so then why even have i in the vault at all if it is just a hoax?
The FBI is the original house of packrats. They and the CIA collect everything, and keep it forever just to have in on hand, just in case. Even the
crap evidence is kept, just so you can check to see if it has already been gathered, reviewed and discarded for the crap that it is. Saves time and
effort in the long run.
so then why even have i in the vault at all if it is just a hoax?
The DOCUMENT is not a hoax. The document is a genuine FBI document. It RELATES to a hoax.
The document is included in the FBI files on UFOs, along with documents on quite a few other hoaxes (some of which were really, really basic hoaxes -
including admitted hoaxes). The FBI kept the documents even on hoaxes and, because UFO files are among the more commonly requested files under the
Freedom Of Information Act in the USA, the FBI made those UFO files available on its website years ago (and on its new website, "The Vault", when it
launched that new interface in 2011).
Isaac, thanks for posting the release article on Yahoo.
Hey, BTW, how come the Varginha Flap or the Colares (Brazil's Roswell) Flap never made your Top 100 list on your website?? Just asking.
That Top 100 list is based simply on the frequency of discussion of each incident in a sample of about 1,000 UFO books I read in the period of about
2003 to 2006. The incidents you mention simply were not mentioned in enough books to be included in the list of the Top 100 most frequently discussed
books. The Varginha incident, for example, was only discussed in about a dozen
of those books whereas the lowest ranked sighting in the Top 100 list was discussed in 27 books.
I explained this approach on the relevant webpage, which included the following explanation and comments:
The list above of the “Top 100” cases therefore has about as much connection to a list of the “Best 100” cases as the weekly “Top 10”
popular music charts have to a list of the “best music”. The weekly “Top 10” music charts are lists of the music with the most sales. This is
arguably not the same as the best music. Music charts frequently include items that would cause a music connoisseur to shudder (e.g. “The Birdie
Song” by The Tweets , Black Lace's “Agadoo”, the Macarena, and anything by Iron Maiden and similar noise-makers (see Footnote 13.02 and Footnote
13.03). Similarly, the fact that Adamski’s sighting is in the list of the Top 100 at all (let alone as the Number 3 case) may cause some
On the positive side, it makes sense for authors to illustrate their points by reference to cases that readers may be familiar with (i.e. the
"classics") so that basic details can be assumed rather than having to have everything spelt out in detail. It is notable that when various
ufologists have advanced lists of the “best” UFO cases, generally the only ones that are referred to in subsequent discussions are ones which are
included within the “Top 100” list above.
If a ufologist mentions during an online debate his list of the “best” cases and (as happens fairly frequently) includes one or more cases which
are not within the “Top 100” list above, the cases not within the “Top 100” are generally ignored in any subsequent discussion. When
ufologists do give a list of the “best” cases, they rarely provide references to material relating to these cases. If a case within such a list is
not well known, rather than ask for relevant references most readers appear to simply ignore that case. Any ufologist or group preparing a list of
the “best” cases may wish to keep this point in mind and include relevant references to any less well known cases.
There are, of course, plenty of other approaches to selecting the best cases. I discuss about a dozen other approaches on my website and plan on
posting a relevant fairly large thread in the not too distant future.
edit on 27-3-2013 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)
1 There never was a crash at Aztec. Silas Newton and Leo GeBauer were relating the events that they had heard from people at Roswell. Frank Scully
repackaged the Roswell story and changed the names to protect the innocent.
2 There was a crash at Aztec.
If there was a third crash, that could be because 2 disc crashed at Roswell. One whose cabin and bodies were found between the debris field and the
other, more famous, crash site. Mac Brazel said “they were not green”. The only way he would know this was if someone from the base or crash site
had told him ~ OR he knew this because he found his own set of bodies.
Con men, like pilots, presidents and plumbers, can see flying saucers too. The "con men" that Scully had talked to were being tracked by the FBI, at
the very least, because they were spreading the Roswell story. The FBI brought them up on charges so they could silence them and their story. That is
how cover-ups work. If you think the FBI, NSA, CIA, JPL, NASA, NAVY or any other government involved agency is going to tell you the truth about
flying saucers then you are just plain clueless.
