Monday, April 13, 2020

Glenn Dennis Lies?


As those of you who pay attention know, I had Don Schmitt on the radio show/podcast not all that long ago. We were talking about our investigation into the Roswell UFO crash (among other things) from the perspective of all that we had done. I asked him, given what we know today, if he still believed the Glenn Dennis tale. His answer somewhat surprised me.

Before I get into that, and as I have learned by surfing the net and watching television, now that I have teased you with this, I will go off on another tangent. In the end, it will make sense and it is something that I believe is necessary when we begin to talk about Glenn Dennis.

First, I have noticed that one of the Dennis interviews has appeared on YouTube and attributed to the National Archives. The source, according to the notes on YouTube, is the US government suggesting there is some credibility to the tale. I have written to the Archives telling them that the voices you hear interviewing Dennis are not government investigators, but are Don Schmitt, Mark Wolf and me. A copy of the tape was supplied to the Fund for UFO Research and it was, in turn, loaned to the Air Force during their search for any documents relating to Roswell. When the investigation was completed, rather than returning the tape, all the materials those Air Force officers had collected, were boxed up and sent to the National Archives. This included material that was clearly marked for return to those who had provided it.

To digress, as I was going through those boxes at the National Archives, I found a
The boxes of the Roswell material at the
National Archives. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle.
court martial of a doctor who had been stationed in Roswell in 1957, which was completely irrelevant to the Roswell investigation. In that particular material was a notice that the record was to be returned to the Judge Advocate in the Air Force. Instead it was in a box that dealt with the Roswell crash. I pointed this out to someone at the Archive, suggesting the record be returned to the original source as was noted on the first page of the document. I don’t know if that happened.

The same thing happened with the tape of Glenn Dennis. It was to be returned to the Fund, but that never happened. Instead, it was put into some sort of video file at the archive that was eventually uploaded to YouTube. I have attempted to get it taken down but only because the labeling on YouTube gives the interview more credibility than it deserves, given what we know about Glenn Dennis in 2020. I have also tried to get the source updated so that the tape can be properly evaluated.

Glenn Dennis. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle.
When Dennis first appeared on the Roswell scene, his name provided by Walter Haut, it seemed that Dennis was a credible source. He told a wonderful story about someone at the base ordering child-size coffins and later meeting with a nurse who told him about the alien creatures. She provided a drawing to show him what they looked like and then burned it. Dennis said that she was killed in an aircraft accident sometime after she was transferred from Roswell.

As many of you already know, there were no nurses killed in an aircraft accident as Dennis had described which seems to be the first lie. He gave a name for the nurse, but there is no evidence that a nurse with that name ever served in the Army or in Roswell, which would be the second lie. Confronted with this fact, he changed the name of the nurse and then blamed us, UFO researchers, for getting the information wrong, which would be the third and fourth lies. He then gave us a new name for the nurse, which would be the fifth lie. It was at this point that I decided that the Dennis tale was bogus.

Don, along with Tom Carey, believed that there was some truth buried somewhere in the tale. In Witness to Roswell, they quoted L.M. Hall, a former Roswell MP who
Ballard Funeral Home. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle.
was a police office in Roswell in 1947. He told them:

One day in July 1947, I was at Ballard’s [Funeral Home] on a break, and Glenn and I were in the driveway “batting the breeze.” I was sitting on my motorcycle, and Glenn stood nearby. He remarked, “I had a funny call from the base. They wanted to know if we had several baby caskets.” Then he started laughing and said, “I asked what for and the said they wanted to bury [or ship (noted added in original)] those aliens,” or something to that effect. I thought it was one of those “gotcha!” jokes, so I didn’t bite. He never said anything else about it.
This seemed to be some corroboration for the tale told by Dennis, but was it enough to overcome the lies that he had told about the nurse? And when confronted by those lies, said that he had never given us the real name, that
he had told us he wasn’t going give us the real name and then supplied another. At what point do we look at the Dennis tale and say these new lies are just too many?

