• 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!

The Great Aztec Debate

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.

You're welcome and it's actually not my text, I should've posted the link, it's from UFO Casebook, which has a pretty good overview of the case. http://www.ufocasebook.com/gulfbreeze.html

In the end, nobody but Ed Walters can definitively state that this case was a hoax, but like I said before, I'm completely comfortable with the opinion that it was, indeed, manufactured out of whole cloth. The photo analysis doesn't move me at all, it's no different than the so called "analysts" who endorse the idiotic Meier beamships. The will to believe....
 
I continue to think that expert photo analysis is a useful tool, but I haven't read any photo analyses, or much of anything else, concerning the Billy Meier phenomena. Re Gulf Breeze, I think we need to take into consideration the sightings of other people besides Walters. I am not a believer in the mass hysteria hypothesis to account for multiply witnessed sightings.
 
I continue to think that expert photo analysis is a useful tool, but I haven't read any photo analyses, or much of anything else, concerning the Billy Meier phenomena. Re Gulf Breeze, I think we need to take into consideration the sightings of other people besides Walters. I am not a believer in the mass hysteria hypothesis to account for multiply witnessed sightings.

No matter what you believe, it is a well known fact that once a UFO sighting is publicized in an area, the area is then flooded with reports of sightings by others. I can agree that there may have been actual sightings of anomalous objects or phenomena in Gulf Breeze, but I'm pretty confident in saying that none of these were ever photographed by Ed Walters. Just my opinion, and I thank you for expressing yours in such a succinct and polite manner. :)
 
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?
Forget UFO's, I don't even see evidence of anything being moved at all. It could have been the beginning of an observation post, an observatory, or fuel for the hoax - who knows?
 
I'm also grateful for your politeness and clarity, Muadib. While it's true that "it is a well known fact that once a UFO sighting is publicized in an area, the area is then flooded with reports of sightings by others," there are other explanations for this phenomenon than mass hysteria and overactive imagination. The first is that an actual wave of ufos has appeared over an area or region and many people have seen one or a group of these ufos, as was the case in the western states and especially the southwest in the months preceding Roswell (and before Kenneth Arnold's widely publicized sighting). One ufo researcher whose name I've forgotten sought out and published an enormous archive of local newspaper reports demonstrating the range of that 1947 wave and the number of people who witnessed those ufos in many locations. Another explanation for the frequency of incoming reports following a well-publicized report is that the publication of a reported sighting encourages other people to come forward with their own reports, which for well- known reasons most people are usually reluctant to do.
 
Chris Austin on Radio 14 said that he thought that something had made the time inside his car different from the time outside his car. On hidden experience there are interviews of people who have not lost time or one was put back a few seconds early after being abducted. He saw himself for a few seconds. People are no longer loosing time. The inter dimensional entities from another universe have moved on from Azetec and so should we.
 
It was military experimental aircraft from fortunes of war which maybe encountered a UFO is more plausible outcome. Which there could of been a number of experimental aircraft which crashed.
 
I definitely came out of this episode leaning more towards the possibility that something weird did happen in Aztec. The most compelling part about the concrete slab is that Scott found it because someone who claimed to have helped organize the recovery team told him it would be there.
 
None of that, however, proves that that slab was used for. The problem with Aztec is the one Randle emphasized in the debate, and that is there's no record of such an event that precedes the Scully book. Everything seems to have sprung forth from that source. At the same time, Ramsey is devoted an awful lot of time and money to get to the bottom of this story. He's made some headway, but he still has a ways to go to deliver the goods.
 
Chris Austin on Radio 14 said that he thought that something had made the time inside his car different from the time outside his car. On hidden experience there are interviews of people who have not lost time or one was put back a few seconds early after being abducted. He saw himself for a few seconds. People are no longer loosing time. The inter dimensional entities from another universe have moved on from Azetec and so should we.

To my knowledge (and I'd like to keep it that way), I've never been abducted. But my second ufo sighting did include a sense of different time dimensions. I spotted this ufo as an extraordinarily brilliant light in the treetops on a street whose intersection I was approaching. It was in January, six or seven years ago, at twilight with a clear sky, no clouds. I turned to the right to enter that cross-street and drove less than a block to park as close as I could get to the light, which was at a point nearly beneath it and across the street from it. I rolled down my window and observed it. After a short while it turned counter-clockwise and at that point I saw, not an enormous brilliant light, but a kind of grate with vertical slots through which very intense, hot light (like that of a welding torch) was visible. Shortly after that the object moved off in a path over the street I was parked on and traveled slowly along that path (still at or sightly above treetop level, which is high in this area of 40-ft. tall pines). I had a clear view of it as it traveled away from me and crossed the next street at the next intersection, then moving over the hill and thick treetops that begin at that point, soon moving out of sight. The extraordinary thing is that when it moved out over the open street where I was parked it changed radically in appearance, becoming triangular in shape with a multitude of tiny white lights covering its lower surface. At that point the object also appeared to be smaller. It seemed to move incredibly slowly, to take a long time to reach that intersection, so that I wondered how it could remain airborne. I had the feeling that it occupied a different dimension of time than the one I was in, and yet here it was, very close to my position physically. I would have tried to follow it but decided not to since the area it moved over is a neighborhood of small curving streets (in which I had formerly lived), and by the time I could get out onto major throughfares (on which I could hope to follow it for some distance) it would probably be out of sight.

