The Great Debate: Scott Ramsey Versus Kevin D. Randle

[Gene Steinberg]

As you know, Scott Ramsey and Kevin D. Randle are in sharp disagreement over whether there was a UFO crash in Aztec, NM in 1948.

Ramsey's book, The Aztec Incident: Recovery at Hart Canyon, written along with his wife, Suzanne, and others, including Frank Warren, argues in favor of the case.

In his various blogs, and on The Paracast, Randle says it never happened:

A Different Perspective: The Aztec Incident by Scott and Suzanne Ramsey

With Ramsey and Randle in the same virtual room, we will question them, they will question each other, and there will be time to ask your questions as well.

 

[ward]

looking forward to this clash Gene. Getting the popcorn ready

 

[Sentry]

Frank Scully associated with the Contactees and even planned a second UFO book, one on the UFO contact reported by Daniel Fry (negotiations failed, Fry came out with his own book).

Frank Scully with Daniel Fry​

Scully at Giant Rock with some of the "Contactees".​

How do you feel Frank Scully's association with the "Contactees" reflects on his ability to evaluate reliable sources?

 

[Burnt State]

Of the three most interesting early New Mexico events: the Roswell Crash, the Aztec Crash and the Farmington Armada, which do you feel is the most compelling case that has the most verifiable evidence and reliable witnesses in your opinion?

 

[Randall]

It really happened ...​

Really, it did ... ​

 

[Burnt State]

What can be said about the fact that Frank Scully based his story on two known confidence men in Newton and GeBauer? GeBauer had a doodlebug, a device that he tried to convince people could find oil. He also showed Scully parts from the saucer including a tubeless “magnetic radio” that was thrown together like a Fiji mermaid. How can we believe that this story is real when critical sources seem more like charlatans than honest witnesses?

 

[boomerang]

Aztec has long been in my Gray Box, so looking forward to this one.

 

[DaveM]

My question is: Aztec and Roswell took place over 65 years ago. Most of the participants are dead or very old. These cases have not been resolved in all this time. What can be accomplished by bringing up these incidents one more time other than to sell some books?

 

[tom1961]

Is there any physical proof of any ufo crash ever.

 

[FilmguyLee]

Is there any physical proof of any ufo crash ever.

That's the billion dollar question.

To my knowledge, no there isn't.

And for the record, based on what I have read on each case, for whatever my opinion is worth, I don't believe either Roswell OR Aztec are ET related in any way.

 

[Jeff Davis]

That's the billion dollar question.

To my knowledge, no there isn't.

And for the record, based on what I have read on each case, for whatever my opinion is worth, I don't believe either Roswell OR Aztec are ET related in any way.

unless, we look to the GREAT and POWERFUL Art Campbell UFO Crash Book


...isn't he the guy the wrote the original massive tome on Aztec amid the different crash cases? He's pulled a fast one and has switched to a different crash site!

 

[Randall]

Is there any physical proof of any ufo crash ever.

Here we are back to the concept of proof, with the same implied condition that only physical evidence will suffice, and that in the absence of such evidence, then there are no crashed UFOs. IMO whether or not some alien craft has crashed someplace and been recovered is still peripheral to the central question, the existence of UFOs ( alien craft ). We're all caught up in this game of what constitutes sufficient evidence instead of simply accepting the reality of the situation. UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. Some people believe it, and some people don't. The ones who don't believe it haven't seen one for themselves or haven't done enough homework or have unreasonable expectations for proof. That is the reality of the situation, though there seem to be plenty who would deny it.

 

[tom1961]

I am open to anything.
I think there is alien life but I have no proof that it has come to earth.
What is an unreasonable expectation of proof a little scrap of metal.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I would state emphatically that starting with a conclusion is a certain way to muff any investigative job. UFOs are an observation based phenomenon. They are NOT definitely alien craft. Are they technological representations of a non human means? I strongly suspect they are, but no matter how many reasons any of us list, we simply do not KNOW at this point.