The last time that I had asked Don about Dennis tale, he said that he still believed in it. I could tell then that he was disturbed by some of the information that had come out in the last twenty-five years and that his resolve was weakening. Then, when I asked Don about Dennis on the radio show, he said that he didn’t have much faith in the Dennis tale anymore. It was an interesting revelation. You can listen to our whole talk here:


Tom Carey, who has been working with Don for a couple of decades listened to the show and thought that Don had not fairly described the situation with Dennis. He wrote to me, “On your show, Don said that ‘The Nurse’ we were looking for actually worked at Ballard’s Funeral Home, and that’s how Glenn learned what was then taking place at the RAAF base hospital. Wrong. [emphasis in original]. The nurse worked at the Marshal & Marshal [actually Marshall & Marshall] medical clinic in Roswell and accompanied one of the doctors there who had been called out to the base when the little bodies started arriving there. Here’s the kicker. Her husband worked at Ballard’s as an embalmer [emphasis in original] – the same as Glenn Dennis. That’s where Glenn got his nurse story. I came across the information by chance in the 1947 Roswell City Directory (I have a photocopy of it) [as do I] after interviewing someone who knew the name of the doctor from M&M who had been called out to the base.”

There are some wide-ranging implications in this statement, not of least of which is the confirmation that Dennis was lying. Unlike what Dennis had said, at best, he might have overheard a conversation, but he seemed to have no direct knowledge from an alleged participant. According to Tom, 1LT Adeline Fanton was the nurse he was referring to rather than the nonexistent Naomi Self. Fanton, who was a nurse at Roswell in 1947, was dead by the time researchers began looking for her. Dennis had no fear of contradiction given the circumstances. The point really is that Dennis had no inside knowledge that was based on his personal observations. Rather, he plugged himself into the tale and all he did was divert resources that could have been better used elsewhere. Dennis should be written out of the story completely, taking his place alongside Gerald Anderson and Frank Kaufmann.

This does expose one of the problems with the Roswell case. Twenty-five years ago, the case was much more robust than it is today. There are cracks in the case that we all have uncovered over the years. Tiny things that, by themselves, aren’t all that important but in the aggregate, weaken the case. It just isn’t as solid as it used to be.

If you are interested in what is the best information available about Roswell today, take a look at Roswell in the 21st Century. You’ll see some of the problems and some of the best of the witnesses today.

29 comments:

jeff thompson said...

Glen Dennis is a well-proven liar, and Roswell was a balloon crash. Period.

KRandle said...

And what balloon would that have been? Any evidence to support this allegation?

John Steiger said...

Dr. Randle (Kevin) -- You forgot to mention Jim Ragsdale and Walter Haut's "affidavit" in your list of Roswell write-outs.

That said, I have to take issue with your assessment that Roswell is no longer "robust." You yourself write: "There are cracks in the case that we all have uncovered over the years. Tiny things that, by themselves, aren’t all that important but in the aggregate, weaken the case." Even so, these "tiny cracks" are insufficient to deny the preponderance of the valid evidence for Roswell as a true UFO crash event when taken under an objective examination.

I realize that an objective examination of the Roswell crash is what you endeavored to undertake in your book Roswell in the 21st Century, and it is a book eminently worthy of reading. I simply disagree with its newfound conclusion as compared to those found in UFO Crash at Roswell, The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, and The Roswell Encyclopedia, among other worthy publications.

P.S. to jeff thompson: Glenn Dennis may well be a liar, but Roswell was NOT a balloon crash! Exclamation Point!

KRandle said...

John -

Certainly did miss Jim Ragsdale. He should have been mentioned as well.

Didn't mention Walter Haut on purpose... that's a whole post for another time.

Didn't deny the evidence, but pointed out that the case simply isn't as robust as it once was... A dozen people who claimed to have seen the bodies such as Ragsdale and Anderson but whose testimony is no longer valid, to name just two besides Dennis and his "nurse."

