The Observer published an article by Bernie O’Connor suggesting that the story of an alien event in Roswell is a hoax based on the recovery of a Project Mogul balloon. I don’t know why it is so difficult for those on the skeptical side of the fence to realize that the Mogul explanation doesn’t work. Simply put, Flight No. 4, the culprit in all this, was cancelled. That is based on the documentation available.
For
those interested in the original article, I believe the current issue of The
Observer can be seen here:
https://theobservermagazine.substack.com/about?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
In
the following rebuttal to this claim, and the interview that O’Connor conducted
with Colonel Walter Klinikowski which is the source for his report, I provide
some additional commentary. As most of you know, I have worked on the Roswell
UFO crash story for about thirty years, I thought some of my insights might be
helpful in understanding this latest piece. To show that I have been around for
a long time, I’ll tell you the Delta pilot reference is Kent Jeffrey, who wrote
the Roswell Initiative and later repudiated it. I covered this in an entry in The
Roswell Encyclopedia that was published in 2000. Kent’s MUFON article,
abbreviated and published with his permission is included in that book.
![]() |
| Kent Jeffrey, Tom Carey and Kent's father in New Mexico. Photo by Kevin Randle. |
The reason that I, and others did not bother with Colonel Klinikowski, is his statement that he wasn’t in Roswell at the time of the event, though he was assigned to the base at time. According to the base telephone directory, he was assigned to Operations. In July 1947, the Operations Officer was Lieutenant Colonel Joe Briley, who made comments that contradict Klinikowski. But, like Klinikowski, he didn’t see anything himself, but in talking with others concluded that something important had happened. Briley told me that the story of Blanchard’s leave was a cover story so he could go to the crash site without reporters wondering where he had gone. Blanchard would not have gone to the site for what amounted to a weather balloon and common radar reflector.
Klinikowski
clearly supported the Project Mogul theory, telling us that the project was
highly classified, but the truth is, the ultimate purpose was classified, but
the experiments in Alamogordo were not. Pictures of one of the arrays appeared
in the Alamogordo News on July 10, 1947. Charles Moore, who worked on
the New York University balloon project there told me that he had purchased the
step ladder that appears in one of the pictures, linking it to what he insisted
on calling the New York University balloon project rather than Project Mogul.
![]() |
| Charles Moore reviewing winds aloft data. Photo by Kevin Randle. |
![]() |
| The ladder to which Moore referred. Picture from the Alamogordo News, July 10, 1947. |
Here’s
one of those facts that gets overlooked. Dr. Albert Crary, who was the leader
of the balloon project, used the name Mogul at least three times in his unclassified
journal and diary notes, proving that they knew about Mogul. Again, the ultimate
purpose was not known, but the name, Mogul, was. I’ll note that in the book, Roswell
in the 21st Century, there is a long appendix that covers the
whole Mogul tale.
Thanks
to Colonel Richard Weaver, who ran the Air Force investigation about Roswell in
the 1990s, we have copies of the data collected by Crary’s experiments in New
Mexico. The problem here is that Mogul balloon flight in question, No. 4 was
not flown. According to the documentation, it was to be launched on June 4,
1947, but was cancelled because of clouds. Charles Moore told me that the next
flight, No. 5, was configured exactly like No. 4, and Flight No.5 had no radar
targets, an important point. Moore would later claim that they received data
from Flight No. 4, but there is nothing recorded for it. They did release a
cluster of balloons later in the day, on June 4, that was not a Mogul flight
and never strayed from the range.
In
his article, Bernie O’Connor wrote: “I [meaning Klinikowski] wasn't even in Roswell
when it happened and when I got back to town there was some mention of it. The
debris landed on my cousin by marriage's ranch and his name is Dewey Stoke and
he never saw this stuff because it was picked up by the Air Force people from
the base of Roswell and they took the stuff and shipped it off to Wright
Patterson Air Force Base which was the home of what was then called the Air
Technical Intelligence Center.”
But
here’s part of the problem. The debris landed on a ranch owned by the Fosters
and Mack Brazel recovered some of it. He took it to the Chaves County Sheriff
(Roswell) and George Wilcox called out to the air base. Jesse Marcel, Sr.,
responded and did not recognize it as balloon debris though he was familiar
with weather balloons and radar targets. Some of that early debris was sent on
to Fort Worth Army Air Field where Colonel (later brigadier general) Thomas
DuBose had it sent on to Washington, D.C. Dewey Stoke never saw the stuff, so I
must ask, “What is his purpose in this tale?”
Bud
Payne, who was a New Mexico judge, told Don Schmitt and me, where he had seen
the field of metallic debris. It was on the ranch managed by Mack Brazel, and
he put us on the same bit of ground where Bill Brazel found some of the
metallic debris days and weeks later.
