THE GOVERNMENT UFO COVER-UPS

ROSWELL INCIDENT

CASE SUMMARY:

Is it true a UFO with aliens on board crashed and was recovered by the United States military?

Stories about crashed UFOs have circulated for many years, but until recently they were dismissed as nonsense by most people, including ufologists.

New investigations, however,are uncovering startlingevidence indicating that a UFO may have crashed in the New Mexico desert in July 1947. A rancher named Mac Brazel discovered strange metal strewn across a wide area of range land he tended. Because of the material's unusual characteristics, Brazel took pieces of the debris to the authorities in Roswell, New Mexico. Intrigued by the debris, Colonel Blanchard, commanding officer at Roswell Army Air Field, ordered two intelligence officers to investigate. These two men were Major Jesse Marcel and Captain Sheridan Cavitt. Upon their report, Colonel Blanchard quietly ordered that the ranch area be cordoned off. Soldiers removed the debris, sending it to Army headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. 

At first the Army command at Roswell issued a press release announcing it had recovered a "flying disk," as UFOs were then called. This press release was retracted, and further press coverage restricted. At a press conference in Fort Worth, the Army explained that the intelligence officer and others at Roswell had misidentified the debris, which was, in fact, the remains of a downed balloon with a metallic radar reflector attached, and not a UFO. Public interest faded, and the Roswell event became a part of UFO folklore, with most ufologists accepting the official government version of the story. 

It was not until the late 1970s, with Jesse Marcel's decision to comment publicly on the

1

strange material and other aspects of the Roswell event, that the UFO crash story was revived. Since that time, new evidence indicates the weather balloon explanation was part of an elaborate government coverup, and in fact, the original report of a recovered flying disk was probably true. Investigations into the UFO crash story continue with the goal of pressuring the United States government to end the coverup and to reveal to the American public what actually crashed on the New Mexican desert that night in July 1947. 

Rumors about the existence of secret alien bases have persisted for a long time. These bases are said to be located in various places, such as the moon, under the ocean, or in a tropical rain forest. A few extremists in ufology claim that aliens have already contacted government officials. There are even stories of alien installations within United States military bases. Some people have gone so far as to claim that they have worked on secret UFO projects for the government and seen UFOs at military installations. For the most part, individuals who have claimed knowledge of secret alien bases or secret UFO projects have proven to be unreliable witnesses; therefore, their statements must be considered cautiously until there is reliable and independent verification of their claims. 

Whether the United States possesses alien technology is also open to question. If the Roswell UFO crash story is true, then the government has had some alien technology since 1947. Whether the United States has been able to understand and use that technology is another question. One researcher theorizes that the boomerang-shaped UFO seen in the mid-1980s around the Hudson Valley in New York was an American super-secret stealth aircraft based on UFO technology. Further investigation will be needed to prove this hypothesis.

Roswell: The whole story

Time for the truth about Roswell

By Kent Jeffrey

Forty-seven years ago, an incident occurred in the southwestern desert of the United States that could have significant implications for all mankind. The incident was announced by the U.S. military, subsequently denied by the U.S. military, and has remained veiled in government secrecy ever since. Although it is in a category fraught with false claims and hoaxes, it is not a hoax or false claim, but rather a known event that is thoroughly documented. It is the objective here to summarize the details of that event, affirm the right of all people throughout the world to know the truth about what occurred, and propose a course of action that will allow that truth to emerge.

The event took place during the first week of July 1947 and involved the recovery of wreckage by the military from a remote ranch northwest of Roswell, New Mexico. There is now considerable testimony from former members of the military known to have been involved, including two brigadier generals, that the recovered material was not of terrestrial origin. Admittedly, such a claim taxes the limits of credibility for discerning and rational individuals. It also tends to evoke a response of immediate dismissal. The preponderance of evidence, however, indicates the event occurred.

On January 12, 1994, United States Congressman Steven Schiff of Albuquerque, New Mexico, stated to the press that he had been stonewalled by the Defense Department when requesting information regarding the 1947 Roswell event on behalf of constituents and witnesses. Indicating he was seeking further investigation into the matter, Congressman Schiff called the Defense Department's lack of response "astounding" and concluded it was apparently "another government coverup."

2

Most people are not aware that there exists an event of this nature so well substantiated. In the next year public awareness of the Roswell incident should grow. A new hardcover book has been released, a television movie will premiere, and a serious documentary is forthcoming. Questions, controversy, and a general distrust of U.S. government policy in this area are bound to increase.

Detailed information on the recovery of the wreckage at Roswell and of related events is extensive. Some years ago investigators were able to obtain a copy of the 1947 Roswell Army Air Field yearbook. This enabled them to locate witnesses throughout the country. Newspaper accounts show that during late June and early July 1947, there was a wave of reports of "flying disks" (UFOs) throughout the United States and Canada. Many of those reports came from credible witnesses, including pilots and other trained observers.

Sometime during the first week of July 1947, a local New Mexico rancher, Mac Brazel, while riding out in the morning to check his sheep after a night of intense thunderstorms, discovered a considerable amount of unusual debris. It had created a shallow gouge several hundred feet long and was scattered over a large area. Some of the debris had strange physical properties. After taking a few pieces to show his neighbors, Floyd and Loretta Proctor, Brazel drove into Roswell and contacted the sheriff, George Wilcox. Sheriff Wilcox notified authorities at Roswell Army Air Field and with the assistance of his deputies, proceeded to investigate the matter. Shortly after becoming involved, the military closed off the area for a number of days and retrieved the wreckage. It was initially taken to Roswell Army Air Field and eventually flown by B-29 and C-54 aircraft to Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio.

Roswell Army Air Field was the home of the 509th Bomb Group, which was an elite outfit--the only atomic group in the world. On the morning of July 8, 1947, Colonel William Blanchard, Commander of the 509th Bomb Group, issued a press release stating that the wreckage of a "crashed disk" (UFO) had been recovered. The press release was transmitted over the wire services in time to make headlines in over thirty U.S. afternoon newspapers that same day.

Within hours, a second press release was issued from the office of General Roger Ramey, Commander of the Eighth Air Force at Fort Worth Army Air Field in Texas, 400 miles from the crash site. It rescinded the first press release and, in effect, claimed that Colonel Blanchard and the officers of the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell had made an unbelievably foolish mistake and somehow incorrectly identified a weather balloon and its radar reflector as the wreckage of a "crashed disk."

One of those two press releases had to be untrue. There is now solid testimony from numerous credible military and civilian witnesses who were directly involved, that the "crashed disk" press release issued by Colonel William Blanchard of the 509th Bomb Group from Roswell was true and that the subsequent "weather balloon" press release from Eighth Air Force Headquarters in Fort Worth. Texas, was a hastily contrived cover story.

Those who knew and worked with William Blanchard say he was a solid, no-nonsense, businesslike individual, and not someone who would make a fool of himself and the Air Force by ordering a press release about something as out of the ordinary and dramatic as the event at Roswell without being certain he was correct. In other words, if Blanchard issued a press release saying there was a crashed disk, there was a crashed disk. Colonel William Blanchard would later go on to become a four-star general and Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force.

The first witness located by investigators who was willing to testify and allow his name to be used was retired Lieutenant Colonel Jesse Marcel, the intelligence officer of the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell. He was a highly competent individual and one of the first two military officers at the actual crash site. In a 1979 videotaped interview, Jesse Marcel stated, ". . . it was no! a weather balloon, nor was it an airplane or a missile." As to the exotic properties of some of the material, he stated, "It would not burn . . . that stuff weighs nothing, it's so thin, it isn't any thicker than the tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes. So, I tried to bend the stuff. It wouldn't bend. We even tried making a dent in it with a sixteen-pound sledge hammer. And there was still no dent in it."

3

It is inconceivable that a man of Jesse Marcel's qualifications and experience, the intelligence officer of the only atomic-bomb group in the world, would have mistaken any kind of conventional wreckage, much less the remains of a weather balloon and its radar reflector, for that of a craft or vehicle that in his words was "not of this earth. " Even if he had initially made such a gross misidentification, he would certainly have been able to see his mistake later after it had been brought to his attention. When returning to the base, he stopped by his house with a few pieces of the unusual wreckage to show his wife and eleven-year-old son. One piece, a small section of I-beam, had strange hieroglyphic like symbols on its surface. His son, Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr., now a practicing medical doctor and qualified National Guard helicopter pilot and flight surgeon, remembers the incident well. He has been able to produce detailed drawings of some of the symbols. During his career, Jesse Marcel Sr., went on to other important assignments, including the preparation of a report on the first Soviet nuclear detonation, which went directly to President Truman.

The late General Thomas DuBose was a colonel and General Ramey's chief of staff at Eighth Air Force Headquarters in Forth Worth, Texas, in 1947. Before his death in 1992, General DuBose testified that he himself had taken the telephone call from General Clements McMullen at Andrews Army Air Field in Washington, D.C., ordering the coverup. The instructions were for General Ramey to concoct a "cover story" to "get the press off our backs."

Retired General Arthur E. Exon was stationed at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio, as a lieutenant colonel in July of 1947 during the time the wreckage from Roswell was brought in. In a 1990 interview, General Exon said of the testing, "Everything from chemical analysis, stress tests, compression tests, flexing. It was brought into our material evaluation labs. (Some of it) could be easily ripped or changed . . . there were other parts of it that were very thin but awfully strong and couldn't be dented with heavy hammers. . . ." Of the men that did the testing, he said, " . . . the overall consensus was that the pieces were from space."

The testimony of Mr. Glenn Dennis leaves little doubt about the nature of what was recovered in 1947. Glenn Dennis still lives in the Roswell, New Mexico, area and is a respected businessman and member of the community. He is down-to-earth and straightforward. In 1947 Glenn Dennis was a young mortician working for the Ballard Funeral Home, which had a contract to provide mortuary and ambulance services for Roswell Army Air Field.

Prior to learning about the recovery of the unusual wreckage at Roswell, he received several telephone calls one afternoon from the mortuary officer at the air field. He was asked about the availability of small, hermetically sealed caskets and questioned about how to preserve bodies that had been exposed to the elements for several days. There was concern about possibly altering the chemical composition of the tissue.

Later that evening, as a result of unrelated events, he made a trip to the base hospital. Outside the back entrance he observed two military ambulances with open rear doors, from which large pieces of wreckage protruded, including one with a row of unusual symbols on its surface. Once inside, he encountered a young nurse whom he knew. At that same instant, he was noticed by military police, who physically threatened him and forcibly escorted him from the building.

He met with the nurse the next day, and she explained what had been going on at the hospital. She was a very religious person and was upset to the point of being in a state of shock. She described how she had been called in to assist two doctors who were doing autopsies on several small nonhuman bodies. She described the terrible smell, how one body was in good shape and the others mangled, and the differences between their anatomy and human anatomy. She also drew a diagram on a napkin showing an outline of their features. That meeting was to be their last--she was transferred to England a few days later.

The main part of the craft apparently came down some distance from the "debris field" at the Brazel ranch. Researchers were only recently able to confirm this second site because few people knew about it. According to witness testimony, this is also the site where the bodies were found. Most of the witnesses to this site have not, in fear of government reprisal, allowed their

4

names to be used. A prestigious law firm has recently been retained to provide legal counsel to any such witnesses who might consider going public with their testimony. Attorneys from the firm have already met with several Roswell witnesses.

In addition to Glenn Dennis, other witnesses were physically threatened or intimidated. According to members of Sheriff Wilcox's family, he was told by the military, in the presence of his wife, that he and his entire family would be killed if he ever spoke about what he had seen. The rancher who originally discovered the wreckage, Mac Brazel, was sequestered by the military for almost a week and sworn to secrecy. He never spoke about the incident again, even to his family. In the months following the incident, his son, Bill Brazel, found and collected a few "scraps" of material, which he kept in a cigar box. The material was eventually confiscated by the military.

Despite the fact that there has been publicity about the Roswell case since 1980, no witness involved in the recovery has ever come forward to corroborate the "weather balloon" story or to provide some other explanation for the wreckage, such as a V2 missile or experimental aircraft. (Both possibilities have been thoroughly checked out and eliminated.) If there had been a more mundane explanation for the unusual debris, it seems certain someone would have come forward with it by now.

While it is possible that the Roswell witnesses, who live in diverse parts of the country, have been engaged in a perfectly orchestrated, long-term hoax with no clear motive, it is unlikely. It is true there are a few minor gaps and inconsistencies in some of the accounts, but that is to be expected. There were many individuals involved and it has been a long period of time. Human memory is not perfect. For those familiar with the Roswell evidence, however, it would be hard to imagine a scenario in which the core event is not true.

