UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 30

Re: Scully Hoax FBI March 1950 Memo

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:46:08 -0800
Archived: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:21:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Scully Hoax FBI March 1950 Memo


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:01:01 EDT
>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

>>>>http://tinyurl.com/24joze

>>>>10/23/07

>>>>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.

>>Brad,

>>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.

Brad,

Since this thread was borne by Robert Hastings oratory, in
fairness to him, let me include his comments:

"...in my program, I express my own doubts about its contents.
I am aware that some folks think it is a garbled version of the
Scully crashed UFO story. I am not sure about that, but I don't
think it proves much, as I say in my program."

He further states:

"I have never endorsed it as proof or even evidence of any kind.
The media seizes on the memo's contents but almost always fails
to mention my own misgivings about it."

>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?

Embracing your perspective for a moment, this of course is true;
however, labeling it the Scully Hoax infers that Scully
perpetrated the hoax; the party line has always been that he was
duped by Newton & GeBauer. (Even Scully's nemesis, J.P. Cahn
states this).

>>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
>>Confidential.

>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.

My point was that most of the docs, regardless of the source
were in fact classified, even the ones about newspaper articles.
The investigation which began a few days after the article was
published by the AFOSI was classified. The fact that they were
classified or not is a moot point, that still doesn't make the
anecdote valid (or not).

>>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 FOIA request and redaction is just an observation on my part
for those reading this colloquy that aren't familiar with the
doc in question. No inference is intended other then that
stated.

>>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
>>3.

>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
>yet?

You previously wrote:

"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 was merely pointing out that an Air Force officer was not
mentioned in the article.

Moreover, the article refers to two saucers and the FBI doc
refers to three. Additionally, the article refers to two bodies,
and the doc refers to three. The article measures the saucers
with 6' diameter cockpit, cabins, and a ring 18' across 2'
thick. The FBI doc states (approx.) 50' in diameter. The FBI doc
says, they were dressed in cloth of a 'very fine texture'; there
is no mention describing a very fine texture
in the article.

>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
>account.

Of course for those of us that have spent any time looking at
docs acquired by FOIA requests, it's quickly evident that the a
fore mentioned errors (names redacted on one page and not on
another) are not uncommon.

Scully Hoax, reported rumors, alleged Air Force investigators,
official looking memos, (on the flip-side) using these terms can
mold the minds of the less informed.

Labeling the a fore mentioned FBI doc the ''Scully Hoax' all
over again is is erroneous in my view, and is the chicken before
the egg.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations was looking into
what Newton stated (re flying saucers) on the golf course in ear
shot of actor Bruce Cabot (former CIC man during the war) who
tipped off the FBI. The point being is that both the Air Force
and FBI (the former doing a formal investigation) were active
prior to the publication of the Wyandotte article.

Additionally, after the Wyandotte article broke, concerned
citizens wrote to the United States Research Bureau (to which
there wasn't an organization by that exact name); consequently,
mail was delivered to The United States Dept. of Agriculture
(and because it mentioned crashing the gate of a RADAR
installation) was forwarded to the Air Force. AFOSI promptly
began their investigation within two weeks of the article's
publication (their documents are classified confidential).

The rumor as you call it, re the Wyandotte article was reported
to the Wyandotte Echo by (well known Kansas City Auto dealer)
Rudy Fick who was in the room when Koehler made his declaration
; in a court of law, that would be called eye witness testimony.
Other's in the room would later confirm Fick's affirmation.

Labeling the investigation by the Air Force as alleged or
specifically the Air Force investigator is just plain
nonsensical. Flying saucer sightings were rampant; concern was
high in regards to sightings near sensitive military and or
nuclear facilities; the second of two meetings had just taken
place in Oct. of '49 (at Sandia)re the Green Fireball Phenomenon
(Project Twinkle); reps from all the players were there
including the FBI. The sightings over Oak Ridge had recently
taken place which were tracked by RADAR.

