• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Karl Pflock on the Aztec hoax

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul Kimball
  • Start date Start date
Forums New posts

Free episodes:

P

Paul Kimball

Guest
A clip from my documentary Aztec: 1948, wherein the late Karl Pflock, who was a good friend of mine, sets out the real story behind the Aztec tales.


For those who think Karl was a straight out debunker, far from it. While Aztec was a hoax (as anyone with any common sense should be able to tell if they look at the case), Karl was a firm proponent of the Farmington Armada, which happened a few years after Aztec, but which is largely forgotten today, probably because it didn't have the sexy aspect of a crashed flying saucer (oh, those careless aliens!). From Aztec: 1948, here is a clip where Stan Friedman discusses why New Mexico might have been a place that aliens would have been interested in, along with Karl discussing Farmington.


Paul
 
Is Aztec the place that has the square of concrete presumably used to put the crane on while lifting the crashed object?

If so Ill definitely have to look more into that because I was under the impression it was quite a strong case. Whos the husband and wife team that are researching and writing a book about that? (from the angle that it was a UFO)
 
Gareth said:
Is Aztec the place that has the square of concrete presumably used to put the crane on while lifting the crashed object?

If so Ill definitely have to look more into that because I was under the impression it was quite a strong case. Whos the husband and wife team that are researching and writing a book about that?
Click to expand...

Scott Ramsey is the guy who has been researching the "case", seemingly for years. He was featured in my doc. Here's the big problem, however - a lot of talk, but no real action. I saw his best evidence five years ago, and it amounted to a whole lot of nothing. Take that slab, for example. In 2004 when we filmed Scott said that they were having core samples tested, and that the results would be available soon. Five years later, and soon hasn't arrived. But that's how these cases work - promise stuff, never deliver, but then distract people with all new stories and revelations.

Scott in "action":


I have written extensively about Aztec. Here are some examples of the things that the proponents of that "case" would rather not discuss:

Aztec

1. Fred Reed & Aztec: A Red Flag
www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/03/fred-reed-aztec-red-flag.html

2. Being Frank About Frank... Scully, that is
www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/03/being-frank-about-frank-scully-that-is.html

3. The Aztec Incident & The Mysterious Dr. Gee
www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/03/aztec-incident-mysterious-dr-gee.html

4. George Bowra & The Aztec Incident
www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/04/george-bowra-aztec-incident.html

If you go to my blog, also type in "William Steinman" and "Aztec" into the search engine at the top left to see the real history behind the resurrection of the Aztec hoax, which I like to refer to as ufology's Dracula - no matter how often you "stake" the "case", some poor sucker comes along and pulls it out, giving new life to the monster.

Stan Friedman likes to say, in reference to people who dispute his conclusions with respect to the ETH, that what the public doesn't know, debunkers won't tell them. What he fails to acknowledge is that the same is true for died-in-the-wool ETH / crashed saucer believers.

Paul
 
Cheers for the info. I think Ill dig into that tomorrow as Im falling asleep on my keyboard.

But its funny you mention that thing about results always "soon to be available". Its my pet peeve with these research cases as its the perpetual carrot on the stick.
 
Gareth said:
Cheers for the info. I think Ill dig into that tomorrow as Im falling asleep on my keyboard.

But its funny you mention that thing about results always "soon to be available". Its my pet peeve with these research cases as its the perpetual carrot on the stick.
Click to expand...

Gareth,

It's nothing new - religious fundamentalists have been doing it since the dawn of time, particularly when it comes to preaching about the iminent return of Jesus, or the end of the world (or both). Google "Millerites" to see one of the most famous (or infamous) American examples. Each time they don't cough up the goods, i.e. Jesus doesn't return on the appointed day, they move the goalposts a bit, or come up with some excuse why - sure, some of their followers bleed away, but enough remain that they can keep it all going... until they miss the next "deadline", at which point more people leave, and so on and so on. Nevertheless, there will always remain a small core group that will accept any excuse, and believe anything. In the world of ufology, that same psychological imperative drive things like exopolitics ("oh, Lord, disclosure is coming this year"... until it's not, because of _____________ - fill in the blank with one of their excuses).

