Friday, May 06, 2016

New Theory on the WOW! Signal

There is something new in the story of the WOW! Signal. This is signal detected by radio astronomer Jerry Ehman in 1977. It was a strong blast that lasted for 72 seconds and was never repeated. One explanation for the signal was that it was from an alien civilization on a far distant planet (which, of course, would describe any planet not in our solar system). He circled that point and wrote, “Wow!” next to it.

The WOW! Signal
Now a fellow at Florida’s St. Petersburg College, Antonio Paris, is suggesting he has a possible explanation for the signal. It wasn’t from another planet in another solar system, but from a pair of recently discovered comets. Certainly not as exciting as a suggestion that the signal came from aliens. His theory is just that, a theory, but he hopes to be able to gather additional information.

You can read the whole story here:

At any rate, this might provide us with some sort of an answer about this. Seems to me that this is sort of like the Ramey Memo. We have an ambiguous stimulus that is just beyond our ability to clarify. Maybe this effort will give us an answer about the Wow! Signal, though I suspect the outcome might by like that of the Ramey Memo. Nice try but no cigar…

Thursday, May 05, 2016

The Ramey Memo Negative

Since this has become an issue in the last couple of days, and there are those who wonder if the new scans were made from the original negative, I thought this might be of help. Those who traveled to Fort Worth to examine the negative were experts in photography and forensic photographic analysis. Those at the University of Texas at Arlington, who received the negatives from the Fort Worth Star - Telegram, assured us that these were the original negatives, and there is no reason to doubt them.

Others have suggested that the negatives needed to be examined on a light table and under magnification to complete the analysis. This, of course, was done. In the past I have published here, with the permission of the University of Texas at Arlington, photographs of the entire negatives which contain the markings on the edge and the complete, uncropped negative for examination. I will again publish that photograph.

The Ramey Memo photograph, complete with edge markings. Photograph copyright by
the University of Texas at Arlington.
J. Bond Johnson, who took the photograph said that he used a Speed Graphic camera and 4 x 5 negative film. This, I believe, should put to rest some of the questions about this, and provides a complete look at the picture.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Return to Aztec

As those of you who visit here regularly know, I am not a fan of the Aztec UFO crash of 1948. I have followed the story since I was in high school and remember finding a copy of the True magazine article in a Denver used bookstore in the early 1960s. To me, it was the definitive investigation of the case. I watched in the 1970s as the story was revitalized for a few months, and then in the 1980s when William Steinman wrote his book about the case that was filled with misinformation, leaps of logic, and a really bad organization without an index.

We’ve seen another attempt at this with Stan Friedman leaping aboard the bandwagon of Scott Ramsey’s parade toward the ridiculous. Although Ramsey has claimed he has spent half a million dollars in his reinvestigation (and I have no reason to doubt that figure) but his attempts at revitalizing the tale have fallen short. He has no real documentation, he has some interesting historical facts that aren’t all that relevant and a few relevant ones that he believes are unimportant and some testimony that seems to be almost first hand but really isn’t.

While I would like to join that parade, the evidence, at least to me, falls way short, and I’m sure that I’ll be labeled just another debunker. It is far easier to label those who disagree with you than to respond to the criticisms that they might raise (Friedman called me an anti-abduction propagandist for my position on that topic).
Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. Picture copyright by Kevin Randle
For example, I found the Donald “Sam” Bass tale to be unreliable. Bass couldn’t be interviewed because he had allegedly died in an automobile accident while serving in Vietnam. I cited the list of those killed kept by the Park Service who maintains the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. as my source to reject the tale. Bass’ name was not on it. Ramsey said that they claimed that they might have missed some of the names though they had worked to make sure the memorial contains list all those who died in Vietnam. I said that if we had his serial number, we could gain his records as another way to check the tale. While Ramsey said he did have the serial number, he wouldn’t supply it to me so that I might verify the information about Bass.

