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
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:
 |
| Jim Ragsdale. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle |
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
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.
 |
| Max Littell, closest to the camera, then Walter Haut and Don Schmitt. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle |
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.
47 comments:
1ts too bad Jessie Marcel SR. was not alive when this farce of a report to supposedly explain the Roswell UFO crash mystery was put out because i truly believe he would have demolished the unsupportable conclusions and what not that are in it and would have showed just how ridiculous and wrong it was by showing some of his very own documentation about his true role in the events. i know his son Jessie Marcel JR. released a book THE ROSWELL LEGACY detailing all he knew about the Roswell UFO crash and to all you skeptics who want to suddenly downgrade Jessie Marcels reliability about his claims, i will refer you to that book for it may answer some of your questions you may have.
I hope this time the "sharing our point of view" doesnt end in up in "I'm right and you're wrong and if you're not fine with it you're an idiot" again... :/
James -
Jesse Marcel, Sr. gave a long interview to Linda Corley which she published as For the Sake of My Country. It is quite illustrative as to the mindset of Marcel, and provides an interesting insight into the man.
"Jesse Marcel, Sr. gave a long interview to Linda Corley which she published as For the Sake of My Country."
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000226884/For-The-Sake-of-My-Country.aspx
$18.90 / 208 pgs.
Review:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc383.htm
Yes indeed the official McAndrew book is flawed. For one thing the timescale is wrong since the first dummies did not get launched until 1953 I believe (I have not looked at the book again to check). But McAndrew reasoned, correctly, that witnesses to decades-old events often get their dates confused. Phil Klass pointed out the problems with the book and at one point even confronted him at a restaurant about it. Klass told me that McAndrew walked out in anger during the interview.
Despite this, there may be something of value in its pages. I think the USAF was very reluctant to say witnesses were outright liars, so they found the 'anthropomorphic dummies' as a sort of way out of this dilemma. Hence Ragsdale's, and others', tales were taken as substantially true, even if they were really false.
CDA -
Your analysis is generous, but what good does it do to support a theory when the evidence presented was so badly flawed. It's not as if the information about Ragsdale wasn't out there. To ignore it, would have been to saw off one of the legs supporting the theory. By using the information, it calls everything else into question.
But really, Ragsdale's tale was substantially true, even if false? Talk about twisting the facts to fit a notion. That sentence is self-contradictory.
@ Kevin
You may be reading a little too much into CDA's comment. He said:
"I think the USAF was very reluctant to say witnesses were outright liars, so they found the 'anthropomorphic dummies' as a sort of way out of this dilemma. Hence Ragsdale's, and others', tales were taken as substantially true, even if they were really false."
I tend to agree. The USAF was not likely to call supposed witnesses "outright liars" even if they knew it was true. To publish something like that would publicly open legal ramifications akin to slander. I can't see a service branch doing this in an official public report. In fact they don't even do this now. They just explain away whatever using other explanations.
Is there any place in the USAF report where they claim a witness purposely lied or embellished the facts?
And CDA did say their stories were false, and that the USAF simply took them as "substantially true" while knowing they were false, to work an angle towards their own explanation. The point being they presented them as substantially true to avoid slander and to work a specific conclusion while knowing they were false.
Is there any bonafide official evidence that McAndrew was ordered to lie and produce the outcome he published to hide alien contact? Written orders, phone evidence, etc.?
Mr. Randle
Carey / Schmitt made some cryptic remarks about Glenn Dennis in their last book without being specific, that there is new info which suggest that Dennis has adopted the nurse story from another person. Do you know what they were telling about?
Brian -
According to what Richard Weaver told me, McAndrew was outraged (or maybe just annoyed) that the issue of bodies had not been addressed in the first report. He wanted to correct that oversight. My point wasn't that McAndrew had lied, but that he had used, as his supporting information that was untrue and he could have found that out. That we see many rejecting the testimony that was gathered decades after the fact and then turning around to change it to suit their purposes seemed to be slight hypocrisy to me. If the testimony was false when it referred to alien visitation, then it was false when applied to high altitude experiments. If he hadn't been out in the field to see the bodies, then it does nothing to support the idea those bodies were from the experiments. Since that was true (Ragsdale lied) how can it support anything?
I have always believed that the truth is the absolute defense, so that when I say Gerald Anderson lied, for example, my defense is that I can prove that statement. We have the faked phone bill, the faked diary, his lie about the length of the call to me, and his lie about taking French rather than Buskirk's anthro class. So, rather than say Ragsdale lied, he should have ignored it because it did not support his theory and had he looked, he would have seen that many of us had proven it false already. He didn't need to say anything about it other than it had been rejected by all of us.
Zac -
I believe that Glenn Dennis invented the tale of the missing nurse out of nothing other than his desire to climb aboard the Roswell alien train. I don't believe that anyone talked to a nurse about this and I know that no nurse from Roswell was killed in an aircraft accident shortly after a transfer to England. How many lies does someone get before you reject their tale?
To put the 1997 "Case Closed" report in historical perspective, it was a preposterous attempt to deal with the reports of bodies that the 1994/1995 first report refused to tackle. Col. Weaver's summary, first put out in Sept. 1994, said it was unnecessary to deal with the reports of bodies since it was a Mogul balloon that caused Roswell, and Mogul balloons had no crews.
"It should also be noted here that there was little mentioned in this report about the recovery of the so-called 'alien bodies.' This is for several reasons: First, the recovered wreckage was from a Project Mogul balloon. There were no 'alien' passengers therein."
(This is a classic example of circular reasoning or "begging the question", in that the conclusion is basically the same as the premise, which itself is treated as unquestionably true.)
