The Observer Anti-Roswell Article: A Brief Response

 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 21^st 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:

https://substack.com/redirect/297ee407-8ebb-4cb0-a64b-5446b232dd65?j=eyJ1IjoiZ2ZicmIifQ.fyOy7XcsRMdZdNETog-CMWQrAzIY0u-O58q7WQBlqUU

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.

David Rudiak's Analysis Against Mogul

 

As anyone who visits here regularly knows, I am not a fan for the Project Mogul explanation for the Roswell UFO crash. I have laid out the evidence on several occasions and there is a long appendix in Roswell in the 21^st Century that covers all this in depth.

The reasons begin with the documentation that suggests the culprit in all this, Mogul Flight No. 4, was cancelled. Yes, I know that it should be designated as the New York University Balloon Project Flight No 4, but that’s rather unwieldy. To counter this, Charles Moore said that the flight was launched a couple hours before dawn, yet the documentation proves it was cancelled at dawn. How do you cancel a flight that has already been launched? … But I digress.

Just recently on this blog, I noted that Charles Moore had said that Flight No. 4 had been configured like Flight No. 5. I hadn’t thought of it then, but in the Air Force report on Roswell, they provided schematics of all the flights that had been flown, including No. 5. There were no rawin radar targets on Flight No. 5, and if Flight No. 4 was configured the same way, you have to wonder where the rawin target that was photographed in General Ramey’s office originated.

I mention all this because David Rudiak provided a rather lengthy comment about it to that blog posting. I thought the analysis was interesting enough to be worthy of its own position on the blog. Following, without my commentary, is David’s analysis in four parts:

Besides Cavitt, another of these old Cold Warrior guys who couldn’t tell a consistent story was B.D. “Duke” Gildenberg, who from 1951-1981 headed balloon operations at Alamogordo base (where the NM Moguls were launched), but also worked on Project Mogul back at NYU in 1947. A large history of the early balloon projects at Alamogordo was written by the base historian, Dr. David Bushnell, and published in Dec. 1958. It is mentioned that Gildenberg was interviewed twice in 1957. In fact, one of the chapters was written by him:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA323170.pdf

THE BEGINNINGS OF RESEARCH IN SPACE BIOLOGY and Biodynamics AT THE AIR FORCE MISSILE DEVELOPMENT CENTER Holloman AFB, NM.

The first chapter covers the period 1946-1952. On page 5, it says the following: “Holloman's first polyethylene research balloon was launched 3 July 1947 by a New York University research team …..” (Footnote 18)

This was Mogul Flight #7. Now check out the Footnote:

(Footnote 18, p. 9). “The FIRST research balloon flight of ANY SORT at Holloman had been slightly earlier, 5 June 1947; this involved a cluster of rubber-type balloons (interview, Mr. Gildenberg by Dr. Bushnell, 18 September 1957).”

This was the real Mogul Flight #5. Notice that this is based on information provided by Gildenberg apparently saying this was the FIRST such balloon, i.e. is the first Mogul launched from Alamogordo. Further notice there is no mention of “another” “first” such balloon flight from 4 June 1947, i.e. the modern-day Mogul Flight #4, invented out of thin air by Mogul engineer Charles Moore and Air Force counterintelligence (AFOSI) in 1994 to debunk Roswell.

But back in 1957, in an official history, the guy who headed the balloon projects there said the first flight was June 5 (Flight #5), which aligns exactly with the official Mogul records (taken from Moore’s files by AFOSI). There is ZERO documentation for another research flight on June 4 like the real, documented Flight #5. In fact, the table of Mogul flights has a big blank for Mogul Flights #2, #3, and #4, which we know from other Mogul documentation were all canceled because of adverse weather conditions.

Now fast forward 50+ years, and what was Gildenberg saying now? He appears in the 1997 AFOSI Roswell crash dummies report saying that Roswell could be completely explained by conventional projects in the area, including 1950s crash dummies, and complaining that he and Charles Moore were being disrespected by Roswell UFO promoters for saying so. Then he began writing Roswell debunking articles for the Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine. The SI articles are behind a paywall, but you can download the Skeptic magazine article:

https://www.skeptic.com/magazine/archives/10.1/pdf/A-Roswell-Requiem-SKEPTIC-10-1-2003.pdf

In one table that is supposed to “explain” both Roswell and all the flying saucer reports, he writes:

“June-July—UFO reports generated by Mogul balloons from Alamogordo AAF, NM, and balloon clusters out of Colorado.

June 4—Prof. Charles Moore launches Mogul Flight #4.

June 14—Rancher Mack Brazel finds paper, rubber, and foil debris.

June 24—Kenneth Arnold sights unknown objects over Oregon and Washington state described as saucers skipping across water.

—Press coins term “flying saucer” (or “flying disk”).

—Incident touches off the world’s first and most intense flying saucer craze”

Thus, the new “facts” according to Gildenberg is that there WAS a Mogul Flight #4, which would have made it the first such research balloon of “any sort”, not the documented Flight #5. He also suggests most flying saucer reports were caused by Mogul balloon clusters and from another alleged NYU Navy balloon project in Colorado. This would apparently include Kenneth Arnold’s sighting June 24 a 1000 miles from Colorado. (Good luck making that work.)