And you have to understand the lack of documentation supporting a crash and you can't deny that some of the statements by those in the know who suggested there was no such crash. All this adds up to a weakening of the case as it stood a quarter of a century ago when we had so many first-hand witnesses to the bodies and hadn't found the documents that suggest otherwise. We need to be realistic on this.

Unknown said...

Here is an email exchange I had with Stanton Friedman in 2007 regarding the "nurse" in the Roswell story:
RE: Roswell nurse
SF
Stan Friedman
Thu 12/27/2007 10:20 AM




You

Louis:
Of course I do. I am sure there are many other constructions using those letters.. I located a David Wagnon ( a high school science teacher) who had been in the medical group at Roswell in 1947. I gave him the names of the nurses from the yearbook. He remembered them..he was 18 at the time.that one was from Georgia (I located her brother).. this one was dating ---. so not too surprising. I inserted Naomi's name.He said I remember her.I asked what she looked like. He described her in the same way Glenn had.. completely independently.

Stan Friedman

From: L. PARISI [mailto:louisparisi@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:38 PM
To: fsphys@rogers.com
Subject: Roswell nurse


Mr. Friedman -
The name of the nurse Roswell mortician Glen Dennis claimed told him about the alien bodies was given as Naomi Maria Self. If you rearrange the letters in that name, you get: I am names of liar. I don't think that's a coincidence, do you?

Louis Parisi

Zak MacKracken said...

As far as I know Carey wrote in his book "children of roswell" 4 years ago , that Dennis adopted this story.. I always wondered why this was never discussed. There are other stories in it like Walter Hauts "token" which I find interesting, too.

Nick Redfern said...

Louis, you can make endless anagrams to fit.

It has been suggested that a woman named Miriam Bush was really Dennis' "nurse."

Miriam Bush was actually an executive secretary at Roswell’s RAAF hospital at the time of the incident.

“Naomi Marie Self” ("Marie" was also suggested as a name; not just the "Maria" name) is an anagram of “Miriam Safe Lone.”

Which could mean Miriam was, at some point in the story, safe and she was alone. Or it may mean absolutely nothing at all!

Adam S. said...

Kevin,

Sorry, with the phrasing you used I just had to say...well, is there any evidence to support the allegation that an ET craft crashed near Roswell in 1947? :-)

I can understand people debating this back in the 80s and early 90s but with the research since then, it is pretty conclusive that what crashed there was terrestrial.

jeff thompson said...

You ask "what balloon"? How would I know? I just know it was a balloon. How do I know? Brazels original description of what he found, in the Roswell Daily Record, mentioned "rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper, and sticks."

What was NOT found was any kind of propulsion technology, or any kind of communication or navigation technology.

Seriously, add it all up. Does this sound like an extra-terrestrial vehicle to you? No, it sounds like a BALOON!

Bob Koford said...

Mr. Thompson, this is my problem with stopping at the obvious in this case.

The “foil” parts were out of the ordinary, or he would never have brought it to anyone’s attention in the first place. Please show me a balloon system, of any type of that era, that would contain enough tinfoil-like material that could spread out enough to cover a square mile. If Mr. Brazel had stuffed the bundle of rubber, sticks and foil under a brush, then what was the other stuff that covered a square mile of his ranch? [please see: "Cincinnati Enquirer", Cincinnati, Ohio, 09 Jul 1947, Wed • Page 1]

There is the obvious other question which needs to be covered, at the same time as the simple tin foil kite story.

Though the description attributed to him about the bundle of sticks and rubber, etc. fits nicely with the photos in General Ramey's office, he couldn't possibly have stuffed a square mile of debris under that brush. So what the heck is the stuff not mentioned? He said in interviews on the ninth that the foil-like debris covered a "square mile" of his ranch land. What was the stuff still scattered over his land, which couldn't have possibly been a description for a small bundle of sticks, that he could easily stuff under a bush until later?