A few months after the AF put out the complete version in July 1995, Pres. Clinton (who had a keen interest in UFOs and Roswell) was in Northern Ireland and in a prepared speech addressed the question of alien bodies at Roswell:
"I got a letter from 13-year-old Ryan from Belfast. Now, Ryan, if you're out in the crowd tonight, here's the answer to your question. No, as far as I know, an alien spacecraft did not crash in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. And, Ryan, if the United States Air Force did recover alien bodies, they didn't tell me about it, either, and I want to know."
As researcher Grant Cameron correctly points out, Presidential speeches are carefully scrutinized by the world and therefore are very carefully vetted. Therefore it was no accident that this was inserted into Clinton's speech so soon after the AF Roswell whitewash. Clinton was telling the A.F. he wasn't pleased that they hadn't addressed the bodies issue. Deal with it! Thus followed the 1997 Report headed by McAndrew (Weaver's partner in crime in the original report), which didn't even list the USAF as the ultimate source, though obviously put out by the same Pentagon A.F. counterintelligence office and group of dissembling propaganda specialists.
The crash-dummies-from-the-future theory was SOOOO bad, that when it was put out on June 24, 1997 (Note date--no accident: deliberately designed to upstage the 50th anniversary of the Kenneth Arnold sighting), it was roundly criticized by even the mainstream press as ridiculous, who are normally highly skeptical, even hostile when it comes to UFO reporting.
Kevin wrote:
"I believe that Glenn Dennis invented the tale of the missing nurse out of nothing other than his desire to climb aboard the Roswell alien train. I don't believe that anyone talked to a nurse about this and I know that no nurse from Roswell was killed in an aircraft accident shortly after a transfer to England. How many lies does someone get before you reject their tale?"
Well, here we go again. First of all, Dennis did NOT say (to my knowledge) he KNEW for a fact that she was killed in an aircraft accident, only that this is what he was told. He said after she was transferred to England (affidavit): "I wrote back to her and about two weeks later the letter came back marked 'Return to Sender--DECEASED.' Later, one of the nurses at the base said THE RUMOR WAS that she and five other nurses had been on a training mission and had been killed in a plane crash."
There are witnesses to Dennis having a close relationship with a nurse at Roswell (Adeline Fanton), maybe even having an affair with her while he was married, one reason why he might have been reluctant to be more forthcoming about her identity later in life.
A living nurse was located, residing in Roswell, Mary Lowe, based on information from friends of hers (Mr./Mrs. Charles Huttaneus). According to Mrs. Huttaneous, she was a civilian employed at Walker AFB in 1960 and knew Lowe. She said Lowe told her, "Back in 1947, I was a nurse and happened to be at the hospital when the aliens from the UFO crash were brought in."
Wendy Connors interviewed Lowe, who denied everything, saying she wasn't even at the base in 1947, but was in Army nurse in Scotland at the time. (Note the similarity to Dennis' story of being told his Nurse X being immediately transferred to England.) However, her Army records instead said she had been discharged in 1946 for marrying an enlisted man. Something wasn't right with this story either. Either Lowe was lying about still being in the Army in 1947 in Scotland or her military records had been altered.
When Schmitt then asked Dennis about Lowe right afterward, he says Dennis responded, "Oh, Mary Lowe. Yeah, she knows everything." The next day, Dennis retracted his statement. "About yesterday, forget what I said about Mary Lowe. I was mistaken. She doesn't know anything!" Schmitt and Carey suspect Lowe had given Dennis a call right after Connors had come knocking, thinking it was Dennis who had outed her.
If Mary Lowe was Nurse X, a very good, honorable reason for concealing her identity, if he promised her anonymity, was he knew she was alive and living in Roswell.
Another possible Nurse X candidate was Miriam Bush, 27-year-old secretary of the hospital administrator, Lt. Col. Harold Warne. According to her sister Jean and brother George, Miriam Bush came home one night in a state of shock. Warne had taken her to an examination room and she saw several small alien bodies, one still alive. The next day she came home and said nobody was ever to say anything further about it. The family thought she had been very heavily threatened.
All these women also fit Dennis' general description of Nurse X: brunette, pretty, short and petite. If he had indeed promised not to reveal the identity of Nurse X during his lifetime, it is also quite possible, to further conceal her identity, he made her into a composite of several people in his descriptions of her.
I don't think it is so simple that he lied about her name (for which he may have had good, honorable reasons for doing so), therefore his ENTIRE story was a lie. For sure, many people who knew Dennis say he was telling the story about getting a call from the base for child-size caskets either at the time or in the next several years. It is very hard to believe all these people are lying as well. If Dennis made the casket call up, it was a helluva long con that went on for 60+ years, just so he could "climb aboard the alien train" later in life.
David -
Yes, here we go again.
Let's see... Dennis DID tell me that she had been killed in an aircraft accident. He told me you could find the details in the newspaper, which, of course was not true. I searched the New York Times and Don Berliner searched the Stars and Strips.
He said that he and the nurse had a strong relationship and that they had talked about getting married, which explained why she would share with him information that was highly classified... of course, at the time, he was married with a child on the way but he needed that strong bond to make the story plausible.
He told me that her name was Naomi Self but not to share it with anyone because of his promise to her and then preceded to give the name to others including Karl Pflock and surprisingly, Phil Klass. In a telephone call with him, he was complaining about our (Don Schmitt and my inability to locate the nurse) saying he had given me the name. I responded by saying that there are many people out there with the same name. I had just talked to a man named Robert Slusher who had serviced in the USAAF during WW II but he had been a pilot. Dennis said, "Oh, I know Bob Slusher. He lives over in Las Cruces." It was the right guy... the point, Dennis reinforced the name by wanting to know why I hadn't found her... Then, once it was established that no woman by the name of Naomi Self had been an Army nurse at the time, Dennis then said, "I told you guys I would give you a name but it wouldn't be the right name." That was a crock as well. He had asked me not to reveal the name and I said I wouldn't. I gave it to no one, though Dennis gave it to everyone.
