UFO Crash at Aztec (Full Text)/FORWORD

FOREWORD

When I was first approached in July 1985 to write the Foreword for William S. Steinman's book, which deals mainly with the alleged re- covery of a crashed UFO near Aztec, New Mexico, in 1948, I was reluc- tant to accept it. No way; not the Aztec case!

First of all, the famous - or infamous - incident had too many ar-— guments against it and no reliable firsthand witnesses to back it up. Besides, I had enough to do by continuing to investigate my own pub- lished crashlanding cases all of which needed substantive backup. And, like others in research, my disbelief was a result of having been "con- ditioned" too long by a succession of investigators who claimed that the case was a hoax. All seemed to agree that Frank Scully, the author of Behind the Flying saucers, published in 1950, who originally wrote up the Aztec story, was duped by a scheming Silas Newton and his cohort, Leo GeBauer. Then came the final blow to crush Newton, and his ilk, from William Moore, co-author of The Roswell incident in his paper, Crashed Saucers: Evidence in Search of Proof, which he present- ed at the MUFON symposium in St. Louis, 1985. In this work he left little doubt about Newton's shady past. For Aztec, it was to be the kiss of death.

But as Steinman progressed in writing his book and several chapters reached me for review containing more provocative evidence, I re-read, with closer scrutiny, the Moore critique. This time something seemed instantly amiss. Although well-written, it seemed almost too cut-and- dry, too fixed or biased, and it made Scully, a professional writer, appear ineptly gullible. While his charges against a scheming Newton and GeBauer were convincing enough, based on records of their past swindles, there are, however, some gray areas where he becomes spec- ulative and leads us to assume, as fact, that only swindlers were directly interacting with Scully on Aztec matters.

Of pertinence, the following is from Moore's paper, "why GeBauer went along with Newton on the crashed saucer scam has never been clear, except to say that Newton was obviously in control of the sit- uation from the start to finish and GeBauer was the type who could easily be manipulated into anything that smelled like money. In any case, according to FBI records, the three (later) agreed to publish GeBauer's connection with the matter; he was to be identified only as "Dr. Gee'. Scully, for his part, was completely taken in, and took only 72 days to complete his book. There is no evidence to indicate that he even bothered to try to check out anything the two men told him — a serious error which later caused considerable damage to his reputation."

In playing the role of devil's advocate, I must note, using Moore's

19

chronology, there were plenty of gaps between Scully's alleged rendez- vous with Newton and GeBauer, allowing time and opportunity to have met other contacts, as he claimed, to receive authentic "inside" details about the Aztec episode. And, when I ponder the evidence offered by both Moore and Steinman, I am left to wonder if some of the stories and dialogues handed down and attributed to Newton and others, are accurate and to be taken in their full and unadorned context. We cannot be sure, and here, both Moore and I, can only assume they are true. But assumptions are not proof. In this ufological business of trick mixrors, the truth is often distorted.

Also, it is to be noted that Moore had assumptive notions about my crash/retrieval research when, in the same paper, he said, "How many of the literally hundreds of crashed saucer stories circulating today (and cited or repeated by Leonard Stringfield and others) originated with the Scully-Newton-GeBauer machinations of more than three-and- one-half-decades ago can only be guessed at..."

More realistically, a closer check would have found three references to the Aztec case in 1948 and one to an alleged crash in Mexico, the same year, in my series of status reports. Two, however, were first- hand reports and were not based on “circulating stories" as Moore suggests. One concerned an intelligence officer who told me in 1980 that while on duty he saw a secret TWX come into his headquarters, reporting a crashed UFO near White Sands in 1948. This report, however, was dismissed by Moore on grounds that the informant had in later years resorted to some wild UFO claims and, accordingly, lost his credibility. Another entry is a statement I had received from re- searcher, John Spencer Carr, in 1982, who in confidence, gave me the name of a high-level Air Force officer and known to our research, who was sent to Aztec during the recovery operations. The third item con- cemed a story generated by Newton about burial rites being adminis- tered to alien victims of crashed UFOs. This story, however, I refuted in my comment that followed, stating that its source, Newton, had been "discredited."

While I was well aware of all the stories, or rumors, since 1950, emanating, possibly, from the Aztec affair, I chose not to cite or repeat them, except in the foregoing instances, where, in each case, the name of the source offering new and perhaps useful infonmation, was given. I rest my case.