Ramsey also used the “first-hand” testimony from Doug Noland. I was never sure if Ramsey actually interviewed Noland or if he was using a tape of an interview with Noland that had been made by John Lear. It is clear from the information available that Noland had not gone into the interview “clean.” I mean he had read Steinman’s book and was aware of the story. Noland didn’t seem to be a real good source, but there was a tape made of his discussion with Lear.

Now Monte Shriver in an email to me on April 30 he expanded on some of his criticism. He wrote:

In comparing Scott Ramsey's video presentations and the Books, he has Doug working for either El Paso Gas or El Paso Oil in 1948. In the book "The Pipeliners - The story of El Paso Natural Gas" at page 151, the company did not arrive in the San Juan Basin [which encompasses the Aztec area and a large part of the Four Corners] until the summer of 1950 (I [this being Shriver] have found several other inconsistencies between Scott's videos and the books). In a publication by The New Mexico Geological Society it quotes from a book by Thomas A. Dugan in a section called "The San Juan Basin-Episodes and Aspirations" as follows: "In February 1950, the Federal Power Commission issued a temporary permit to El Paso Natural Gas Company to lay a transmission line from the San Juan Basin to the California border. The final permit was issued July 14, 1950 and gas started moving through the line during late summer of 1951...Farmington and the San Juan Basin changed drastically and would never be the same again...El Paso immediately became the most active company and the leader of development in the basin in the fifties and sixties..." There is no record of any other company having the name El Paso Gas or El Paso Oil except for the El Paso Natural Gas Company.
In his book, Ramsey seems to indicate that he had interviewed Manuel Sandoval who was a law enforcement officer in 1948, but Ramsey told me that he had not interviewed him but members of the family and the story told might be third hand at best. I don’t believe that Ramsey was intentionally attempting to mislead here, but his writing style was not as clear as it could have been. Shriver, however, added a note about this, telling me:

Ramsey also has Manuel Sandoval patrolling a Southern Union Gas line from the San Juan Basin to Los Alamos in 1948. In Dugan's "The San Juan Basin-Episodes and Aspirations" he notes that "On March 3, 1949, The Atomic Energy Commission announced their plans to build a pipeline from a point about 25 miles south of Bloomfield to Los Alamos, about 30 miles northeast of Santa Fe. The gas would be purchased from Southern Union Gas Company; the line was to be completed before winter".  Ramsey's source has Mr. Sandoval patrolling the line more than a year before it was built".
None of this bodes well for the Aztec tale. I have mentioned in the past that there are no local newspaper articles about it, and some of the witnesses have altered their stories radically over the years and many of the long-time residents say that the crash never happened. The town seems to be split into those who believe the story and those who don’t, which is no real surprise. It does seem, as mentioned in other posts here, that the weight of the evidence suggests that this tale is not based in fact.

Shriver, who tells me he has “retired from rebutting Ramsey’s Aztec UFO claims,” has provided another rebuttal to the new version of the book. It is an interesting document, but for those without a board understanding of the Aztec crash claims, it will be difficult to follow. It is just one more nail in the coffin of a tale that should have been buried a long time ago.
For more information on the Aztec case, as published here in the last couple of years, please see:

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Viewing vs Victims of the Wreck

It’s funny how things sometimes work out. The investigation into the Ramey Memo seemed to have stagnated with nothing to really report. Then Rich Reynolds publicly wondered what was happening, so I finished up the post about it. And now, I have received both publicly at this blog and privately a number of emails about it, suggesting the critical word in that critical phrase might not be “victims.”
David Rudiak will tell us that the word “victims” has the right number of letters, and that words that begin with a “V” that fit with his word count and positioning are very few. Many can be eliminated because they are simply too strange to fit into Memo (violins, for example) because we can deduce the subject matter based on the words that are universally accepted as being in the text.
The Ramey Memo. Copyright by the University of Texas at Arlington.

Several have suggested that the word is not “victims but is “viewing.” It does contain the right number of letters and it does begin with a “V,” but it also alters the importance of the Ramey Memo if that is correct. “Victims of the wreck,” suggests casualties which implies a crew and that crew could be alien, depending on the rest of the Memo. However, “viewing the wreck,” tells us nothing about a crew and means that we might have something that had no organic component (which is my way of avoiding saying it was either alien, human or animal). And David will suggest that “viewing” doesn’t fit into the proper alignment of the letters eliminating it.

