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.