Look at your evidence... We have Mary Lowe who supposedly knew everything about it according to Mrs. Huttaneous, but when Lowe was interviewed, she said wasn't even at the base in 1947 and her records bear this out but you suggest her records might have altered, the standard reply when the documents do not conform to the verbal evidence... but maybe it was Miriam Bush, except the testimony comes from a second-hand source and you fail to mention that Warne, when interviewed, denied all of this...
There is nothing, other than Dennis telling his tale, changing it as new information was learned, using an illustration that looks more like something from the 1953 version of War of the Worlds (well, the hands and the arms as opposed to the head... the head looks like an illustration that appeared in the Roswell Daily Record in 1988), and even shading the truth about who had created the illustration which alloyed Walter Henn.
And we again having those interviewed telling us that Dennis had mentioned the casket story to them, but it seems that the telephone call might have come to someone else. Dennis just plugged himself into it.
Let's boil this down... Dennis gave us a name, then said he made it up... he said she died in an aircraft accident and then said that was a "rumor" though he never used those words with me... he might have been having an affair which is why he didn't give us the name... You say Dennis confirmed that Mary Lowe knew everything but Lowe denied, as did Dennis later... the best you can do is say that he had been telling the casket story for 60 years but there is no way to PROVE it...
Sorry, I just don't believe Dennis.
@ Kevin
Is it your opinion McAndrew simply did a sloppy job of overseeing the project, or simply wasn't that interested in spending much time on it in the first place?
@ David
With so many of these "witnesses" falling out of the picture - especially those claiming alien bodies were recovered - why hang onto any of this mythical story? Their stories were shown to be false two decades ago.
There may have been bodies, but so far not one piece of evidence proves this. I mean none at all. Certainly not alien bodies.
The recovery of alien bodies is crucial to the claim that Roswell was an ET event.
With nothing but false testimony backing this claim, coupled with fake MJ12 documents claiming they were recovered, isn't it proof enough the thing that crashed WASN'T anything alien?
How many lying witnesses does it take to convince everyone that whatever fell wasn't extraterrestrial? In other words, how many false claims are you willing to ignore just to cling to the ETH?
what about the strange crashed debris that was picked up that was thin and light as a feather that could not be burned, could not be dented with a sledgehammer and would bounce off after impact, the light dull colored aluminum like foil that when wadded up would go back flat no matter how many times these witnesses, both military and civilian would attempt it? the i beams with strange unknown characters that was not known or recognizable at that time? these i beams also could not be burned, broken in half or torn. and why would Jessie Marcel bother to wake up his 11 year old son in the middle of the night over lame balloon debris since a majority of skeptics still want to sadly believe this project mogul nonsense no matter how many times Kevin Randle has proven them wrong again, and again, and again? lightning was able to make the alien craft crash during a storm
Kevin:
I have to agree 100% with you over the nurse(s) affair. How anyone can possibly go through all that contradictory testimony presented by David Rudiak and others, and still conclude that there is even a slight possibility that alien bodies existed at Roswell is beyond me.
The crucial, and critical, point remains: ALL (yes every one of) these tales emanated decades after the event. Although a person X may claim that so-and-so said this or that in 1960, or witnessed something in 1947, or heard Y say something in 1949, EVERY ONE was only related to investigators in either the late 1980s or the early 1990s, i.e. after the Roswell case had received wide publicity.
This kind of evidence is worthless, which is why the idea of ET bodies is laughable. Had any real bodies existed they would have been mentioned, and explained, at the time it happened or soon after. Only a conspiracist would think otherwise.
I do agree, however, that the McAndrew report sounds very much like an attempt to account for these mythical bodies, without labelling any witnesses as liars. McAndrew just overstepped the mark in doing so (maybe on legal advice?).
@ James who wrote:
"what about the strange crashed debris..."
The facts bear out those remarkable debris descriptions didn't surface until the Roswell event became widely known in the late 1970's and 1980's. It all started with Marcel stating "I didn't know what it was.."
From there it blossomed into the twisted logic that aliens are the only explanation for what happened.
The mythical debris material was never what people claimed it was.
It goes to show that if the testimony of the alien bodies was fabricated by the witnesses, then clearly the debris descriptions were fabricated as well.
That's not just a skeptical viewpoint, it's what the facts support.
Every newspaper described the object as balloon material, and that was before any claim surfaced in the 1980's that Brazel was forced to make a retraction.
If the story of dead aliens is false and eight witnesses shown to have lied (as has been demonstrated), it only goes to show the debris testimony was exaggerated as well.
The alien bodies claim is the cornerstone to the story. If there were no alien bodies there was no alien event, no proof that we are alone, and no proof of a seventy year coverup to hide an alien presence.
This is true no matter how the debris was described 30 years after the event.
Brian said:
"If the story of dead aliens is false and eight witnesses shown to have lied (as has been demonstrated), it only goes to show the debris testimony was exaggerated as well."
Holy crap Brian, talk about twisted logic, you certainly twisted this to suit your mindset.
Any way you cut it these are separate issues, one being false does not lead to the other being false as well. Just your usual babble.
And to explain to you once again, I am not convinced that anything alien was involved at Roswell. I would like to know the truth, however it comes down. But I strongly object to people like you who want to twist logic to suit your own agenda.
Kevin:
When the Case Closed report came out from the Air Force I wondered if the authors were having us on. A sort of a nudge and a wink explanation that was so implausible that only an idiot would believe it. After all, the Mogul flight 4 never flew and the people who reported seeing dead aliens were clearly liars. The test dummies are just icing on the cake, too stupid for consideration.
Have you ever looked at the career path the authors of this report took? Did they have a somewhat normal career path or was it enhanced. By that I mean promotion before time in grade.