If it is “viewing,” then what we have is a suggestion that someone (Marcel and Cavitt?) had seen the wreckage, but doesn’t suggest anything extraordinary about it. The idea that it was “wreckage” does suggest something other than a balloon array no matter how exotic, because you just don’t think of balloon remains as being wreckage. That term suggests something more substantial was seen but that doesn’t take us to the extraterrestrial by any means.

In fact, if the word is “viewing” it sort of sucks the life out of the drama here. It could say all sorts of things, including “disc” and still provide a rather mundane answer. Given that this seems to refer to a flying disc and given that the term, “flying disc” meant any number of terrestrial based objects as well as the idea they might be interplanetary (as opposed to interstellar), we wouldn’t have the smoking gun that many thought it would be. Or, in other words, we have a rather mundane message telling Ramey that those “viewing the wreck” were reporting what they had seen.

Oh, it could mean that their opinions suggested something alien, but in the long run, we’d be left with the same arguments about the overall importance of the Memo.

And I will mention here, as sort of a cautionary tale, that J. Bond Johnson, who took the photograph that we’re all so interested in, claimed, at one time, he had carried the document into Ramey’s office and handed it to him. That would mean that this was a teletype message that went out over the news wire and wasn’t something generated by the military. True, he recanted that statement as soon as it became clear to him that it lessened the importance of the document, but it is a claim that he made (many of which were later found to be untrue).

Here’s where we are. There are a growing number of people who say that the word is “viewing.” Those suggesting this are not only those on the skeptical side of the fence, but some who believe the Roswell crash was alien, and a few who seem to be disinterested in the crash as an alien event but are interested in solving the riddle.

Again, I’m not sure if we’re ever going to be able to resolve this to the satisfaction of the majority in the way that the Roswell Slides Research Group was able to resolve the placard to nearly everyone’s satisfaction. I had hoped for a resolution, as did those working on this latest effort, but we just haven’t reached that point yet. As it stands now, most of the message is just beyond our capabilities to decipher it though there is still work being done. Maybe next week, next month or next year there will be a breakthrough but I’m not overly hopeful about that. We are stuck with a tantalizing clue that is currently just out of reach.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

The Roswell Report - Case Closed... Maybe Not

Here’s something that I don’t believe anyone has commented on. The Roswell Report – Case Closed document issued through the Air Force and written by Captain James McAndrew is based on lies, and if that is the case, then the document is flawed and unreliable.

You might well ask, “What do you mean?”

First, in explaining that anthropomorphic dummies were responsible for the reports of bodies involved with the Roswell crash, McAndrew relies on statements
Jim Ragsdale. Photo copyright
by Kevin Randle
made by our old pal, Jim Ragsdale. In fact, this becomes quite important in proving that the Air Force experiments with high altitude ejection systems and other tests were responsible for the tales of bodies being recovered. McAndrew wrote:

Testimony attributed to Ragsdale, who is deceased, states that he and a friend were camping one evening and saw something fall from the sky. The next morning, when they went to investigate, they saw a crash site:
“One part [of the craft] [brackets in McAndrew version] was kind of buried in the ground and one part of it was sticking our [out] of the ground.” “I’m sure that [there] was bodies… either bodies or dummies.” “The federal government could have been doing something they didn’t want anyone to know what this was. They was using dummies in those damned things… they could use remote control… but it was either dummies or bodies or something laying there. They looked like bodies. They were not very long… [not] over four or five feet long at the most. “We didn’t see their faces or nothing like that… we just gotten to the site and the Army… and all [was] coming and we got into a damned jeep and took off.”
This testimony [meaning Ragsdale’s statements] then describes an assortment of military vehicles used to recover the “bodies.”: “It was two or three six-by-six Army trucks a wrecker and everything. Leading the pack was a ’47 Ford car with guys in it… It was six or eight big trucks besides the pickup, weapons carriers and stuff like that.” Ragsdale also said that before he left the area he observed the military personnel “gathering stuff up” and “they cleaned everything up.”
…In his testimony, Ragsdale made numerous references to equipment vehicles, and procedures consistent with documented dummy recoveries for projects HIGH DIVE and EXCELSIOR. The repeated use of the term “dummy” and the witness’ own admission that “they was using dummies in those damned things” and “I’m sure that was bodies… either bodies or dummies” leaves little doubt that what he described was an anthropomorphic dummy recovery.
And that would be a powerful argument except for one fact. Ragsdale was lying. He hadn’t been out there, he hadn’t seen anything fall from the sky and he hadn’t seen dummies to be confused with alien bodies.