So why isn’t Flight #4 listed in Mogul records as the “first” Mogul? Well, sayeth revisionist Gildenberg (who seems to have totally forgotten his original 1957 story that it was Flight #5):

“Several of the early Alamogordo flights were preliminary tests, did not carry classified hardware, and were never recovered by Mogul personnel. One such flight, launched in early June, came down on a Roswell area sheep ranch, and created one of the most enduring mysteries of the century. Review of project records has identified that flight, with a very high degree of certainty, as Mogul Flight #4, launched on June 4th. (Ref 3)”

And what was Ref. 3 that identified Mogul Flight #4 “with a very high degree of certainty”? Why, no surprise, that was the AFOSI 1994-95 Roswell Report utilizing Moore as primary witness. This “very high degree of certainty” was based on Moore’s unquestionable 50-year- old memories and a total of one sentence from the diary of Mogul scientist Albert Crary who first wrote they canceled the planned Mogul launch on June 4 because of cloud cover. (Required by CAA regulations governing their work.) Then Crary wrote they sent up a Naval sonobuoy in a balloon cluster to test reception in the air and on the ground. But sonobuoys were utilized on all the early Moguls and were the only possible piece of classified equipment since they might hint at the actual classified purpose of Mogul, which was listening for distant Soviet nuclear tests. (The sonobuoys were identified only as the “payload” on all the engineering schematics suggesting their use might be considered sensitive.)

This was what Moore called a test flight or “service flight”,
which they used to test certain pieces of equipment. They were small
flights, lacked constant altitude control, and would have been
rigged to NOT fly off the White Sands Range into civilian air space,
which would have required them to issue NOTAMs (also required
by the (CAA) of a possible air hazard. Thus there was also no need for tracking gear, such as radar targets to see if the balloons flew
off-range.

The REAL reason these weren’t listed is because they weren’t
constant-altitude flights (the major defining characteristic of a
Mogul flight), not whether they carried classified equipment
or not.

This also means the balloon flights were small, requiring only
enough weather balloons to loft the test payload, not a 600 ft
string of balloons. Lacking constant-altitude control, it would be like a normal weather balloon, rapidly rising to high altitudes
where the balloons would start to pop and everything would rapidly
descend, keeping the balloons on the White Sands Range. They
couldn’t get to the Foster Ranch debris field site, which would
require a real, constant-altitude flight (i.e., a recorded Mogul
flight) to stay up in the air long enough, and couldn’t create a
large debris field, which would again at least require one of
those really long, fully configured Mogul balloon trains, not a small test flight.

And it would require the right winds. Moore did a 1997 mathematical model (published in the Smithsonian Roswell debunking book, “UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth”) to try to “prove” that a Mogul flight on June 4 could make it all the way to the Foster Ranch, but when Brad Sparks and I went over the model 20+ years ago we discovered that he employed numerous cheats with his numbers. In other words, it was a hoax.

I suspect Gildenberg probably knew all this. Among his many
specialties, he was a meteorologist. His bios describe him as
being an expect in predicting where their balloons would fly and where they would come down. He also said in this article: “Analyzing
newly available weather data, and following the lead of Professor
Moore have also linked a later Mogul flight (launched on July 7th) to the legend.”

This was Mogul Flight #11, which crashed about 3 pm on July 7
about 16 miles west of Roswell base, followed 100% of the time by plane and 97% by radiosonde. It was a plastic balloon flight with no
indication (like most of these early Moguls) of radar tracking
(including the published schematic showing no attached radar
reflectors), so it can’t possibly explain the singular radar
reflector or the rubber weather balloon displayed in Ramey’s
office or what Mack Brazel described when taken under military escort for a press interview later that night. At the time #11 crashed, Brazel had already reported the debris field and Marcel and Cavitt had followed him back and were examining it. Although Flight #11
crashed relatively close to Roswell, it was at least 50 miles from the
Foster Ranch crash site, and no indication whether it was
recovered or not, either by Mogul or Roswell base. Certainly not by
Marcel or Cavitt. Likely, since Mogul knew exactly where it came down, if it was recovered it would have been by the Mogul people.

So how exactly did Gildenberg “link” it to the Roswell “legend”? Just more hot air from him.

Gildenberg also briefly discusses the FBI Roswell telegram from the Dallas office sent to FBI director Hoover the evening of July 8, which says one of Ramey’s people (Kirton, an intelligence or CI officer) said it resembled a “hexagonal” radar target suspended from a weather balloon (all described in singular). Gildenberg then says, “The gear KNOWN to have been on this particular flight was described almost exactly in a famous telegram to J. Edgar Hoover, which is quoted without comment in most pro-alien Roswell literature. (Ref 4) Reference 4 is Kevin and Don Schmitt’s book “The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell.” Well, since Flight #11 was made up of PLASTIC balloons, not rubber, and zero evidence of radar tracking or radar targets, how does Gildenberg deduce that it “almost exactly” matches what Ramey displayed and what the FBI telegram describes? And since all that was reported/shown by Ramey and his intel spokesperson Kirton was a SINGULAR weather balloon and radar target, what happened to the rest of that 600-foot Flight #4 that Gildenberg claims explains the Roswell “legend”?

