Friday, October 23, 2009

New Roswell UFO Document?

The Roswell UFO crash story has seemed to have spawned another fake document. This one, supposed to have come from the CIA, comes to me via England, which always raises my suspicions. Why would a classified, American document find its way to British hands first? But even if one did, this particular one didn’t. It isn’t real.

The report, as posted to various places on the Internet, claims, in part:

...Another rule of secrecy was: You always camouflage your operations from prying eyes. It was not widely known to many that the Air Force and Navy were conducting classified rocket-launched reconnaissance payloads from White Sands, New Mexico, which failed to reach orbiting altitudes and subsequently crashed off range and generated considerable public interest in the United States and abroad.
As part of a top secret Air Force atomic weapons detection project called MOGUL involving radiation dispersal in the atmosphere, selected monitoring sites across the United States were not acknowledged to by the Air Force and Central Intelligence Group (CIG) and as a result, wreckage from one of the payloads was accidentally discovered by a sheep rancher not far from the Air Force’s Roswell Army Air Field.
Also, another fact not widely known among military intelligence was that CIG had planned to utilize artificial meteor strikes as decoy devices ejected from V-2 warheads at 60 miles above the earth to record dispersal trajectories and possible psychological warfare weapons against the Soviets in the advent of a war in Europe.
One of the projects underway at that time incorporated re-entry vehicles containing radium and other radioactive materials combined with biological warfare agents developed by I.G. Farben for use against allied assault forces in Normandy in 1944.
When a V-2 warhead impacted near the town of Corona, New Mexico, on July 4, 1947, the warhead did not explode and it and the deadly cargo lay exposed to the elements which forced the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project to close off the crash site and a cover story was immediately put out that what was discovered was the remains of a radar tracking target suspended by balloons.
In 1994 and again in 1995, the Air Force published what it considered the true account of what lay behind the Roswell story but omitted the radiological warhead data for obvious reasons.
It may also be pointed out here that this kind of experiment was very similar to those conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission and the military in the late 1940’s. It was known in the CIA that the Soviets were conducting the same kind of radiological and biological warfare experiments in the early 1950’s after their successful detonation of a [sic] atomic bomb based on stolen documents and materials from Los Alamos forwarded to Moscow by communist espionage agents in the United States.

I suppose I should point out that in 1947, no one was thinking in terms of placing any sort of payload into orbit using the V-2. All the missions would be considered "sub-orbital" though many of them failed long before even that term could be applied. And for those who have forgotten their history, the Soviets first put a payload into orbit in late 1957, or ten years after the Roswell crash, whatever it might have been.
The real problem with this new document is the claim that "When a V-2 warhead impacted near the town of Corona, New Mexico, on July 4, 1947, the warhead did not explode and it and the deadly cargo lay exposed to the elements which forced the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project to close off the crash site..."

No record of this flight can be found. Back in the early 1990s, I researched all this carefully. I went to Alamogordo, to the Space Museum there and learned that something about the various flights out of White Sands. And, I went to White Sands to talk to the people there. I have a copy of White Sands History which "...narrates the development and testing of rockets and missiles at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, during the years 1945 through 1955." It contains a record of every launch and according the documentation, no launch information is missing. All launches are accounted for.

Here’s what I know. On July 3, there was an attempted launch. According to the Albuquerque Journal of July 4, 1947, "Two men were burned seriously by acid and six others suffered minor burns early tonight as they prepared for the launching of a German V-2 rocket... A statement from Lt. Col. Harold Turner, proving grounds commandant, said an investigation has been ordered. Launching of the rocket, 25th to be fired in a series of experiments here, was postponed indefinitely."

That would certainly suggest there was no July 4 launch to fall to the ground near Corona. But the listings of all rockets in July 1947 suggest it was well. According to the White Sands History, a WAC Corporal E was launched on July 17 (much too late to drop material near Corona) with a note that said, "Small thrust developed and missile rose and impacted near launchers... main air regulator at fault."

For the V-2,(seen here, photo by Randle) there was a launch on July 10 and it was noted, "Set yaw angle caused faulty course." and for a second launch on July 29, the note said, "Steering vane 4 failed to operated at 27 secs – Success."

There is nothing in the record to suggest there were any launches not mentioned in the history and all launches have been accounted for. There was nothing on July 4, 1947, and for all these reasons, I believe the document to be a fake.


Bob Koford said...