McAndrew goes on to explain, “If the witness was even a short distance from odd looking anthropomorphic dummies, it would be logical for him to believe, when interviewed 35 to 40 years after the event, that he ‘thought they were dummies or bodies or something.’
And I could go on; pointing out more mistakes in McAndrew’s attempt to convince us all that Ragsdale had seen one of these dummy recoveries, but why? Ragsdale was lying and McAndrew, when he wrote his report, could have found that out. In my book, also published in 1997, The Randle Report, I expose the Ragsdale tale for
Max Littell, closest to the camera, then Walter
Haut and Don Schmitt. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle
the lie that it is. I also detail how Max Littell had manipulated the story so that he would have something to talk about when reporters, researchers, and documentarians came to the museum in Roswell. Since my book and McAndrew’s were published in the same year, it would mean that we had access to the same information. McAndrew just didn’t bother to check to see if anything new had been learned about Ragsdale before creating his tale of anthropomorphic dummies.

To make it worse, William P. Barnett, writing in Crosswinds in August 1996, provides, in great detail, the various problems with the Ragsdale story. It is quite clear at that point that there is nothing of value here and that Ragsdale, with coaching from Littell, has changed the story. McAndrew, with the resources of the USAF behind him, should have been able to learn all about the Ragsdale tale. Since it is clearly untrue, it renders all the discussion about Project High Dive and Excelsior, anthropomorphic dummies, and government experimentation moot. The foundation of McAndrew’s theory, which is the Ragsdale nonsense, is erected on quicksand.

There are other problems as well. On page 46 of his report, McAndrew compares a drawing of a triangular-shaped object provided by Frank Kaufmann with “A tethered ‘Vee’ balloon shown… at Holloman AFB, N.M. in March 1965. This experimental balloon, is strikingly similar to the ‘alien’ craft.’”

Unfortunately for McAndrew, and something that he might have suspected when he wrote his book, Kaufmann was not telling the truth. It wasn’t until after 2000 that Kaufmann was exposed, thanks to the work of Mark Rodeghier, Mark Chesney and Don Schmitt. Given that, we can now say that his analysis of comparing the object drawn by Kaufmann to that launched at Holloman is in error as well.

Glenn Dennis
He also attacks the “missing nurse” story told by Glenn Dennis. The problem here, as it is with these other tales he uses is that the Dennis story is bogus as well. There is no missing nurse, information which was available in 1997 but McAndrew failed to find. Wouldn’t a stronger case be made by pointing this out rather than going off on the tangent that he does?

Maybe the most egregious error by McAndrew (and I’m being a bit generous here) is the illustration on page 6 that shows a long Mogul array. Although he suggests that the illustration is similar to the one found by Mack Brazel, it is actually from Mogul Flight No. 2 which had a configuration different than those used in New Mexico. He says nothing about that which is misleading at best.

What is given here is a report used to explain away the tales of bodies by suggesting government experiments in the 1950s. Had McAndrew done his homework, had he investigated all this rather than just read a bunch of books and official documents, he actually could have made a much stronger case. As it is, his argument fails because he used bogus information to support it.