Just more non-factual BS from Gildenberg. The key point, however, is that Gildenberg drastically changed his story from his original one in the 1950s in an official AF history (the first Mogul flight was #5 on June 5, 1947) once AFOSI and Moore invented the nonexistent Flight #4 in 1994. His attempt to explain why “Flight #4” isn’t listed as the first (allegedly because it lacked classified equipment) is also directly at odds with the facts. There was no Flight #4. The actual documentation shows it was canceled and instead a small test flight of a sonobuoy was sent up instead. It couldn’t have reached the Foster Ranch (Moore had to flagrantly cheat to get it there, in part by creating an actual Mogul constant-altitude flight, which would certainly have been recorded had it existed) and couldn’t explain the large field of debris described or types of debris, which both Moore and AFOSI claimed required a fully configured Mogul balloon (which, again, would have been recorded in Project records).

This dovetails nicely with what I just published. Moore told me about the configuration of Flight No. 4 by telling me that it was configured like Flight No. 5, which contained no rawin targets. David notes that Gildenberg said, in 1957, that Flight No. 5 was the first Mogul flight. Refer to the bold-face, italic noted at the beginning of David’s information.

The schematic of Flight No. 5 published by the Air Force
in their report on the Roswell UFO crash.

This makes me wonder why, if there are true skeptics, they never question that material that is at odds with their favorite theories. Shouldn’t they look at the documentation and the earlier statements of the witnesses and realize there is a real problem with the Mogul flight solution.

I have said, repeatedly, that there was nothing classified with the balloon project in New Mexico. The equipment was off the shelf, information about those flights was published on July 10 that included pictures of the balloons, and contrary to what was being said, those in New Mexico did know the Mogul name. Dr. Crary’s diary contains several references to Mogul. What this means is that Mogul is not the solution and this is the solution offered by the Air Force in the mid-1990s.

Skeptics believe they have the answer to the Roswell UFO crash. I suggest they apply that same skepticism to the Mogul explanation rather than create alibies for its failure. A look at the evidence, a dispassionate look at the evidence, removes it from contention. We are left with no terrestrial explanation for the Roswell debris…

However, that doesn’t take us directly to the extraterrestrial. The circumstantial evidence suggests an off-world source, but it doesn’t prove the case. I just wish the skeptics, the news media and those science writers would be as honest in their assessment about Roswell. They have no solution.

Roswell, Sheridan Cavitt and Project Mogul

 

As I mentioned on Coast-to-Coast AM recently, I found another of those one-off UFO magazines that attempts to capitalize on the interest in alien visitation. I looked at the Roswell entry and noticed they mentioned the Project Mogul nonsense. I have covered this at length on this blog and in my recent books about the Roswell crash/retrieval. I’ll make one quick point here. Well, maybe two…

First, Flight No. 4, listed as the culprit here, that is, this flight was the one that allegedly scattered the debris for Mack Brazel to find was not launched. The documentation tells us that the flight was canceled. I do not understand how this documentation can be overlooked. If the flight didn’t fly, it did not scatter the debris.

There is a second point. According to what Charles Moore, one of the engineers who worked on the project back in 1947, told me, Flight No. 4, was configured just like Flight No. 5. While there is no schematic for Flight No. 4 (reinforcing the idea that it didn’t fly), we have the schematic for Flight No. 5, courtesy of the Air Force investigation of the Roswell case. There were no rawin radar targets on that flight, which raises the question, “Where did the rawin target photographed in General Ramey’s office originate?” It certainly didn’t come from Roswell.

Charles Moore reviewing winds aloft data at the school
library in Socorro. Photo by Kevin randle

Second, the testimony of Sheridan Cavitt, the CIC officer in Roswell at the time, carries great weight. However, what Cavitt told Don Schmitt and me when we met him, he wasn’t even in Roswell at the time. Later, he would tell Don and me, that he was too busy with security investigations to be chasing weather balloons.

I did ask him, given that the description of the officer who accompanied Jesse Marcel, Sr. out to the debris, meaning he was a West Texas boy who could ride horses, about his denial. He said that it sounded like him, but he insisted that he had not gone to the debris field.

Now, this could be boiled down to me spreading tales, but there is documentation about this. In the Air Force report, The Roswell Report: Fact vs Fiction in the New Mexico Desert, Cavitt’s interview conducted by Colonel Richard Weaver is published. Weaver asked about the incident that happened during the early part of July. Cavitt responded:

We went out to this site. There were no, as I understand, check points or anything like that (going through guards and that sort of garbage) we went out there and we found it. It was a small amount of, as I recall, bamboo sticks, reflective sort of material that would, well at first glance, you would probably think it was aluminum foil… I do not remember if Marcel was there or not on the site. He could have been. We took it back to the intelligence room… in the CIC office.

RW: What did you think it was when you recovered it?

SC: I thought it was a weather balloon.

I always wonder why, if Cavitt had identified the material while still on the ranch, he hadn’t communicated this rather important piece of intelligence to Colonel Blanchard and saved him the embarrassment of telling the world they had recovered a flying saucer… but I digress.

I have a letter, written by Cavitt to Doyle Rees, one time officer in charge of the CIC office in Albuquerque, on December 6, 1989. He was answering a letter from Rees, which I think was generated by the original Unsolved Mysteries show on Roswell that had aired several weeks earlier. I think this because that show is mentioned in the letter.

In the letter, Cavitt wrote, “…Marcel was a smart man; a good friend, a Louisiana Cajun, who was prone to be excitable, and, in this case wrong in that Cavitt had been along on that caper.”