Thanks, and stay well,
Bob

John Steiger said...

jeff thompson: A newspaper printed the headline 'DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN' for the Presidency, yet we both know that was not true. Simply because the Roswell Daily Record reported a statement by Mack Brazel does not make it accurate. In fact at that time Mr. Brazel was under forced detention at RAAF and subjected to undue pressure by the military to change the initial, true story of what he found in the debris field on Foster Ranch to a fictionalized version in support of the military's balloon hoax cover-up, which was written up by the newspaper. That is what you are citing.

I do agree that apparently no propulsion, communication, or navigation technology was found at the Foster Ranch debris field. However, Foster Ranch was not the only crash site. There was another related crash site off Highway 285 north of Roswell where the military retrieved the main body of the craft likely containing such technologies.

John Steiger said...

Adam S. -- You ask "is there any evidence to support the allegation that an ET craft crashed near Roswell in 1947? [and then comment] I can understand people debating this back in the 80s and early 90s but with the research since then, it is pretty conclusive that what crashed there was terrestrial."

How do you account for the non-terrestrial materials found at both the Foster Ranch and off- Highway 285 crash sites?

Have you read Carey and Schmitt's Witness to Roswell (2009), or Dr. Randle's The Roswell Encyclopedia (2000) or his account of the Roswell UFO crash in Crash: When UFOs Fell From the Sky (2010)? All of these sources are post-80s and early 90s AND deny the conclusion that what crashed there was terrestrial.

KRandle said...

Jeff -

He who lives by the newspaper quote dies by the newspaper quote.

What's that mean?

In that same article, Brazel said, "I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon."

Which, of course, eliminates balloons and before you trot out Mogul, let me point out that according to the field notes and diary kept by Dr. Albert Crary of their research in New Mexico, Flight No. 4, the culprit named, did not fly. It was cancelled. Contrary to what Charles Moore claimed, they did not launch it, it did not perform as well as Flight No. 5, and it gathered no data.

BTW, Flight No. 4, was made up of weather observation balloons... so, we have no evidence of a balloon having fallen on the Brazel ranch... and before you get wound up by the pictures in General Ramey's office... that was a single weather balloon, which Marcel said was not what he had brought from Roswell and which Thomas DuBose said was not the stuff that had been brought from Roswell.

And before we go farther off the rails here, let me point out that though the balloon explanation is rejected, that does not take us directly to the extraterrestrial.

Oh, and before I forget, this was about Glenn Dennis and not about balloons. Let's all return to that topic.

Nick Redfern said...

The one thing that always puzzled me about Dennis's story was those small coffins the military allegedly wanted. What's wrong with putting small bodies in regular coffins?

jeff thompson said...

I am just going by the publicly reported descriptions of what was found in the debris field...….clearly material from a BALLOON of some sort.

Louis Nicholson said...

"The one thing that always puzzled me about Dennis's story was those small coffins the military allegedly wanted. What's wrong with putting small bodies in regular coffins?"

Maybe smaller coffins would have cost the government less money? At any rate, I'm very doubtful that Dennis told the truth.

jeff thompson said...

Mr. Koford - Must've been a really big balloon.

Nick Redfern said...

Louis:

Well, yeah, I agree that Dennis' story cannot be considered as valid. Even if he knew something, or heard something (and then inserted it into his own story), his changing of names destroyed any credibility he might have briefly had.

My view on the coffins angle is that by stressing the small sizes of the coffins, Dennis was able to add to the legend of "little aliens." And to keep that legend going.

If the U.S. military did find dead aliens outside of Roswell, they wouldn't have waited around to get small coffins. Any coffins would have done the job.

Clarence said...

On the issue of the children sized coffins, there are many possibilities. You could ask yourself, why separate the bodies at all? If the aliens were really that small, couldn't you just cram em all into one adult sized coffin? Also, the alien bodies I believe were alleged to have been in an advanced state of decay; placing bodies in that condition in a regular old fluffy coffin would have made quite a mess. If the point was just to get them "boxed up" for safe transport, wouldn't a body bag have been a better idea? Surely some of these existed on a military base. I've always wondered, assuming Roswell's true, at what point after the officials arrived at the crash site, was it actually determined they were dealing with an actual alien craft and it's crew. Would it have been hours, or even days? Perhaps early on in looking at the crash site, and given the state of the bodies, the supervising officials really thought what they were looking at were in fact children...