"I have been researching Frank Scully and the alleged UFO crash outside of Aztec, N.M. in 1948... Dr. Gee was not or ever will be considered Leo
GeBauer. Frank Scully went to his death bed insisting that Dr. Gee was 8–9 different scientists from that time frame. I do agree that Silas Newton
was a con man but when you look at the charges that were brought against he and Leo, only one of 23 investor's filed a complaint. The other 23
investor's were not even allowed to testify at the trial! The Mike Conrad story has been around for years. There is no proof whatsoever that he
planned this as a hoax. That is another statement that Frank Scully said on his death bed. Mike Conrad never admitted to any hoax and stood by his
story until his death. Over 200 pages of files from the F.B.I. on Leo GeBauer have not been released do to "National Security Issues." I have been
researching this story for over 16 years, I have over 1,370 documents that certainly spin a new light on this subject."
~ Scott Ramsey
Con Men = National Security Issues? This is the FBI admitting that there is a cover-up over this UFO story.
Ironically American television would make Scully a household name and make the FBI popular again.
This case among others reflects very poorly on the professionalism of many ufologists and paints a dismal picture of the ufo community for anybody
even slightly interested in its history.
There're cases which are not obvious hoaxes. Whether they're simple misidentifications or are indeed glimpses of alien vistitors from other places, is
probably never going to be resolved.
But it's because not everything is an obvious hoax that the phenomenon even exists. It hinges on the possibility of something unconventional, but
never will it yield the sort of answers people want.
When a rational person examines a ufo sighting case they must at some point ask themselves: Which is more likely, alien visitors or misidentification?
Keeping in mind that some 95% or more of UFO sightings are in fact clearly misidentifications does not imply the remaining 5% are alien visitors. In
fact, all it shows is a lack of evidence to know either way. A reasonable person doesn't automatically think ALIENS when there's a lack of evidence.
This is the difference between conspiracy believers and rational people. And this may be why this phenomenon will never go away. So long as there're
conspiracy believers and rational people and not either/or, this will go on forever. Of course, it could end tomorrow if aliens actually land, but the
conspiracy believers would probably say it's staged.
Now, if suddenly SETI or some amateurs come out and exclaim loudly that an ET signal has been received and is confirmed to be from X star in the
direction of X constellation and it's people like Seth Shostak, who're historically ufo skeptics, who're coming out and touting its veracity, I've no
doubt in my mind that the conspiracy believers will congest this forum and claim that it's all a form of psychological manipulation by the military
complex or some such baloney.
With conspiracy believers, it's all about belief, not about the evidence or lack thereof.
There's a CHANCE that some ufo cases are genuine alien visitations. But this is silly. Example: I still believe in hte very center of the moon is a
piece of cheese. PROVE ME WRONG.
edit on 27-3-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jonnywhite
There's a CHANCE that some ufo cases are genuine alien visitations. But this is silly. Example: I still believe in the very center of the moon is a
piece of cheese. PROVE ME WRONG.
You got me there! I can't prove it isn't. The center of the Moon certainly has been proven to have the density of cheese. Where is your blog so I
can learn more about this Moon cheese kept secret by those bastards at NASA?
Originally posted by karl 12
Good job Isaac and hopefully, thanks to this comprehensive thread, the misunderstanding about the Hottel memo won't occur again in another few years
(like it seems to have a tendency of doing)
Thanks for the kind words Karl, but you are more optimistic than me. I expect the same misunderstanding to happen time and time again regardless of
anything you or I do...
Isaac, you were right - it's doing the rounds again!
Originally posted by IsaacKoi
as I'm sure you're well aware, there are many other government documents in the public domain which certainly contain very intriguing
information about the UFO subject -maybe we'd all be better off if everybody (including the corporate media) concentrated their efforts on those:
Sure. I was thinking about pulling some of those documents together and asked just yesterday if anyone was aware of any existing compilations (online
or offline) of documents falling within a certain category: "A compilation of lies?"
All the best,
Don't know of any my friend but think it would be very interesting to collate ones dealing with official comments about the nature of the phenomenon
or the national security angle - will have a look around as there seems to be quite a few examples out there.
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2015, The Above Network, LLC.