Sheridan Cavitt interview in Arizona with Kevin Randle and
Don Schmitt. Photo by Kevin Randle

I don’t know why Cavitt would lie to Rees, unless had not been the senior officer of the CIC in the area at the time, and therefore, hadn’t been read into the crash when he, Rees, arrived in Albuquerque. The point is that Cavitt told fellow CIC officer, Rees, he hadn’t been there, but then told Weaver that not only was he there, he recognized the debris as that from a weather balloon…

Of course, that still doesn’t explain the picture of the rawin target taken in Ramey’s office, that was published on July 9, 1947, for all the world to see. Where did that debris originate?

Roger Ramey and Thomas DuBose with the remains of a rawin target. Since there
were no rawin targets on the early flights of Mogul balloons, the question
 is where did the rawin originate?

But, of course, that’s fine because we all know that it was really part of Project Mogul…

(Blogger’s Note: For those interested in a comprehensive analysis of the Project Mogul explanation, I recommend Roswell in the 21^st Century. This provides more evidence that Project Mogul was not a part of this story until injected into it in the late 1980s.)

Mysteries Uncovered - A Semi-review of a Book

 

In this episode of why I’m beginning to dislike Ufology, I have planned something of a rant against all the negative comments directed at me. These are challenges to my military background, my education, and that I write science fiction, though Stan Friedman once accused me of writing romances. But rather than do that, I’m going to mention a book I stumbled onto that sort of underscores the trouble with the UFO field.

Mysteries Uncovered, with the subtitle of True Stories of the Paranormal and Unexplained by Emily G. Thompson, caught my attention because in the promotional material, it mentioned the Roswell case. Well, here was a writer who had never actually been to Roswell or who had never interviewed any of the witnesses, but who was providing us with an analysis of the case. Naturally, I had to see what she had to say.

The book is loaded with analyses of many of the things that catch our attention here beginning with the Lost Colony of Roanoke and the Mary Celeste and several UFO related topics. Yes, I turned immediately to the chapter cleverly entitled, The Roswell Incident.

On the first page of that entry, after a brief synopsis of the case, there is a quote from Dr. Robert A. Baker, a hardcore skeptic. He said “It’s a modern myth, a kind of religion. There is a common human need for salvation, and it’s always coming from above.”

That didn’t bode well for the entry, but the text wasn’t quite that bad. However, in the first sentence, she told us about Mac Brazel, not realizing that it’s been a couple of decades since it was discovered by Tom Carey that he was actually Mack Brazel. This suggested that she hadn’t done the in-depth research that would have provided that small nugget of information.

She provides some descriptions that are attributed to Mack Brazel, but he never said anything like that to anyone. She wrote, “The wreckage consisted of metal, some of which was dull and some of with was shiny and thin, resembling tinfoil. There was also something that looked like transparent plastic string or wire, and thin sticks shaped like I-beams, made from a material that Brazel was unable to identify.”

It was Bill Brazel who told Don Schmitt and me about those items. She missed the important point. Bill told us that when you shined a light in one end of that plastic string it came out the other. He said that it resembled monofilament fishing line but he was talking about fiber optics.

She wrote about the size of what we have been calling the debris field. She wrote that he, meaning Mack, estimated that the wreckage covered an area of three-quarters of a mile long and 200 to three hundred feet wide. “It appeared as though some kind of machine had exploded in midair and wreckage from it had rained down of the earth.”

But we know the size of the debris field is based on descriptions from both Bill Brazel and Jesse Marcel, Sr, the Air Intelligence Officer of the military unit stationed at Roswell. The description was not provided by Mack Brazel.

And all this is in just the first paragraph.

After some discussion of other, irrelevant sightings in New Mexico, she reported that Brazel drove into Roswell to talk to Chaves County Sheriff George Wilcox. She wrote that Brazel might receive a reward for the discovery.

On the July 4 weekend, there were reports of various organizations each offering a thousand-dollar reward for proof about the flying saucers. But, according to the newspaper reports, that information wasn’t available to Brazel until after he made the trek to Roswell and there has been no evidence presented that Brazel knew about that money. The reason for the trip, was, allegedly to sell some wool, but the real reason was he wanted to know who was responsible for all that debris and who was going to clean up the mess.

Yes, I could continue to pick apart this entry, but what is the real point? Instead, I’ll move to the discussion of Project Mogul, the culprit blamed for the wreckage. She reported, accurately, that the Air Force launched an investigation after several members of Congress asked for that investigation in the mid-1990s. But then wrote, “… the debris found near Corona was related to Project Mogul, a top-secret program aimed at using balloons to spy on Soviet nuclear tests. They claimed that the wreckage was part of a 600-ft balloon train…”

This really isn’t her fault but the balloon arrays launched in New Mexico had been reduced to 400 feet and contained common weather balloons and no rawin radar reflectors early in the New Mexico launches. She wrote, based on the Air Force report, “They claimed that this was peculiar material found at the crash site that neither Major Marcel or [sic] Brazel could identify.”

But they should have been able to identify it. There was nothing special, nothing classified about the balloon arrays being launched in New Mexico. They were standard, off the shelf neoprene weather balloons and rawin radar reflectors. A farmer in Circleville, Ohio, Sherman Campbell, found a weather balloon and radar reflector in one of this fields on that July 4 weekend, and knew exactly what it was.  He took it to the local sheriff, who also knew what it was. Even if Brazel hadn’t recognized it, Marcel should have.

