Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Corroboration for Frankie Rowe

I grow tired of having to repeat the same information over and over because the skeptics and the debunkers simply don’t want to hear it. Now I’m back defending Frankie Rowe (seen here) who has been called a liar for no reason that I can understand. She might be mistaken. She might be wrong. But she is relating the information to us as best she can.

Recently, on a skeptics forum, someone wrote about Rowe asking if it wasn’t true that it had been proven that her father had not been with the Roswell Fire Department. No, it’s not true and unless you can source your information, just keep it to yourself. This is just like the news media saying, "According to published reports," without saying where those reports were published.

I can say that according to published reports, Bill Clinton, while president, had meetings with alien creatures. Of course the report was published in the Weekly World News which was making it up, but it was a published report. Saying the source is a published report tells us nothing about the veracity of that report, but hey, it sounds good.

Had the skeptic wanted to know the truth rather than just hurl an accusation, he, or she, could have called the Roswell Fire Department and asked them. Or called the Roswell Library and have them look it up in the Roswell City Directory of 1947.

I have a copy of that Roswell City Directory (seen below) and it lists Dan Dwyer, Frankie’s father, as a lieutenant in the fire department and I have copies of the fire logs from June and July 1947 and find his name in there frequently. There is no question that Dan Dwyer was a member of the Roswell Fire Department in July 1947. On one page, we see that Dan was the officer in charge six times. On another page from late May through June 24, we see Dwyer or Dan as the officer in charge ten times.


But we can take this further right now. Skeptics have complained that Frankie’s story is stand alone, meaning that no one has corroborated it. Well, her sister, Helen Cahill, did tell me that she had heard the story of the crash and the threats made against her in the early 1960s. The story was not as robust as that told by Frankie and can be explained by the simple fact that in 1947 Helen was already married and living away from home.

Cahill also said that sometime in 1948, during a visit with her parents, her father (Dwyer) told her that something important had happened, but he couldn’t tell her because he was concerned about the safety of the family. Her mother, Minnie, said that Cahill’s father could tell her about it, but he was afraid that something would happen to her, Cahill, if he did. And yes, I have the signed, notarized statements in my files.

But now the story takes another turn. Karl Pflock rejected Rowe’s story because he’d talked to three former fire fighters who claimed no knowledge of the events and that the Roswell Fire Department didn’t make runs outside the city limits. He knew this because Max Littell, who had been a member of the city counsel in the 1950s told him so.

On June 21, 1947, according to the fire log, Pumper No. 4 made a run "out side city limit" (As seen on top entry of the Fire Record from Roswell).

So, it is quite clear that Frankie’s father, Dan Dwyer was a lieutenant in the Roswell Fire Department as the documentation shows. It is quite clear that the fire department did make runs outside the city limits. Maybe the next time the skeptics will take a moment, use the Internet and find out if the allegations are warranted.


Now, let’s talk about the new corroboration for Frankie... Tony Bragalia and I have been in contact with a former member of the Roswell Fire Department (and no, I’m not going to publish his name but if Christopher Allen would like it, I’ll email it to him for verification purposes - he is very old, a bit cranky and doesn’t need several dozen telephone calls). This man was interviewed by Pflock and Pflock cited him as saying the Roswell Fire Department didn’t make a run outside the city to the crash site.

For Pflock, this disproved Frankie’s story. And the man told us the same thing. The fire department didn’t make a run to the crash site. But then the retired fire fighter said something else. He told us that a colonel had come out from the base and told them not to go out there. That they, the military, would handle it.

I believe that Karl Pflock was an intellectually honest researcher who would have reported everything he learned rather than leaving out a critical piece of information like this, if he heard it. Once he was told that the fire department hadn’t made the run and that there was no documentation for the run, he stopped asking questions.

But I asked the retired fire fighter if he knew Dwyer and learned that he did (another corroboration for Frankie Rowe). I asked about Dwyer making a run outside the city and that was when I learned of the "colonel" who had advised against it. I was told that they didn’t make the run.

And then I was told that Dwyer (seen here with other members of the Roswell Fire Department), in his personal car did drive out to the crash site. Dwyer and not the fire department, which explains why there is no record of it and why other fire fighters didn’t remember it.

The retired fire fighter was quite clear about these points. They had been visited by an officer from the base, they had been told not to go out there, and Dwyer, in his personal car, did.

Does this prove the story to be true? Of course not. But it does prove that Frankie Rowe hasn’t been lying. She was telling us exactly what her father told her, what he had told her sister and what he had told his friend in the Roswell Fire Department.

It undermines some of what Karl published in his book because we were using the same sources and it is clear to me that Karl just didn’t ask the right questions to find out what happened. He only asked those that verified what he believed and asked no others. Sometimes asking the next question reveals information that you don’t want to hear. Trial attorneys are well versed in not asking certain questions.