We
do have testimony from Bill Brazel who handled debris, and his description of a
gouge in the terrain. He provided descriptions that vaguely match some modern material
such as fiber optics. Jesse Marcel, Sr. and Jesse Marcel, Jr., provided
descriptions that eliminate Earth-based technology.
![]() |
| Bill Brazel in 1989. Photo by Kevin Randle |
There
are eye witnesses to both the debris field and impact site. General Arthur Exon
told me and Don Schmitt that he had flown over the two sites, which would tend
to rule out a Mogul flight since it would not have gouged the terrain or been
scattered over two separate sites that were miles apart. All of it would have
stayed clumped together.
Finally,
Bernie O’Connor wrote, “The problem with Roswell, as well as with any other
classic UFO cases, is the fact that one small bit of new evidence presented—the
offhand comment by an authority figure, or the rediscovered testimony or
official document—can upend the whole belief scenario. Humpty-Dumpty could have
a great fall.”
If
anyone wishes for a little bit of documentation. Major Patrick Saunders was the
base adjutant in 1947. On the fly leaf of The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell,
Saunders wrote, “This is the truth and I still haven’t told anybody anything!”
He signed it, “Pat.” Any yes, I verified the signature with Saunder’s son,
using the flight records of the senior Saunders.
![]() |
| The Saunder's statement in The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell. |
The authority figure is Colonel Klinikowski. However, Colonel DuBose, who was responsible for sending some debris to Washington, D.C., said that the balloon material was substituted for the debris taken to Fort Worth by Marcel. Marcel said that the material in the photographs taken in General Ramey’s office was not what he had taken to Fort Worth. Brigadier General Arthur Exon provided testimony about the material arriving at Wright-Patterson in 1947, including comments about those who examined it saying they could not identify it. Do my authority figures, who were there and handled the debris trump those cited by O’Connor? Does it suggest that there is more to this story than meets the eye?
And I haven’t even mentioned Major (later Colonel) Edwin Easley, the provost marshal on the base who told me that the extraterrestrial path was the correct one to follow. I had asked him if we were on the right path. He asked, “What do you mean?” I said, “We think it was extraterrestrial.” He said, “Let me put it this way. It’s not the wrong path.”
![]() |
| Major Edwin Easley |
Please
notice here that I have quoted from members of Colonel Blanchard’s primary staff
who were there and made their own observations of the debris and who were on
the sites of the wreck. These are statements they made to me, or to Don, or Tom
Carey or that were wrote down.
Butch
Blanchard told Chester Lytle that four bodies had been recovered. Given the
nature of their friendship and the high-level trust by Blanchard in Lytle, this
is a somewhat telling statement. It is difficult to believe that Blanchard
would say that to anyone if it was not true. Art McQuiddy, who was the editor
of the Roswell Morning Dispatch told me that they put wreckage on an
aircraft and flew it on to Fort Worth. Not exactly proof positive, but a
suggestion that what was found was something more than an off-the-shelf-weather
balloon and a somewhat degraded rawin radar reflector.
As
can be seen, I was aware of Klinikowski through his conversations with Kent
Jeffrey. He had nothing to contribute to the investigation beyond the balloon
theory, one that Don Schmitt and I explored early in our investigation and
rejected for lack of proof, meaning eyewitness testimony and the documentation
of balloon flights that removed Mogul from the equation.
For
those interested and who have read The Observer article, there is
another problem. Bernie O’Connor reported that Klinikowski said, “Well with two
other full colonels and a fellow named Weinbrenner (Col. George R.
Weinbrenner) who was the Commander of the Foreign Technology Division and
Walter Vitunac (Col. Walter Charles Vitunac) who was the former Director of
Collection and then me, who was the Director of Collection.”
The
suggestion that Weinbrenner was one of the top officers who did not believe in
the alien explanation is repudiated here. Tony Bragalia provided additional commentary at
his website. You can read it here:
What
all this suggests is that there are far more witnesses, both first and second
hand who have come down on the side of an alien event. Don Schmitt, Tom Carey
and I have talked with dozens of them. To me, the weight of the evidence leans
toward the extraterrestrial. All known terrestrial explanations have been
eliminated.







8 comments:
Kevin wrote:
"I don’t know why it is so difficult for those on the skeptical side of the fence to realize that the Mogul explanation doesn’t work. Simply put, Flight No. 4, the culprit in all this, was cancelled. That is based on the documentation available."
This happens because most skeptics are not truly interested in offering well-researched, plausible alternative explanations for UFO sightings;. What they care about, more often than not, is defending whatever official narrative the government has put forward. In the case of Roswell, the official explanation is Project Mogul, so they are not going to budge from that. It does not matter if Flight No. 4 was cancelled; it does not matter if the evidence does not line up; what matters is sticking to the government-approved version at all costs.