With Roswell so well documented, the question that arises is why the mainstream media has not pursued the story. Two factors stand out. The first is that of a negative mindset. There is a tendency in human nature to resist anything that challenges our preconceived perceptions of reality. In most cases, such an attitude serves us well and manifests itself as a healthy skepticism. In other instances, it may result in a close-minded refusal by otherwise intelligent people to consider compelling evidence--especially when that evidence seems to defy common sense or prevailing scientific theory. Many past revelations of science, for example, have met such resistance--a round earth, evolution, relativity, continental drift, quantum theory, an expanding universe--to name a few.

The second and most damaging factor is ridicule. Unfortunately, UFOs have long been associated with tabloid stories, hoaxes, and the "lunatic fringe." In addition, people tend to put UFOs in the same category as ghosts, mysticism, magic, and other forms of the occult or the supernatural. As a result, anything even remotely related to the area of UFOs is a difficult subject to broach without risking a loss of credibility. Consequently, members of the mainstream media rarely approach the subject, much less treat it with any degree of seriousness or depth. No one wants to make himself an easy target for cynicism or ridicule.

Moreover, it is not necessary to resort to the supernatural to explain UFOs any more than it is necessary to resort to the supernatural to explain the Space Shuttle. UFOs could probably best be looked upon as an extrapolation of where our own technology might be thousands of years from now. A television, jet aircraft, or nuclear bomb would have seemed magical or supernatural to a person from the Middle Ages. Similarly, by virtue of the fact that they apparently violate the laws of known physics, UFOs are perceived by us as an aberration of reality. They are, however, probably quite explainable under laws of science we aren't even close to discovering yet.

Further exacerbating the credibility problem has been the extreme negative position taken by the U.S. government. Almost everyone has heard pronouncements from government officials claiming there is no evidence to support the existence of UFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence. Ironically, no matter how high their rank or position, those touting this line may be uninformed, yet telling the truth as they know it. With the U.S. government's high degree of compartmentalization and need-to-know philosophy, chances are that few agencies or

5

individuals would be briefed on or have access to such information.

Agencies in which something might be known, such as the CIA, have refused to cooperate with investigators. When seeking Roswell or UFO-related documents through the Freedom of Information Act, researchers have been repeatedly stonewalled. Claims are made that documents don't exist or can't be released for national security reasons. The few documents that have been released have often been so blacked out that they are rendered meaningless.

By way of contrast, in 1991 the Belgian Ministry of Defense released radar tapes from two Belgian Air Force F-16s that had been scrambled to pursue a UFO detected by four ground-based radar stations and seen by numerous citizens and by police. The tape was impressive--showing digital readouts of incredible altitude and speed changes made by the UFO. Under present government policy, it is hard to imagine such a scenario ever taking place in the United States. Perhaps the world's greatest democracy could learn a few things about a free and open society from its small NATO ally.

There was actually hope at one time that U.S. policy might change. It came when Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976. In October 1969 while Governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter had reported a UFO sighting. Later, in 1976 as a presidential candidate, he pledged: "If I become president, I'll make every piece of information this country has about UFOs available to the public and the scientists." He then somewhat mystifyingly never said one more word about it publicly after taking office. If he found there was no information to release, why did he not announce it? Doing so would have been a natural and easy way to honor his commitment.

Why the U.S. government defiantly maintains there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon and why it would want to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence remain a matter of speculation. Three possible reasons have been suggested: fear of mass panic, perceived national security problems, and concern about offending religious groups. Whether arguments in any of these areas have merit is questionable. Most would agree, however, that whatever reasons there may be for withholding such information, they are far outweighed by those for releasing it.

The classic argument for government withholding of information on extraterrestrial intelligence from the public is that it might cause a response similar to that of the famous 1938 Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. (The program featured a simulated news broadcast announcing an attack by Martians on Grover's Mill, New Jersey, which panicked a small number of listeners who had tuned in late.) The argument, however, is flawed and the comparison is invalid. It is not realistic to compare a simulated emergency news broadcast graphically describing a devastating, ongoing attack or invasion to a low-key, formal announcement confirming that other intelligent life exists in the universe and occasionally visits earth.

Furthermore, we are nearly 35 years into the Space Age and at the brink of the 21st century. This is a generation that until recently lived for years under the threat of nuclear destruction and that now must deal with such threats as AIDS, rising rates of violent crime, international terrorism, etc. The possibility that the confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence would cause mass panic in this day and age is so remote that it hardly merits mention.

The arguments for maintaining secrecy based on national security are just as specious as those based on mass panic. Assuming the wreckage the military retrieved from Roswell was that of an extraterrestrial craft, it would be understandable that the U.S. Government would want to reverse-engineer the technology. It would be reasonable that the government would want to keep certain details of that technology secret. As with any technology with the potential for misuse, such precaution would be prudent and justified. However, the very existence of such a craft would have profound implications. The mere knowledge by the public of that existence would not pose any kind of threat. Denying the public such knowledge would not be justified and would be an abuse of the power entrusted to those who oversee the country's national security.

When the Carter campaign pledge was not carried out, it was speculated that concern about offending certain religious groups was the reason. If true, it would represent a violation of the

6

principle of separation of church and state. It would also be placing the interests of a small minority above those of the majority.

Like the discoveries of Darwin and Copernicus, the Roswell evidence could have implications that challenge certain religious doctrines. Darwin's theory that there could be fossil evidence linking modern man and other present-day higher primates to a common primate ancestor conflicted with the creationist view on the exalted position of man with respect to other forms of life. Likewise, the Roswell evidence, which would imply the existence of a superior nonhuman intelligence, could be seen as equally threatening to the creationist viewpoint It could be interpreted as implying that on a scale comparing the evolutionary development of different advanced species throughout the universe, human beings may not rate very high. Such a humbling realization might bother some people, but probably not most.

Copernicus' finding that the earth along with the other planets circled the sun contradicted the teachings of the time that the earth was the center of creation. That notion persists today in that many perceive the earth to be the center of intelligent life in the universe. The Roswell evidence could dispel such an ethnocentric view by confirming that the human race is just one single member in a large community of other intelligent races in the universe. Specific effects, if any, that such a revelation might have on society would be purely a matter of speculation. Generally, however, when knowledge replaces ignorance, the long-term result is positive. There is no reason to think that that would not be the case here. If nothing else, the knowledge that it is possible for a civilization to survive the growing pains of becoming technologically advanced, without completely destroying itself and its environment in the process, would in a sense provide a renewed hope for the future of man and his environment.

Despite the media's inattention to the matter, and contrary to what some in the U.S. government would like people to think, Roswell is not a figment of someone's imagination or the product of modern folklore. It involves real people and a real event. The man who issued the press release announcing that event, Colonel William Blanchard, was not someone prone to making mistakes, much less monumental blunders. He would go on to achieve the highest peacetime rank attainable in the U.S. military, four-star general. Credible witnesses, including retired generals, have testified that the original press release issued by Blanchard was correct and that the Roswell wreckage was of extraterrestrial origin. A United States Congressman was recently stonewalled by the Defense Department on the matter and has expressed his belief that there is a coverup. Yet the U.S. government steadfastly maintains it has no evidence indicating extraterrestrial intelligence. Something does not ring true. There is a gross inconsistency here, and it involves an issue of great magnitude, an issue that should transcend domestic politics and that demands an explanation. It is time to lay the cards on the table so that this matter can be resolved, one way or the other.

History has shown that unsubstantiated official assurances or denials by government are often meaningless. Nevertheless, there is a logical and straightforward way to ensure that the truth about Roswell will emerge: an Executive Order declassifying any information regarding the existence of UFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence. Because this is a unique issue of universal concern, such an action would be appropriate and warranted. It is essentially what presidential candidate Jimmy Carter promised and then failed to deliver to the American people eighteen years ago in 1976. Additionally, it would cost nothing, offend no one, and be applauded by all.

To provide positive assurance for all potential witnesses, the Order would need to be clearly stated and written into law. Security-clearance violations can bring heavy fines and long prison sentences. In addition to the original witnesses from 1947, there are most certainly individuals involved with the Roswell material today who would be affected by such a declassification. Undoubtedly, many of them, along with the original witnesses, would want to see this information shared with others--be they friends, family, grandchildren, or all mankind.

If, as is officially claimed, no information on Roswell, UFOs, or extraterrestrial intelligence is being withheld, a declassification order would be a mere formality, as there would be nothing for anyone to disclose. What legitimate concern could there be about declassifying "nonexistent"

7

information? If, however, information is being withheld, there could be significant resistance to officially disclosing it. This resistance could range from contriving excuses as to why an Executive Order should not be issued, to ignoring the matter altogether. In the end, however, whether information is being suppressed or whether it is not, the effect of an Executive Order declassifying it would be positive. If nothing is being withheld, the result of such an Order would be to set the record straight once and for all. Years of controversy and suspicion would be ended, both in the eyes of the United States' own citizens and in the eyes of the world.

If, on the other hand, the Roswell witnesses are telling the truth and information on extraterrestrial intelligence does exist, it is not something to which a privileged few in the United States government should have exclusive rights. It is knowledge of profound importance to which all people throughout the world should have an inalienable right. Its release would unquestionably be universally acknowledged as an historic act of honesty and goodwill.

AIRFORCR FINDINGS

OVERVIEW

In June of this year, the Air Force released their second massive report on the now well–known Roswell incident that occurred in and near Roswell, New Mexico in early July, 1947. The first Air Force report in September 1994 concluded that the debris found by rancher Mac Brazel was from an Army Air Forces balloon–borne research project code named MOGUL. Despite the seeming finality of that first report, the Air Force clearly felt the need to release a new report that discusses the claims of alien bodies that were found at a second location in New Mexico in 1947.

The new report concludes that:

1) The witnesses to the reports of alien bodies are generally telling the truth;

2) But. . . these witnesses are mistaken about when the events they saw occurred, and they are also seriously mistaken about details of the events. Additionally, witnesses are conflating together several events that occurred at different times into a single event, and in every instance, the events the witnesses saw were normal Air Force activities.

3) In particular, the Air Force claims that the bodies observed were from scientific and engineering tests using anthropomorphic test dummies carried aloft by balloons, and "unusual" military activities were actually high altitude research balloon launch and recovery operations.

4) A Mogul balloon is still needed to explain some witness accounts, so the Air Force is now claiming that both a Mogul balloon and a balloon with dummies caused the Roswell testimony.

As with the 1994 report, the new report is clumsily padded to make it appear to be lengthy and impressive. This is done by using a large font, many irrelevant photos, and wide margins. A great deal of research was done by the Air Force to gather information about balloon projects in New Mexico, including interviews with surviving members of the balloon teams. But as was the case in the 1994 report, no effort was devoted to interviewing still–living witnesses of the events from 1947. This makes a mockery of the claim by Secretary of the Air Force Sheila E. Widnall in the Foreword that "Our objective throughout this inquiry has been simple and consistent: to find all the facts and bring them to light."

In the statements below, we detail the errors, omissions and faulty reasoning in the Air Force report. These defects are so egregious in some instances that we wonder whether the report was even reviewed at the Pentagon. The general flaw in the Air Force report is clear: if the testimony is taken at face value, then the Roswell events occurred in 1947, and the Air Force could find no explanation for tales of alien bodies from its activities in that year. Accordingly, the Air Force, with no supporting rationale, simply assumed that the witnesses were mistaken about the date of the incident. In other words, if the Air Force, in good faith, treated the events as occurring in 1947, they would have been stuck without an explanation. The result is the preposterous report they just produced.

8

SPECIFIC ERRORS, FLAWS, AND PROBLEMS IN THE REPORT

Using Discredited Witnesses

Problem: The Air Force considers Gerald Anderson to be an honest witness who is simply mistaken about dates, places, and details. It relies heavily on his testimony to demonstrate similarities between Anderson’s description of the alien bodies and anthropomorphic dummies.

Fact: No pro–coverup Roswell researcher considers Gerald Anderson to be an honest or believable witness. Anderson has admittedly falsified his telephone records and a diary to support his claims. Don Berliner, a primary investigator of his claims, has written as early as 1993 that he "no longer has confidence in the testimony of Gerald Anderson."

Ignoring Credible Witnesses

Problem: The Air Force ignores the testimony of Frank Kaufman.