Oh, one final thing. I do have the interview on tape... Tape solves many problems. When someone says I misquoted him or her, I can play the tapes. When someone challenges what I have written, I can play the tapes. More than once I have proven my point with those tapes. And here I can prove that this fire fighter said to me and said to Tony, just what I said that he did.

23 comments:

Mac said...

Nice work, Kevin! This is a most interesting account.

cda said...

Kevin: You are delving far too deeply into small details. OK, you have partially disproved Karl Pflock about Frankie Rowe's father and the fire dept. But this is not really the point at all.
There were, it seems to me, far too many people in on the alleged top secret crash. Take Chester Lytle. Why should he have been told; why was he privileged to be given this dope? Likewise Dan Dwyer. The same applies to Wilcox the sherriff, and countless civilians and lowly military personnel years later. Here we have this amazing supersecret event which must be hidden at all costs from the public; yet over & over again people keep popping up who 'knew' the truth, either because they were told at the time or years later. Is it not strange that such people have all told their story since 1980, when the first book came out? There were numerous UFO investigations & investigators, official & unofficial, in the 50s, 60s & 70s. There were NICAP, APRO, MUFON, plus plenty of local groups poking ther noses into UFOs. Yet all these Roswell witnesses keep quiet and never tell anyone anything of their sensational knowledge, until..... until a chance comes for them to get publicity in some form several decades later.

Was this event really a secret or not? You cannot have it both ways.

While considering this, perhaps you can explain why Blanchard (and General Spaatz) thought it more important to go on leave than to stay and learn all about the discovery of an ET craft. (Spaatz is reported as going on a fishing trip just before the Roswell story broke). Did Blanchard or Spaatz ever get summoned back to hear the great news, or were ETs considered too unimportant? It doesn't add up.

starman said...

The Roswell witnesses were warned to keep quiet, so they wouldn't have told anybody, outside of a few family members prior to the 1980s, when Marcel sr told his story. The impunity with which he did so presumably emboldened others, but the delay is understandable. Btw Dwyer was not "told" the truth, he went and saw himself. IMO a number of others who were told were given false information, to eventually mislead the public.

Joseph Capp said...

I just think it is a disgrace that after 60 years they are still calling Roswell witnesses liars. Debunkers ask question that no one can answer. But to constantly impun the creidibility of the witnesses shows me how desperate they are to explain Roswell crash.
Eleven witness on death bed told their families it was a ship with bodies. Explain why that was on their minds before they died. I will always believe those who had the most to loose about Roswell and about any UFO report.
I'm suspicous of anything coming out of the Airforce brass, even when it agrees with my position.
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog

JRobinson said...

Slowly but surely some missing puzzle pieces seem to be falling into place. The fire dept. run always bothered me,too. I grew up in Clovis (100mi from Roswell)and knew the fire dept.there occasionally responded out-of-town,but not 40miles.Dwyer's driving on his own out to the site is not a minor detail, but a major revelation!
Now,according to Walter Haut's deathbed affidavit, Col.Blanchard was not on leave;not only that but Gen.Ramey & Col. Dubose were in Roswell the morning of the press release,& they all agreed on the release as a ploy to divert possible attention away from the main crash site. It all begins to make more sense to me.

KRandle said...

CDA:
Actually, it is the point. Skeptics reject the Roswell case because they say Frankie Rowe’s father was not a firefighter. But he was so you can’t reject it based on that.

People say that Pflock’s book is more accurate, but it’s as flawed as any of the others because he had the will to disbelieve so the negative information is played up and the positive is virtually ignored such as the valuable testimony of Edwin Easley, Thomas DuBose, and Arthur Exon. He never did deal with these high-ranking officers, other than to say Exon was giving us rumor. Not a fair assessment of the information.

And now we have this twisting of facts. The Army didn’t tell Sheriff Wilcox about the crash, Mack Brazel did. The sheriff told the Army. And the fire department because there was a reason for the fire department to respond. So they were telling them they didn’t have to go out there... not what was out there or why, just that the military would handle it. It was Dwyer who told the retired firefighter what he had seen.

And you need the lower-ranking enlisted men for guard details, check points, and for other details, and you assume, based on who you are (meaning here the only atomic strike force in the world and that all the soldiers assigned are aware of the need for secrecy) that you can use them for these details. It’s not as if you brought them all into a room to tell them... you assigned them to specific missions for the retrieval, cautioned them not to talk and went about your business. But you can’t accomplish the mission without bringing these people into parts of the operation.

Chester Lytle knew Blanchard well. Lytle had all sorts of clearances. The men were friends. Blanchard had arranged for an Air Force plane to fly Lytle to Illinois when his child was born. This implies a great friendship. So Blanchard, knowing Lytle, told him of the big event in Roswell in 1947... That friendship and Lytle’s background explains this small part of the story.