So, if that document is a fake, then the information on this UK rocketry page
might be part of the false release of data, to support the document? It shows the July 4th date.

One chart at the WSMR history page shows no WAC launches for July.

But another, more detailed one shows the proper dates:
6/12/1947 WAC 29-B
7/10/1947 V-2 29
7/17/1947 Corporal E 33
7/29/1947 V-2 30

The Redstone page shows one in the "spring" and then one on 20 June (Hermes)

cda said...

Yes Kevin, it is a fake. A successor to MJ-12 but with a different, less way out, theme. Even some of the phraseology looks the same as in the Ike briefing document. Some fraudster has studied MJ-12 and decided to 'improve' on it. And so it continues.....

starman said...

This is dubious, debunker overkill. The document claims BOTH Mogul wreckage AND a V2 came down, more or less simultaneously at Brazel's place. (I'd assume he was the "sheep rancher" and the V2 crash location near Corona was also his place.) IMO this V2 scam is intended to make up for the shortcomings of Mogul as an explanation, without having to eliminate it altogether. Given the junk in Ramey's office, which skeptics like Lance and cda believe is what was really found, it would be a unconscienable to undermine them totally with a new "explanation" lol.

Unknown said...

I refuse to believe documents when they fly in the face of the people that were there. These document reminds me of the MJ12 documents they tell you everything you want to hear, especially if your a skeptic. Here we go again.

Joe Capp

Gilles Fernandez said...


I read in this article (I mean not from K. Randle, but in the internet report) :

"As part of a top secret Air Force atomic weapons detection project called MOGUL involving RADIATION DISPERSAL in the atmosphere,"

Emphazed by me.

Dunno where this person ou group have read Mogul involved radiation dispersal ?!

ACOUSTIC dispersal would be more correct.

So, even if it is a detail, sounds a little funny and "smells" not really serious investigations or strange knowledge of Mogul at least.

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

Nick Redfern said...


It surfaced in England?

I thought it was solely circulated in the US.

As you may know, I moved to the US approx 10 years ago to live, and my copy came from within the US - 6 or 7 years ago, as I mentioned in my original post on this, over at UFO Iconoclasts.

I don't know of anyone in the UK who obtained this at all, or who may have commented on it.

As you'll see from my post, I specifically stated that i was highly dubious of its contents, and that I did not think it answered the questions of Roswell.

I brought the matter of the document up, purely and simply because the story of the V-2 on July 4 was in the news again; as I make clear in the post.

Lance said...

Does someone have a facsimile of the documents in question? The links attached to Mr. Redfern's article (and here in these comments) are to an html table, not to any purported documents.

One poster elsewhere ascribes the documents to the infamous Tim Cooper which (in a sane field) would end the discussion immediately. Perhaps Mr. Redfern didn't know the origin?

I question Mr. Redfern's way of presenting the material. His "I don't believe any of this has merit but I will discuss it seriously anyway" seems rather calculated and manipulative.

If Nick Redfern knew the stuff was from Cooper, then doubly so.

Let me take an example from his article:

"Do I think that the above-document answers all of the hard-to-resolve questions pertaining to what really happened at Roswell on that fateful day way back in July 1947? No, I do not - at all. Rather, I think it's just yet another carefully-crafted paper designed to provoke utter confusion."

Designed by whom? Nick's last sentence seems also designed to spread a little confusion. Is he talking about the Government? Or a known, exposed and notorious hoaxer? Or someone else...

Nick seems to leave it ambiguous for maximum ooga booga effect.

I'm not saying that mystery mongering doesn't have a long and storied history. I am reminded of Long John Nebel's regular disclaimer, "I don't believe a word of this, folks..."

But maybe that stuff would be better for Mr. Redfern's books instead of the tiny tiny audience of these blogs? We have been ooga booga-ed to death.


Nick Redfern said...


Some time this week, I'll scan the relevant pages of the document for people to see, and post it.

Cooper definitely had a copy of this document in his possession. So, one copy did originate with him.

But other researchers had a copy that was slightly different to Cooper's (see below for explanation on the differences), and which pre-dates the sharing of the Cooper version.

The ambiguity on my part is not intentional - it's because we truthfully don't know as yet which researcher had the document first, and who consequently shared it with who, and in which order of time etc.

I'll give you an example: one copy of the document I have, has hand-writing on it. The other copy does not. One originated with Cooper, one did not. I have the one that originated with Cooper, and I have the one that did not.