While I hesitate to get back into the arguments about Project Mogul, there are other points to be made. Thompson quoted Charles Moore, who worked on what he was quick to point out to me that this was the New York University balloon project. She wrote, “Moore claimed that the balloons were equipped with corner reflectors [rawin radar targets] that were put together with balsa wood and coated with synthetic resin glue similar to that made by Elmer, to strengthen them.”

But Moore told me, when I visited him in Socorro, New Mexico, that the make-up of Flight No. 4, the culprit in this discussion, was the same as that as what was termed “the first successful flight,” Flight No. 5. However, the diagram of Flight No. 5, as published in the Air Force report had no radar reflectors on it and none were used on any flight in New Mexico until much later in the process.

The configuration of Flight #5. Charles Moore told me that Flight #4 was configured in the same way. Notice there are NO rawin targets on the flight Also notice the other components which were not among they types of debris described by the witnesses.

Charles Moore reviewing winds aloft data that I provided for him as we attempted to determine the flight path of Flight #4. Photo by Kevin Randle, taken in Socorro, New Mexico in the early 1990s. It was during our discussions that Moore supplied information about the activities in 1947.

Thompson then discussed the Alien Autopsy that surfaced about that time, meaning 1995. It has very little to do with the Roswell case and is an admitted hoax. Nearly everyone involved in the hoax have come forward and there are photographs of them putting together the “alien” creature that appears in the film.

To keep this from getting away, meaning too long, Thompson provided us with the Glenn Dennis tale of the nurse who saw the alien bodies. Dennis said that she had told him about seeing the aliens in the base hospital and within days she had been transferred out of Roswell. He had written to her once, but the letter came back marked, “Deceased.” Dennis said that she, with four other nurses, had been killed in an aircraft accident. But there is no record of any such aircraft accident that took the lives of five Army nurses at the time.

Thompson wrote, “The nurse was never identified.” However, Dennis, reluctantly, gave researchers the name of the nurse. In fact, her name, Naomi Self or Selff, was well known among those who were involved in research on the Roswell case. But no one could verify that there was ever a nurse by that name in the Army, let alone stationed in Roswell. The search expanded to the local hospitals with the same results. Told that there was no nurse named Naomi Self, Dennis then said that he hadn’t given anyone the right name, but then gave another one, which was a major change in his story.

The real point is that the Dennis testimony about the nurse was discredited more than a quarter century ago. That information has been published repeatedly. I covered in The Randle Report: UFOs in the 1990s, published in 1997. I wrote then, “But others, such as Glenn Dennis, who has been considered one of the important witnesses, have begun to collapse. There is little that can be said except that we have found nothing to confirm that his nurse exists or existed. And when challenged on these points, be begins to change the tale.”

In her book, Thompson discusses other UFO events such as the Flatwood monster, Barney and Betty Hill and the Rendlesham Forest encounter. I had thought about reviewing those segments here as well, but this is getting longer than I intended. I will only note here that she reports on the testimony of Larry Warren who claimed involvement in the Rendlesham Forest events, but that testimony has been discredited. Colonel Charles Halt noted that he didn’t remember Warren being there at all, and that contrary to Warren’s statements, he did not approach the object in the woods. Thompson does acknowledge this controversy.

Peter Robbins, who co-authored the book, Left at East Gate with Larry Warren, has since repudiated Warren’s involvement the case. You can read Peter’s long entries about his reasons for this here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/08/peter-robbins-explains-his-take-on-left_10.html

and here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/08/peter-robbins-explains-his-take-on-left.html

Those entries were written by Peter and were posted to this blog with his permission. Thompson does write about the controversy with Warren’s statements, but the account might have been stronger if she had left Warren out of the discussion or reduced him to a footnote. There were others, such as Jim Penniston and John Burroughs, not to mention Charles Halt, who were clearly there.

Again, this criticism is a little bit nitpicky, but when dealing with a case where there is so much information, testimony and legitimate players, it does seem to be a waste to mention Warren at all.

I guess I must say that I was disappointed in the quality of the reporting on the Roswell case, but then it is quite complex and there have been dozens of books written about it. I have contributed five of them, and, of course, mentioned the case in dozens of magazine articles and appeared in a dozen or more documentaries and television programs dealing with the crash. And if you look at my earlier work, you’ll find errors in it that are the result of publishing preliminary data. However, it just seems that a solid report on Roswell can be written. I saw that she didn’t reference any of the skeptical books about the case and mentioned Witness to Roswell by Tom Carey and Don Schmitt twice in the bibliography of the Roswell case.

The real problem is that I know the mistakes made in the segments that deal with UFO related events and I must wonder is there are similar problems with the other segments. Would someone well versed in the Lost Colony of Roanoke be able to find significant errors in the reporting? Or in the section about Amelia Earhart?

If this was a real review, then I would note that the book is 373 pages long and is available from Amazon both as an ebook and in a print version. There is no index but there are footnotes which are not quite as comprehensive as I would like. It just strikes me that this was a book written with no real passion for the subjects mentioned.

Although I rarely mention books that I do not like, the Roswell information was too far off the mark to allow it to pass. Unfortunately, this is not a book that I would recommend.