Fact: Kaufman claims to have been involved with the recovery of the alien bodies, and he was in the military stationed at Roswell. His claims have never been convincingly refuted. His testimony should have been included in the report. It was, most likely, not included because it is impossible to suggest that Kaufman could be confused about events in which he participated and for which he took written notes.

Ignoring Their Own Experts

Problem: The Air Force, although interviewing balloon project members, did not ask them what they thought of its new theory to explain the stories of alien bodies.

Fact: Lt. Col. (Ret.) Raymond A. Madson, a project officer on Project High Dive for four years, told the Associated Press last week that there is no way the dummies could be confused with aliens. Moreover, he noted that there was a reward notice on the dummies and that they were stamped with labels identifying them as Air Force property.

Selective Use Of Testimony

Problem: James Ragsdale’s testimony is not considered in full, even though a transcript of an interview done by ufologists is included in an appendix.

Fact: Ragsdale’s description of how the object he saw landed (with a bright light and at high speed at night) is ignored, as is his description of the appearance of the debris, which looked nothing like a balloon. Instead, his use of the word "dummies" is taken out–of–context throughout the report.

No Balloons With Dummies Fell Near The Roswell Crash Site

Problem: Only one balloon landing was even remotely near the site north of Roswell where the craft and bodies were allegedly found.

Fact: There is no reason for witnesses to be confused by a balloon and dummy recovery that took place miles from the crash site.

Dummy And Balloon Tests Were Well–Known To The Public

Problem: The Air Force claims that anthropomorphic dummies "were not widely exposed (sic) outside of scientific research circles and easily could have been mistaken for something they were not."

Fact: The Air Force, a few pages later, admits that the dummy program, and balloon programs in general, received extensive publicity, including in books, national magazines, and the 1956 movie On the Threshold of Space. This makes it

9

highly unlikely that witnesses who lived in New Mexico would be confused by balloon activities and mistake them for aliens.

Key Witnesses Cannot Be Placed At Any Balloon Recoveries

Problem: The Air Force theory obviously depends on the UFO witnesses having actually viewed balloon and dummy recoveries.

Fact: No witness involved in Roswell can be placed at any recovery. In fact, Air Force balloon personnel, asked about the witnesses, such as Gerald Anderson, cannot ever remember seeing or meeting these people at sites of balloon recoveries.

The Air Force Dummies Were Too Large

Problem: All anthropomorphic dummies were the size of adult males because only men were pilots in those years.

Fact: Witnesses to the bodies all report that the aliens were small and child–like in size (about four feet tall).

Witness Glenn Dennis Could Not Have Been Mistaken About the Dead Air Force Airmen

Problem: The Air Force explains Glenn Dennis’s story about aliens by claiming that he inadvertently blundered into the base hospital when autopsies were being done on burned crewmen from an aircraft accident near the base.

Fact: Three of the bodies from that accident were taken to the Ballard Funeral Home where Dennis worked. Given this fact, it is preposterous to suggest that Dennis remained confused about just who or what was being autopsied at the base hospital.

As a final point, consider this bit of Air Force "reasoning." The report claims that Glenn Dennis’s testimony combines several disparate events, plus military and civilian personnel from different eras at Roswell. The Air Force claims that Dennis conglomerated all these events or persons into one coherent memory:

1) Autopsies of dead crewmen from a KC–97 accident on June 26, 1956.

2) A balloon mishap that occurred west of Roswell on May 21, 1959, and Capt. Joseph W. Kittinger, who had red hair, and who was present at the base hospital after the accident.

3) Colonel Lee F. Ferrell, who was at the base hospital from October 1954 to June 1960.

4) Nurse Lucille C. Slattery, who was Chief Nurse at the hospital in 1947.

5) Nurse Idabelle Wilson, stationed at the base from February 1956 to May 1960.

6) Nurse Eileen M. Fanton, stationed at the base from December 1946 to September 1947.

The reader is left to judge the likelihood of all these unconsciously being combined into one event by a sane, competent witness, one who cannot even be proved to have been at the hospital in 1959, or to have known or met any of these military personnel.

SUMMARY

In summary then, examination of this latest report demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was NOT an objective inquiry. Regardless of one's personal opinion of UFOs, it is plain to see that SOMETHING occurred that has resulted in two "final" AF reports within three years. One can only conclude that it is simply another government whitewash attempt, or worse, a clear case of incompetence and waste of taxpayer money. We look forward in eager anticipation to the next "final" Air Force report on the Roswell event.

10

REFERENCE MATERIAL

The Roswell Report: Case Closed, James McAndrew, Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington, DC, 1997.

OTHER REFERENCE MATERIAL

Several articles have been published in International UFO Reporter, the magazine of the Center for UFO Studies, on the first Air Force report or matters relevant to this second report. These include:

The Continuing Search for the Roswell Archaeologists: Closing the Circle, by Thomas Carey (January/February 1994)

When and Where did the Roswell Object Crash?, by Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt (January/February 1994)

The Air Force Report on Roswell: An Absence of Evidence, by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney (September/October 1994)

The Project Mogul Flights and Roswell, Kevin Randle, (November/December 1994)

The Roswell Debris: A Quantitative Evaluation of the Project Mogul Hypothesis, by Robert Galganski (March/April 1995)

Project Mogul and the Roswell Crash, an exchange with Charles B. Moore, Robert G. Todd, Mark Rodeghier and Kevin Randle (March/April 1995)

What the GAO Found: Nothing About Much Ado, by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney (July/August 1995)

The Final(?) Air Force Report on Roswell, by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney, (Winter 1995)

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Contact Mark Rodeghier at the Center for UFO Studies, 2457 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, phone 773-271-3611 (e-mail: Infocenter@cufos.org ).

11

Roswell: Clashing Visions of the Possible

By Michael Swords

Roswell is obviously a highly divisive topic in ufology. People accept or reject it, often emotionally, for reasons which seem to the listener unclear, even after patient attention. The possibility of a crashed disk, and the necessary astoundingly successful security required, alternatively violates or coheres with visions of reality held dear by the loudest, and occasionally less civil, discussants. But these deeper visions of reality, or what the writers and speakers of these schools want to believe, remain largely undescribed. This paper would like to pretend for the moment that such individuals and their constricting views of reality are not part of the serious Roswell exploration, as I believe they are not, no matter how much we are lumbered with them.

Instead I would like to present a few thoughts on what is a more intriguing and potentially productive aspect of the Roswell debate: that intellectually honest and unprejudiced ufologists also differ markedly in their views about the crashed disk hypothesis, and what the mode of reality is that seems to be acceptable to some and not to others. I have sat around tables with reasonable people (and good friends) such as Mark Rodeghier and Tom Deuley, and listened as one researcher fails to convince another, and they end by amicably agreeing to disagree.

The main problem in these discussions between reasonable people has been the unique complexity of the Roswell case. Nothing in ufology has been remotely like it in terms of numbers of witnesses, variety and quality of researchers, fragmented information, and the lack of a comprehensive, clear research document to which all discussants can refer. Because of this complexity, perhaps no single researcher can wrap his mind completely around the case, and so all commentators work partly from ignorance. Whereas this situation should inspire humility in the intensity of conclusions, it unfortunately encourages the opposite in persons of strongly constricting visions of reality, and even muddies the exchanges between good, honest seekers of the truth.

Documents like the recent Air Force releases can appear to be reasonable to many people, only because of the case's complexity and the absence of a clear, comprehensive research document. This, and this alone, allows shoddy, incomplete research and "explanation" to address tiny elements of the case and pretend to address the entire complex. Some anti-Roswell ufologists have become masters of the "cut-a-branch-and-say-you-killed-the-tree" methodology. And Kent Jeffrey's recent change of mind about the case seems also influenced by this style of analysis. In many simpler UFO cases this approach might be reasonable. They are usually dependent upon very few elements. In the Roswell case, potshots and tree trimmings are important, but some humility and perspective should be applied when it comes to claiming what that trimming has actually done to the tree. In the real world, trimming often makes a tree healthier. Again, I want to emphasize that without a clear and comprehensive research document defining the ease, no one, supporter or detractor, has a clear idea of what they're aiming at. My friends and colleagues, Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt, wrote good books but not this sort of document. That was not their intent in made-for-the-public publications. We are still looking for the research-usable publication from some source, however.

Because I cannot unravel the whole Roswell case in an article (due mainly to my patchy understanding of the details, let alone the length it would take), I would like to present what I believe to be the general hypothetical model that the reasonable pro-crash researchers are working with, and examine its strength and weakness. The pro-crash researchers base their views strongly in the historical context of the UFO phenomenon of the late 1940s and early 1950s. The anti-crash researchers seem to base their views in a different historical context: not UFOs, but their view of the way government and the military "should really work."

What ingredients interest the pro-crash researchers from which they build their working hypothesis? The first stone is really the foundation stone, and surprisingly almost never enters the discussion: that there was a huge wave of flying disk sightings being reported all over the country in the summer of 1947, and which continued intermittently as essentially the same phenomenon through 1952. This outbreak of anomalous aerial events was apparently well-witnessed and very convincing to those who studied it. What were they convinced of? That these were flying disks; technical craft performing

12

beyond our own capabilities of the time, and of a very unusual configuration. Almost every discussion of the Roswell event skips lightly over this UFO context, and most begin talking as if the report were to be properly viewed as an isolated event.

This apparently stems from the time-honored tendency in UFO research to view each case separately and to admit that X never can prove Y. This, of course, is true. But at the same time, X very often can form a relevant context for Y, and make of Y a reasonable working hypothesis. This seems to me to be important in the sociology of the discussion. Accepting that Y is a reasonable working hypothesis due to its context in the 1947 wave, would take some of the ridicule and attack-dog mentality out of the discussion at the beginning. "I can see where you're coming from, but here's where I disagree." Perhaps, the debate could then proceed upon hypotheses, rather than ad hominems ("how could anyone be so foolish... etc."). And a second, perhaps unresolvable, concern: We should generally be more willing to credit the context of individual cases in ufology. As long as everyone insists on fighting every case in isolation to the death, there will never be any ufology. A field of study is always composed of a whole constellation of related or potentially related phenomena, for which there exist theories and working models which organize the pieces, have a remembered history, and direct subjective discussion. Our pseudoufology tends to feature isolation, no memory or history, and subjective argument.

Every pro-crash researcher that I know well feels that there is strong evidence of a large wave of aerial anomalies taking place in 1947, and that a reasonable and strong hypothesis for this is that craft beyond our current technical capabilities were being seen. I am not certain that the anti-crash researchers (again, I am not speaking of debunkers or other intellectually dishonest writers) feel as strongly about the 1947 wave and key cases such as Kenneth Arnold, C. J. John, and E. J. Smith. For the pro-crash researcher, though, the wave and its several-year continuance of disks and radar reports form a powerful context within which the possibility of a crash is reasonable.

So what of the case itself? Lying on top of the foundation stone context are the three "columns" from which all the rest of the research on Roswell has sprung:

A. The news story release by the air base that they had in fact captured a flying saucer;

B. The testimony of Major Jesse Marcel, combined with his job responsibility, qualifications, and presumed character; and

C. The several descriptions of the Brazel ranch debris and the site.

The news releuse. At least this is something no one doubts happened, and apparently no one doubts that it was ordered by the base commander. Pro-crash researchers view this in regard to the simplest hypothesis: the release meant what it said. Any other hypothesis is entertainable, but it must make a case for a not insignificant reinterpreting of the release. When the second release comes out denying the conclusions of the first, the roles of the pro- and anti- crash researchers are reversed, but, I believe, not equally. The first release clearly inspired the second. Almost as clearly, that "inspiration" came from somewhere off the base. In that sense, it is reasonable to view the first release as originating at the site which was in contact with the material in the fullest and most direct way; and the second release not. There is still much latitude for rationalization upon this either way, but the fact of the release exists, and the simplest hypothesis is that the commander meant it.

One can imagine that the commander issued this press release whimsically or without much thought or having even bothered to look at the materials and the facts themselves, but that sort of behavior too would require some major rationalizing or guesswork. I submit that it is not unreasonable to suppose that base commander Blanchard familiarized himself quite extensively with whatever in formation and materials he had available before composing his release. If so, one is left with the problem of how Blanchard could have looked over and handled whatever his personnel had brought in, and decided that it was a flying disk, if in fact it was nothing more than U.S. produced balloon technology? For thc school-of-nothing- really-happened, one would hope that the required hypothesis of:

13

A. Blanchard didn't even look at the materials and still ordered an astounding release; or

B. Blanchard didn't think the stuff was really unusual, but wrote this anyway would be at least a little uncomfortable. And, in a civilized ufology, it would be nice to hear the anti-forces admit the discomfort, as, I believe, the reasonable pro-forces do when it comes to the "how could you keep that secret?" problem.