@ Neal
"Any way you cut it these are separate issues, one being false does not lead to the other being false as well. Just your usual babble."
Seperate? You must be joking. You've drunk too deeply from the well of Roswellian lore. Your mind is now parsing each separate elements of the case into individual episodes of which any single one can prove ET visited (or your people from the future).
To refresh your memory, the claim is the Roswell event was a crashed alien vessel that left exotic debris and craft with at least four alien bodies (one supposedly alive) which the USAAF has been hiding for nearly 70 years in the greatest coverup the world has ever known.
How anyone, whether they support the hypothesis or not, can consider claims of exotic alien debris and extraterrestrial bodies two DIFFERENT issues within the same case just boggles the mind.
There's no evidence of alien bodies - none. There's also no evidence of exotic alien debris unless you have it.
I suppose the next iteration of the case (from the Roswellian mind) will be that in the worrisome event the Ramey memo doesn't say "victims", then clearly we must all accept what crashed was an unmanned (un-aliened?) probe.
Oh boy...I can't wait.
Neal Foy:
Are you really suggesting that the career paths of the two USAF guys who authored the Roswell reports were enhanced as a result, or that they were promoted early? This sounds just too fanciful. Didn't Kevin write his early UFO books while he was still a serving officer? What about his early fiction? You are surely not implying that Kevin's early writings might also have affected his career.
In fact, would anyone get early promotion (or demotion) in the USAF due to such activities? I suppose it is conceivable. Or is it? It is almost like receiving an order from above: "If you write an article or book debunking this UFO story, we'll promote you soon after".
I don't buy it, but then I know next to nothing about such things!
Brian.......when i watched Jessie Marcel speak about what he picked up and found on IN SEARCH OF and Stanton Friedmans excellent movie UFOS ARE REAL i could tell that he was not making this stuff up. on the contrary he was telling the truth as he knew it and he was genuinely puzzeled and amazed at what he had found...IT CAME TO EARTH BUT WAS NOT FROM EARTH was a very compelling statement and Jessie Marcel was not seeking publicity, Stanton Friedman found him. and that's not all....he was insisting it was not a weather balloon, nor an aircraft or missile, indicating he didn't know what it was and further more IT COULD NOT BE FROM THIS EARTH, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN!
Neal, CDA -
I have seen nothing to indicated that either Weaver or McAndrew were promoted as a result of completing their assignment, which, by the way was mostly a records search rather than an investigation. Weaver was a colonel and retired as a colonel. McAndrew was promoted from first lieutenant to captain, but that is something that nearly every first lieutenant experiences... you have to be a real dud to be passed over (or commit some outrageous act, pass bad checks and the like).
This was simply an assignment that they completed and then moved on to other assignments inside the Air Force. I do not know where McAndrew is today.
As I have said, McAndrew was annoyed about the tales of bodies floating around and wanted to do something about that... He chose the information he needed to make his case and didn't bother to update the information which would have saved some embarrassment. When I was working on Crash!, I had begun the entry on the Del Rio crash and thought I'd make sure nothing had changed in the more than a decade since I had written A History of UFO Crashes. That was how I learned that Willingham had radically altered his story and that was why I searched for the first published mention of that story which was significantly different that what he was saying in the 21st century. Sometimes you just have to check the information to make sure it is up to date.
Brian said:
"How anyone, whether they support the hypothesis or not, can consider claims of exotic alien debris and extraterrestrial bodies two DIFFERENT issues within the same case just boggles the mind."
I never said anything about alien debris Brian, it's another example of how you twist words. But an objective person would indeed consider them separate. Your mind appears to be easily boggled. Let me remind you that your contention was that because the claims of seeing alien bodies were false the claims of seeing and touching strange debris were also false. Sorry Brian that's simply bullshit. It would get you a failing grade in any debate class.
Investigation by Kevin and others revealed that the alien body claims were fabricated. Even the most rabid debunkers couldn't prove that Marcel, Proctor, Marcel Jr. and others were fabricating the debris claims. That doesn't mean they are true, just that they haven't been proven false like the alien body claims were. I do find it interesting that you debunkers cling to statements by proven liars like Cavitt and the AAF as gospel.
cda:
I was curious about the authors, I wasn't suggesting anything. Had I been one of them I think I might have said screw me, why did this land on my desk? Given that the Air Force had long since dropped the UFO question. Since you don't know much about the military I'll give you a clue, promotions and demotions aren't the only way a service member can be rewarded or punished. A reward might be an extended tour in a desirable location, maybe a location that they were interested in for retirement. Punishment could be an extended tour in Thule, Greenland or a remote base in the wilds of Alaska. My screw up brother in law got both of those and more.
@ Neal who wrote:
"Even the most rabid debunkers couldn't prove that Marcel, Proctor, Marcel Jr. and others were fabricating the debris claims."
Not true.
One standout reason is this magic (Majic?) debris has never surfaced - no physical examples whatsoever (including no photos).
A second reason is no one (including you) has ever produced a bonafide government or scientific report describing it - no documented evidence whatsoever.
A third reason is the very first news reports said nothing about these miraculous physical properties - they spoke of common well known materials.
The best alien proponents (Schmitt and Carey in particular) can do is propagate the myth that Nitinol was produced by The Battelle Institute by "back engineering" Roswell debris.
Of course Nitinol displays none of the properties described by the witnesses (it only returns to its original shape under applied heat not instantaneously). Memory alloys were discovered by humans in 1932. They didn't hit the open market until the 1960's.
So just as you and others claim advanced human engineering couldn't explain any of this because quote, "we would all know about it by now". I can equally claim IF this miraculous alien material was discovered in 1947 then "why hasn't it been used in any weapons systems or commercial uses to date? Surely we would have seen it by now...." Right? It works both ways Neal.