Jacques Vallee, Trinity and New Information

 

Jacques Vallee has been heard from again defending the nonsensical story of a UFO crash near San Antonio, New Mexico in 1945. According to Douglas Dean Johnson, that defense was published briefly on Paola Harris’ website. You can learn more about this here:

https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-file-my-dad-is-a-pathological-liar/

https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/trinity-ufo-crash-fictions-clash-with-real-atomic-history/

As I noted here a few months ago, I had communicated with Dr. Vallee about an interview of Reme Baca conducted and recorded by Tom Carey. In a cordial email, Vallee suggested that the fact that Baca wanted to make some money off his experience was no different than all of us who research, investigate and write about UFOs. You can read some of that analysis here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2023/05/my-latest-communication-with-jacques.html

And I would certainly grant that point. There are many of us out there who have made money off our research in magazine articles, books and even movies. I often joke about what I call my SAGA scholarship. SAGA magazine published the UFO Report in the 1970s and I was able to sell them enough articles that it basically paid my college tuition. I will note that I had other income streams as well but that’s a story for another time.

I emailed Dr. Vallee that I wasn’t all that interested in Baca’s financial motivation, but in the major changes in the story related to Carey and the story as told to Harris and Dr. Vallee. I asked specific questions about it. I suspect that there was no good answer to any of those questions because I heard nothing more about it.

Tom Carey

I did interview Dr. Vallee and Paola Harris on my radio show/podcast when their book was first published. You can listen to that interview here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/06/x-zone-broadcast-network-jacques-vallee.html

https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv/adp20210602ep162emjacquesvalleeandpaoloh_1

Douglas Johnson, at his website, published a series of articles exposing the contradictions and outright lies being told about this alleged event. I believe that anyone who reads those articles dispassionately will realize that there had been no crash near San Antonio, not in 1945 as now claimed or in 1947 as originally suggested.

The real fear here is that those in the government who are suddenly interested in UFOs, I mean UAP, will take this alleged event seriously because of Dr. Vallee’s reputation. They will not bother to dig any deeper than the book and an interview with Dr. Vallee. They won’t access Douglas Johnson’s website because they don’t know who he is even if they know about the website. They won’t be aware of the major contradictions and the outright lies told by the witnesses about this case.

Instead, when they finally learn the truth, they will then assume that all stories of UFOs and UAP are some sort of terrestrial phenomena if not just lies. They will only remember that this case, cited by a respected scientist has now been found to be a hoax, and they will assume, by extension, other cases fall into the same category.

If this case is one endorsed by David Grusch and some of those other witnesses alleged to have testified in front of Congressional committees or representatives of the various intelligence organizations, it will suggest that much of the other sightings cited will be similarly explained.

If I was a paranoid person, and if I didn’t know the best way to seal an intelligence leak is to pump bad information into that leak to discredit it, I would suggest we’re seeing some of that here. Of course, the intelligence community didn’t have to investigate the bad information. They had Reme Baca’s story as a starting point. Shove in the discredited 1933 Italian UFO crash and many people will just nod and say, “I knew it.”

Now add the Aurora, Texas crash of 1897, and a very strong case can be made that these sorts of stories are the result of active imaginations and hoaxes told for personal gain, and whole investigations collapse. I mention Aurora only because it figures in the Vallee/Paola book, Trinity. I investigated the case before it became famous back when I lived in Texas. You can read the results of that investigation here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2005/03/aurora-texas-story-that-wont-die.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/04/aurora-texas-again.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/09/ufo-crashes-fifty-years-before-roswell.html

As I say, I’m worried that those conducting the government investigations will accept what Dr. Vallee says without critical comment. When they learn the truth about the “Trinity” UFO crash, they’ll begin to reject all other, similar data because of the poor investigation of Trinity. They will assume that all research is equally flawed. And they will use this when describing their work to the public.

Yes, I have seen this before. Nearly everyone scoffed at the Project Mogul explanation for the Roswell debris when it was first pushed in the mid-1990s. Now, in our world, we see that solution trotted out without any critical comment, even when the documentation proves that Mogul wasn’t the answer.

I am interested in what others think about this analysis and what they believe about the Trinity UFO crash, given the information available today.

David Grusch, UFO Crashes and Analysis (Updated June 12, 2023) (Updated June 13, 2023)

While Canada burns down and it seems that the leaders and former leaders of this country are accused, and in some cases indited, for breaking various federal laws, there are those more interested in crashed UFOs, or as is becoming the more correct term, UAPs. David Charles Grusch, whose credentials have been cited by many as impressive, claimed that the US Government has, in its possession, recovered alien spacecraft and the bodies of the alien crew. Overlooked here is the fact that he also said that he could produce no documents or pictures because of national security. I’ll concede that if he had pictures of aliens or alien spacecraft, that would be a national security issue.

Even without naming names and without the documentation, Grusch had been greeted with enthusiasm rather than skepticism by most of the mainstream media. Few worried about the lack of verifiable sources and fewer still mentioned it. Now, Michael Shellenberger issued his own statement saying that he knew of, at least, a dozen downed alien craft and that every five years we get one or two recovered for one reason and another. An unnamed source supposedly shared this information with AARO but AARO’s response suggests they don’t have access to that information.

Sean Kirpatrick at the Senate Hearing. He would say that he has seen no evidence
of alien material .

Of course, the Pentagon released a statement. Susan Gough told Fox News, “To date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”

That is similar to the statements made after the NASA meeting held on June 7. Several of the participants, when addressing this particular claim, said that they had no knowledge or had seen nothing to suggest that the government or the military had any sort of alien material or recovered craft.