Paul
 
Paul I know this is completely off topic, but Ill just ask here anyway. I recently read your review/analysis of Dolans first book. I was curious if Rich ever responded to anything you had to say in that article?

I found it quite valuable. Although I thought it was a great book, its always good to be aware of contrary opinions (meaning yours was the only 'negative' review I could find).
 
Gareth said:
Paul I know this is completely off topic, but Ill just ask here anyway. I recently read your review/analysis of Dolans first book. I was curious if Rich ever responded to anything you had to say in that article?

I found it quite valuable. Although I thought it was a great book, its always good to be aware of contrary opinions (meaning yours was the only 'negative' review I could find).
Click to expand...

Gareth,

Actually, both Jerry Clark and Richard Hall had some pretty negative things to say about Dolan's book when it came out, along the lines of my own comments. It's part of the "don't rock the boat" world of ufology, however, that more did not... publicly. I spoke to many who were quite critical privately, but wouldn't say so publicly, because they might share the stage with Rich someday. One in particular had so many pages in the book flagged, and so many passages underlined, that I was shocked... but he's never said anything publicly to my knowledge (and I therefore won't say who it was).

I actually get along fine with Rich, who is a nice enough fellow (for a Yankees fan...), on the theory that people can agree to disagree, and do so in a civil manner. To my knowledge, he has never publicly responded to my critique, although we have discussed it in private.

Paul
 
Interesting.

And fair enough, thanks for sharing.

edit - BTW Ill looking for your review of his next book too, when the time comes.
 
paulkimball said:
Gareth,

It's nothing new - religious fundamentalists have been doing it since the dawn of time, particularly when it comes to preaching about the iminent return of Jesus, or the end of the world (or both). Google "Millerites" to see one of the most famous (or infamous) American examples. Each time they don't cough up the goods, i.e. Jesus doesn't return on the appointed day, they move the goalposts a bit, or come up with some excuse why - sure, some of their followers bleed away, but enough remain that they can keep it all going... until they miss the next "deadline", at which point more people leave, and so on and so on. Nevertheless, there will always remain a small core group that will accept any excuse, and believe anything. In the world of ufology, that same psychological imperative drive things like exopolitics ("oh, Lord, disclosure is coming this year"... until it's not, because of _____________ - fill in the blank with one of their excuses).

Paul
Click to expand...

The "disclosure any day now" phenomenon would be amusing if it weren't so sad. If you count Heaven's Gate, which you kinda have to, it gets downright tragic.

But starry-eyed believers trying to make a buck or letting their imaginations run wild are not the only ones to blame for this "playing football with Charlie Brown" dynamic. Government agents have obviously played a role, at least in the past, and according to John Keel, the beings (or whatever they are or are not) have played these same kinds of tricks.

Edited to add: Thanks for the Aztec info.
 
I wish there was a Super Thank You button. Way to post Paul!!! The Aztec thing was something I read about a long time ago, and had mixed ideas on. This gave me some clarity, and a little validation in my thoughts on it.

Thanks so much for posting this.
 
Tommy Allison said:
I wish there was a Super Thank You button. Way to post Paul!!! The Aztec thing was something I read about a long time ago, and had mixed ideas on. This gave me some clarity, and a little validation in my thoughts on it.

Thanks so much for posting this.
Click to expand...

Hi Tommy,

No problemo. The Aztec thing annoys the hell out of me, because crap like this detracts from a serious look at the phenomenon (or phenomena, depending upon your point of view). However, so long as there is some money to be made, and conferences to be run, things like Aztec - discredited over half a century ago!! - will continue to rear their ugly heads.

How is Stan Friedman supporting the Aztec boondoggle any different than Steven Greer supporting someone like Clifford Stone? Short answer: it isn't... which is a pretty sad commentary on the circus side-show called "ufology" these days (not to be confused with serious and objective research, which has nothing to do with "ufology").