So until official documents are produced your claim this material was from outer space (or a future earth world) is just wishful thinking.
People who believe scientifically miraculous aerospace materials are alien in origin without any evidence to back it up are the people who are "babbling " nonsense.
@ James who wrote:
"Brian.......when i watched Jessie Marcel speak about what he picked up and found on IN SEARCH OF and Stanton Friedmans excellent movie UFOS ARE REAL i could tell that he was not making this stuff up. on the contrary he was telling the truth as he knew it and he was genuinely puzzeled and amazed at what he had found...IT CAME TO EARTH BUT WAS NOT FROM EARTH was a very compelling statement and Jessie Marcel was not seeking publicity, Stanton Friedman found him. and that's not all....he was insisting it was not a weather balloon, nor an aircraft or missile, indicating he didn't know what it was and further more IT COULD NOT BE FROM THIS EARTH, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN!"
In response I'll add these skeptical remarks:
Marcel's interview in the television show IN SEARCH OF was likely filmed in the late 1970's (or early 1980's) because the show aired sometime in the early 1980's.
I have no doubt he was being sincere with his words to the best of his recollection, but that doesn't make what he found alien in nature. I don't think we can definitively prove his commentary is as factual as it could be, despite his honest demeanor, because that interview was done 30 years after the event - and that's a long time for an elderly man to recall exact details. By the late 1970's and early 1980's he and his son had been interviewed many times by people who were searching for evidence that UFO's were extraterrestrial visitors.
This contaminates his testimony no matter how sincere he appears, especially when he emphasizes that upon discovery he didn't know what he had found.
Let's not forget the man also made some very overstated and sensationalized claims long before this incident.
He claimed university attendance he never experienced; He hyped up his skills as a private pilot when he really didn't have complete flight training; He overstated his role as a bomber pilot, bombardier, and gunner in a B-29; and he claimed he produced much of Truman's speech given to the American public on the advent of Soviet atomic power when Truman never actually gave a speech at all.
This implies he had a tendency to overstate things - just an aspect of his personality I presume.
To sum it up I will quote from a 2012 entry on another blog:
"Marcel may have come to believe what he's saying, but his remarks are a construction created in his mind, from contact with Friedman and others, and all the input he was subjected to by the Roswell brouhaha after 1978; that is, he came to believe the stories (and mythology) generated by the UFO/ET crowd."
James T:
Can't you see that your ET case is very weak, based on certain verbal testimony from Marcel? Instead of accepting everything, or nearly everything, Marcel said, why not ask yourself how Marcel, a USAF officer, was in any position to know what did or did not come from planet earth? He can certainly say "it was not a B-29" or "it was not a V-2 rocket" or maybe even "it was not part of any balloon I know of". He CANNOT say "it was not of this earth" with any certitude. This is because he (Marcel) had no knowledge of any unearthly man-made craft. No such things exist, either then or now.
Brian, really? How did they prove anything? Give it up. You have nothing but speculation. Was it from aliens, maybe not but multiple witnesses described what was NOT a weather balloon. Yet you and the other debunkers cling to the cover story because you have nothing!!!!!
Tim Printy rejected your ignorant TU 4 story in favor of the balloonatic theory.
Neal:
How do you know it was a cover story? Neither side, ET promoters or skeptics, has any hardware to back up their claims or views. There is, however, a vital difference. In one case (the balloon/radar target answer) the descriptions given at the time match it more or less perfectly. In the other case (the spaceship answer), NO SUCH THING is known to science, either then or now after 7 decades.
Yes we can all speculate, forever. But some 'speculations' have more value than others. That's the difference, but I agree there is no absolute proof either way.
And what witnesses said decades after the event WAS certainly influenced by the then current prevailing pro-ET attitude to UFOs, and the biases of interviewers.
cda
The Air Force admitted the balloon story from 1947 was a cover story. When the officers charged with making the report did the research they found the descriptions of the debris. If they wanted it to be consistent then they had to come up with another balloon. The balloon that never flew, but oh well, they tried. Another way they may have gone was to use a story that took Marcel's description into account. But that would have contradicted the description the Army had planted in 1947.
I know you will object to the idea that the bundles of material with balsa wood sticks was planted by the Army. At the same time you are pushing the Svengali interviewers. The Army had ample opportunity to plant the description and witnesses made statements at the time that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that the witnesses had been influenced by the Army. And yes this is speculation, but with better support and documentation than the debunkers blindly accepting a cover story.
@ Neal
"Tim Printy rejected your ignorant TU 4 story in favor of the balloonatic theory."
Yes, but it's humorous that you've now resorted to referencing a complete skeptic's opinion as defense for your unproven opinions.
Irony at its best!
But more importantly, just because people claim something doesn't make it true. You present your evidence that this couldn't be a terrestrial event by claiming "multiple witnesses stated it was NOT a weather balloon."
So what. Anyone can claim anything - does that automatically prove them right?
Wake up Neal.
I've already agreed the evidence from Crary's notes, right or wrong, seems NOT to support an NYU/Mogul explanation.
So who are you preaching to?
I might add that I have yet to figure out what you're doing here. You never offer ideas, hypothesis, or any suggestions to help this riddle. You seem confident acprosaic explanation is insufficient and overtly suggest it was likely an alien event.
You also seem content to criticize each and every skeptic with a mocking tone suggesting anyone who opposes your ideas must be "ignorant".
Such "help" from bystanders spouting nothing but verbal assaults begs the question whether your insights are needed at all.
I think NO, but then again it's not my blog.
Neal Foy wrote:
"Tim Printy rejected your ignorant TU 4 story in favor of the balloonatic theory."
Balloonatic. Good one! Neal, do you have a copyright on that, or can anyone use it?
Printy isn't the only Mogul balloonatic. There are a LOT of them. No hard, cold facts can pry their cold, dead hands from it.