After the meeting, Scott Kelly said, "I want to emphasize this loud and proud.
There is absolutely no convincing evidence for extraterrestrial life
associated with unidentified objects."

And, of course, comes the part that I love. More than one reporter trotted out the stale line about the Roswell UFO crash, claiming it was a “test balloon from Project Mogul.” It doesn’t seem to have occurred to those reporters that the Mogul explanation is just another in a long line of lies about the Roswell UFO case. According to the documentation, published by the Air Force, but overlooked by the media, is that the culprit in this, Mogul Flight No. 4, was cancelled. It did not fly and neither does this explanation.

But that does take us to Roswell, where a great deal of this all started. Don Schmitt and I have interviewed many high-ranking individuals about crashed UFOs and some of them have gone on the record. One of the first was Brigadier General Thomas DuBose, who, in 1947, was the Chief of Staff of the Eighth Air Force with headquarters at Fort Worth Army Air Field, later Carswell Air Force Base.

Interviewed in 1991, on tape, DuBose mentioned that the debris displayed in General Ramey’s office was not the material recovered outside of Roswell. Skeptics have pointed at the pictures of that debris as evidence for the Mogul explanation. In one of the pictures, we see Thomas DuBose proving that he was there, in the office, when the debris was displayed and identified as the material found outside of Roswell. He explained that there had been a switch, and that this was not the material that had been brought from Roswell. He said, “…actually it was a cover story, the balloon part of it for the remnants were taken from this location and Al Clark took it to Washington… That part of it was a cover story that we were to give to the public and the news and that was it.”

Since the material displayed in Ramey’s office is clearly the remains of a weather balloon and a rawin radar reflector, and since General DuBose said, on video tape, that it was not the debris brought from Roswell, it seems that Mogul is removed as an answer.

General Roger Ramey (left) and Colonel Thomas
DuBose (right) with the alleged Roswell debris.
DuBose would say that this is not the material
brought from Roswell.

Also, in the Army Air Forces in July 1947, was Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Exon, later a brigadier general. He was stationed at Wright Field which would eventually evolve into the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base where he would later serve as the base commander. Exon acknowledged, more than once, that unusual material had arrived at Wright-Patterson. He told Don and me, on audio tape, “We heard the material was coming to Wright Field… It was brought into our material evaluation labs. I don’t know how it arrived but the boys who tested it said it was very unusual… [Some of it] could be easily ripped or changed… there were parts of it that were very thin and awfully strong and couldn’t be dented with very heavy hammers… It was flexible to a degree and some of it was flimsy and was tougher than hell and almost like foil but strong. It had them pretty puzzled.”

Exon also said, on tape, “The metal and material was unknown to anyone I talked to. Whatever they found, I never heard what the results were. A couple of guys thought it might be Russian, but the overall consensus was that the pieces were from space.”

And to quote just one more officer who was stationed at Roswell in 1947, Major (later colonel) Edwin Easley told me that it was something from space. Oh, not in so many words. During one of the interviews, I had asked him if we were following 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.”

So, the officer in charge of the base security and who served as the Provost Marshal, and later retired as a colonel, said, basically, what was found was from outer space. He was in charge of security at the crash site and for the material, and the bodies, when they were brought to the base.

Here are three officers, two generals and one colonel who were suggesting that Roswell was a cover up and that we had something from space. Project Mogul doesn’t figure into it and offers no real counter to the statements of these men, or a few dozen others who were involved. And even though we used their names and provided copies of the tapes to other interested parties, the story didn’t get all that much traction at the time. Instead, we were attacked as charlatans who believed everything we were told and who cherry-picked the data to make our case.

As an interesting aside, Don and I met with a reporter at the Chicago Tribune in the early 1990s. We met her in a hallway for the interview. She was an intern who told us that her editors didn’t believe in UFOs and therefore weren’t overly interested in the testimony that we had recovered, even though we could name names, provide contact information, and even had limited documentation. The sophisticated reporters and editors were uninterested unless it was to prove they were all too sophisticated to believe in UFOs.

Here today, we are bombarded with stories about crashed UFOs and alien pilots, and the mainstream media seems to be bending over backwards to tell these tales without critical comment. What’s the difference? We could name names and they do not.

David Charles Grusch has said that he talked to several people, respectable people, highly placed people who would be in the jobs to know, that there had been several UFO crashes and that dead alien pilots had been found. He provided no names and said that he wasn’t allowed to provide any documentation. He just could tell us what he had heard.

We are told about his credentials which are impressive, but that doesn’t translate into evidence. It is second-hand testimony without any specifics. Did anyone notice that. He said there were multiple UFO crashes but didn’t tell us anything about them. Isn’t that interesting. The mainstream media has provided Grusch with a platform but hasn’t managed to get any of those specifics.

However, there is another player. Michael Shellenberger is on stage now. He claims that he knew there were twelve alien craft in the possession of the US government. He dodged the questions about the recovery of an alien flight crew. He mentioned that he had talked to multiple sources. He said they were high-ranking military officials, intelligence officers and civilian contractors who verified what Grusch had said. But here, again, he provided no names, no documents but only said that these unidentified people were reliable.

One of the reporters actually said that it was intriguing that there were things that he had left out of the story. I suppose that this means that Don and I should have left things out of the information that we published three decades ago. Maybe they would have listened to us then and followed up on the Roswell case while the witnesses, the dozens of witnesses, were still alive to tell their stories.