Major Jesse Marcel. Rightly or wrongly, pro-crash researchers view Major Marcel as a responsible and competent soldier, of good qualifications to distinguish between mundane balloon debris and something extraordinary, and of good character well beyond the creation of elaborate public hoaxes on potentially important matters. This characterization of Marcel may be in error, but, given his position in July 1947, some serious rationalization by counterviews must be made to cast him into a light of incompetence, irresponsibility, and/or dishonesty. Realizing how important Marcel is to the case has apparently spawned just such attempts to attack him.

I might add that the ad hominem attack is becoming a standard weapon in the arsenal of ufological debaters. In a field so dependent upon testimony and researcher competence and honesty, maybe one can understand this, but in today's climate it seems well out of control and terminally destructive. We have often seen that debunkers fall back on this as a last (vicious) line of defense: Father Gill messianicly lording it over the "primitive," impressionable Papuans; Cash and Landrum trying to rip off the government for "faked" injuries; Levelland or Saucer inventing cases to boost tourism. But perhaps we can do better as a community of cooperating colleagues. We have gone for years without good reason to doubt Jesse Marcel's character and competence. Now that the anti-forces recognize that the Roswell case is unlikely to fall as long as Major Marcel stands, we are seeing a variety of attempts to chop him down. Let us hope that this"analysis" is at least done civilly, honestly, sensitively.

7he debris field and the debris. It is the (apparent) fact that not only Major Marcel but several persons saw the crash debris (piecemeal or at the ranch) and that the descriptions are roughly consistent. Some people describe a self-forming metal (crumple-up, uncrumple by itself) which, if real, would be extremely strange even now (even given Nitinol as its cousins), let alone in 1947. Marcel does not describe this. But even without the miracle fold-out metal, the debris seems very unusual for strength and lightness, and inconsistent with things like balloons and their instrument packages. The amount of debris stated to be at the ranch site also seems inconsistent with any balloon project.

Taking these three elements together in the historical context of the UFO wave, pro-crash researchers have reasoned this way:

1. There seem to have been a lot of reports of technological disk-shaped craft of superior aeronautical performance flying about.

2. Roswell Army Air Field's commander reported that he and the base had found a crashed one.

3. The head of base intelligence reported (many years later) that this was true and that it wasn't any balloon, and that as far as he could tell the material was unearthly.

4. The characteristics and amounts of the debris reported seem inconsistent with any known U.S. (or other) technical project which could have crashed there.

Conclusion. 'The Roswell event was a crashed non- terrestrial technology" is a reasonable working hypothesis.

A large amount of research and writing then exploded from there, as we all know. Some of the testimonies seemed to fit nicely with the hypothesis, some not. Everyone chose how and where they wanted to rationalize. But a second major debate front occurred. This was the anti-crash writers' context: How in the world could you have a real ET-Roswell, and also have the near-total silence from military, science, NASA et al, as if it never happened? The simple anti-answer: It didn't happen.

14

Who knows what went on with the 1947 UFOs, the release, Marcel, and the debris, but it must have been mainly a packet of errors of some kind. This is not an unreasonable set of concerns, and it taxes the pro-crash researcher to model what could have happened. Here is a rough characterization of the pro-crash reality model vis-a-vis what happened post-crash and "cleanup."

The pro-crash view of the importance of the military gaining possession of materials from a piece of extraterrestrial technology is that this would be seen by the Pentagon immediately to be of highest importance and needing highest secrecy. Therefore, extreme precautions would be taken and plans made to place all aspects of this under such secrecy. Other than the mess at Roswell itself, this sort of plan should have been doable, maybe easier than we know. There have been many secret projects kept very "dark," and many, apparently, with very few persons aware of what the whole picture was all about. I am reminded of the following situation from (roughly) the same era.

In 1954 Eisenhower was scared to death about the possibility of a surprise nuclear attack by the USSR. He had grave reasons for keeping his feelings and what he might do about this problem absolutely secret. Ike had an Office of Defense Management which contained a Science Committee with many of the nation's elite and war-tested scientists on board. He spoke to J. Robert Oppenheimer and the good doctor suggested this committee.

Normally Ike would have discussed such momentous matters with his National Security Council, but, in his mind, this was too big even for them. Science Committee bigwheels, James Conant of Harvard and James R. Killian of MIT, were called in. They suggested a special group of highest secrecy to make the necessary study. Its name was the Technological Capabilities Panel, and it was composed of an elite group of academics, industrialists, and the military. There were only 50 (or so) persons involved who knew what was going on, and they reported only to Ike.

The structure of the Panel was a Steering Committee with three Project Teams, plus a military advisory committee, and a "communications working group." I don't know what this latter was, but perhaps it was the "service" group which handled all the materials, documents, communiqué's, etc. for the big brains. When their study was done, Ike listened to their report without inviting his National Security Council to attend.

What the pro-Roswellians imagine is something like the model in Diagram 1: an unavoidably messy situation in the Roswell area, both physically and socially, which was "cleaned up" by whatever means available as quickly as possible. Lots of leaks and unauthorized knowledge would be part of that mess, and lots of leaks occurred as expected. Secondly, almost no one would have to be in the know at Fort Worth, and that would be easy to secure. Thirdly, almost no one (other than a few lab scientists) would have to be in the know at Wright Field (or wherever), and that would be easy to secure. The number of people in the Pentagon (and related D.C. scientists) would initially be a little messier, but the problem could be kicked far upstairs very quickly and generally organized and controlled. The vast majority of military, political, and intelligence functions would be left entirely out of this situation, as it would be imperative for them to go forward with their business as if we had nothing hot to hide. Only if anything of real technical importance ever emerged from the testing would a decision have to be made to "alter human history." That decision would not be a crude decision, but as subtle an "interference" as possible. All decisions made would be driven by security issues alone. None would be driven by "science" or desire to explore.

This sort of highest-level elite program and security is what the pro-crash people require (and feel would be reasonable) in order to deal with the post-cleanup research and information blackout on the crashed disk. They see this project as being set up in principle (i.e., minimizing the number of persons, even within the Pentagon or at the research labs, who would be exposed to the materials or information in any way which would be suggestive of their nonterrestrial provenance) immediately; and tightening the security to a narrower need-to-know group with time. This is why pro-crash researchers aren't shocked by highly placed intelligence officers (like General George , Schulgen or Colonel Howard McCoy) acting like they knew nothing about the reality of a crashed disk. People in their same positions weren't in on things like Ike's TC Panel; small elite extra-secret projects can be extremely selective, and should be. In analogy to the TCP, if there were only about 50 persons in the know totally, who would they be? There were only about a half-dozen military in Ike's group. The bulk

15

were the Conants and Killians of the country.

This scenario seems unacceptable to the anti-crash researchers. They (apparently) feel that either:

A. You couldn't form this program effectively; or

B. Leaks would occur all over the place in time; or

C. Certain persons should have been in on this no matter how elite it was and that those persons (in their opinion) didn't act as if they were in on the secret.

Well, who really is to say? Without documentation either way this falls apart into another rationalization debate. As a person who tends to defend the reasonability of the ET-hypothesis for Roswell, I will (without grave claims of certitude) offer this:

A. It seems to me that the military, CIA, et al., have formed all sorts of extremely effective secrecy programs, and had ready-made secret labs at Wright-Patterson T-3 Engineering (and elsewhere) immediately available to lock almost anything up tight.

B. Same answer as above, regarding "leaks." I would add that although no catastrophic leaks have occurred other than Major Marcel himself, a case could be made for a slow but steady number of minor leaks occurring over the whole 50-year period.

C. And as for who should or should not have been in the inner circle, that is guesswork, and I haven't heard many compelling arguments that any one person lower than someone like Vandenburg absolutely had to be part of this. To speak to the case of one of my favorite guys, Colonel Howard McCoy of Wright Patterson's T-2 intelligence division: As bright a guy as Mack was, he was the wrong guy for this task. His division was for analyzing intelligence reports, not testing metals and materials, or even biological specimens. I realize that many reasonable people will not be able to accept this sort of scenario, but we should (I believe) accept one another's viewpoint to the extent that we recognize where we're coming from, and admit that neither side knows what the upper echelons of the Pentagon would do or were capable of doing in the face of such a problem.

Schools of thought on Roswell are numerous, and every person seems to have his own unique take on it. I believe that it is informative, however, to break the schools of people who have an opinion down into four: the extra positive (X+), the positive (+), the negative (-), and the extra negative (X-) The extra positive and extra negative schools write and speak as if they have concretely made up their minds, and that there's nothing any longer to be said except monitor one another and release occasional nuclear volleys. Maybe something can come of this sort of behavior, but I doubt it. Almost by definition, concrete does not meditate, grow, and evolve. Unfortunately for most of us and the public, these nuclear volleys are all we tend to hear. They polarize the issue so strongly, and create false impressions of the unity of all elements of testimony at play, that people begin to see the case as an all-or-nothing situation (accept everything that I believe or none of it). Even worse, some people get the impression that the entirety of ufology is riding on the ease, a peculiar notion only explainable by watching too much pop media.

But more quietly, positive and negative individuals try to discuss the issues with more give and take and civility to their colleagues. We need to hear more of this sort of exchange and less from bomb-throwers.

In my observation of these debates (the saner sides of them anyway), the responsible anti-crash discussants cannot buy the level of secrecy and selectiveness of need-to-know personnel required by the pro-crash people to understand Pentagon and Project Sign behavior. They, therefore, doubt the crash evidence.

The responsible pro-crash discussants begin by being impressed with the debris-related testimonies, and therefore are led to imagine secrecy scenarios of an extreme nature. I believe that the pro-crash

16

researchers (like pro UFO researchers) tend to trust testimony, especially when it is corroborated somehow, and the anti-crash persons do not. Also, the pro-crash side tends to see the case as a large constellation of many elements, and the anti-crash side tends to isolate bits, pick away at them, and, sometimes, forget case elements which are less easy targets.

My article has had the goal of clarifying a little of the different worlds that even good UFO scholars live in when it comes to Roswell. In my opinion there has never been a good focused debate on critical aspects of this ease, nor a research resource that would make such a debate feasible. But it's something that the serious people in the field need to do if the status of the crash event is ever to be made more understandable to any of us and to the history of our field. We need a workshop of rational and respectful give-and take on this ease, and a solid research document on case elements and their sources to emerge from it. Is anyone interested? Editor's Note: Michael D. Swords is professor of natural sciences at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, and a former editor of the Journal of UFO Studies. Article from the International UFO Reporter, Fall 1997, Volume 22, Number 3

17

The Glue Explanation Just Won't Stick

by Robert A. Galganski

Why the struts found with the Roswell debris were not balsa wood.

Rectangular and I-shaped cross-section thin-strut fragments recovered from the Foster ranch debris field in early July 1947 allegedly displayed extraordinary physical properties. Persons who handled them said they were extremely lightweight, slightly flexible but unbreakable, and could not be cut or burned. Roswell skeptics dismiss these reports, attributing them to the vagaries of long-term memory and embellished accounts of similar wreckage - specifically, balsa wood sticks-from rawin radar targets comprising Project Mogul Flight 4. 

Former Mogul project engineer Charles B. Moore hinted that specially treated balsa wood used in those targets may have contributed to the wood misidentification problem. In an October 31, 1994, People magazine article titled "A SaucerScorned," he indicated that "the balsa wood was soaked in glue, like Elmer's Glue. It s a casein product [a protein derived from milk] that just won t burn at all." Moore added that the glue made the wood "a little bit stiffer and less easy todent than ordinary balsa." 

Moore also referred to altered balsa-wood characteristics in the 1995 Crystal Sky Production video, Roswell Remembered, stating that ". . . some of them [the sticks] appeared to have been stiffened by having something like Elmer's Glueon them." Curiously, he did not discuss the subject in his most recent and complete recollection of Project Mogul (Benson Saler, Charles A. Ziegler, and Charles B. Moore, UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth, Herndon, Va.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997). 

The glue-treated balsa-wood sticks were also discussed by Kent Jeffrey as part of his recent 180-degree reversal on the Roswell Incident (Kent Jeffrey, "Roswell Anatomy of a Myth," MUFON UFO Journal, June 1997, pp.3-17). He speculated that the glue "would probably have given them a different color than that of raw wood, as well as a different feel or texture probably to the degree that someone who didn't know them for what they were, might not recognize them as wood."