CDA deceptively wrote:
Can't you see that your ET case is very weak, based on certain verbal testimony from Marcel? Instead of accepting everything, or nearly everything, Marcel said, why not ask yourself how Marcel, a USAF officer, was in any position to know what did or did not come from planet earth? He can certainly say "it was not a B-29" or "it was not a V-2 rocket" or maybe even "it was not part of any balloon I know of". He CANNOT say "it was not of this earth" with any certitude. This is because he (Marcel) had no knowledge of any unearthly man-made craft. No such things exist, either then or now.
First of it, it wasn't just Marcel giving the descriptions of highly anomalous debris. For over a dozen years I've had a lengthy portion of my website devoted just to debris descriptions (amounts to over 60 typewritten pages):
www.roswellproof.com/debris_main.html
I'm sure after all these years of Roswell nitpicking and nattering and endless disucssions, CDA by this time must be well aware of this other debris testimony. So CDA (and other skeptics), why do you still pretend it was only Marcel? (Answer: Because if they pretend this and can discredit Marcel, then there is no Roswell case if he was the only debris witness.)
Second, Marcel was familiar with standard aviation materials, like aluminum sheet metal and other metals in aircraft. While some of the debris resembled sheet aluminum (according to Marcel and others like Lewis Rickett), it's physical PROPERTIES were not that of standard aluminum, some being very thin and lightweight but unbendable (Rickett's description, also that of John Kromschroeder, who said his friend/business partner Cpt. Oliver Henderson later showed him a piece), or very malleable with a memory property--the "memory foil" which could be scrunched up and unfold to a flat sheet with no creasing. (many witnesses to this, such as Bill Brazel Jr., Sgt. Robert Smith, Sgt. Earl Fulford, Frankie Rowe, Sally Tadolini, etc.)
(I mention Rickett specifically because prior to going into counterintelligence, he had been a highly qualified aircraft mechanic, inspector, and supervisor. During the war, he was sent to Europe as part of the team that studied German aircraft on site. Thus he was very well-qualified in his assessment of the strange thin-metal he said he saw. Kromschroeder was also an expert in metallurgy and said he tried to replicate the properties of the material Henderson showed him, particularly the hardness of it.)
Marcel also considered the possibility of the malleable memory material being from some sort of balloon (in his Linda Corley interview). He said the this material (or maybe one of the memory materials) was porous and cloth-like because he could blow through it. A balloon envelope, for obvious reasons, would not have been porous.
So why did Marcel (and others) think it "not of this Earth". Because the MATERIAL PROPERTIES of the debris did not match physical properties of materials of that time (only recently have such materials with these properties started to emerge from labs). And maybe there were other reasons Marcel had this opinion (e.g., if he had known of non-human bodies).
Neal Foy:
If I understand you, you seem to be saying the following:
1. The USAF planted some balloon debris in the desert in 1947 as a cover for some other aerial or space object that crashed in the desert. This would obviate the need to find a substitute balloon for those Ft Worth photos (as David Rudiak keeps telling us happened).
2. The USAF, nearly 50 years later, had to account for the balloon-like descriptions given by the witnesses in '47, so invented another balloon launch in their 1994 report to explain the original debris. This was, presumably, to cover-up the real debris, whatever it was.
3. The actual debris from the 'crash' was never identified but was probably not from an ET craft.
4. No bodies existed, either earthly or non-earthly.
I have NEVER heard such a complicated solution to the Roswell affair. It means all those who claim a 'switch' was done at Ft Worth don't know what they are talking about. No switch was necessary if you are right, was it?
If the debris was probably NOT ET, as you claim, what do you think it was? And if the USAF did plant the debris, how far in advance did they perform this strange act?
Or is it that the AF merely told witnesses to DESCRIBE 'balloon + radar reflector' debris (i.e. put words into their mouths) when it was something else entirely?
I am truly baffled. But the whole case just gets more and more complicated as we continue this debate. Maybe it is time for another Roswell book. (God forbid!)
David
I'm glad you like the balloonatic label, I can't be sure I coined the term although I'm sure I never saw it anywhere before I used it. Yes, you can use it anytime you like along with the sister term balloonacy.
cda
No, you didn't understand what I was saying, possibly because I wasn't clear or you are adding things to suit your view.
1. I'm not saying that at all, and that would be impossible because the USAF didn't exist yet in July 1947
2. That's very close to what I said, a second cover story that agreed in part with the original cover story from 1947.
3. As far as I know the debris has never been identified to the public. I have no idea how much was identified under the cover of secrecy. I simply don't know if the craft was alien, that's been my consistent position.
4. We have no credible reports of alien bodies existing at Roswell that I'm aware of. Otherwise, again I don't know.
I didn't claim that the debris was probably not ET. I think it may possibly not be ET related. I can't know that. So pure speculation.
It isn't as complicated as you make it out to be. The Air Force tasked these officers to close the Roswell case, they did a records search and came up with a solution that fit the original cover story and claimed it wasn't a simple weather balloon but the super secret project Mogul balloon. Too bad for them that it never flew at the time they claimed.
I have no explanation for the crash dummy story, Kevin's explanation is as good as any so I'll go with that.
Yes, you did understand that the description of the balloon debris is what was planted by the Army. I'm certainly not the only one to suggest that and it's supported by some rather odd statements made by Brazel and Wilcox at the time Not to mention the fact that Brazel, according to people who knew him, never wanted to talk about the incident for the remainder of his life. Something beyond mere embarrassment seems to be in play here.
So you see cda, if you leave out the parts you made up to support your view it isn't complicated at all. Simple deception carried on for a long time.
DR:
When Marcel was interviewed 32 years after the event he certainly did use phrases like 'strange metal' or 'unusual materials'. At least that is the impression I get. But why would he refer to "not of this earth" in his descriptions? (Did he in fact use these actual words?).