I'm assuming you have an unredacted copy of the FBI doc in
question given your assertion that the name of the Special Agent
is in fact that of Reynolds. Reynolds was in contact with the
Air Force in March by the request of Hoover as to find out what
the Air Force knew for sure re the saucers. In other words his
dialogue encompassed more then a single case. Additionally, the
Air Force contacts were not forthright (to put it mildly) with
Reynolds.

All that said, in my view, there isn't enough data to know with
certainty that the FBI doc in question was eluding to the
Wyandotte article specifically.

Finally, the term Air Forces may not have been proper; however,
it's usage was not uncommon (at that time).

>>>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.

The Wyandotte article who's source was Rudy Fick reiterating
what Koehler stated in a meeting isn't what I call folklore; in
regards to RADAR, the article states:

The ships seem to be magnetically controlled and powered, as
they had no power plant in the ship itself. No armament or
exploratory equipment was found in them, and since they seem to
invariably crash near radar installations, it is surmised they
are attracted by RADAR, or possibly RADAR waves interfere with
there control systems.

Because the notion of RADAR affecting systems of Flying Saucers,
and or attracting them was in an article by the Wyandotte Echo
doesn't invalidate the idea.

Moreover, the sensitive military installations that Flying
Saucers were visiting at that time e.g., Oakridge etc., had
RADAR installations. Additionally, we know that pursuit planes
were sent out in some instances. SO RADAR was a common
denominator in regards to those incidents.

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

Of course you are correct; you did not write propulsion
systems, you wrote:

The baloney about the US radar interferes with the controlling
mechanism [emphasis added] of the saucers...

The article stated:

... or possibly RADAR waves interfere with there control
systems. [emphasis added]

The FBI docs reads:

... it is believed the RADAR interferes with the controlling
mechanism [emphasis added] of the saucers.

>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.

Wow! Again, I have to reiterate: 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.

Moreover, you now share even more details of the vehicles, i.e.,
knowing that they are in fact interstellar spacecraft,
knowing that they operate on electric power, knowing just
how much power they use; certainly, if what you state is
accurate, then RADAR beams affecting these high-powered space
ships seems a little incredulous!

Stan's papers by the way are based on a theorem, suggesting that
the technology witnessed is similar to our own; based on your
statements above, you obviously have information that takes this
beyond theory.

Again, I am curious to know what data you have to be so
confident in your synopsis.

>>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
>systems.

Pardon my ignorance, I didn't a full copy of the article in
front of me at my last writing; that said, 'suggesting a
possibility' is not 'naming its causality'.

>>>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.

Most (if not all) of the documents I have reviewed (regardless
of the official source OSI, CIC, FBI, CIA etc.,) exemplify any
newspaper clippings in their reports.

><snip>

>>>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
>>>remains.

><snip>

>>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.

It's essential because the argument prior to Scott uncovering
evidence for the existence of RADAR installations in the Four
Corners area, was that it was impossible for RADAR to be a
factor because there wasn't any RADAR in operation in that time
frame, in that geographic location.

>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.

I'll trade you for your evidence in support of thousand megawatt
(= gigawatt) control systems _or_ propulsion of thousand
megawatt (= >gigawatt) and million megawatt (=terawatt) range
nterstellar spacecraft.

>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.

Brad I don't mean to be rude, but are you serious?! First, no
one is promoting anything! Like Roswell, conclusions are made
via research and investigation; proving or disproving another
case isn't going to do anything regarding Roswell. Roswell or
any case for that matter will stand (or not) on its own merits.

Moreover, because you are not aware of witnesses re Aztec in
1948 doesn't mean they don't exist. I would also argue that
witnesses (particularly ones who've been threatened and sworn to
secrecy) don't turn up they're sought out! If Stan hadn't
sought out Jesse Marcel in '78 we probably wouldn't be having
this colloquy right now. Jesse and the myriad of witnesses that
followed were always there, we just weren't aware of it at the
time.

Additionally witnesses are still coming to light to this very
day (some are in public light e.g., Sprouse, some are not)

Certainly you're not trying to suggest that Steinman & Stevens
were nothing but scrupulous?


Respectfully,

Frank Warren



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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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