Nick Redfern said...

Clarence, the most likely scenario is that Dennis lied.

Nitram said...

Hello everyone...

Jeff - I agree with you that what crashed at Roswell was "almost certainly" not alien, however, "none" of the witnesses who handled the material described the balloon type properties you mention. The only person who said so was Cavett, who later lied by saying he wasn't in Roswell at the time of the event... But I digress so back to the post.


Nick wrote:

"Louis, you can make endless anagrams to fit."

Well it's a bit like the memo :) I think Louis has a good chance if he were to place a bet...

Nick also wrote:

"the most likely scenario is that Dennis lied."

Dennis did lie - there is no doubt, but it's clear that he was in Roswell at the time. I am surprised by the number of people who still believe his story, of which, a "very small part" may in fact be true.

Further he has stated that he gave the real name of the nurse to one of his daughters, which could be released after his death and what REALLY surprises me is, to the best of my knowledge, none of the investigators who still believe his story have actually bothered to contact his family to get that name!

Regards and keep safe

Nitram

james tankersley said...

I strongly believe back then and even now that if the US.military found the bodies of alien space creatures and their craft then they would make sure that all that material would be well taken care of for observation and investigative reasons, hence instead of throwing several bodies into one casket, it would make much more sense to put one creature into one child size casket in order to preserve that body. We are talking about something that crashed from another world here after all which will very rarely be seen by most people!

Mark R. Schweitzer said...

It is a shame that Dennis had to seemingly exaggerate his story regarding his role in the Roswell incident. If he would have just said "I took a call from the Army Base during one of those days in July requesting child like caskets" (which I suspect did happen) and then said, I worked with person X who's spouse works as a nurse who traveled to the base etc etc he may still be a viable witness. And, like Kevin Randall states, it wasted a lot of researcher's time and resources that could have been used chasing real leads and witnesses.

Off subject somewhat, I always find that some of the better "evidence" is not so much what some of these people have said but how they have behaved. For example, would Jessie Marcel Sr go out of his way to go back to his house (instead of straight to the base), late at night, to wake up his wife and son (Jessie Jr) to show them remains of a balloon (weather or spy)? Obviously, Jessie Marcel Sr felt he was in possession of something extraordinary that he felt he had to show his wife/son (it may not have been extraterrestrial = but it doesn't rule it out either).

How about the infamous newspaper headline itself "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region." I think it was the late Stan Friedman that stated "Are we suppose to believe, the only men to this day to have ever used atomic weapons in warfare, could not tell the difference between a balloon and a "crashed disc". I think that is a very viable question. Obviously someone at that base felt that they had possession of a crashed disc.

And how about some of the other witnesses, like Loretta Proctor, who lived to her late 90's contending that the debris that Mac Brazel showed them was "not a balloon!". Or, for that matter, her son Dee Proctor, who always seemed to "rabbit" every time a Roswell researcher wanted to interview him? What was he so shy about? (Especially considering his Mother, Loretta, was seemingly so "outgoing"

And there is the "memory metal". The memory metal seems to be something mentioned by several different witnesses with similar descriptions of its properties.

I could go on and on. I just find some of the more "subtle" things about the Roswell Case to be more of a "giveaway" about what might have happened during that time long, long ago.

Unfortunately, the time to hammer down what really happened should have been circa 1978 - 1991, give or take, when Jessie Marcel Sr first came out with his story and not chasing exaggerations by Glenn Dennis, Frank Kaufmann, et al.

The Event happened now so long ago that I am just afraid that if we don't know the truth by now that we will never know....


Unknown said...

I have long had a problem with Glenn Dennis and his tales, before much of this started to come out.

