Flying Saucers.

There was no connection and the attempt to link the characters had to be abandoned, and rightfully so.

But that doesn’t take away my feeling(s) that The Newton/Scully farrago, the alleged Aztec flying saucer crash, was an extrapolation of something Newton got from the Army with whom he had oil dealings.

Newton concocted the Aztec story from fragments he overheard or heard directly from military cronies. [See my previous postings online here and elsewhere outlining this.]

The Ramsey/Warren defense of Aztec as an authentic flying saucer event is a belief oriented “theory” not unlike the contrived Roswell incident, both steeped in invented materials or cultural memory flukes.

But Roswell, as flawed and circumscribed as it was in the years immediately after 1947, was the protagonist for Newton’s contrivance which he used to flimflam investors out of their money.

The co-incidental aspects of both stories are attuned to a kind of certitude, as one will find explained in the current issue [May/June 2016] of Biblical Archaeology Review: Surprising Parallels Between Joseph [in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament] and King Esarhaddon by Eckart Frahm. [Page 43 ff.]

Writer Frahm compares the Biblical story of Joseph and his brothers with text known as Nineveh A and Eric Leichty’s The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (60-669 B.C.

The Assyrian story duplicates or provides grist for the Joseph story in Genesis 37-50, and Frahm writes this:

“The Story of the rise to power of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon may well have served as a particular important model for the Biblical authors’ treatment of Joseph’s conflicts with his brothers.

If so, Ersarhaddon was not the only Mesopotamian ruler who left his mark on a central figure of the Hebrew Bible. The episode of Moses’s birth and upbringing may have been modeled on the birth legend of King Sargon of Akkad and the story of Jonah on legends about the Assyrian queen Sammuramat-Semiramis … In all these cases, however, the Biblical authors thoroughly transformed their models." [Page 63]

And most of you know about Noah’s flood story, which appears in many ancient texts, including the earlier work (before The Bible), the Epic of Gilgamesh.

My point is that Newton took elements from the Roswell event, which he heard from his military contacts (or even remembered from news stories of 1947) and confabulated the Aztec scenario, for mercenary gains.

Scully was just a patsy, duped by Newton and GeBauer:

That mythologies are often derivative or sprung from other mythologies is a given in scholarly circles and academia.

Aztec is one.



  • If you're interested in the links between the Bible and Ancient Near East royal ideology, then I suggest you look up the works of Thomas L. Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche and others. (The Bible is almost certainly a Hellenistic book.)

    Nowt to do with malfunctioning saucers, but I know you've have other intellectual pursuits. :)

    By Blogger scherben, at Sunday, April 10, 2016  

  • @scherben:

    If you mean the Jewish bible is "Hellenistic", I respectfully disagree. The Jewish bible (Tanakh) is different in contents and interpretation from the Christian Bible. Culturally (and theologically) it is distinctly non-Hellenistic and non-Christian. The mythical elements are from Semitic sources [Babylonian, Assyrian, Cannanite, etc] rather than Greek ones. One might argue that the Greek Pantheon had its roots in Semitic sources (Storm Gods, Love Goddesses, Owl Goddess, etc) rather than the other way around].

    The Jews, led by the Maccabees, fought a war ~190 BCE [and won] because they did not want to be "Hellenized". They tried to fight against that again from 70 CE to 130CE and lost to the Romans. The only thing that kept them together as a people was their bible and the oral law.

    So I presume you mean the *Christian* bible is a "Hellenistic" book.

    If you want the mythical / legend sources from the Jewish perspective try Rafael Patai's "The Hebrew Goddess", Louis Ginzberg's "The Legends of The Jews", Rabbi Geoffrey Dennis' "Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism", and possibly Josephus' Works (though there are known Christian "glosses" added to Josephus' writings by Christian scribes).


    Another outside source adopted into the bible: The Book of Esther may be a variant telling of the story of Scheherazade. Esther was the last book adopted into the Tanakh just about the time of the Maccabean Wars. Jewish scholars (and Rabbis) pretty much agree it is "fiction" but it is a fiction with a very Jewish message... so they kept it in the Tanakh.

    As for Aztec? The more one churns and muddies the pond and the more time passes, the less likely it is anyone will find out what actually happened... if anything happened at all... Even though "Roswell" raises site stats it is a dead fish unless someone can bring some actual facts to the discussion.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Sunday, April 10, 2016  

  • Both Roswell and Aztec, Joel, are mythologies or have become mythologies (cultural memories) if I'm following Professor Frahm correctly, and that's my point.

    I'm not endorsing either as real events, although I think Roswell represents an odd occurrence from which Aztec was fictionalized.

    Roswell is not a dead fish, yet ,as I see it. It's a fish belly up, but there's something there still worthwhile. That's why I don't get crazy with Kevin Randle. He has a gut feeling (an instinct) that there's meat on the Roswell bone.

    And if anyone will get at that meat, it's him.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, April 10, 2016  

  • Randle has a gut feeling there is "meat on the bone"? Do you really expect him to repudiate everything he has written on Roswell for the last 27 years (you know, all that ET stuff) to tell people now that maybe he was wrong and that the "meat" was something else?

    I certainly don't! Any such doubts he will keep to himself. Were he to go public with other, i.e. terrestrial, ideas now, he might just as well close his blog, give up writing about UFOs forever, and devote himself entirely to fiction. Of course some people would say his books are all fiction anyway. But that is another matter.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, April 11, 2016  

  • Kevin has been moving away from (somewhat) the ET explanation for Roswell, it seems to me, CDA.

    Roswell is for him, and for skeptics like you, a major bone of contention. You fellows cannot leave it alone, nor can the rest of us, sucked into the Roswell maelstrom because we're interested in UFOs (flying disks).