Before anyone feels the need to point out that this sword cuts both ways, let me note that while Phil Klass and Karl Pflock rejected Ragsdale and Kaufmann, they did so only because they did not believe that anything alien fell near Roswell. They were right for the wrong reason, but it was those of us on the other side of the fence that worked to expose these people when we learned the truth. It would have been better had we known the truth before we promoted their tales and it took us a while to get to that point, but we did arrive at it… I have seen nothing from McAndrew acknowledging that his book was based on that same false information.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Ramey Memo Update

It has been just one year since we attempted to get better scans of the Ramey Memo and determine what it said. I had thought, as had Martin, that while the team was in Fort Worth, they would have the answer. I expected them to be able to resolve this with our modern equipment, the best men available to create the scans and the wonderful cooperation of those at the University of Texas at Arlington. That wasn’t what happened.

So, to keep Rich Reynolds happy (and he could have sent an email), to prove that we are hiding nothing, and to note that I had planned to publish something now
Ramey holding the memo. Photo copyright by University of Texas at Arlington, scan made
in April 2015.
that we have reached the one year point (but given Game of Thrones started season six Sunday night I was delayed) I thought it time to update all this. We have tried, after all, to keep everyone alerted, provided all who wanted them the scans so that they could bring their expertise to bear, and made sure that any one of those on the skeptical side of the house who wanted scans got them, nothing has changed radically.

Oh, there are those who suggest the scans are a little better, and if you look, you can see the dreaded line “victims of the wreck,” but it is still a matter of resolution and we just don’t have it. Not to the point where we can say, “Yes, this is exactly what it says.”

David Rudiak, at his website, has published his best interpretation of the Ramey Memo. We can find hundreds who will say that they can read the memo and we can find just as many who disagree with any of the interpretations offered.
Several weeks ago, I asked if it wasn’t time for us to call it on the memo. No real progress had been made but I was convinced to give it more time. There were still some avenues to be explored and though I don’t hold out much hope that this will give us anything new, there is that chance however remote.

The thing that must be remembered is that the experts who assisted in this volunteered their time and expertise. They were not compensated and because of that we are at the mercy of their schedules. Their paying work takes precedence over the volunteer work for us. That these men were interested enough in the outcome to provide their assistance, meaning that they saw this as a puzzle to be solved and not an exercise in proving one thing or another, is a tribute to them.

It should also be remembered that the best scans (all of them really) were provided to many people with the hope that someone would provide the clues to untangle all this and we could all nod and say, “Yes.” But after a year, that hasn’t happened and there are many people, on both sides of the fence who had tried to read the memo without moving the bar in any direction.

I know David will disagree with me on this. His interpretation is based on his thousands of hours of work and he believes it to be the best, but it just doesn’t quite allow us to make the call. Those who look at this dispassionately can see, when they look hard enough, some of the key phrases, but it just beyond our ability to prove that a specific Ramey Memo interpretation is accurate.

For me, this was the one document, if we could read it, which could help solve the riddle of what fell at Roswell. I had hoped the text would be clear enough and contain enough information that we could move our research into another area. I wasn’t so much concerned as to what it said but wanted to be able to read it, good or bad. As it stands now, this is an interesting bit of evidence that doesn’t lead us anywhere. Simon has told us that had the photographer been a foot closer, we wouldn’t be left with the ambiguity, but he wasn’t and we are.

To answer the question as to why we haven’t said anything in quite a while, there just hasn’t been anything to say. Research continues but many of those who have the scans have lost interest in attempting to resolve the message, some of us would like the answers, and some believe it is the one document that will prove what fell was alien… but right now, we just don’t know and I’m not sure this will ever tell us.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Twining vs Roswell

There are those who believe that Lieutenant General Nathan F. Twining’s letter of September 23, 1947, closes the door on the Roswell crash. They cite the line about the lack of crash recovered debris as proof that there was no crash because all the testimony gathered from so many of the officers in Roswell and Fort Worth pointed to Wright Field as the destination of the crash debris. If such was the case, then Twining had to know because he was the commander there and since he mentioned the lack of crash debris, it must not exist.