Besides, I had an errand to complete, so I returned to the main thoroughfare I'd turned off of and drove at a 90-degree angle from the path taken by the object. Twenty minutes later I returned in the opposite direction, back toward the location at which the sighting had occurred, but took the next street over toward the intersection the object had passed over. When I got to the streetlight immediately before the intersection the object had flown over, I found the continuing street closed and police cars attending to a small car that had crashed into the lamppost at this intersection. I saw no occupants of the car (who might have been taken off in an ambulance by then), only two police cars and officers milling about. I couldn't stop there and had to turn right and go home another way. I called the police department the next day and asked if I could talk with one of the officers attending to that crash but was told none were available. I asked whether there had been a ufo report filed in connection with the accident and was told the desk person had no access to that information. I left a message asking that one of the responding officers call me, but never received a response. It seemed to me that the driver of that crashed vehicle might have had this accident as a result of seeing the same triangular object I'd seen as it crossed over the street the object had crossed over. The timing seemed right, and the trees, mostly tall pines, are clearcut about five feet on either side of this street. The driver of that car, if there at the time I had been there, would have had a clear view of the object.

Sorry to take so much space to describe these events, but I think the sense of spacetime distortion I experienced during that sighting might be relevant here.
 
very interesting.. did you call the airport? what kind of reaction did you get when you told friends or family?
 
very interesting.. did you call the airport? what kind of reaction did you get when you told friends or family?

It didn't occur to me to call the airport, but of course I should have. I think I mentioned this experience to only one colleague of mine, who is very resistant to the subject of ufos, and I got the usual raised eyebrows and polite smile in response. My daughter was still too young at the time for me to have described it to her. I did describe it on a smaller forum where ufos are discussed and there was interest expressed in it by other members.
 
Hiya Gene! In listening to this debate, it caused me to give serious thought as to why some people will not debate ....such as Michael Shermer, or Seth Shostak, or hell even Penn & Teller......with UFO researchers. Do they have something to lose?
Love to hear your thoughts.
 
Hiya Gene! In listening to this debate, it caused me to give serious thought as to why some people will not debate ....such as Michael Shermer, or Seth Shostak, or hell even Penn & Teller......with UFO researchers. Do they have something to lose?
Love to hear your thoughts.

Actually, Seth Shostak has been known to debate UFO researchers. I know for a fact that he debated Stanton Friedman a couple times on Coast to Coast AM. I'm sure you can find it on Youtube or a similar site if you look for it.

Also, Michael Shermer had a debate with our very own Don Ecker back in 1994 according to a quick Google search. He has debated other UFO researchers as well, though I think he mainly sticks to debating the creationist morons these days. Penn and Teller are entertainers, not academics, so it doesn't surprise me that they aren't out there debating.

Edit: Speaking of Don, I would love to hear that debate between him and Shermer, I wonder if it's somewhere in the DMR archives or if he would have to specially upload it? If you're reading this Don, I'd be much obliged if you could let me know where I can find it. If anyone else has any idea where I could download or listen to it, please let me know. Thanks.
 
To them it's lose-lose. They give us credibility by debating, and if they are off in their game, even the most egotistical of the crew will look bad.

I see what you mean. At first glance, you'd think skeptics would leap at the chance to shoot down anything to do with ufology, but you're right. I would venture they also don't want any holes poked in their safety bubble universe.
" 'Nice and tidy universe' is my name, and keeping the lid on honest inquiry is my game!"
 