In my conversations with Coral Lorenzen, in my many telephone calls to her, and visits with her in Tucson, we did touch on the crash retrieval stories which she did receive periodically... but she rejected them out of hand, thanks to Silas Newton and his hoax. Very few in the field took the crash retrieval stories seriously until Len Stringfield began to publish his research. Some of them did talk about it, but most were ignored. We just looked at the Lydia Sleppy story, reported in 1973, but not researched until after 1990.

I argued before, with Karl Pflock, that Blanchard’s leave was a ruse... That it had been scheduled for some time and to suddenly cancel it would raise questions. Same with Spaatz, though he was already on leave... Which isn’t to say they couldn’t control the situation from wherever they were, what with radios and telephones and access to aircraft.

So, yes it was a secret, just like the Manhattan Project and Magic. People knew from the very top to the very bottom... someone had to clean the rooms and empty the wastebaskets. So, yes, I can have it both ways, given the circumstances and locked the barn door after the horse it gone.

Kent McManigal said...

I heard of the Roswell crash while I was in elementary school in Waco TX in the early 1970s. Someone must have been talking to someone instead of keeping quiet until Marcel began to talk.

(jrobinson- I was born in Clovis NM and have recently moved back to the area)

Jerry Clark said...

I guess it's time I bookmarked your blog, and I just did. I am a regular reader of blogs, but not UFO-themed ones. I rarely see them, and then only when directed there from The Anomalist site. You're doing an excellent job of providing new material, ideas, and perspectives.

The current exchange demonstrates, once more, that the belief that nothing extraordinary happened at Roswell is unfalsifiable. Every new item of intriguing evidence will be countered with a newly conjured up objection to Roswell generally. One can credit or not credit the ET hypothesis about the crash, but nobody who expects to be taken seriously, and who has any self respect, ought to be pretending that the Mogul claim is anything but the weakest, most implausible sort of fiction.

The evidence for a historical mystery stands, even as hoaxers and opportunists have been exposed and fallen by the wayside. Still, the ET explanation has to confront the absence of any detectable consequence such a development would have left in the history of the past six decades. The Roswell incident is like a black hole, into which history has disappeared.

Sometimes I am led to wonder if something even more anomalous happened there than we have imagined, or maybe can imagine.

In any case, it continues to be a fascinating saga, and you -- and not those who've biting at your ankles all these years -- are one of the heroes of the story.

Jerry Clark

mouseonmoon said...

Ms. Rowe's public testimony is actually more important and complete than Jesse Marcel Jr.'s
testimony.

1. She witnessed the 'material' being handled by the firefighters - they tried to burn it and tear it - therefore she identifies other witnesses and the 'material' as being 'unique/unusual' .

2. A military officer ( with 'riding stick' ) threatened her and threatened her family if she mentioned this!

She's 'witness' to a cover-up.


Therefore it is a 'big deal' explaining this ...but Pflock interviews the 'wrong guys'.
(because obviously they would have known the where/how of the 'material' and that Frankie's
Dad had gone to the site on his own...

starman said...

Jerry Clark: What do you mean "detectable consequence" such an event would've had? Consequences were averted by the coverup and the secretiveness, for the most part, of the phenomenon itself.

cda said...

Jerry is right about it being a fascinating saga. But I would not label Kevin as 'one of the heroes' of Roswell. True, he, and others, have acquired a lot of testimony and evidence and presented some of it reasonably well. I suspect, however, Kevin realises deep down that he has reached the end of the road - there is nothing new to uncover, just more titbits of anecdotal testimony, none of which furthers the ET cause.
Roswell is stagnating, and will continue to stagnate unless physical evidence turns up. People can draw their own conclusions on the likelihood of that.

As for the AF, they did what investigation they could after a gap of nearly 50 years. They cocked up their 'anthropomorphic dummies' case with a flawed report.

We also have to compare the mogul explanation with the far greater conundrum of how a small clique of people have managed, for 60 years, to suppress the truth of arguably the greatest ever scientific discovery known to mankind.
(And why and how a number of lowly placed military personnel & civilians now claim they knew the truth all along but kept quiet for decades).

Yes, by all means bring in extra titbits to bolster your case, or destroy someone else's. It is not up to me to disprove every titbit, nor is it up to any skeptic to demolish each and every piece of anecdotal testimony that comes along. As I keep saying, it is the real, hard, evidence that will settle this case. If your ET case is correct, this evidence certainly exists somewhere, and in abundance. Find some of it please, and let's have it publicly displayed. Is that asking too much?

Jerry Clark said...