So, although *a* copy originated with Cooper, that doesn't mean *all* the copies of this document did. The copy withhout the hand-writing on certainly did not.

And, by "originate", I mean he had in his possession a copy that was shared. I don't mean to imply he wrote it. Nor do we know if someone else had it originally and shared it with Cooper.

My post was not meant to be calculated and manipulative.

I have pointed out that the only reason I referred to the document, and highlighted its contents, is because this alleged crash of a V-2 in July 1947 was mentioned at this blog last week.

I realized that the case in question was the one in this document that I obtained around 2002 or 3.

so, I brought it to people's attention, as I figured they may find it of interest.

But, if you go to the very end of my original article on this, you'll see I'm totally honest and open in my view that there are only 3 scenarios to explain this document - none of which give room for it being genuine.

I brought it to attention merely, and solely, because the V2 story is being discussed here again, and it's relevant to that story and discussion.

Lance said...

Hi Nick,

If I understand you correctly, you say that you never believed these documents were real. And that you brought them up only because the V-2's were being discussed.

I have to confess that I have no idea why you feel that they were worthy of any discussion at all.

And of the 3 possibilities you mention:

1. disinformation specialists
2. private purveyors of fakery with unknown agendas
3. Walter Mitty-type fantasists with low self-esteem

...a mixture of #2 & #3 seems to fit Cooper and #1 seems like a common fantasy of UFO believers, never proven to exist and usually cited when those who are #2 or #3 are exposed in their lies.

Let me ask, if I may be so bold, what probability would you guess that the documents (with writing on them or not) fall under #1?



Nick Redfern said...


The reason why I felt the documents were worthy of comment at all - and even though I am highly dubious of them - is simple: a number of researchers in the US have copies of these documents in their possession.

Therefore, it's not out of the question that there may well be some among those people who actually believe them to be utterly real.

So, my view is that by highlighting them, and revealing that I am highly dubious of them, it may help lay to rest any beliefs that they may be real - hence my views at the end of my post as to the ONLY 3 scenarios I consider valid for the document.

As for your last point - I think of the 3 scenarios I presented, the disinfo one is the absolute least likely of the 3 to have any validity to it.

But, I do still think it's interesting that this document uses the July 4, 1947 V-2 case as being linked with Roswell, and that case is referred to in that link which Bob K posted.

Hence, why I brought it up.

Lance said...

Hi Nick,

You are certainly entitled to write whatever you wish.

Just mentioning that they came from Cooper should be enough to definitively end the discussion (except among the most deranged believers).

Just saying.


Nick Redfern said...


I understand that. But we need to bear in mind, as I said, that *one* version originated with Cooper. The other did not.

There is a timeline and other issues that I am trying to resolve that may answer questions re who got this first, when, how etc, and that hopefully I'll be able to expand on.

This may actually answer a few questions concerning other questionable docs too.

KRandle said...

Nick, Lance -

I point out again, that I have complete records from White Sands, and there was no launch from there on July 4... Remember the July 3 accident, reported in various newspapers, that shut everything down for a short period.

The rest of that document is an accurate representation of the launches at White Sands, meaning the dates and the missile types is correct.

Given that, this document, regardless of who received it when, is a fake.


Bob Koford said...

I sent an email to Mr. Pitfield, regarding the publishing of this error on his Rocketry site. I will report on any reply to this here, for reference.


Lance said...

Thanks Bob,

Would be interested to know where he got his info, also.


Bob Koford said...

OK --I heard back from John Pitfield, and he informed me that he hand-copied it from a German document (circa 1955), at his College, in about 1978.

I will ask him if he might have the time to visit this blog, to comment on it himself. I think that way, more information about the origins of this information might be better ascertained.

More later,

Lance said...

Hmm...that would be VERY interesting if such a document could be verified since 1978 is before Roswell contamination (as we skeptics believe) should have happened and (if confirmed) the July 4 entry could account for any military recovery efforts mentioned by witnesses.

I would be flabbergasted if such a document surfaces with reliable provenance.


Lance said...

Also, I don't know where exactly where such launches took place at White Sands (a rather big place) but isn't 142km pretty short to describe as "near Roswell"?

Kevin, do the other launches mentioned on the list in question fall into line with those you found in your research?



Bob Koford said...

There will be more background on this July 4th entry.
I will notify when it is posted on my blog.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.