The answer, which I repeat again, is that in his early interviews, particularly with Stan Friedman, the impression was made upon him that he had recovered the remains of an ET craft. I make no apologies for saying this. And if you add to this the fact that Friedman sent Marcel, and several others, a package of his UFO papers, strongly pro-ET, before or during these interviews, you can see why Marcel was thus influenced. (Stan always headed his papers "Nuclear Physicist" to create the impression of someone who was highly qualified and knew what he was talking about). Marcel also featured in the film UFOs ARE REAL where Friedman was an adviser, which appeared, I think, before THE ROSWELL INCIDENT book came out.
When did Marcel, and why did he, change his description to something "not of this earth"? And if he really believed this since 1947, do you seriously think he would have kept silent about it for over 30 years and not said a word to the various UFO groups then extant?
I am not interested in any vows of secrecy he was allegedly under. There is not, and never was, any secrecy over telling the public that you believed you once recovered parts of an ET spacecraft, even if you were in the military.
CDA:
Marcel used the term "not of this earth" to describe the debris in his interview with reporter Bob Pratt (1980 I think).
The only reason Stanton Friedman heard of and found Marcel was because he received a tip from a station manager while Stan was doing a lecture series on UFOs, that the guy's ham radio buddy said he had handled the pieces of a real flying saucer. So obviously Marcel was talking about it BEFORE he ever spoke to Friedman. (You have been told this MANY times, but still go back to insisting that Friedman planted the idea in Marcel's head with his Jedi mind tricks.)
Marcel Jr. many times told the story of his father coming back from the field totally convinced that he had found the remains of a true flying saucer. Maybe Stan climbed in his handy nuclear-powered time machine, went back in time and planted the idea in Marcel's head again. (The nuclear engineering project Stan never talks about.)
Marcel saying "Not of this earth" meant the MATERIAL PROPERTIES of the crash materials could not be duplicated by any materials made at the time by any nation that Marcel was familiar with. The material was described by multiple witnesses (other than Marcel) as very lightweight, yet exceptionally hard (couldn't be marked, scratched), heat resistance (couldn't be made to burn, wouldn't char), some was extremely stiff even though very thin (couldn't be bent by hand even with extreme pressure), and some had memory properties in that it wouldn't hold a crease or dent, and/or would unfold itself to a smooth surface even after being wadded up.
Such comments were not unique to Marcel, such as this 1948 USAF Europe Top Secret document:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_rockets
"'these phenomena [ghost rockets, flying saucers] are obviously the result of a high technical skill which cannot be credited to any presently known culture on earth'. They are therefore assuming that these objects originate from some previously unknown or unidentified technology, possibly outside the earth".
Or comments by Gen. Exon about Roswell:
"...They knew they had something new in their hands. The metal and material was unknown to anyone I talked to... A couple of guys thought it might be Russian, but the overall consensus was that the pieces were from space. Everyone from the White House on down knew that what we had found was not of this world within 24 hours of our finding it. ...Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space."
http://www.roswellproof.com/exon.html
I guess Stanton Friedman got to them too and planted the silly ET idea in their heads.
Brian Bell to David Rudiak..."why hang onto any of this mythical story?"
Brian Bell to Neal Foy..."I might add that I have yet to figure out what you're doing here. You never offer ideas, hypothesis, or any suggestions to help this riddle."
.....
I nearly spilt my cup of tea over myself when I read this. I think the more obvious question would be to ask what YOU are doing here?
You don't believe the ETH in any shape or form and yet you spend huge chunks of your waking hours on this "mythical story". How empty is your life that you can devote it to a subject that you dogmatically disbelieve? You proved in our Rendlesham chat, some months back, that you only seem to be aware of the basics of a story and then fill in the gaps with your own thought up hyperbole. For you to then accuse someone of not helping solve a "riddle" that you don't believe ever happened in the first place, is a wonderful demonstration of your lack of own self awareness.
David Rudiak wrote:
"Marcel Jr. many times told the story of his father coming back from the field totally convinced that he had found the remains of a true flying saucer."
Last year I did a chronological review of all of the videotaped interviews available to me (UFO websites and YouTube) to see if each and every interview of Marcel Jr., from first to last, was as consistent and unvaried as David and others doggidly claim.
While I did not review each and every comment printed in dozens of books, I did discover that his videotaped stories vary to some degree.
Yes that's right - they show a certain trend.
People like Paul or David will likely claim this is due, in part, to stylistic differences between one interviewer and the next, or differences among questions one from the other, or even personal convictions that I'm just debunking something intentionally. They are wrong.
Consistently the man is asked the same questions repeatedly with each consecutive interviewer decade after decade. It rarely varies. Each interviewer went for the same questions which basically centered on his "story" and the "material".
1) Why did his father wake him up that evening?
2) How much material did his father have stuffed in the car?
3) What did his father say about the material and where did he get it?
4) What type of material did his father spread out on the kitchen floor?
5) What properties did the material exhibit?
6) What were the I-beams like symbols and all?
7) What did his father think the material was and from where?
8) After the incident what did each of them discuss in regards to their final conclusions as the years past?
My analysis indicated that the basic elements of Marcel Jr.'s story didn't change, but his descriptions of the material and his final conclusions EVOLVED over the decades to the point where he was beyond any doubt convinced it was alien.
In the earliest of interviews Marcel Jr.'s initial reaction was not so confident. In fact he was often reluctant to describe the debris as alien (or flying saucer material). More often he claimed that just like his father, he really didn't know what it was.
Later, as years pass, he is shown repeatedly stating he was absolutely convinced it was alien material from the very first evening he saw the debris.
He also made errors. In some cases he admitted symbols shown to him were the ones he actually saw, yet they had no resemblance whatsoever to the ones he later illustrated. He even stated early on that his father didn't say it was from outer space, yet in his later years claimed his father knew it was from outer space from the beginning.