Stan Friedman has countered this by claiming that the letter was only classified secret and if Roswell was an alien spaceship, then that information would have been classified as top secret. That would prevent the information being included in
Wright Field, now Wright Patterson AFB. Photo
courtesy of the USAF.
a letter with a lower classification… and to include it would have raised the classification to top secret. He is right that the inclusion of top secret material raises the classification but he is wrong about why there is no mention of the Roswell crash in the letter. That answer lies in the history of its creation, something that is rarely examined.

Those whose responsibility it was to determine the nature of the saucers  in 1947 wondered if the saucers might not be a highly classified research project, which meant that a few, at the very top of the chain of command, would have access to that information. Army Brigadier General George Schulgen and FBI Special Agent S. W. Reynolds believed that it was a waste of time, money, and personnel to investigate something that would eventually lead to that classified project which would remain classified but might be compromised by the investigation.

Major George Garrett, working under Schulgen, also believed that nothing useful would be found by additional Air Force investigation. Garrett and Schulgen decided that the answer was held above their pay grade and thought of a way to pass the buck back up the chain of command. They were quite certain that when they assembled their information in what might be considered an intelligence Estimate of the Situation, they would be told that those at the top knew what the flying saucers were and there would be no need to continue to investigate.

Garrett began his work on this, what I think of as a mini Estimate in July, 1947. He selected sixteen flying saucer reports with two to be added later, that seemed to demonstrate the truly unusual nature of the phenomenon, and then provided his analysis of the data that had been collected. It might be said that he drew on these specific cases because he, along with Schulgen, believed they most accurately described the objects seen, the maneuvers they performed, and they would most likely lead to the conclusion that these sightings were of a classified project then in development. They thought they would be told to quit because of that.

Typical of those reports was a sighting, from Manitou Springs, Colorado, that happened sometime between 12:15 and 1:15 p.m. on May 19, 1947 (and I note here that I found no evidence that it was reported prior to Arnold, which is an important consideration for me but not necessarily anyone else). This was a silver object that remained motionless, giving the three witnesses a good look at it, and then made a number of aerobatic maneuvers before disappearing at incredible speed. The sighting report mentioned that it had been watched through optical instruments and had been in sight for over two minutes meaning they had time to study it carefully.

Garrett also reported on a case from Greenfield, Massachusetts on June 22, 1947. According to the files:

Edward L. de Rose said, “...there appeared across his line of vision a brilliant, small, round-shaped, silvery white object” moving in a northwesterly direction as fast as or probably faster than a speeding plane at an estimated altitude of 1,000 feet or more. The object stayed in view for eight or ten seconds until obscured by a cloud bank. It reflected the sunlight strongly as though it were of polished aluminum or silver… He said it did not resemble any weather balloon he had ever seen and that “I can assure you it was very real.” 
According to the information available, this was a case that had been secretly investigated by the FBI, and given Special Agent Reynolds’ participation with Schulgen and Garrett it is not difficult to believe that the FBI was involved.

Garrett’s Estimate also included a sighting that involved multiple witnesses and pilots. The information shows that two Air Force (at the time Army Air Forces) pilots and two intelligence officers saw a bright light zigzagging in the night sky over Maxwell Air Force Base on June 28, 1947. The sighting lasted for about five minutes.

Captain Ed Ruppelt, one time chief of Project Blue Book reported it this way:

That night [June 28, 1947] at nine-twenty, four Air Force officers, two pilots and two intelligence officers from Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama, saw a bright light traveling across the sky. It was first seen just above the horizon, and as it traversed toward the observers it “zigzagged,” with bursts of high speed. When it was directly overhead it made a sharp 90-degree turn and was lost from view as it traveled south.

Though not relevant to our discussion here, the eventual label applied to the case was that this was a balloon. Although it seems that four officers, including the intelligence officers, would have been able to identify a balloon if that was what they had seen, the Air Force concluded otherwise. It would also seem that the maneuvers of the object would rule out a balloon, regardless of how strong the winds aloft were blowing.