In summary, Moore and Jeffrey suggest that balsa wood sticks coated with an Elmer's Glue like substance were unrecognizable from and stiffer than raw balsa wood, and noncombustible. The stiffness has been cited by Roswell skeptics to explain why the thin-strut fragments found on the Foster ranch could not be broken by human hands. I conducted three series of simple experiments to test the "glue hypothesis." This article presents my findings. 

TEST SPECIMEN SELECTION

Because it s been more than 50 years since the original Project Mogul Flight 4 rawin radar targets were fabricated, my experiments utilized currently available materials. Published descriptions and additional information graciously providedby Charles Moore formed the basis for their selection. 

Balsa wood. Ordinary 5/16-inch (8 mm) square balsa-wood sticks available from any hobby shop were used. Because wood is a natural product, the physical properties of these sticks were probably similar to the original struts used in rawin target construction. The first series of experiments was conducted with unmodified (raw) balsa wood. 

Glue. Consistent with Moore's recollection, the second series of experiments utilized balsa-wood sticks coated with Elmer's Glue-All. Afterward, I learned from the manufacturer Elmer's Products Inc. (a division of Borden, Inc.) that their glue was introduced in 1947 under the brand name Coscorez. In 1951 its packaging was changed and the product was renamed for its then-new marketing symbol, Elmer the bull. The glue's current composition is virtually identical to that of

18

the original 1947 product. Upon drying, a coating of this white-colored liquid changes into a clear (transparent) film. 

But I also found out that Elmer's Glue is and always was a water-based polyvinyl-acetate-type adhesive which contains no casein. So Moore's description, strictly speaking, is contradictory. Consequently, it s not certain whether a casein or a polyvinyl-acetate glue was used with the 1947 rawin target struts. 

To account for both possibilities I ran a third series of experiments which replicated the others - this time with a casein glue made by the National Casein Company. National Casein, which has been making casein and resin products since 1919, sent me a sample of aircraft-grade 8580 Casein Glue, their best product. According to Ken Blake of the company s New Jersey branch, its strength is comparable to the highest-quality casein glue available in the mid 1940s. National Casein 8580 Glue is a water-based, ivory-colored liquid (after mixing - see next section). A surface coated with it has a translucent appearance when dry. 

Material preparation. Moore wasn't sure if the glue was merely brushed on the sticks or if they were soaked - full-strength or diluted (presumably with water)- in the glue. For the second (Elmer's Glue) test series I selected an all-glue, full-immersion pan soak in order to maximize the assumed beneficial effects of the treatment. The specimens were submerged-individually-in the glue for 20 minutes, removed, and allowed to dry. Because of some distractions during this time, some sticks stayed in the bath a few minutes longer than the others. 

During my conversation with Ken Blake I learned that a wood s strength isn't influenced very much by whether or how glue has been applied to it-a full soak or merely brushed on its surface. Both techniques provide mostly a mechanical attachment of the glue to the surface of the wood-as with paint; very little glue impregnation occurs. Without pressure treatment per se-e.g., where a material such as a preservative is literally forced into the cells of an outdoors-use-type wood-the glue penetrates only several fibers deep below the surface. (I subsequently evaluated Blake's statement by experiment. See the Beam Strength and Other Tests section below.) Since I had soaked the Elmer's Glue treated specimens, I had no choice but to prepare the casein-glue-treated sticks in the same manner. 

All of National Casein's glues come in a dry powder form and require mixing with water according to a specified procedure. These instructions were followed explicitly during glue preparation. To eliminate the above-noted soak time variability, I immersed all sticks en masse for 20 minutes in the resulting full-strength liquid product. 

After all glue-treated sticks were removed from their bath, their surfaces were brushed with additional adhesive during the initial drying stage in an attempt to give them a uniform and drip-free coating. As a result, a relatively thick film covered the wood. 

Balsa wood revisited. All raw wood test specimens and those soaked in Elmer's Glue were purchased in July 1997; they were subsequently employed in the first two series of experiments performed in early October 1997. The third and final series of tests-those using casein glue-were conducted in early December and used wood purchased a couple of weeks earlier. Given the high volume of business the hobby store does, it s possible that the latter batch of sticks came from a different shipment. Consequently, some of the wood physical properties such as bending and shear strength could have been different from those characterizing the earlier group. The extent of such possible disparities-which may have been well within the envelope of variability normally displayed by all woods-is uncertain. 

COLOR, SURFACE LUSTER, AND TEXTURE

Obviously, raw wood will look and feel different compared to wood that has a coating of dried glue on it. How much so depends on a number of factors such as the type of wood and its exposed grain pattern, type of glue used, and the number of coatings applied. When wet, both adhesive coatings obscured the balsa wood's natural tan color and grain pattern. But when

19

completely dry its distinguishing characteristics were once again visible. The Elmer's Glue-treated pieces were shinier and felt smoother than raw wood; their casein-glue-treated counterparts felt rougher and had a slightly yellow cast and "frosty" appearance. But in both cases the treated specimens still looked like wood. 

BEAM STRENGTH AND OTHER TESTS

Since wood has a cellular structure whose outer fibers can absorb liquid, some of its physical properties can undoubtedly be altered by immersing it in or coating it with glue. But could a dry, thin shell of glue significantly increase the bending and shear resistance of balsa wood-an inherently weak material-especially since, as noted earlier, most of the applied substance merely resides on the surface? The following tests were performed to provide a quantitative answer to that question. 

  

As expected, all struts broke at the fixed support. Maximum free-end beam deflection just prior to failure, measured relative to the original horizontal orientation, ranged from about two to three inches (51 to 76 mm). That's a lot of deformation in a short (10-inch) span. Of the three wood specimen conditions examined, the casein-glue-treated beams bent the most. The persons who handled the debris-field struts reported that they were only slightly flexible. 

Table 1 documents the magnitude of the force at which each strut failed. None could support more than 21.2 newtons (less than five pounds). Anybody can apply such a force with a finger. 

The data scatter present for each wood condition reflects the effects of such factors as nonhomogeneous wood composition, the probable small variation in beam cantilever length and force location relative to the fixed support, as well as slight differences in glue soak time and/or glue film thickness. 

All beams soaked in Elmer's Glue-All failed at a lower force level (average force equal to 4.3 newtons) than their untreated counterparts (7.4 newtons) a strength reduction of more than 40%. 

The beams soaked in National Casein 8580 Glue exhibited the opposite effect. Their average breaking force was 17.4 newtons, about two and one-half and four times higher than the levels reached with the raw wood and Elmer's Glue soaked wood, respectively. However, as noted earlier, they could still be easily broken by hand. 

Blake's contention that soaking or coating the wood with glue would not significantly affect its strength was evaluated during the final test series. I applied a single coat of casein glue to one strut and allowed it to dry. When loaded, it broke at 16.9 newtons, very representative of the 17.4-newton average failure force level exhibited by the five casein-glue-soaked beam samples. He was right. 

Two different beam failure modes were observed. All glue-soaked struts exhibited a classic pure-bending stress-type failure shown in Figure 2: a somewhat jagged but primarily vertical break confined to the support. The raw wood struts failed due to a combination of bending and horizontal shear stress, producing a long, diagonal break that extended away from the support along the length of the beam. The internal wood fibers projecting from the broken end surfaces of all struts were obvious; they could be seen and felt. If the struts found on the debris field were indeed made of wood, eyewitnesses should have been able to identify them as such simply by looking at them. Nobody ever mentioned seeing this definitive broken-wood signature on the debris-field strut fragments

20

Intuitively, the contention that a wimpy stick of balsa wood can be rendered unbreakable by coating it with glue is patently absurd. This gut feeling is supported by basic beam theory. It clearly indicates that a beam having the material and geometric properties of a rawin target strut will easily break under extremely low-magnitude transverse loading.

The wood s paltry bending and shear resistance can be increased somewhat by turning it into a composite beam for example, by bonding a thin layer of modern high-strength (and in this case, lightweight) material such as 7075-T6 aluminum alloy to its surfaces. A coating of glue simply won t work. And the skeptics haven't as yet,anyway claimed that the sticks were actually some U.S. top-secret, super-high-strength material laminate unistrut. 

I avoided all the nerdy engineering theory for my readers and cut directly to the chase by doing the tests described above. The results showed conclusively that the struts recovered from the debris field had to be fashioned from some extremely lightweight material substantially stronger than raw or glue-treated balsa wood. 

Skeptics might suggest that stiffness should be tested. Stiffness, defined in terms of a force per unit length or moment (a force times the perpendicular distance between its line of application and the axis of rotation) per unit rotation, typically describes a material s resistance to elastic deformation, i.e., deformation fully recoverable upon removal of the loading. It has nothing to do with its breaking or ultimate strength. 

Two other types of experiments were conducted to assess the purported enhanced burn and cut resistance of glue-treated balsa wood. Although the protocols employed were not as rigorous as those involved in the beam-response evaluations, they provided vital information needed to make at least a qualitative evaluation of those claims. 

Combustibility. The ends of all three wood specimen types were exposed to a 20-second continuous burn from a lighter flame. The significant result: Both glue-treated struts caught fire and burned not as quickly or as extensively as the raw wood (see Figure 3), but they did succumb to the flame. Since the treated specimens actually burned, the noncombustible struts found at the debris field had to be something other than balsa wood treated with a polyvinyl-acetate-type or casein-type glue. 

Cut resistance. This was the least rigorous experiment performed. I used a new knife blade each time in an attempt to remove a two-inch long, roughly triangular cross-sectioned piece from the edge of all three specimen types (see Figure 4). As best as I could determine (feel), the raw wood provided just as much resistance very little to the blade as did the Elmer's Glue treated wood. The specimen treated with the casein product was a bit more difficult to slice, as evidenced by the smaller piece displayed in Figure 4. But I was still able to whittle it. Because they couldn't be cut (period), the thin-strut fragments found on the debris field were not made from balsa wood. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Roswell skeptics suggest that the unusual thin-strut fragments found on the Foster ranch debris field were merely casein-glue-treated balsa-wood wreckage from Project Mogul Flight 4. This claim typical of the broad and often vague pontification that pervades ufology is unsupported by any substantive evidence. In this case, skeptics could have easily tested the "glue hypothesis" as I call it but didn't. Perhaps their usual knee-jerk response denial to a potentially unsettling alternate explanation prevented them from even considering a scientific approach. I did. 

I performed a series of straightforward and simple tests that provided unambiguous empirical data. The results led to an inescapable conclusion: The struts, which reportedly exhibited extraordinary physical properties atypical of late 1940s technology, could not have been made from balsa wood. This means that they could not have been components from a Mogul balloon train, which leaves no other conventional explanations that have not already been eliminated. As such, an extraterrestrial origin for the struts and other debris-field material must still be considered a viable possibility.

21

 Editor's Note: Robert A. Galganski has a master's degree in civil engineering and is employed as a ground vehicle crash safety systems research and development specialist. He recently received the Ufologist of the Year award at the 1997 National UFO Conference in Springfield, Ohio, for his contributions to Roswell Incident research.

* Only two of the seven photos in this article are reproduced. See the International UFO Reporter, Winter 1997-98, Volume 22, Number 4 for the remaining photos.

An Engineer Looks at theProject Mogul Hypothesis

by Robert A. GalganskiIn early July 1947, Mac Brazel, foreman of the Foster sheep ranch northwest of Roswell, New Mexico, discovered a large quantity of extremely unusual, widely scattered, and highly fragmented lightweight debris on a pasture. The Army initially attributed it to the misidentified remnants of a downed weather balloon and an attached radar target. Forty-seven years later, the Air Force explained the debris as similar wreckage from a top-secret Project Mogul balloon train.  

More than three years have passed since I first examined the debris-field issue quantitatively in "The Roswell Debris: A Quantitative Evaluation of the Project Mogul Hypothesis," IUR, March/April 1995. This article updates my initial research.

The debris field

Most of the debris consisted of lightweight, thin-gage, flat or slightly curved, sheetlike fragments exhibiting physical properties atypical of late-1940s technology. There appears to have been two distinct types at the site: (1) foil-like pieces easily crumpled by hand which completely recovered their original shape and showed no signs of wrinkling when released; and (2) pieces which could not be deformed or damaged by any means, even when whacked with a 16-pound sledgehammer. I refer to both kinds of debris, which would not burn, as thin-shell material. (Common thin-shell products—which do not possess such extraordinary deformation characteristics—include Saran wrap, balloon film, aluminum foil, and motor-vehicle and aircraft body panels.)