One thing which troubles me more is Tom Carey's penchant for "putting two and two together".. .and coming up with 47. I listened to your latest show with Tom where this was discussed with the tediously drawn out story of the sports journalist who knew a guy, who knew a guy who was related to so and so etc. Once we eventually get to the nurse after so many tedious connections we hear once again that Carey has made the most significant connections to the story in his own head. A guy who worked at a funeral director had a wife who was a nurse who was taken to the base by a doctor for some strange reason. The last detail supposedly confirmed to Carey by "someone else".

When I listened to Carey go through this saga, it was EXACTLY like listening to him gushing over the Roswell slides. Making huge leaps of faith and he even says the exact same thing on your show last night as he did years ago when telling his side of the Slides saga....."oh my goodness this is where Dennis heard the story" sounds a lot like "oh my goodness, this photograph looks insect like....this has to be why they used the phrase "child of earth"....

Tom Carey seems like a great guy, but it's yet another case of leading Roswell researchers clutching at the most non existent straws. With the possible exception of Kevin Randles tantalising conversation with Edwin Easley , there are no sides to the Alien crash hypothesis which do not require gigantic leaps of faith. Unfortunately, Mr Carey proved my point exactly last night on your show.

There is no truth to Dennis' tales, anyone looking at this objectively can see that. I think it's quite clear what has happened with Carey and to some degree Schmitt; they have put so much time and effort into this case that they desperately want to prove their preferred hypothesis which is of course the Alien crash theory. I have some sympathy for them, which is why I respect Kevin Randle tremendously for admitting that this hypothesis no longer holds water and why I believe Roswell in the 21st century was such an important book as Kevin was one of the leading researchers for many years and a public supporter of the Alien crash theory.

It's time to stop making such leaps of faith. Please.

Unknown said...

As far as Marcel sr goes, I agree you have to look at his behaviour, for quite different reasons you do. At the very least, you have to question the man's judgement for taking the wreckage of an unknown craft/object and laying it out all over the kitchen table for his boy to see.
Which reminds me, Kevin, wouldn't that be a big no no in the military?

For such a top secret operation, a lot of people sure did handle that "memory metal" didn't they? After listening to Tom Carey on the show last night, you can chalk another one on the board.

John Steiger said...

Unknown -- I dispute your assertion that Roswell "no longer holds water." You cannot explain away the memory metal and other non-terrestrial debris materials found in multiple crash sites near Roswell in July of 1947. You also cannot explain away the military's going to such great lengths to cover-up the incident. No leap of faith is required to believe this.

Unknown said...

Oh and another note on the Tom Carey show regarding Walter Haut's somewhat of an endorsement of Glenn Dennis.....Haut also vouched for Frank Kauffman, and we know how that turned out. So that's two strikes against Mr Haut. I've no doubt he was a very nice man, but these are serious problems.

Unknown said...

Perhaps I should explain my position.

I believe something strange happened at Roswell. I do not believe the Mogul excuse. However , I used to be a very strong supporter of the ET crash hypothesis, yet over time especially after so many witnesses crashed and burned I no longer believe and Alien craft WITH BODIES was involved. The reason I emphasise with bodies is because I am still very much open to the possibility that this was some kind of an Alien probe, or drone which crashed.... completely unmanned. I do not believe any bodies were involved. A un-piloted probe could still account for the unusual material, the high security response and the ever shrinking list of witness accounts who haven't turned out to be lying such as Edwin Easley.

John Steiger said...

Unknown -- Thomas Gonzales is a first-hand witness to the presence of alien bodies at the Highway 285 crash site north of Roswell. In addition, both Mack Brazel and Dee Proctor are alleged to have observed alien bodies on Foster Ranch (though not at the debris field) by secondhand witness testimony. Finally, a number of military personnel are alleged to have "peeked" at bodies during transport.

The problem with the alien probe or drone explanation is the multiple crash sites and to an extent, the amount of debris material recovered. While this could possibly be the explanation, it is not at all dispositive.