To my knowledge (and I'd like to keep it that way), I've never been abducted. But my second ufo sighting did include a sense of different time dimensions. I spotted this ufo as an extraordinarily brilliant light in the treetops on a street whose intersection I was approaching. It was in January, six or seven years ago, at twilight with a clear sky, no clouds. I turned to the right to enter that cross-street and drove less than a block to park as close as I could get to the light, which was at a point nearly beneath it and across the street from it. I rolled down my window and observed it. After a short while it turned counter-clockwise and at that point I saw, not an enormous brilliant light, but a kind of grate with vertical slots through which very intense, hot light (like that of a welding torch) was visible. Shortly after that the object moved off in a path over the street I was parked on and traveled slowly along that path (still at or sightly above treetop level, which is high in this area of 40-ft. tall pines). I had a clear view of it as it traveled away from me and crossed the next street at the next intersection, then moving over the hill and thick treetops that begin at that point, soon moving out of sight. The extraordinary thing is that when it moved out over the open street where I was parked it changed radically in appearance, becoming triangular in shape with a multitude of tiny white lights covering its lower surface. At that point the object also appeared to be smaller. It seemed to move incredibly slowly, to take a long time to reach that intersection, so that I wondered how it could remain airborne. I had the feeling that it occupied a different dimension of time than the one I was in, and yet here it was, very close to my position physically. I would have tried to follow it but decided not to since the area it moved over is a neighborhood of small curving streets (in which I had formerly lived), and by the time I could get out onto major throughfares (on which I could hope to follow it for some distance) it would probably be out of sight.

Besides, I had an errand to complete, so I returned to the main thoroughfare I'd turned off of and drove at a 90-degree angle from the path taken by the object. Twenty minutes later I returned in the opposite direction, back toward the location at which the sighting had occurred, but took the next street over toward the intersection the object had passed over. When I got to the streetlight immediately before the intersection the object had flown over, I found the continuing street closed and police cars attending to a small car that had crashed into the lamppost at this intersection. I saw no occupants of the car (who might have been taken off in an ambulance by then), only two police cars and officers milling about. I couldn't stop there and had to turn right and go home another way. I called the police department the next day and asked if I could talk with one of the officers attending to that crash but was told none were available. I asked whether there had been a ufo report filed in connection with the accident and was told the desk person had no access to that information. I left a message asking that one of the responding officers call me, but never received a response. It seemed to me that the driver of that crashed vehicle might have had this accident as a result of seeing the same triangular object I'd seen as it crossed over the street the object had crossed over. The timing seemed right, and the trees, mostly tall pines, are clearcut about five feet on either side of this street. The driver of that car, if there at the time I had been there, would have had a clear view of the object.

Sorry to take so much space to describe these events, but I think the sense of spacetime distortion I experienced during that sighting might be relevant here.

Thank you for your reply Constance. I think it is a very important one. There is a reason that we are interested in this subject.
 
Re: UFO debates

Some of my favourite Paracast episodes involve challenging debates between guests or hosts and guest. These are involved and exciting, especially when everyone is up to speed on the facts and their talking points. That was a bit of a problem with this episode but you can see the real investigative potential when key cases are explored with a healthy skeptical or alternative viewpoint. Out of those tensions you often get more interesting new ideas and perspectives. I really hope to hear more of these in the future.
 
Mein Gott, I empathize with Mr. Randle here. It sounds like he was having an off night. Randle's site has lots of excellent material from former Aztec residents, stuff that would put off most researchers other than true die hard monomaniacs. A pity Moseley didn't live to hear this, because Ramsey had a chip on his shoulder and seemed personally insulted when anyone questioned his sources or lack of evidence. Steinman seemed humorless -- if you can't find humor in the doodle bug and Behind the Flying Saucers, I don't know if you're objective about the Aztec crash. I think Randle doesn't take the case very seriously, nor do I , so he might not have been the best to debate every half-baked witness or story that Ramsey would read out of his book. That's all that's here, right? Stories? And a concrete slab?

I suppose this is the dregs of what Ufology has left, which is kind of sad. Great show though, really enjoyed it. Jerry Clark -- who has chips on shoulders sometimes -- nevertheless recently demolished Ramsey's book in a very well-written critique.
A Different Perspective: The Aztec Incident - Review by Jerome Clark

I see Randle's page has a good summary of his points, which I find completely persuasive, and there's also this, which may draw the curtains on this case:
A Different Perspective: Aztec in Perspective by Monte Shriver - Part Three
 
With regard to the concrete slab, Scott Ramsey clearly gives the dimensions as “one meter square“. Assuming this is accurate, let’s recall that the only people in the US who would have been likely to use metric measurements in construction at that time were the military. (I believe that the US Military adopted the metric system in 1949 when NATO was founded, to assure compatibility with the European allies). In other words, the slab would, indeed, seem to have been built by military engineers. But were they US military or foreign military? Was the slab put there to retrieve a crashed UFO or was it part of some routine military and/or scientific exercise of another kind, being staged in a very remote area away from the public eye? If any of this speculation is correct, there should be records on file somewhere.
 
Back
Top