Major Jesse Marcel, intelligence officer of the 509th Bomb Group based at Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF), inspected the site shortly after Brazel reported the debris to the Chaves County sheriff in Roswell. Marcel described a big field: debris ". . . about as far as you could see—three quarters [of a] mile long and two hundred to three hundred feet wide." It was "scattered all over—just like you’d explode something above the ground and [it would] just fall to the ground." The shortest pieces were "four or five inches. It was [as if it were from] something of some greater area that had been together."

A rectangular field shape is implicit—but by no means certain—in Marcel’s description. For that configuration, the debris would have littered an area equal to 250 ft (average width) x 4,000 ft (about ¾ of a mile) long = 1,000,000 ft2 (nearly 23 acres).

Methodology for quantitatively evaluating the Mogul hypothesis

Evaluating the Mogul hypothesis quantitatively constitutes a three-step process.

1. Estimate the quantity of unusual thin-shell material on the field. 2. Determine the quantity of material(s) contained in a Mogul balloon train that could have been

the source of the extraordinary debris. 3. Compare the two numbers. The comparison provides a numerical indication of how good—or

how bad— the Mogul explanation is.

To carry out the first step in the evaluation process, I had to formulate a mathematical model of the

22

debris field. Its development is detailed in my 1995 IUR article, but a brief description is provided below.

Debris-field model

The debris-field model uses surface area to estimate the quantity of unconventional thin-shell material on the Foster ranch. Surface areas of other debris forms that covered significantly less of the field are neglected.

To simplify the analysis, the field is represented mathematically as a flat plain with flat shell fragments distributed over it in a variable, two-dimensional pattern. One very small region near one (the presumed front) edge of the field is assumed to have a moderately dense debris concentration—20% ground coverage. (The actual site must have featured at least one, fairly large region of closely packed debris because the sheep refused to cross it; they had to be driven around it.) The density drops off rapidly away from this location, exhibiting an extremely spotty coverage over the rest of the simulated pasture.

The unknown debris distribution is approximated by equations which attempt to simulate the major elements contained in the most reliable first-statement, firsthand, and secondhand witness testimony. My objective was to generate a conservative approximation of that pattern—one that would estimate the smallest possible amount of on-ground thin-shell material—to minimize the risk of unfairly biasing the evaluation outcome against the Mogul hypothesis.

Consistent with that approach and for additional reasons discussed in the 1995 article, I selected a parabola instead of a rectangle as the most plausible debris-field shape. The model’s parabolic field has the same overall dimensions described by Major Marcel: 250 feet wide (at its far end) by 4,000 feet long. But it encompasses only 667,000 ft2 (about 15 acres) of pasture, 33% less ground area than that contained in the rectangular configuration.

Initial evaluation: Mogul Flight 9

In the fall of 1994 the Air Force posited that Mogul Flight 4 was the source of the debris on the Foster ranch. That explanation seemed so improbable I applied my newly developed model to a different balloon train, Flight 9. Researcher Karl Pflock, in his 1994 monograph, Roswell in Perspective, speculated that the debris was merely polyethylene (plastic) balloon fragments from downed balloons comprising that aborted experiment. My analysis showed that if all the balloons in Flight 9 had landed and shredded at the site, nearly four such trains would be needed to generate enough debris to litter 15 acres of ranch land.

Then, in his 1997 book UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth, coauthor and former Mogul project engineer Charles B. Moore revealed that Flight 9 actually used neoprene (synthetic rubber) balloons. Since Flight 9 was thus eliminated as a candidate debris-field causative agent, I took another look at the Flight 4 hypothesis.

Updated evaluation: Mogul Flight 4

According to Charles Moore, Flight 4 consisted of 28 neoprene, meteorological-sounding (i.e., weather) balloons attached to a 600-foot-long master line of braided nylon cord, three ML-307B rawin radar targets, possibly one or more silk-canopy parachutes, and a variety of test equipment such as a sonobuoy microphone, radio transmitter, dry cells, and plastic containers holding solid and liquid ballast. All components and systems were ordinary off-the-shelf items; only the Mogul program objective was classified.

23

A possible debris deposition scenario. It’s absolutely inconceivable—to me and many other Roswell researchers, anyway—that anybody could have mistaken pieces of neoprene balloon film (either in its brand-new flexible and tan-colored condition or its brittle, dark-colored, and sun-deteriorated state) and silk fabric for either one of the two highly unconventional shell-like materials described earlier. By the process of elimination, that leaves the radar targets as the only possible Flight 4 source for the thinshell fragments found at the site.

|Fig. 1. Drawing of a rawin radar target used in some |Project Mogul balloon train launches, including|Flight4.   __________________________________

The rawin targets. Figure 1 presents a drawing of a rawin radar target. According to Moore

(personal correspondence dated March 31, 1995), "These targets consisted of nine right-triangular segments with 24-inch-long bases and heights. Each segment consisted of a panel of aluminum foil laminated to some fairly tough, heavy-duty paper and deployed on balsa wood struts." (Moore is also on record saying that the struts were coated with glue to stiffen and render them noncombustible.)

Moore recently told Roswell researcher Robert J. Durant that each target was constructed of only seven triangular segments having the same dimensions given above. I elected to use nine triangles—yielding a single-target surface area of 18 ft2—in order to maximize the total amount of Mogul-supplied thin-shell material. This gives the benefit of the doubt to—and helps—the Mogul hypothesis.

24

Gut feeling. The reported amount and physical characteristics of the highly fragmented debris, along with its widespread distribution at the ranch site, is inconsistent with wreckage that could have come from a Mogul balloon train.

Figure 2 presents an official July 8, 1947, Army photo of (primarily) rawin radar target wreckage. How anybody could have mistaken the badly wrinkled and torn aluminum foil/paper laminate—white paper can be seen peeling away from the foil!—and broken balsa-wood sticks for the allegedly extraordinary debris is beyond comprehension.

A recent series of experiments proved that the thin-strut fragments found at the site were not glue-coated balsa-wood sticks from radar targets (see "The Glue Explanation Just Won’t Stick," IUR, Winter 1997–98). It follows that the unusual thin-shell material also found there was something other than the metalized paper used in target construction.

Common sense, logic, a massive body of corroborative anecdotal evidence, and limited but fundamentally sound and persuasive empirical data and observations lead to an inescapable conclusion: Mogul Flight 4 was not responsible for the debris field.___________________________________Fig. 1. Drawing of a rawin radar target used in some Project Mogul balloon train launches, including Flight 4. 

A quantitative assessment. The quantitative evaluation methodology outlined earlier will now be applied to Mogul Flight 4. The objective: Ascertain if there was enough thin-shell material in that balloon train to account for the reportedly unusual shell-like stuff on the Foster ranch site. As noted previously, the radar-target laminate—aluminum foil bonded to paper—was the only possible source for that type of material.

Let Area 1 denote the model-estimated surface area of on-ground, thin-shell debris. This parameter, calculated in my initial study (and still applicable), is equal to 6,880 ft2.

To give the Mogul hypothesis a fighting chance, assume that all three targets landed on the pasture and were broken apart and shredded into pieces of varying size. The total laminate surface area (Area 2) is equal to 3 targets ´ 18 ft2 / target = 54 ft2.

Compare the two surface areas by dividing Area 1 by Area 2. We obtain 6,880 ft2 ¸ 54 ft2 = 127.4. This number tells us that it would take more than 127 Flight 4 balloon trains — more than 381 radar targets — to litter the field! Mercy.

Model accuracy. Obviously we can’t validate the accuracy of the above finding. But a crude, indirect measure of the model’s simulation capability can be defined: C—the overall debris coverage ratio. This parameter is equal to the total model-generated surface area of on-ground, thin-shell material

25

fragments divided by the total field ground area. A reasonably accurate model will have a C value roughly similar to that which could (theoretically) be computed for the actual site.

We can safely assume that the Foster ranch debris field consisted of mostly open range, with individual pieces or clusters of debris scattered over it. Since there had to be sufficient thin-shell material available to create at east one densely packed region as well as to define the perimeter of the vast area described by Marcel, a value of C between  0.01 and 0.10—i.e., between one to ten percent coverage—appears reasonable.

The model’s debris coverage density is 6,880 ft2 ¸ 667,000 ft2 = 0.0103 (1.03% overall coverage)—at the lower end of the arbitrary acceptable range. Nearly 99% of the simulated field is debris-free or uncovered, confirming the desired conservative nature of the model.

Summing up. My mathematical analysis indicated better than a two order-of-magnitude disparity between the amount of thin-shell material on the ground (by all accounts—a lot) and what Mogul Flight 4 could have supplied (very little). This enormous difference provides a comfortable margin for error. For example, even if the model’s surface-area estimate is off (too high) by a factor of 10, it would still require nearly 13 balloon trains (via 688 ft2 ¸ 54 ft2) or 39 targets to generate the shredded shell fragments found at the site.

Still think that a single balloon train caused the Roswell debris?

Gigo?

Roswell detractors might say that my analysis is flawed because decades-old eyewitness testimony is factored into the debris-field model. Because Major Marcel’s large field-size estimate constitutes a vital input to the model, it is a likely target for critics. They might claim that he grossly overestimated the field size, resulting in a classic case of GIGO—garbage input (a grievously poor field-area estimate) generating garbage output (the 127-plus-balloon train result). The merits of this charge can be checked out by doing a simple what-if analysis.

Table 1. What-if Analysis for the Only Possible (and Highly Suspect) Mogul Flight 4 Debris-deposition Scenario  L,Parabola-shapedField Length (ft)

Debris-field AreaA= 2/3(250L)

M,Model-predicted, On-ground, Thin-shell Material Surface Area (ft2)

N P(%)

  (ft2) (acres)      

4,0002,0001,000250

667,000333,000167,00041,700

15.37.63.81.0

6,8803,5001,810540

127.464.833.510.0

0.81.53.010.0

Notes: (1) N is the number of Flight 4 balloon trains needed to litter the field with radar target laminate. N = M/R, where R = 54 ft 2 is the total laminate surface area comprising three rawin radar targets. (2) P = ( R/M )100% is the percentage of on-ground, thin-shell debris that a single Flight 4 (three radar targets) can account for.

What-if analysis for the Mogul Flight 4 hypothesis

Assume that Major Marcel overestimated the length of the debris field. The effects of such an error on the model’s output and associated hypothesis evaluation outcome are examined by varying the length of its parabola-shaped field.

26

Calculations and commentary. Table 1 presents the results of the analysis for several field lengths ranging from Marcel’s 4,000-foot estimate to 250 feet. The width of the field is held constant (at 250 feet) for the sake of simplicity.

Figure 3 illustrates the relative sizes of the four field lengths considered.

Table 1 lists the field ground area A and the amount of thin-shell material M on it (columns two and three, respectively) for each field length L considered (column 1). The fourth column shows the number of Mogul Flight 4 balloon trains N needed to supply the thin-shell material for each parabola consistent with the model-predicted surface area (see note 1 beneath the table). Finally, the last column lists values of P (the inverse of N); it tells us what percentage of the model-estimated surface area one balloon train could have supplied (see note 2).

If the field was only half as long as Marcel thought it was, N decreases from more than 127 to about 65 while P increases from 0.8 to 1.5. If he erred by a factor of four (i.e., L = 1,000 feet)—a seemingly high but possible error—N decreases to more than 33 while P rises to only 3.0%. These results indicate that a significantlyerror doesn’t help the Mogul hypothesis very much. smaller field within the range of possible human

Figure 3. Relative sizes of the parabolic debris fields examined in the what-if analysis. Each parabola is 250 feet wide at its far end.

The smallest length listed in Table 1—250 feet —assumes that Marcel completely butchered his estimate, imagining the debris to be scattered over an area 16 times longer than it actually was. Even for this mind-numbing scenario—a pasture with less area than a football field—it would still take 10 Mogul Flight 4 launches to supply the thin-shell material found on the ground. Alternatively, one Mogul train would account for only 10% of the debris.

One final note. The Air Force claimed in its 1994 report that the debris was strewn over a circular area 200 yards (600 feet) in diameter. (A July 9, 1947, story in the Roswell Daily Record, attributed to an interview with Mac Brazel in the newspaper’s office, is the basis for that contention.) My model cannot simulate a circular debris field, so we can’t evaluate the Mogul hypothesis for this pattern using a model-generated M value in the methodology employed above. However, we can make a ballpark-type estimate using information provided in Table 1.