Paul

Paul
 
Paul, I dare you to ask Tommy what he thinks of Roswell. Go on, see what happens!

just kidding.

Sorry Tommy, dude -couldnt help myself:D
 
Gareth said:
Paul, I dare you to ask Tommy what he thinks of Roswell. Go on, see what happens!

just kidding.

Sorry Tommy, dude -couldnt help myself:D
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHA

I do deserve it. Being my birthday and all, I needed a good laugh.
 
George Hansen wrote an interesting bit on Pflock:

The cattle mutilation phenomenon overlaps with UFO government disinformation programs. As mentioned previously, Richard Doty took Linda Moulton Howe to Kirtland Air Force Base and informed her that some people in Washington were upset with her work on cattle mutilations. But there are connections with the government, cattle mutilations and UFOs, particularly in the person of one Karl Pflock.

Pflock worked for the CIA from 1966 to 1972, and he later served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. In the late 1970s and early 1980s he investigated cattle mutilations, and during part of that period he presented himself as "Kurt Peters." The purpose for his deception is not clear, but he was unmasked by Ian Summers and Dan Kagan in their book Mute Evidence (1984).

Between 1989 and 1992 Pflock worked for BDM International, a defense contractor. For what it's worth, a file obtained from the FBI showed BDM had had an earlier interest in cattle mutilations. During Pflock's time at BDM, Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, III (Chairman of Psi Tech) also worked for the company. With the BDM interest in mutilations along with their employing both Stubblebine and Pflock, coupled with Richard Doty's ominous warnings to Linda Howe, the paranoia went wild.

In the 1990s Pflock investigated the Roswell case and received support from the Fund for UFO Research. The Fund's close ties to the CIA via Bruce Maccabee raised more suspiciouns. Further, Pflock was married to Mary E Martinek, who was on the staff of New Mexico Congressman Steven Schiff, who had prodded the General Accounting Office to investigate the Roswell case. Some suspected that she was placed in that positions so she could intercept evidence sent to Schiff from civilians and direct his attention away from sensitive areas.

With all these coincidences, suspicions of Pflock were reasonable; after all, why would someone with such high-level experience and contacts in the defense industry be so active in the marginal areas of cattle mutilations and ufology? Why did Pflock present himself as someone else? Many suspected that he gathered information from civilian researchers so that his superiors could asses the effectiveness of their cover-up strategy and modify it as needed. Pflcok had been employed by the CIA, an agency known for lying, and he had used a false name. All this didn't enhance his credibility, and suspicions about him were based on real, if not conclusive, evidence.

Of all the personalities discussed here, I suspect that Pflock is what he says he is. He is now generally open about his background, and has published summaries of his career. He is a writer and editor with unusually diverse interest: he has contributed to Fate magazine, served as an editor for Libertarian Review, was a contributing editor to Reason, and science columnist for Eternity Science Fiction. His circuitous career path produced a pile of coincidence and connections, which, while suspicious, are probably innocent. He perhaps adopted a false name to avoid tipping competitors that he was planning to write on cattle mutilations.

Hansen, George P (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. pp. 241-243
 
dorkbot said:
He perhaps adopted a false name to avoid tipping competitors that he was planning to write on cattle mutilations.
Click to expand...

I asked Karl about this once, and that's exactly why he did. Unlike many in the UFO field, he also admitted to it, and apologized for what he later termed a mistake.

I guess that's why I liked him so much - he was never afraid to acknowledge when he had make an error, and never afraid to change his mind if new evidence came his way. In short, he was intellectually honest, a rare commodity in ufology.

As for his background, you could say the same about a lot of people. Take Stan Friedman, who for 14 years worked on highly classified government projects before he left for the private sector. Heck, even I once worked for the RCMP. And Nick Redfern wears black. I guess that makes him the worst one of all. ;)
 
Back
Top