    Something happened near Roswell, something odd or out of the ordinary for 1947 and that non-descript area of the U.S.

    Kevin got hooked on the Roswell tale back when the consensus, among UFO hobbyists, believed the incident was an ET event (a crashed flying disk because of that Haut press release) -- the bodies came afterwards, complicating the matter.

    He is now shaking off the flawed "investigations" that took place in the 1978-79 aftermaths from the Berlitz book and others.

    I think he's trying to cleanse his palate by reconsidering Roswell.

    There is a feeling among all of us UFO aficionados, you among them, that something bizarre, but maybe minor, actually, took place in 1947 Roswell.

    Kevin is doing penance for some sloppy acceptance early on of Roswell "witness testimony."

    The confabulations of Roswellians has made the incident murkier than it should have been, and Kevin, among others, are trying to reconfigure the story which has become mythical in every sense of the word: a mythos.

    The Roswell Incident is, at present, so bulked up with accretions that don't matter or are errant that no one may be able to get to the bottom of what really happened.

    But Kevin is trying. You have to give him props for that, don't you?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 11, 2016  

  • "But Kevin is trying. You have to give him props for that, don't you?"

    The obvious explanation for the debris can be found from the descriptions given in the press at the time. Unfortunately there are too many who just won't accept this. Most of these are ET-oriented, but a few are not. Those who reject the obvious balloon + radar reflector answer can always, if they try hard enough, find an alternative answer. It may be a simple one or a bizarre one. But whatever these 'dissenters from the obvious' go for, it ALWAYS, without fail, depends on testimony obtained between 30 and 50 years after the event. And there is never any documentation to back it up, official or otherwise. Nor is there, of course, any actual hardware. It just doesn't exist. If it was truly bizarre there ought to be SOME samples or documentation.

    By all means let Kevin try to find an alternative. But he may lose many friends and colleagues in doing so.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, April 11, 2016  

  • @Joel

    Fair enough, we both have differing views on the subject, but we'll have to take them elsewhere, as this blog isn't the place, being about little green men etc. :)

    By Blogger scherben, at Monday, April 11, 2016  

  • Of course we're off topic -- as usual with you CDA -- but things that need to be said...

    I've noted that Roswell is Kevin's "white whale" -- his Moby Dick.

    But is he like Ahab obsessed with the whale or Ismael who survives the whale's malevolence?

    I think of Rudiak as Ahab-like, and Kevin like Ismael, observing the Roswell never-ending action and commentary, which will take us nowhere, as you, Redfern, and even me feel will be the outcome of all the stupid chatter.

    UFOs are irritatingly mysterious and perhaps, like other mysteries of life, ultimately unexplainable.

    Roswell is not mysterious just a botch incident -- incident being the operative word.

    The "accident" that occurred in 1947 isn't documented by Roswell locals via box cameras, prevalent at the time (as you've noted) and no one kept a diary of the happenings -- diary entries also a "hobby" for many in the 40s.

    Roswell was a blip that became inflated after 1978, by the attention of ufologists, who saw evidence for ETs visiting Earth.

    The idea of aliens (extraterrestrials) visiting this planet and zeroing in on Roswell -- despite that areas connection to atomic weaponry -- is loopy on the face of it.

    But there is a meager thing that happened, and a myth has developed. Gilles Fernandez understands this and others see Roswell as a case study in sociology.

    Now if Kevin heads in that direction he won't be sullied by you, me, or others who think the Roswell hooey is a legacy-killer for those who've put their whole life into the story: Rudiak for instance.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 11, 2016  

  • Hello,

    As I have always commented (in his own blog or elsewhere), I'm quasi sure that, Kevin, "facing the mirror" doesnt now believe as Roswell event to be an ET. crash.

    BTW: his rejection of Mogul (and again and again threads about) is maybe for you him presenting facts. Again, he is only speculating and what is presented by him as facts is only (again) the product of his imagination.

    I repeat: "Kevin is our best Roswell debunker" and I predict that in few times, He will state black to white he now is considering Roswell as a NOT E.T. event. But, it will be hard for him. It is a question of time.



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, April 11, 2016  

  • 'Toward the denouement of the May 5th, 2015 Roswell mummy fiasco, I was transfixed by the idea that the original owners of the so-called Roswell slides were connected to Silas Newton who was instrumental in providing Frank Scully with the Aztec hokum as delineated in Scully’s 1950 book Behind the Flying Saucers.

    There was no connection and the attempt to link the characters had to be abandoned, and rightfully so....'

    One of the photographs shows Clark Gable at the U.S. Open Golf Championship and three others with their backs to the camera. Two women on the left and right side, and a man wearing a hat looking at Clark Gable. The hat and general appearance of the man seem to be consistent with the fellow in another of the photographs, identified as Bernard or Bernerd Ray.

    From the body language between Mr.Gable and Mr.Ray [?] it isn't possible to infer that they are either friends or strangers. There is an enigma there, yet to be revealed.

    Did the couple really know Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower? Or... just Mamie Eisenhower?


    1. Silas Newton - successful amateur golfer with known Hollywood connections.

    2. Clark Gable + Bing Crosby - golfers, with connections to top people in military and politics (Eisenhowers etc.).

    3. The Rays - took photographs of Gable and Crosby at top golf tournament. Took photographs of Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower.

    4. Dwight Eisenhower - a very keen golfer.

    By Blogger Daniel Transit, at Monday, April 11, 2016  

  • I agree with Rich that Newton likely picked up snippets of data from certain sources and which reached the likes of Frank Scully (something well worth looking into to a greater degree).

    But, we should move on from the Rays, who did nothing stranger than photograph a mummified child on public display. The Rays had zero links to UFOs, dead aliens etc. We should move on from the pair.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, April 13, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home