-
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!
The Great Aztec Debate
- Thread starter wwkirk
- Start date
Free episodes:
I was surprised by how uncertain/unknowledegable Kevin Randall was about certain details of the case. It seemed like he hadn't dug into it deeply enough to have such an assured opinion on the subject and near the beginning when Ramsey was questioning him about something he seemed to have something of a "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" attitude about it. You know, "It's a hoax and that's all there is to it." At the very least, Randall should simply say that there's not enough evidence to reach a definite conclusion rather than taking a hard stance on the subject.
Also, I do agree that the concrete slab is interesting.
Also, I do agree that the concrete slab is interesting.
Chris let out a sarcastic laugh when it was mentioned Bruce Maccabee came up with some documents and said the evidence chain "sparkles". What's up with that? You don't find Maccabee credible Chris? Is it related to the Aviary? I've always had respect for him and considered him one of the more sane people in the world of ufology. He's done a lot of good work.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
While he has done some good work, it wouldn't be the first time that he put his weight behind a crap case. Gulf Breeze, anyone?
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Actually, the model isn't my main reason that I think the case is crap and furthermore that Macabee's analysis of the case is also crap. I was more referring to the fact that Ed Walters paid Macabee 10% of his $200,000 book advance to "authenticate" the photos. No surprise that's exactly what he did, meanwhile, others who looked at the photo's categorically refused to declare them genuine.
Okay. I think the first thing most people point to is the model. But you're right, there are a number of problems with Gulf Breeze. I recall thinking Maccabee did a pretty good job of responding to most of the criticisms but it's been so many years since I looked into the case- maybe I need to take a second look.
Pararescueman
Skilled Investigator
A great show. If this was a boxing match as Gene mentioned at the start of the show. I would give Scott Ramsey the win by my boxing score card, by the slimmest of margins. What really caught me off guard, it seemed that Kevin Randle was woefully unprepared at the start. I do not really have a opinion on the Aztec case, it is interesting, but I file it in my grey basket as Stanton would say.
It seems to me if was any validity to case, you would see more researchers trying discover more facts about the case. That is only thing that makes me think really hard about it. With any ufo case, if its a crash retrieval or just a simple sighting, there will be controversy. But you can say that about anything.
I thought Chris did a good job calling it right down the middle.
It seems to me if was any validity to case, you would see more researchers trying discover more facts about the case. That is only thing that makes me think really hard about it. With any ufo case, if its a crash retrieval or just a simple sighting, there will be controversy. But you can say that about anything.
I thought Chris did a good job calling it right down the middle.
Sentry
Paranormal Adept
Very interesting! Kevin Randle had facts on his side, Scott Ramsey had the greater mastery of the material and a vested interest in passionately defending his case. Based on how the two sounded, the win goes to Ramsey. Based on content, Randle scores.
Great show, I'm just sorry J.P. Cahn wasn't available to participate!
Great show, I'm just sorry J.P. Cahn wasn't available to participate!
There's always channeling. 
Hmmm. Guest hosted by Jim Moseley...
Do you know who those 'others' were? My impression of Bruce Macabee favors the interpretation that he accepted 10% of Walters' book advance to study and evaluate the photos, not contingent on his declaring them to be authentic. Is there any evidence to support a charge of dishonesty in any of Macabee's ufo photo analyses?
Sentry
Paranormal Adept
Just imagine if Scott's passion had settled on another case, say the close encounter of the 3rd kind around Mount Palomar in 1952. This was a multiple witness sighting of an extraterrestrial craft that involved one observer approaching an alien craft after landing. There was an encounter with the occupant, a humanoid who attempted intelligent, peaceful communication, and photographs of the craft were taken. Trace evidence was collected, demonstrating physical proof of the encounter.
With a case offering this much evidence, perhaps Scott wouldn't now being the uncomfortable position of having to defend a crashed spacemen scenario built upon just conversation and an awkwardly placed concrete slab.
Science and facts seem to ultimately triumph, and Professor George Adamski's CE3K has much more substance and validity than the rumors. hearsay and circumstantial evidence presented in the Aztec case. I think it is a scientifially valid question too ask Scott, "Wherefore art thou, Orthon?"
Sauce A anyone ?
Exposure of US Navy source on UFO UN discussions omits retired Navy Scientist testimony - Honolulu exopolitics | Examiner.com
Poor Bruce got taken hook line and sinker on this one
Ufology Exopolitics Special: Source A Exposed! « Reality Uncovered
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Yes, one was a prominent NASA scientist named Dr. Robert Nathan and the other is unnamed, but was hired by the William Morrow Company, Walters book publisher. His book was originally supposed to be titled "UFO's Proof Positive" but after the analysis of the photographs the name was changed because of their inability to have the photos authenticated. Robert Nathan was hired by the National Enquirer to analyze the photos.