If skeptics genuinely wanted to propose a plausible terrestrial explanation for the Roswell crash, they would probably just stick with Nick Redfern’s theory, which has more supporting evidence than Mogul ever did and is, in my opinion, the most compelling non-ET explanation for Roswell. At the very least, it is original, thought-provoking, and not based on pretending that an array of balloons with a sonobuoy attached constitutes a fully assembled Mogul flight capable of scattering metallic-looking debris over a square mile. But again, most skeptics are not even trying to explore alternatives; they are simply defending the status quo.
Why is there no mention of the observations of Counter-Intelligence Corps (CIC) officer Sheridan Cavitt regarding the Roswell debris? Did he accompany Major Jesse Marcel to the debris field, and did he state that what was discovered was the remains of a balloon? If Cavitt described the debris as a balloon, why is more weight placed on Marcel’s observations instead of his? Also, why did Marcel not mention the discovery of the UFO in his diary? One would expect that finding a UFO would be life-changing, even if he was sworn to secrecy.
Leo -
Because in our first interview with Cavitt (Don Schmitt and me) Cavitt said that he had not been in Roswell at the time. He also said that he was too busy with his important work to chase balloons. In our second interview with him in Sierra Vista, Arizona, he said that he had not been there but was quite disturbed when I asked about alien bodies.
He was interviewed by Colonel Weaver, and told him the story of going out to the field with Marcel. However, when we interviewed him about a month later, he denied it had been him, even when we supplied a description of him given to us by others.
I'm not sure what diary you're talking about. The memo book that was said to be Marcel's was probably written by someone else. It contained nothing relevant to the situation. The diary was a red herring which has not been mentioned since the television program about it.
Oh, and Cavitt's description of the field where the debris was found does not match that of any of the others who saw the debris on the field including Bill Brazel, Bud Payne and Tommy Tyree.
Cavitt took himself out of the running by his own tales and his lack of candor when talking with investigators... and his information is in direct conflict with members of Colonel Blanchard's staff including but no limited to Edwin Easley and Patrick Saunders, both of whom I spoke to. But I do appreciate the way you asked your questions.
Mr. Randle, I was a huge fan of your early books on Roswell from the 1990s. I heard you started becoming skeptical of the extraterrestrial explanation for the crash in some of your later books. However, I saw in a review of your latest book on the Roswell incident that you accept the extraterrestrial explanation again. Is that correct? From what little I have had a chance to peruse your latest book on the incident, I couldn't tell how you felt as it seems there is a lot of unreliable witness testimony out there. I apologize for bothering you but I had to ask to satisfy my own curiosity.
Kenneth Sponburg -
There was a time, in the mid-1990s, that there seemed to be many good witnesses to the Roswell crash. Unfortunately, toward the end of that decade, some of them were found to be less than candid. Glenn Dennis invented the tale of his missing nurse. Frank Kaufmann invented his tale of participation in the retrieval, and in fact, most of his military career. Given that, I was unhappy with the level of testimony and mentioned it. However, there is no terrestrial explanation that fits the facts of the case, or the credible testimony of people like Edwin Easley and Patrick Saunders to mention just two men I interviewed.
If by latest book, you mean, Understanding Roswell, it was designed to provide the best evidence available and to correct the misinformation that has been circulating about the case. If you mean Roswell in the 21st Century, it was designed to provide all the information available, pro and con, with an eye to allowing the reader to come to his or her own conclusion about the case.
My position, today, is that there is no terrestrial explanation. I would like something a little more substantial than that, but currently, for me, the best explanation is that what fell at Roswell was an alien craft.
Kevin,
This comment is slightly off topic, but I hope you will accept it anyway.
I was listening to one of your old interviews with Art Bell from years ago, and at one point you mentioned an article you wrote back in the ’70s that was called "Surveillance of Earth," or something like that. I’d love to read it. Do you happen to know where I could find it? Or maybe you have a PDF or something like that saved?
Thanks in advance!
Spartacus01 -
That was the second or third magazine article that I published, back in the mid-1970s (November 1975 issue of Official UFO). It was written on a typewriter because we didn't have personal computers with word processing in those days. The article was "Reconnaissance of Earth." Given the nature of the UFO magazines in that era, there are no footnotes or references to the sources... Some people just didn't want to be identified as having not only seen a UFO but having reported it. But, I have no pdf or even the manuscript of the article.
Spartacus01 -- I have procured a digital copy of Kevin's article "Reconnaissance of Earth". Contact me [not Kevin] directly at https://www.artbellfiles.org/email and I will send it to you ... for research purposes only, of course. JS
Post a Comment