What you are suggesting here IMO Ufology, is simply akin to faith.

 

[Randall]

I am open to anything.
I think there is alien life but I have no proof that it has come to earth.
What is an unreasonable expectation of proof a little scrap of metal.

How do you define proof? A little scrap of metal might be sufficient depending on its properties. On the other hand it may be completely useless, or worse yet used as a prop for a hoax. In contrast an honest firsthand witness can tell us whole lot more than an otherwise unremarkable piece of metal.

 

[FilmguyLee]

How do you define proof? A little scrap of metal might be sufficient depending on its properties. On the other hand it may be completely useless, or worse yet used as a prop for a hoax. In contrast an honest firsthand witness can tell us whole lot more than an otherwise unremarkable piece of metal.

True, although a scrap of metal can, at the very least, be analysed, regardless of the outcome of the result.

Perhaps both - metal samples, AND witness accounts, would be ideal over just one or the other.

 

[Randall]

I would state emphatically that starting with a conclusion is a certain way to muff any investigative job. UFOs are an observation based phenomenon. They are NOT definitely alien craft. Are they technological representations of a non human means? I strongly suspect they are, but no matter how many reasons any of us list, we simply do not KNOW at this point.
What you are suggesting here IMO Ufology, is simply akin to faith.

You're partly right. During an individual investigation, or the analysis of a particular case, making assumptions that are equal to conclusions is bad form. On the other hand, making assumptions in order to test them is entirely reasonable. Regarding what UFOs are, the overwhelming evidence in history and usage indicates that the word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft, therefore that is what the subject matter is about. But do all UFO reports involve alien craft? Certainly not. Do some UFO reports represent alien craft? Again the sum of all good reports indicates that it's reasonable to believe they do. Therefore it's reasonable to believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. Are they technological? That is a separate question.

We assume by the word "craft" that UFOs are some sort of manufactured object that equates to some sort of advanced transport. This is a fair assumption, but I also think that the outer limits of such things could conceivably include things like AI ( living machines ) or Kurzweilian entities that are more than simply machines. So the word "craft" in this sense is synonymous with the outer shell, or the body, the part that is responsible for transporting the intelligence, and not the intelligence itself. Even EBEs may not be the actual intelligence, but some kind of bio-gear that the intelligences inhabit temporarily in order to perform various tasks. But whatever the case is, those details aren't relevant to the issue of UFOs themselves. We know they're sufficiently beyond our means to duplicate and that no natural phenomena can reasonably explain them.

 

[Jeff Davis]

This man UFO Crash Book states that he has documented many pieces of non earthly UFO metal.

Well, I've heard a lot of unearthly metal in my day and this stuff don't sound nothing like it!

Seriously, this looks "new". For years all this site had up was about Aztec and Eisenhower

 

[Randall]

True, although a scrap of metal can, at the very least, be analysed, regardless of the outcome of the result. Perhaps both - metal samples, AND witness accounts, would be ideal over just one or the other.

• UFO reports from witnesses can also be analyzed and reasonable conclusions can be drawn from them.
• The addition of material evidence may or may not help to establish the truth of a particular claim.

 

[Randall]

This man UFO Crash Book states that he has documented many pieces of non earthly UFO metal. Well, I've heard a lot of unearthly metal in my day and this stuff don't sound nothing like it! Seriously, this looks "new". For years all this site had up was about Aztec and Eisenhower

I don't see sufficient evidence in these bits of metal to conclude that they are of alien origin. Remember how weird the Bob White artifact seemed? That was before an entirely Earthly explanation was found. I'm not saying that metal fragments can't come from UFOs or that I have conclusive evidence of a hoax, but until I see an analysis that shows something beyond our own ability to reproduce, something analogous to what Gene brought up ( an iPhone in 19th Century ), these bits of material evidence might be interesting, but are still far from sufficient.

@Gene Steinberg