It was clear to me the man was completely influenced by the UFO crowd as each decade past. His story was the same, but the detailed specifics changed and his initial reluctance grew into firm confidence year after year.
This is not surprising and I don't fault him for that. However I do fault those who insist that claims of exotic material have been consistent among witnesses decade after decade. That's not true and you know it. If not, then you refuse to admit it publicly.
I challenge anyone of you (David or Paul) to take several months to do a meta-analysis of the very same content - even more perhaps.
You may be surprised that your claims of absolute certainty are not as solid as you think.
Of course you'll never admit that because it would mean you weren't absolutely correct about your stance on the issue. That would be detrimental to your continued insistence that everyone is wrong except yourselves.
DR:
Re General Exon's quote:
"...They knew they had something new in their hands. The metal and material was unknown to anyone I talked to... A couple of guys thought it might be Russian, but the overall consensus was that the pieces were from space. Everyone from the White House on down knew that what we had found was not of this world within 24 hours of our finding it. ...Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space."
I do not know whether you take this seriously or literally, but presume that you probably do. Without mincing words, I shall describe it as balderdash. An army general (who ought to have known better) tells researchers that everyone from the president on down "knew what was found was not of this world..."
Oh really? So President Truman actually knew, as well as everyone below him in the White House and the military! I have no further comment to make. If Exon did indeed make these remarks, perhaps we should disregard EVERYTHING he ever said about Roswell, including the 'Unholy 13', the 'Magnificent 14' or whatever.
Regarding that USAFE memo, who wrote it, and who was it addressed to? Do you know? I ask because it is in Tim Good's book NEED TO KNOW. At first I thought it was a genuine official document, but I am not so sure now. Notice that the writer asks "What are your reactions?" Who is he addressing, and did any 'reactions' come back? Also, who or what are OI and OB at the top of this memo? There is evidence of two typewriters being used in the first paragraph, plus a mis-spelling (not unusual I admit).
There is something about this memo that bothers me. Or it may be simply the thoughts of one person. Who?
Also, the part you quoted is actually the thoughts of certain unnamed people within the Swedish Air Intelligence Service. There is a complete absence of names in this paper. An oddity.
Brian:
Yes, I tend to agree about Marcel jr, although I have not gone into it as you have.
Why not try the same with General Exon? He was a US Army General and should know better (unless he was suffering from memory lapse or dementia) than to make the dotty statements he made, or allegedly made.
@ CDA and David
We know the comments of both Exon and Dubose are considered hard evidence in favor of the ETH.
However I point out that Exon's comments may have been a purposeful redirection to send researchers down a certain path already traveled and confirming nothing. In other words a simple misinformation effort.
And before anyone says that's impossible, consider the fact that many believe both Ramey and Twining pulled similar stunts as ET supporters claim.
If one general can do it so can the another.
CDA -
Exon was an Air Force general, not an Army general... and I have every quote he made on tape, not to mention a letter from him saying the quotes are accurate. Say what you will about the Roswell case, but Exon said the things he is quoted as saying by me. I will note that Greg Sandow had the opportunity to listen to the tapes and read the transcripts and noted that everything was accurate... and so we don't slip farther off the rails, I will note that Exon said these things which doesn't mean we have to begin an argument about what he really meant.
This was a post about McAndrew's "Case Closed," and as usual, we have drifted far afield.
Kevin:
Yes we have drifted off topic. I have now read Greg Sandow (on UFO Updates archive). To go into it would mean drifting even more off-topic, so I will not take this any further just now. Perhaps you can one day tell us how you first came across General Exon. I have not gone through your books again, but this does seem to be an omission, e.g. did he approach you or vice-versa? Where and how did you learn of him? Oh yes, he was familiar with the Roswell story before you met him, and I have my own suspicions on this too.
However, I'll take the hint and cease talking about Exon for now.
@ CDA and Kevin:
I don't doubt that Kevin's records are accurate concerning Exon's statements.
However I still wonder why, if what he said was actually true, that he divulged it openly or was allowed to do it without any repercussions to his career.
Active generals (or retired ones too) are not permitted to divulge top secret classified information concerning national security matters.
So he is the only general who has been granted an exception?
Makes no sense to me if what he claimed was actually true. It makes more sense the reason he suffered no consequences was because what he said wasn't true - either he recalled events incorrectly, was just playing a wild prank, or purposely misdirected the investigation as counter intelligence.
If he engaged in purposeful misdirection, it may indicate they are still hiding something but not what some people think.
CDA -
In the course of the investigation, I was given Exon's name as someone who might be able to help. I called him, rather than he coming forward. I introduced myself and told him that I was doing research into the activities at Wright-Patterson and confirmed that he had been the base commander there. The conversation evolved from that point.
You are correct when you say that he shouldn't have shared classified information with me, but I think I caught him off guard a couple of decades after he had retired. When I visited with him at Wright-Pat (he was there to play in a golf tournament) it that wasn't too far from where I live. We had lunch at the Officer's Club, and he would not allow that conversation to be recorded. I had the impression that someone had talked to him about all he had shared with Don and me, so he was more circumspect in what he said... but he did not retract anything, and his letter to me underscores that.
Kevin,
If it is not to much trouble could you post the audio recordings on here. The reason I ask is it would allow us to hear the General in his own words with the tonality, and inflection during the conversation.
In reading one conversation with General Exon it struck me that if there was no space vehicle, or bodies, and rather by only suggesting the US had one, this would play upon the mindset of US's allies, and the fear of their enemies.
Last point, everyone is talking about a ship, and bodies. Has no one considered that it was a piece of a ship that fell to earth. I.e. It could have been drifting in space until it fell into the earth's gravity field.
Post a Comment