The table shows that a 2,000-foot-long parabola has an area of 333,000 ft2—just 18% more than the 283,000 ft2 in a 200-yard-diameter circle—and that it would take nearly 65 Flight 4 balloon trains to deposit debris over that narrow strip of land. The number of Mogul balloon trains required to deposit enough thin-shell material to outline the perimeter of a 200-yard-diameter area can be crudely approximated by scaling that number using the ground area ratio of the two field shapes. We get (283,000 ft2 / 333,000 ft2) ´ 65 = 55 balloon trains—admittedly a very rough estimate. However, its double-digit magnitude—and attendant large allowable margin for error—indicates that even the Air Force’s own explanation doesn’t fit the Mogul hypothesis.

Reduced-size field coverage ratios. Using the terms defined in Table 1, the previously discussed

27

field coverage ratio can be expressed as C = M / A. C corresponding to field lengths L = 2,000, 1,000, and 250 feet is equal to 0.0105, 0.0108, and 0.0129, respectively, indicating that the smaller fields are also about 99% debris free. The values of N and P listed in Table 1 are thus—at the very least—reasonable first-approximation type estimates.

Summary and conclusion

A mathematical model idealized the debris field as a variable-length, parabola-shaped region sparsely covered with fragments of an extraordinary thin-shell material.

It was assumed that Mogul Flight 4 created the debris field, leaving behind metalized-paper, rawin-radar-target remnants having a known total surface area.

Model-predicted and Mogul Flight 4-supplied thin-shell material surface areas were compared. One Mogul balloon train could account for only an extremely small fraction of the reported debris, even if Major Jesse Marcel had badly overestimated the field size.

Clearly, Project Mogul Flight 4 could not have been responsible for the debris found on the Foster ranch. Indeed, the analysis illustrates in a most compelling fashion just how absurd the Air Force’s Mogul hypothesis really is.

 

Editor's Note: Robert A. Galganski has a master’s degree in civil engineering and is employed as a ground vehicle crash safety systems research and development specialist. He received the Ufologist of the Year award at the 1997 National UFO Conference in Springfield, Ohio, for his contributions to Roswell Incident research. Article from the International UFO Reporter, Summer 1998, Volume 23, Number 2.

ROSWELL: 52 YEARS OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 

By Donald R. Schmitt & Thomas J. Carey

How could such a monumental event as a UFO crash in 1947 be kept a secret so long? Surely the real story would have leaked before now, as has seemingly happened to every government secret in the past 25 years. President Nixon himself,

28

with all his powers and resources, wasn’t able to prevent reporters Woodward and Bernstein from uncovering the Watergate conspiracy.

Secrets surely do leak, but some secrets don’t for long periods of time. Consider these instances:

1. The F-117 Stealth fighter was developed in secret and was flying for almost a decade while the public was told the aircraft was still on the drawing board.

2. Project Ultra, the Allied World War II project that allowed us to break the codes of the Germans and thereby hasten their defeat, was a secret for 30 years until revealed in the 1970s.

3. Radiation experiments by the U.S. government on their own personnel during and after WWII were kept secret until the last five years.

4. Only recently have the numerous military accidental deaths from nuclear devices been disclosed, not because of a desire by the government to admit the truth, but because of the dedicated probing of civilian organizations.

5. Mind-control experiments by the CIA on unsuspecting citizens 30 years ago were kept secret until the past few years.

6. Charles B. Moore of Project Mogul fame never knew the name of the secret project he was working on until 1992!

So it is certainly true that the government can keep secrets; but to what lengths are public officials prepared to go to enact a cover-up? Consider this one instance from an event that occurred during World War II. The Boeing Airplane Company was secretly developing the B-29 bomber for the Army Air Force at its main plant near Seattle. On February 18, 1943, a prototype B-29 caught on fire during a test flight and crashed in Seattle onto a meat packing plant. The plane actually passed over downtown Seattle during its rapid descent. All members of the crew died, along with several employees of the plant and some of the firemen who fought the blaze that engulfed the plane and plant.

Thousands of people saw the plane coming down and the subsequent fire and rescue efforts. Did the story of the crash of a secret aircraft go out over the wires that same day, with accounts from these many witnesses? Although it seems unlikely, the FBI succeeded in preventing any but the most garbled information from leaking out. FBI agents went so far as to intercept all copies of City Transit Weekly, an employee newsletter that carried photos of the plane taken by a Seattle city bus driver.

So the government does keep secrets, and it will take extreme measures to protect those secrets in matters of national security. Could the Roswell event have been sufficiently important to warrant such treatment? We think so, and so must have two men, both now deceased, whom we have interviewed.

The Provost Marshal at the Roswell base, the equivalent of the chief of police, was in charge of all security at the crash site in 1947. When we located and then contacted Col. Edwin Easley in late 1989, it was the first time anyone had extensively questioned him about what had occurred. The Provost Marshal did not tell us the weather balloon cover story, nor did he give us a true account of the Roswell recovery. Instead, he told us that he considered himself still sworn to secrecy about the event—after 43 years! “I can’t talk about it,” was all that Easley kept repeating.

The second officer we interviewed was an agent in the Counter-Intelligence Corps, Lt. Colonel Sheridan Cavitt. He accompanied another intelligence officer, Major Jesse Marcel, on the initial trip to the debris site and, we believe, wrote a report on the incident for his superiors in Washington. At first, this intelligence agent refused to admit that he was stationed at Roswell in early July 1947 or that the event had occurred at all. There had been no newspaper story, no fuss, not even the recovery of a weather balloon. After much prodding, he was willing to admit to the U.S. Air Force only that a weather balloon came down and was recovered, but that was as far as he would go. He admits no other personal involvement, even though other reliable sources give him a central role. Now he is considered the number one participant/witness for the Air Force, endorsing their Mogul balloon theory.

We admire how seriously these gentlemen took their oaths of secrecy for almost 50 years, but we must raise this question: Why the need to conceal the recovery of a Mogul weather balloon after more then 50 years?

The government cover-up extends to the public records of the Air Force UFO investigation as well. Those records were released in 1976, and the file on Roswell contains but a single press clipping. No letters, no notes, no investigative forms, no official weather balloon explanation, nothing but that lone clipping. The file for the recovery of an identical weather balloon in Circleville, Ohio, at the same time as the Roswell event, contains far more documentation on its particulars. Where is the documentation that should be in the Roswell file? Historical Roswell AFB records have also disappeared without a trace according to the GAO investigation.

29

The evidence presented here establishes that the Roswell crash was one of those events that had to be kept secret by whatever means were necessary. Files and notes were confiscated from reporters, radio stations were warned not to air stories, a phony story was concocted, and men were sworn to secrecy. Many of these tactics today would be termed civil rights violations.

As you can well imagine, it has not been an easy task to reconstruct what actually occurred in July of 1947. Many of the men (and the few women) involved are now dead, and those living are quite elderly. Human memory does not record events with complete accuracy, especially after years have elapsed. As Kevin Tierney has explained in his book How to Be A Witness, when someone has been asked to recount his memory of an event several times, “For the most part what he says will be the same, but there will generally be minor discrepancies between his recollection on one occasion and the next.” This is certainly true for the accounts we have gathered concerning Roswell, and the natural errors that creep into an individual’s memory mean that some inconsistencies exist in the testimony you will read. Nevertheless, the general pattern of events we have recorded from essentially all the witnesses does fit one consistent picture.

As those above the age of five at the time of President Kennedy’s assassination can relate, the moment when they first learned of that gruesome event is permanently etched in their minds—a snapshot memory. Several of the Roswell witnesses have compared their memories of the 1947 event to that of the assassination: The Roswell memories are vivid and detailed, despite the passage of 50 years.

Government secrecy is not always something evil and unjustified. We understand and support the practice of secrecy as it applies to certain types of information. Some information should remain hidden, such as nuclear firing codes, covert military activity, undercover police investigations, and information regarding intelligence work. But records documenting the recovery of a Mogul balloon hardly merit such treatment. And Project Mogul was a failed experiment.

What could have happened so long ago at Roswell to cause former intelligence officers to abide by their oaths of secrecy today, even though previous accounts of the recovery have been published and broadcast? What kind of event required such high levels of security that the intelligence officer who participated in the initial recovery of the debris, and who was entrusted with the task of taking some of the debris to higher levels of command, was not allowed to read the written report upon his return? What caused the military to place the ranch manager who reported finding the debris under house arrest? Why have the military records of men involved with the debris disappeared?

Unfortunately, we face the same problem that other researchers face—lack of physical evidence. While it is generally accepted that all efforts by civilian researchers have yielded no tangible evidence, it is also true that Roswell may have indeed established that “nuts and bolts” evidence. But still the question remains, who is telling the truth—the officials who deny that physical proof, or the hundreds of witnesses who stand in total opposition to that position?

And if the Roswell incident is indeed what hundreds of credible witnesses swear it was, the enigma of UFOs is no longer spurious or abstruse. Answers, though known only by a select few, are still being withheld. However, we can now, in total confidence and conviction, direct the public to the undeniable source of the proof. Proof that would enable us to finally lift the veil of secrecy that surrounds Roswell. With all of that as a precursor, put aside all political agenda, all preconceived opinions, all bias, and consider the following:

If the debris originated from a top-secret test, why was there no recovery or search operation underway until rancher Mac Brazel reported the debris to Sheriff George Wilcox one day after the find on Sunday, July 6? An aerial search over open range and high desert would have taken but a few hours to locate any downed object. This has been confirmed by retired military officers, who were involved in actual search-and-rescue missions in New Mexico. We, too, have flown private planes over the Brazel site demonstrating the panoramic field of vision. Given that the debris field was three-quarters of a mile long, a search and recovery team could have located it long before Brazel did.

Weather balloons had fallen onto Brazel’s ranch on a number of occasions, and he turned them in for the rewards offered. Such devices always carried instructions and return policies which usually included the name of the manufacturer and location of the launch site. In 1945, he reported finding the remains of a Japanese balloon bomb. This time, however, he reportedly was angry because of the large amount of debris. His frightened sheep would not cross the pasture due to the vast coverage of the material. It is interesting to note that weather balloons are still dropping on the ranch. The current owners store them in an old feed storage silo. One particularly large balloon, about 20 feet in diameter, took one man approximately two minutes to retrieve. He had no trouble identifying it.

30

After personally examining samples of the material, why did Brazel’s neighbors encourage him to report the crash for the $3,000 reward reported by the press for physical evidence of a flying disc and not for the standard $5 balloon reward?

How did the highly trained and experienced military officers of the famous 509th atomic bomb wing, the first and only nuclear strike force in the world at that time, mistake a conventional weather instrument for an object they all, without exception, concluded to be an actual “flying saucer?” Skeptics who believe that it was a special radar-reflecting balloon from Project Mogul have said that the civilians, the base commander, Col. William Blanchard, the head of intelligence, Marcel, and all the other officers at Roswell were unfamiliar with such specialized equipment. Marcel, however, had a radar interpretation officer assigned to his office. He would have been able to recognize the balloon, even if the others were fooled. Even considering Mogul, balloon materials consisting of Neoprene rubber, reflective foil, wooden sticks, masking tape, and balling twine still comprised such a device—materials easily identifiable by even a child.

What type of balloon and instrument package could scatter debris over an area three-quarters of a mile long and create a 500-foot long/10-foot wide gouge in the tough high desert country of New Mexico which consists of little topsoil and mostly shale and slate stone?

What type of balloon would fill Marcel’s 1942 Buick convertible, and Cavitt’s jeep carryall truck and still require 50 to 60 troops with wheelbarrows and trucks two days to complete the cleanup?

Why did the military check the site for possible radiation if the downed object was nothing more than a common weather/Mogul balloon? After he was found at the home of Walt Whitmore Sr., majority owner of radio station KGFL in Roswell, on the morning of Tuesday, July 8, why was Brazel held in detention at the base for another seven days? According to Brazel, he was not allowed to place any outside calls, not even to his wife. He was also forced to undergo a physical examination. His family and neighbors remember how he later complained how he had been asked the same questions “over and over again,” and that he described the experience by saying he “was in jail.”

Why did the Secretary of the Federal Communications Commission, a Mr. Slowie in Washington, D.C., personally call Whitmore at KGFL and threaten removal of his broadcasting license if the station continued airing reports of the incident? Why would the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico, also call Whitmore and persuade him to comply with the FCC order? *

Why the need for extreme security measures at the crash site of a downed meteorological instrument? Measures such as: armed guards surrounding the inner gouge area, another cordon around the perimeter, riflemen posted on the surrounding hills, and MPs stationed on the outlying roads from Saturday, July 5, through at least Thursday, the 10th.

