Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The Aztec Incident - 63rd Anniversary | The 'Aztec Incident' Revisited - Pt II

Aztec UFO Crash

By Scott Ramsey
© 2005-2011

Scott Ramsey     The Aztec story has had mixed reviews over the years in the UFO community. Unfortunately it has earned its black eye until recently. In our final overview of Aztec, we need to collectively review the skeptical side of Aztec as well. Our in-depth research would not be complete or professional if we did not research the negative side of the Aztec story as well.

J.P. Cahn (pen name John Kenner) wrote the first negative article on Aztec. About two years after Frank Scully’s very successful book came out, Silas Newton and Leo Gebaur were in trouble in Civil Court in Denver, Colorado. Newton had originally approached Scully with the amazing "Aztec Story" and had introduced Scully to Dr. Gee. Almost overnight the Aztec Story and the credibility of Scully’s source was in question. the case stemmed from an inventor that felt that the means of locating oil, through a doodlebug instrument was not of "alien technology" as claimed by Newton, but from surplus "junk". This is where many skeptics leave the story. Most have never read the court papers in detail or what Scully wrote after the scandal.

First, the other investors were not allowed to testify on behalf of Silas Newton and Leo GeBauer. After all, wrote Scully, they were not upset with their oil investment.

Second, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has a file on Leo GeBauer that runs over 400 pages. To this date only about 200 pages have been released to the public. GeBauer, Newton, Scully, and a cast of many that played a role in the Aztec Story have long since passed away. GeBauer had no next of kin. So why 58 years later does the FBI refuse to release over 200 pages on Gebaur? Is it really in the interest of national security as they claim? . . .

No comments :

Post a Comment

Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW