UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 28

Re: Scully Hoax FBI March 1950 Memo

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:01:01 EDT
Archived: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:19:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Scully Hoax FBI March 1950 Memo

>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:19:32 -0700
>Subject: Scully Hoax FBI March 1950 Memo

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:50:42 EDT
>>Subject: Scully Hoax FBI March 1950 Memo [was: UFO Researcher Set To Land In The MUB]

>>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:32:09 -0400
>>>Subject: UFO UpDate: UFO Researcher Set To Land In The MUB

>>>Source: The New Hampshire - Student Publication The University
>>>    Of New Hampshire - Durham, USA



>>>UFO Researcher Set To Land In The MUB
>>>Meg Power

>>>A declassified FBI memo, dated March 22, 1950, states that
>>>'flying saucers' had been recovered in New Mexico, after a crash
>>>landing. That document is just one of the pieces of evidence
>>>Robert Hastings uses in his lecture, UFOs: The Secret Story.
>>>Hastings will be at UNH this coming Saturday at 7:00 p.m. in the
>>>Strafford Room.

>>This is the Scully hoax all over again. The FBI memo was _not_
>>declassified. It was never classified in the first place. It
>>reported a rumor that had already been well publicized for
>>months, with this version appearing in the Wyandotte Echo
>>newspaper on Jan. 6, 1950.


>I just couldn't resist...

>Curious that you refer to the FBI doc as the Scully Hoax,
>Scully, Newton and or GeBauer aren't mentioned.

They don't have to be mentioned in order for it to be the same hoax
story. How hard is it to delete their names and retell a tale?

>Although I agree that this particular doc isn't classified, most
>(pertaining to Flying Saucers and in particular Aztec) back then
>were; in the very least they were classified, Restricted, and or

Well you agree this FBI memo was never classified. If it was a
true story about a highly classified US Govt recovery of a
crashed spaceship then why wasn't it classified? It's
unclassified status supports the fact its origin was a newspaper
story, as I showed was derived from the Wyandotte Echo of Jan.
6, 1950.

>This doc is in small part redacted and was obtained through a
>FOIA request.

FOIA release does not make the info contained in it true nor does
it make it classified, whereas one would expect that documents
about a genuine highly-classified US Govt recovery of an
extraterrestrial spaceship would be classified. .

>The doc in question states, an investigator for the Air Forces
>stated that three so-called flying saucers had been recovered in
>New Mexico.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Wyandotte Echo article doesn't
>mention an investigator for the Air Forces does it? Moreover the
>article talks about 2 flying saucers, and the FBI doc refers to

The Wyandotte Echo article was sent to the AF, through a number
of hands, before a version of it got to the FBI. So how could
the article mention the AF when the AF's role in receiving and
AFOSI investigating the Wyandotte article had not taken place

The FBI's source was its own AF Liaison Agent SA (Special Agent)
S. W. (Wesley) Reynolds, whose name was mistakenly deleted
though a matter of public knowledge and not deleted in lots of
other FBI memos that have been released. FBI agent Reynolds'
source was still another person whose name has been blacked out.
That person in turn had an 'informant' who told the story that
you see recited in the bulk of the memo, including reference to
an alleged 'investigator' for the "Air Forces" (an erroneous and
outdated term since the "Air Force" [singular] came into being
from the Army Air Forces [plural] on Sept 18, 1947).

The alleged AF "investigator" doesn't even say he personally saw
or witnessed anything in the story he told.

This kind of nth-hand chain of hearsay is exactly how urban
legends and folktales are born. It is at least a 5th-hand

>>The baloney about the US radar interferes with the controlling
>>mechanism of the saucers in the March 1950 FBI memo comes
>>straight out of the Wyandotte Echo story of January 1950 from
>>car dealer Rudy Fick who got it from Coulter - Scully friend
>>George Koehler, a radio station ad manager in Denver.

>Your inference re the radar in regards to the propulsion systems
>of UFOs would seem to indicate that you are privy to their
>operation as to rule out the effect of high power radar beams on
>said craft. I certainly would like to here how you arrived at
>these conclusions.