Why was Bud Payne, a hired hand on one of the neighboring ranches, physically removed from the Brazel ranch during the military occupation of the site? As Payne was attempting to round up a stray cow, a military jeep roared up to him and MPs physically forced him off the ranch.

Why were there seven confirmed (possibly eight) flights to transport the remains of a balloon? Most of the wreckage was flown out under high security July 5–10 . . . rather extreme treatment even within the confines of the top security base in the world at that time.

If the object was nothing more than a weather balloon, or even a Project Mogul device, why would Colonel Blanchard set up operations at the recovery site? As the commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group, Blanchard would have had more important duties.

Why was farmer Sherman Campbell and the local sheriff in Circleville, Ohio, able to immediately identify the Rawin (Mogul) target device that crashed there on July 5, while no one in Roswell could? In fact, the Campbell family was even permitted to keep the balloon the Air Force currently claims was so secret.

Why was the debris of a weather balloon, as identified by Warrant Officer Irving Newton, displayed in Brigadier General Roger Ramey’s office different from that of a Mogul balloon device? The new Air Force theory describes painted floral symbols on masking tape used to reinforce the radar kite in an effort to explain hieroglyphic-like characters on I-beam structures as portrayed by witnesses. Even under high magnification none are evident in the photographs taken in Ramey’s office at Fort Worth (Carswell) Army Air Field in Texas.

Why did Ramey’s Chief of Staff Colonel Thomas J. DuBose (who is pictured with Ramey in two of the weather balloon photos) sign a sworn affidavit in 1990 attesting to switching the balloon wreckage for the genuine material? “It was a cover story . . . to get the press off of Ramey’s back.”

Contrary to Ramey announcing to reporters the weather balloon explanation along with his cancellation of debris being flown to Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio, why did the FBI refute the General’s claims in a telex which was sent at 6:17 p.m. CST the same day of the press conference on July 8? “...But that telephonic conversation between their office and [Wright Field] had not borne out this belief. Disc and balloon being transported to Wright Field by special plane for examination.”

Why did a special photo team from Washington, D.C., under the command of Col. Anton Hansen, arrive at Roswell to photograph the recovery and record the subsequent events? Against standard operating procedure, the 3rd Photo Lab at the Roswell base was never called in to photograph the crash site or the material.

31

Why were two Secret Service agents by the names McCann and Devinnes dispatched from Washington to represent the president in Roswell during the incident?

Why were there unknown doctors and nurses observed at the Roswell base hospital at the time of the incident as noted by nurse Rosemary McMannis?

If the recovery was of nothing more unusual that a Mogul balloon, photographed in Ramey’s office by the news media on July 8, why did the military, on July 9, tour the various news media in Roswell retrieving copies of Walter Haut’s press release? If there was nothing to the story, why did the military search radio station KGFL, taking everything that related to the crash, including the documents that newsman Frank Joyce tried to hide?

Why did the U.S. military, like a scene from a 1950’s sci-fi movie, surround the Roswell Sheriff s Office just to retrieve a small box of debris that Brazel had left there days earlier?

Why did the Pentagon contact Muroc (Edwards) Army Air Field in California inquiring as to any missing Northrop flying wings within days of the crash north of Roswell? Muroc responded “negative.” Due to jet engine conversion, none were operational in 1947. Eyewitnesses reported the recovered craft at Roswell was wing-shaped, not saucer.

There was reportedly talk at the base during the recovery concerning “bodies” involved in the crash. Rumors circulated through the town of Roswell about one of the crew still alive. One day after the first press release, the Army and Navy, as reported by the Associated Press, moved to “Shut down the rumors.” The Air Force now maintains that no such “talk” concerning bodies took place. Why?

Secrecy oaths would not have been required for the recovery of a weather balloon, or any other conventional device, unless it was a highly classified subject. Why were the men involved taken into a conference room in groups of 10–12 and verbally sworn to protect the truth concerning what actually happened? Others at Roswell and Fort Worth were ordered not to discuss it, or ever bring it up again.

Ed Reese, in charge of the now declassified Project Blue Book files at the National Archives, told us that he too was surprised that Roswell is not included in the Blue Book system with all other explained reports. Why is the most highly publicized UFO case of all time strangely absent?

Neighbors of Mac Brazel, including Loretta Proctor and her son Norris, reported that Brazel returned from his detention driving a new pick-up truck. According to Norris Proctor, Brazel, who had been “dirt poor,” suddenly had money to buy a new house in Tularosa, a meat locker in Las Cruces, and property in Colorado. Robert Wolf, also a good friend of Brazel, recounted how he observed him with a new truck at the Mitchell Feed and Granary in Roswell within months of the incident. Was Brazel paid the reward for the physical evidence of a flying saucer?

The daughter of Melvin Brown reported that her father, who had seen the bodies the day they were recovered, along with the MPs at the crash site, were paid off. She said that a special trust account was established in Roswell for the guards. Why would there be payoffs to maintain secrecy of a weather balloon? A handwritten note with the account number was supplied by Brown just days before he died. Attempts to locate such a fund have been unsuccessful.

There are two, possibly three sites involved with the crash at Roswell. First is the debris field. Thirty miles to the southeast where the remains of the craft and crew were located is the second. A few miles to the northwest of the debris site was apparently a touchdown point of baked soil and fused sand which was first seen by Chaves County deputies and then by Lewis R. Rickett and Dr. Lincoln LaPaz. How is it possible that a balloon and array train could be responsible for sites such as these?

Pieces of small wreckage Brazel’s son Bill Jr. had managed to collect were confiscated by the military in 1949. Why was the military still monitoring the situation two years later? This was almost two years after Mogul had been declassified. Why were search teams still dispatched from the base at Roswell through the end of 1947, through 1948, and into 1949 to recover remaining debris at the sites specifically after heavy rainfalls as described by Major Charles McGee?

If the Roswell device was nothing more than a weather balloon, why bring in LaPaz, a noted expert in the discovery and recovery of meteorites? LaPaz had worked on dozens of classified government projects, including the ultra-classified Manhattan Project. If it was nothing more unusual than a balloon, why would the Pentagon assign him to determine the speed and trajectory of the downed device two months after the crash?

In 1952, Major Ellis Boldra, an engineer stationed at Roswell, discovered a one-foot-square section of debris locked in a safe in the engineering office. It displayed the same extraordinary characteristics described by 1947 witnesses including the memory capabilities. Why did Washington D.C. dispatch a special courier to retrieve the material immediately after news leaked out about its discovery in Roswell?

At our request, retired Navy Seal officer Charles Mascovich submitted the names and documented series numbers of over two dozen military personnel stationed at Roswell in July 1947 to both the Defense Department and the Veteran’s Administration for further confirmation of military service. The list included Charles E. Hanshaw, James W. Hundley, William J. Cardell, Lee J. Mulliner, Melvin E. Brown, Ernest O. Powell, Clyde M. Robertson, Cecil T. Yoakum, Harold T. Hastings, Edward M. Sager, and Donald E. Carroll. Why does neither the Defense Department nor the Veteran’s Administration have records of any of these men when we can document that each served at the Roswell Army Air Field?

32

If there was nothing to the Roswell case other than a misidentification of a weather balloon, why have witnesses, on their deathbeds, denied that? Melvin E. Brown spent the last four days of his life telling his family that it wasn’t a weather balloon. Why was the dying archaeologist/geologist at St. Petersburg Hospital in Florida telling the nurses she had seen the bodies and then warning them about government reprisal? Roswell base Provost Marshal Edwin Easley, base Adjutant Patrick Saunders, and 393 Squadron pilot O.W. “Pappy” Henderson also gave deathbed testimony confirming the “flying saucer” crash and the recovery of bodies. And there are others more recent.

The unusual qualities of the material described to date by two dozen known eyewitnesses are consistent in every detail. In appearance, tensile strength, apparent weightlessness, memory characteristics, uninterpretable symbology, fiber-optic and plastic-like, metallic composition, its physical make-up would be difficult to duplicate even by today’s standards. Why do none of the first-hand witnesses describe common materials from a weather balloon? And more importantly, why were none of these individuals interviewed by the Air Force for their 1994 Roswell Report?

In an unprecedented reaction by then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, why did he refuse to respond to three separate letters of request for the release of the Roswell files from Congressman Steve Shiff of New Mexico in 1993? Why did Congressman Shiff also receive denials from the Air Force, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council for similar requests?

And if Mogul was as highly classified as the Air Force maintains, which evidently led to the misidentification in Roswell, how is it that they invited the press to photograph this missing, top-secret balloon in Ramey’s office and promote the publication of seven different pictures in practically every major newspaper throughout the country? And why would they blow the entire project (with pictures) in the Alamogordo News of July 10, 1947?

Concerning the 1997 Air Force book titled Roswell Report—Case Closed that proposed the “crash dummy” explanation, given that the very earliest such tests took place six years after the 1947 incident, why didn’t the Air Force consider that none of the first-hand witnesses to the bodies remained in the service or were still in New Mexico at the time of such crash-dummy tests?

Each description of the bodies by the witnesses from Roswell is consistent. Interestingly, they do not resemble what have been commonly described by witnesses in reported UFO occupant cases as well as the alleged abduction accounts. This would tend to rule out contamination from such sources. And why were none of these witnesses ever interviewed by the Air Force for any of their recent reports?

Why would the United States military resort to gross civil-rights violations, i.e., physical intimidation and death threats to such civilians asFrankie Rowe, Tommy Thomson, Frank Joyce, Judd Roberts, Walt Whitmore Sr., Pete and Ruben Anaya, John McBoyle, and George Wilcox? And why were their threats extended to even the witness’s children to insure their silence about the recovery of simply a weather balloon? Project Mogul was declassified within two days of the reported balloon explanation on July 10, 1947; still the threats continued for years after the incident.

And finally, why do retired members of the military today in 1999, years after the Air Force Project Mogul and Crash Dummy Reports, still refuse to break their oaths of secrecy concerning the Roswell incident?

Public apathy often causes an inconsistent approach to important issues. Certainly, an event such as Roswell would have profound ramifications on our way of viewing the universe and humanity’s place in it. It is because of this potential impact on our lives that it deserves to be discussed openly and honestly.

It is time that government officials acknowledge their responsibility for their actions—and their failure. No one can question the rational motivation and benign intent behind withholding, at first, the truth. Until the true nature of the Roswell wreckage was identified, it was the duty of government officials and military officers to safeguard national security through whatever means they believed prudent, including absolute secrecy and denial of the facts. But they have fallen short. Absolute secrecy has not been maintained, and the complete truth must be told. No longer should half-truths, rumors, and innuendo take center stage in the public forum. The whole story must be revealed before the last of the witnesses takes it to the grave.

The facts have been presented for your consideration. Our investigation has led us to a conclusion we would present in any court of law, or, if possible, before Congress. In fact, many of our main witnesses are willing to give congressional depositions. We are confident that you, too, will demand a complete account. But without sufficient public support, this is unlikely to happen.

The Roswell case rests on a wealth of circumstantial evidence which we have attempted to present in a scientific and objective manner. We welcome any conventional explanation for these events that disapproves, with solid evidence, what we have outlined. As evidenced in the past, we have time and time again demonstrated our willingness to thoroughly examine such alternative possibilities. We also believe that we have exhausted all such solutions to the event.

33

However, until such proof is forthcoming, we will continue to present the facts as we have discovered them. We will continue to believe that Roswell represents the recovery of an unidentified flying object by the United States government. This conclusion is supported legally by the “preponderance of evidence” doctrine and scientifically by “Ockham’s Law” of parsimony. To paraphrase the old Sherlock Holmes axiom, “when all possible explanations have been ruled out, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth.”

Sadly, the United States military maintains its official policy of stall and delay until the few remaining witnesses soon depart with the remainder of the real story. Still, it is the military who possesses the true physical evidence. Strategically, by denying the witnesses, they have attempted to bury their tracks. But fortunately for a growing number of courageous witnesses who have chosen to defy officialdom, we have a much clearer picture of what truly happened outside of Roswell, New Mexico on that stormy night of July 4, 1947.

Let us not forget that the “secret keepers” are now up to their fourth official explanation. Ironically, as a Pentagon spokesman addressed media questions following the “crash dummy” press conference in June 1997, when asked what the military response would be should the public not accept their latest Roswell scenario. “Well, then I’m afraid we’ll be here again in ten years offering another explanation.” To quote the late Beatle, John Lennon, “Just give me some truth.”

34