In a climate not right for a book on the Aztec affair with all the dirt dug up about its cast of characters, author Steirman, admittedly obsessed by the case, chose instead to dig up his own set of facts about the incident itself. He not only went to the crash site for a firsthand look; but beyond it, probing for new information from every pigeonholed source he could find, still alive, in UFO literature who

20

might have been involved in the early activities. As a result of these endeavors he came up with some startling new evidence, same of it suggesting the case was far from dead. This he shares in his report, UFO Crash at Aztec; but, unfortunately, some of his key informants remain anonymous. A few he has revealed to me in confidence, by letter; others, no, being too sensitive he claims. His weakness however, has also been mine since I first started my series of Status Reports on UFO crash/retrievals. Indeed, we are not alone for even our critics have names of sources they do not share. But, surely they will complain anyway.

Whatever the verdict of the reader on the anonymity problem, Stein- man's new material is refreshingly digestible. And, if his "expose" eventually is proved convincing even to a hardnosed skeptic, it may also have serious implications for all of us who try to breach a hole into the official wall of secrecy. In this sensitive zone, Steinman describes at length the existence of a powerful, highly select group of professional people, military and scientific, who secretly control all phases of UFO operations, which he believes, has been in force since the Roswell crash incident in 1947. According to "leaks" they are known as "Majestic 12", Now, if indeed this group is real and, in fact, has employed Draconian methods, as Steinman suggests, to keep the lid of secrecy down tight on the hard evidence, we may justly ask why? The answer(s) may be any one, or a mixture, of social, political, economic, religious or military reasons - all scary - but whatever it may be, Steinman doesn't claim to know. But, in respect to Aztec, he does claim to know that the Majestec 12 hierarchy had a perfect "goat" to use in its cover-up —- the notorious Newton! By playing up his antics, all other facts in the case would simply be denigrated. Qn the other hand, many of us in research are well aware of far stran- ger, and stronger, tactics used by some covert force to keep the lid down and, it probably began from lessons learned at Roswell.

An example of Steinman's aggressive probes for information was his pursuit of scientist, Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher, who fonmerly served as science consultant in the U.S. Defense Department's Joint Research and Development Board. He got the name from my Status Report III, which I had used with permission from Arthur Bray, a Toronto researcher, who, in tum, had access to the files of Wilbert B. Smith who in 1950, was head of Canada's Project Magnet. According to Bray, Sarbacher met with Smith and informed him that flying saucers were serious business and among other things that "Scully's book was substantially correct.” That was all that Steinman needed and upon reaching the scientist by phone and letter, he got more top-level names — all allegedly in- volved in the Aztec affair. But, we will let Steinman tell his own story in the chapters ahead.

21

And now, for some personal second-thought observations about the Bill Steinman ventures. Seldam do writers allow or invite open criti-~ cism of their work in their book's Foreword, which is usually reserved for either a complaisant colleague or some other agreeable authority in their field--and, almost all would rather read words that glorify; not about their faults. Not so with Bill Steinman. To my knowledge, he voiced no objections whether my comments were nonconmital, construc- tive or negative — they would be printed in full. Tb Bill, sure and confident, the main thrust of his Aztec story was unalterably true.

Despite Steinman's own strong convictions, one of my early-on con- cerns was his naivete in handling his own public relations affairs. Although he fully explains in his book how the announcement of his prized letter from Dr. Sarbacher got bungled in the trusted hands of others, it did cause him embarassment and some credibility problems.

But, of greater concem is Steinman's narrative style used in his early chapters - assumptive and matter-of-fact -- where he covers the sensitive issues and activities of big names like General George C. Marshall, General Nathan F. Twining and Dr. Vannevar Bush in connec- tion with Majestic 12. I may know some of his unnamed sources but the reader, who doesn't, may not only question the narrative style but the book's credibility as well. Steinman would have been wiser, I believe, had he made even the vaguest references to a source; sane- thing, perhaps, like this: "...according to the younger sister, living in Paducah, of the ex-wife of my source, Dr. F.0.0., who now lives with her older sister in Peoria." That one, Bill, would have thrown every- body off and still, in all honesty, be accurate, and it just might have appeased the reader.

Doing the hard work, the research, writing and editing of the UFO Crash at Aztec was not my task, and although there are parts of it I would change or amit, I feel honored to have been asked to write the Foreword, a far easier task. The hard work was William Steinman's and for this he deserves an "A". For sure, his book will open eyes, make tongues talk and ears listen.

Leonard H. Stringfield
4412 Grove Ave.,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45227
U.S.A.

November 19, 1986