The fact the story of alleged radar beams interfering with
saucer control systems can be traced to the same folklore story
element in the Wyandotte Echo has nothing to do with whether the
story element is true or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere are any saucer "propulsion
systems" mentioned by me, the FBI memo, or the Wyandotte Echo.

As for the silly notion of so-called "high power" radar beams in
the 1 megawatt range (my info on radars of that era) affecting
the control systems _or_ propulsion of thousand megawatt (=
gigawatt) and million megawatt (=terawatt) range interstellar
spacecraft I suggest you read up on Stan Friedman's papers. It's
like suggesting 4th of July sparklers won WWII.

>Additionally, although the article mentioned crashing through
>the gate of a radar installation (the witness), does it in fact
>state that high power radar beams caused it to crash?

Yes it did, see what I said in the very next paragraph. The
Wyandotte Echo article says that according to "Coulter"
(Koehler) saucers "seem to invariably crash near radar
installations" and so "it is surmised that they are attracted by
radar, or possibly radar waves interfere with their control

>>The Koehler story in Jan 1950 said radar waves interfere with
>>their control systens. That's two months _before_ the FBI memo.

>>Air Force OSI documents copy and even type out this Jan 1950
>>newspaper clipping onto official-looking memos so the article is
>>readable, without commenting on any of the contents. Someone
>>looking at such a typed out story on an official-looking AFOSI
>>memo might mistakenly get the wrong impression that the AF was
>>endorsing the contents, when it was merely copying in readable
>>form a fantastic newsclipping. Then they pass their rumor to the
>>rumor-loving FBI.

>There are AFOSI docs marked Priority X classified, Confidential,
>dated Jan 13th quoting the newspaper article... that's two
>months before the FBI doc, whats' your point?

The bogus Scully story of radar-crashing saucers was circulated
in January 1950, months before the FBI memo of March 1950 with
its tale of radar-crashing saucers, that's my point.

And there were other versions of the Wyandotte Echo story in
other articles from January-March 1950. These introduced a
number of changes to the hearsay tale.

>Memos from the FBI, AFOSI, and or the CIC aren't official
>looking, they are in fact official given there origin.

A newspaper story quoted in an official AFOSI document does not
make it a true story. But if a newsclip appears in such a
document without any commentary (I've seen the Wyandotte Echo
typed up that way in an AFOSI memo) then it is "official-
 looking" and easily mistaken for being being an actual
government report of a saucer crash incident, a mistake by
someone perhaps hurriedly reading the "official-looking" memo on
someone else's desk and not realizing it's just a verbatim quote
from a newspaper article.


>>We know that even people outside the government got to see these
>>AF documents. Washington columnist Drew Pearson reported in his
>>Nov. 25, 1950, column that he personally saw a confidential Air
>>Force report on the hoaxed George Koehler story of saucer


>It is essential to bring to light, after the fact, that there
>were indeed high powered radar stations in the Four Corners
>area, as borne out by Scott Ramsey's research.

Why is it "essential"? I am familiar with Scott's research and
have yet to see a shred of any evidence from him that any radars
were in operation in Four Corners in March 1948. In fact from my
Roswell-related investigation of NM-area radars I was the one
who pointed out to Scott one possibility for a radar setup as
early as March 1948 but it would have to be at Kirtland AFB,
Albuquerque, not in Four Corners. It is still a possibility, and
so far as I can see my finding is the only one.

If you or Scott have an actual document putting a radar in
operation transmitting radar beams in March 1948, not just site
surveying or construction work (which could take 2 years back
then), in Four Corners, then let's see it.

Continued promotion of Aztec as a legitimate crash case tends to
detract from the Roswell incident, since Aztec has no witnesses
in 1948 who reported in 1948, unlike Roswell which has witnesses
in 1947 who reported in 1947. No alleged Aztec "witnesses" ever
turned up until Steinman's and AF Lt Col Wendelle Stevens' book
on Aztec in 1986, almost 40 years after the fact. The timing
looks suspiciously like an effort to capitalize on the interest
in the Roswell incident in the 80's.

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com