Christopher Allan holds that physical evidence alone will conclusively resolve the Roswell issue. So, however, would the production of actual documents of undisputed provenance (in other words, not dubious MJ-12-style papers). Until either is produced, the case will remain an intriguing historical mystery, with every proposed solution suffering flaws of varying degrees of seriousness.

Let me repeat:

Kevin is among the heroes of the Roswell saga. His critics, whose operating principle appears to be that since this couldn't have happened it didn't and thus any absurd counterinterpretation will do, should consider themselves lucky to bite his ankles.

cda said...

Certainly genuine documents would suffice. By 'physical evidence' I meant to include docs or photos. Naturally any such would have to pass the strict tests of authenticity.
Think only of the autopsy film, the MJ-12 stuff and those 'fragments' that popped up a decade or so ago.

KRandle said...

Yes, we think of them often, but remember, most of the evidence proving fraud came from inside the UFO community. We didn't reject them simply because we knew UFOs didn't exist, we came to reject them because we found the evidence that they were bogus.

mouseonmoon said...

Buzz Aldrin on Edgar Mitchell's statements > re Roswell coverup.

"He's a public figure and he's making statements, and they need to be responsibly examined."
"I can't conceive of this government, in a free country, withholding information that he's alluding to."

Quite simply, let the 'witnesses' come forward and tell Aldrin and Mitchell their stories and give the astronauts free reign to go anywhere and talk to anyone and get answers ...

Should have been done a long time ago - but strange, isn't it, that you can search NYTimes for an interview with Mitchell about this and not find one (nor with astronaut Gordon Cooper). Why is that ?

Like Aldrin says, This "needs to be responsibly examined".

It's incredible that this 'greatest story of all time', with massive public interest has never been
"responsibly examined" by any major newspaper ....

Kent McManigal said...

Where is this elusive "free country" he speaks of?

Bob Barbanes said...

It starts here: Do you believe...really believe that "Roswell" could have happened? I allow for the possibility. From his writings, guys like "cda" betray their own feelings that such an event is simply preposterous.

I mean, why such stubborn, unyielding denial? The only explanation is that certain debunkers just do not believe that it could have happened, so they will never admit that it did. And any "evidence" (spoken or written) is inconsequential. To them, only undestroyable aluminum foil will suffice. Or bodies.

Why did so many people in the Roswell area find out about it? Remember, back in 1947 the Roswell crash was big...and good...news! In the very beginning, the news of the crash was a revelation. We finally got one! Proof!

It was only afterward that the military decided to keep it quiet under the guise of "National Security." Were civilians threatened with death if they talked? I would not put it past our government to do so, then or now. Anyone who does not allow for this is unbelievably naive.

So. "cda" can keep believing that Roswell never did or could have happened. I have a more open mind than that. As do you, Kevin. You *are* one of the heroes of this subject, and you're in my personal-but-less-well-known Hall of Fame too ;)

starman said...

kent mcmanigal: Roswell wasn't totally forgotten after '47. See Edwards's 1967 FLYING SAUCERS SERIOUS BUSINESS. But of course very few details were revealed until 11-25 years later.

JRobinson said...

Along the lines of people at random learning about the crash early... An Ag professor I knew well at NM State U. told me that, while arrowhead-hunting on the Proctor ranch with his wife & small son in the mid fifties, Loretta Proctor was "carrying on" about a UFO crash. He said they listened politely, but "it all went in one ear & out the other". They were only there to find arrowheads & weren't interested in their host's "wild tales". He said he had forgotten all about the incident until he read about the Proctors in The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell.
The professor is now deceased, but his wife is still living in Las Cruces and says she remembers the incident well. However, she can't recall details of Loretta Proctor's account either.

starman said...

Does she remember "Dee" Proctor? He was supposedly traumatized by something he saw east of the wreckage, but didn't reveal what it was.

cda said...

In answer to Bob Barbanes:
Yes, the actual crash (of an ET craft) COULD have happened. It is the subsequent withholding of this news to the scientific world and the public at large for 6 decades that could not have happened.
Perhaps such a crash really did happen once upon a time, maybe more than once, in the very distant past before man existed or even since then.
But in those days there was no USAF around to keep the thing under wraps, was there?

starman said...

If the news hadn't leaked out to some extent we wouldn't be discussing Roswell now. And don't underestimate the government's ability to keep secrets. The ULTRA secret was kept for 30 years, until 1975, even though there was no longer any vital need to keep it after 1945.

Mike Smith said...

My big problem with Frankie Rowe's story is that here description of the debris--as a material that "ran like quicksilver"--seems totally unlike anybody else's. Is there a single additional account that supports such a description?

Also, I don't doubt that her father was a firefighter, but I do wonder why no one else--no witness, no newspaper, no written record--ever mentions a fire engine parked at the alleged impact site.

It would seem that her story would need to be rejected merely for not fitting in with the general scenario of the pro-UFO version of the Roswell story.