Shellenberger did mention a crash around the testing site for the atomic weapons. This might be a reference to Roswell, though it is more likely a reference to the 1945 San Antonio, New Mexico, crash referred to by Jacques Vallee. If it is the Trinity tale, that undercuts the reliability of what Shellenberger has to say because the Trinity story is a hoax.

That we have no information about any specific crashes and given that we have no idea who all these reliable sources are, I worry about the validity of the information. There is another point to be made here.

Several years ago, I communicated with a former Air Force Officer who said that in the early 1950s, he had been assigned to an Air Force communications center. He told me that he had seen classified documents pass through the center that mentioned a UFO crash in Scandinavia. He told me he had seen the documents personally and knew that it was true. He didn’t have copies of the messages because they were, at the time, classified, so he wasn’t allowed to keep them.

The Spitzbergen message sent through the Air Force communications
channels. It shows the officer was accurate in claiming he had
seen a classified message, but it was not the whole story.

I believe him, and if the documents referred to a real incident, that would be even more impressive. However, I do have copies of those documents, and they were released at the same time the Project Blue Book files were declassified. The document outlined the information about the Spitzbergen UFO crash in 1952. The best information currently available is that the story is a hoax, and the original newspaper cited as the source does not exist. It is just another of those stories that dot the UFO landscape.

What this demonstrates is that there are sources out there who can say, without lying, that they had seen official documents about crashed UFOs. The problem is those documents are often among the first to cite the information and it is in later documents that the truth is learned. That officer I communicated with told the truth. He just didn’t know the outcome. I’m not sure that once the hoax was uncovered, that another message, or group of messages would have passed through that communications center. If they did, the officer hadn’t seen them.

There is one other fact that I have just learned about. On Monday, June 12, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Grusch is going to give the last presentation. This is something that is hosted by Dr. Steven Greer, whose CSETI organization once had a list of over 300 UFO crashes. I have been unable to find that list today, though it was once easily available on the Internet.

UPDATE (June 12, 2023) : Here is something that I just learned that has some relevance to the story: STATEMENT FROM DAVID GRUSCH - “I took my job very seriously, and early on, I allowed various individuals that alleged they had information to speak their truth as part of my evaluation process. I have not been mentored by anyone, and my public disclosure has been done independently under my own free will. I emphatically request that Steven Greer cease using my name to promote his personal agenda”

Update 2: (June 13, 2023): David Charles Grusch did not make a presentation at the Greer Press Conference on June 12. Douglas Dean Johnson tells me that he, Johnson, spoke with Grusch colleagues who confirmed that Grusch will not have an association with Greer. This should end the speculation that Grusch will appear on any venue that is associated with Greer. I will note, however, that the information published here about Greer is relevant to the discussion because of the talk of alien spacecraft crashes. And yes, I liked that last little bit of alliteration.)

Back on May 9, 2001, Greer held another event at the National Press Club. Interestingly, he excluded members of the Fund for UFO Research, though I don’t know what the rational for that might have been. However, Greer had made many startling claims then such as, “We have learned from three separate, corroborating sources that since the early 1990s, at least two extraterrestrial spacecraft have been targeted and destroyed by experimental space-based weapon systems.”

Dr. Steven Greer at the National Press
Club in 2013.

One of the claims that caught my attention was, “Multiple new independently corroborating witnesses told us of the crash and retrieval of ET spacecraft in 1947 in New Mexico and in 1948 in Kingman, Arizona.”

Clearly, the first reference is to Roswell but I’m unsure about the second. There has been a report, circulated for years, of a crash near Kingman, but that was in 1953, not 1948, and it is a hoax.

Here’s the point of this brief interlude. Greer is holding another such press conference, and as I say, it will feature Grusch, telling his stories. I had wondered about Grusch’s sudden appearance on the UFO scene with tales of UFO crashes and hidden information. This is, of course, the same drumbeat that Greer has been making for decades. Any association with Greer would raise red flags but in this case it seems to be a false flag. As noted, Grusch will have no association with Greer. (Added June 13, 2023)

Don’t get me wrong, I believe Grusch is telling the truth as he knows it, but without additional information, which we never seem to get, you have to wonder about the validity of it. Without sources, or with others who have been running in these same Ufological circles for years providing some sort of validation for Grusch, you must be skeptical. Had Grusch added just a bit more information, such as location of the crash sites, or the names of some of the witnesses, his revelations would, at least to my way of thinking, have been more plausible. But without that information we are at the same place we were thirty years ago.

Here’s where we are on this. We have no new information, just new faces. We have no documentation, photographs or names of the sources. We are just supposed to believe these anonymous sources but if the last few years have taught us anything, anonymous sources are nearly useless. There is no way to vet them or their information, and often times they are speaking of rumor rather than fact.

The few names we do have are those who have worked with and have known Grusch for years. They validate his character but not necessarily his information, which is a subtle but important point. And one of the names offered, Jonathan Grey, we are told is a pseudonym, which, again, allows for no vetting and does nothing to validate the information.

To my way of thinking, if just one of these new claims could be validated, it would be a great boost to my reporting, and the reporting of Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, and so many others. But while we named names and sources for those who wished to check our work, that hasn’t happened here. So, until we get some better information, I’ll be without a final opinion. I fear this will end up just like so many other attempts to bring this all to a conclusion. We’ll be left with questions but with no one to supply the proper and verifiable answers.