This gives a brief glance at a few of the cases that Garrett selected for his Estimate. With Schulgen’s approval, the document was submitted to those at the Air Materiel Command for analysis. It is clear that it received some attention and it is clear that the report was given to Colonel Howard McCoy for his review.

Colonel Howard McCoy. Photo courtesy of the USAF.
McCoy, as those of you who have read my most recent books know, had been involved in the investigation of these aerial phenomena since the Foo Fighter sightings of the Second World War. And, when the Ghost Rockets were sighted over Scandinavia beginning in 1946, McCoy had a role in investigation of them, though that role was in the background. The Swedish government, fearing the Ghost Rockets were some sort of intimidation ploy by the Soviets, didn’t want overt participation by American military officers.

According to information developed by Wendy Connor and Michael Hall, McCoy had been tasked in December 1946, to create an unofficial project to gather and analyze data about all this. It was a small investigation operating from a locked office that had very restricted access by a limited number of officers. When the Arnold sighting was reported six months later and caused all that trouble, the unofficial investigation evolved into an official one. And when Garrett’s Estimate arrived in Ohio, McCoy was the natural choice to review it.

McCoy then, wrote the response to be signed by Twining. I seriously doubt that he undertook the task without consultation with Twining. It seems that this response was drafted using only the information supplied by Schulgen and Garrett and that McCoy added nothing to it or more accurately, those at Wright Field added no additional data to it. As I have mentioned in the past, I think of this in the vein of lawyers at a trial who are aware of other relevant information but do not include it because of some outside force. They make their case based on the evidence at hand and admissible and not on other information floating around them. The jury never learns about it or in this case Schulgen and Garrett never learned about it.

On September 23, 1947, Schulgen, Garrett and the others received the written response from Twining’s staff. This response was telling them that the phenomenon was “something real and not visionary or fictitious.” Not only that, Twining was telling them that his command didn't know what the flying disks were and that they should be investigated, though it can be argued they had a good clue based on what had fallen near Roswell.

If the flying disks were a U.S. project, then the last thing anyone at the higher levels of the chain of command would have wanted would be an official investigation. Any investigation would be a threat to the security of the project. To end such an investigation one of those on the inside of the secret would have to drop a hint to someone on the outside. If, for example, it was such a secret project that General Twining and the AMC were outside the loop, then another general, on the inside, could call Twining to tell him to drop the investigation. He wouldn't have to spill any details of the secret project, only tell Twining that it was something he didn't need to worry about and the answer was not Soviet or anything else that could threaten national security. Twining would then end his inquiries secure in the knowledge that the solution to the mystery was already known to someone inside the US military and the government.

That didn't happen. Instead, Twining suggested that a priority project, with a rating of 2a, be created to investigate the flying saucers. He wanted information found and reported to his office. The priority level of the new project also suggested that Twining wanted his answers quickly because he was under pressure from above to end the panic that Ruppelt had reported in the Pentagon in the summer of 1947.

According to Ruppelt, there were two schools of thought about all this. One believed that the Soviets, using their captured German scientists had developed the flying disks (I reported this in The Government UFO Files). ATIC technical analysts searched for data on the German projects in captured documents in the United States, and intelligence officers in Germany were doing the same there.

It became clear, however, that the second school of thought, that is, that the UFOs were not manufactured on Earth, began to take hold when no evidence was found that the Soviets had made some sort of technological breakthrough. Even if they had, it seemed unlikely that they would be flying their new craft over the United States. If one crashed, the Soviets would have just handed their breakthrough to the US government. This is probably the inspiration for the paragraph that laments the lack of crash recovered debris, which is a reference to the lack of this sort of information contained in the material written by Garrett.

All this really does, however, is suggest that the door to the Roswell crash was not completely shut by Twining’s (McCoy’s) letter. Those on the extraterrestrial side of the argument should be disturbed by Twining’s letter but those on the skeptical side of the fence should also note that there is still a gap through which the Roswell saucer can be flown. The Twining letter does not completely rule out the crash when the history of that letter is understood.