This case should've been put to bed a long time ago, especially after the whole Tom Smith Jr. debacle:
Smith claimed that he had helped Walters in 1987 with the placing of a UFO model, and faking photographs. He said that Walters had taken photographs of the model and then double exposed them with pictures of the sky and background landscape shots, taking both pictures with the same frame.
Smith was also urged to take the photos to local newspapers in hope of getting them published. This would ultimately give more credence to Walters' photos which he would then come forward with.
Smith was quoted as saying:
"He wanted me as another witness. I had about a day to think about it, and I talked it over with Ed, and I just said it was a fraud, it wasn't real smart. I do understand a practical joke, but when I realized that he was going to go all the way through with it, I just didn't want to hurt my father's reputation, and I didn't want to get in the middle of a court case."
As Smith's credibility was questioned, he was backed up by his father and mother who stated that they were privy to the fraudulent attempt from its inception. They had urged their son to go to the authorities with the truth, and were proud when he finally did. Another point of interest was how he described Walters' photos of the UFO landing.
He claimed that Walters turned a trampoline upside down, and jumped on it, thus creating a hardened, depressed area. To be fair, it must be pointed out that Smith’s father was a lawyer and was running against Ed Walters for city council at the time.
This was not however, the end of the story, nor the collapse of Walters' credibility.
The believers in Walters' story claimed that Smith himself was trying to gain notoriety by discrediting Walters. They pointed out that the landing area had physical trace effects. The grass at the site had not shown any growth for 18 months. A soil analysis was done which showed no natural reason for the lack of lawn growth.
Smith also claimed that Walters had created the blue beam effect by peeling back the photo paper and exposing a small streak to light. Photographic experts disputed this claim by stating that it was impossible to produce such a fine line utilizing the method described by Smith. The same experts had also tried, without success, to double expose a shot using an identical camera to Walters', a Sun 600 Polaroid.
Smith countered these attacks by bringing forth his own photographs. He then said that Walters had taken the UFO photos with Smith's camera, and not his own. These photos were the ones that Walters had urged Smith to take to the press, and when Smith declined, Walters allowed him to keep the photos.
In a strange turn of events, photo experts examined Smith's UFO pictures, and ironically, could find no evidence of double exposure methods. By their own standards, this would prove that Smith's UFOs were also genuine, yet by his own admission they were faked.
Even MUFON was eventually forced to abandon the Gulf Breeze Sightings as genuine:
The bulk of the heated discussions continued to center on the photographs. Although deemed genuine by some so-called experts, others found fault in them. After Walters released a self-published book with many of his photos included, other experts joined the parade of discredit.
One photo was the object of much of the controversy. In this photograph, the hovering object casts a reflection on the road below. (See photo at top of page)
One physicist claimed that the reflections were many times taller than they should have been. This would indicate that the reflections were suspended in the air, and not coming from the road itself. He also stated that the reflection was an incorrect one considering the shape of the bottom of the craft.
Additionally, there was too much light on the surface of the road. It should be pointed out that this conclusion depends entirely on the object being perfectly perpendicular to the road itself, and not tilted to any degree.
For several years, the MUFON group had stood behind Walters along with Navy physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee. The large amount of criticism and controversy finally broke the resolve of MUFON, and they withdrew their support in 1990. MUFON investigators Rex and Carol Salisberry released this statement:
"We believe that UFOs exist. We entered this investigation with a natural and favorable bias toward the Walters case, but our investigation and analysis lend to the conclusion that several, if not all of the photos are probable hoaxes."
This is, of course, my interpretation of the facts and others are free to disagree, but I feel very comfortable stating that this case was probably hoaxed. After all, you can always find a photo analyst or two that's willing to throw their weight behind your case, just look at the Meier photographs, there are still, to this very day, those who will say those laughable pictures are the real deal. The will to believe can be a powerful thing.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
If the slab is only a square meter, and there's only one of them I remain a little confused as to its value to lever anything. What was supporting the other legs of the crane? Doesn't a single slab point to other potential uses?
Can an engineer in the house please verify the value of this slab and how one slab would have been used to help lift, pivot and drop a large UFO on a flatbed? It just doesn't seem feasible to me but I have no experience in cranes or in UFO crash retrieval, do what do I know.
Regardless of whether it can or can't, it's all still theoretical. Something may have been moved in the New Mexico desert in 1948 or earlier, but how does one prove it was a flying saucer?
Muadib, thank you for your detailed response. I've read this same information before (in fact, it may be your own text I've read before; is it published elsewhere)? I think the Gulf Breeze case as a whole remains ambiguous given the variety of responses by photo analysis experts and the personal motivations involved in the attempt to discredit Walters.