Sunday, June 11, 2006

Karl Pflock Dies at 63

Karl Pflock, a long time researcher into UFOs and other related phenomena died June 5 from complications of ALS. He was 63.

I met Karl about fifteen years ago when he was associated with the Fund for UFO Research and I was beginning an investigation into the Roswell UFO crash. Karl convinced the Fund that another investigation should be initiated. Not long after that, Karl and his wife, Mary moved to New Mexico, which made it easier for him to investigate events in New Mexico.

Karl came to a different conclusion about the Roswell crash than I. Eventually; he was convinced that a balloon array launched in conjunction with the then top-secret Project Mogul was the best explanation. He found some of the eyewitness statements to be weak and without sufficient corroboration. He thought that the explanation offered by Charles Moore, one of the members of Project Mogul, to be persuasive. I did not.

He entered into a exclusive relationship with Glenn Dennis, the Roswell mortician who told the marvelous story of a nurse he had know out at the base, who told him about alien creatures and who soon disappeared. Karl didn’t know that Dennis already had an exclusive relationship with Mark Wolf.

Karl interviewed Frank Kaufmann, who I believed was telling the truth. Karl did not. He thought Kaufmann was spinning tales and based that on his interviews with Kaufmann. Kaufmann explained it away, but in the end, Karl was right about Kaufmann and I was wrong.

After a couple of years, neither of us believed much of what Glenn Dennis said. We’d seen too many of his tales collapse under investigation. So we agreed on that.

In fact, it turned out that we agreed on far more of the UFO field than we disagreed. We talked about Barney Barnett and how we found his tale of seeing the crashed Roswell saucer to be less than credible. We eventually wrote an article about it together, wondering what the UFO community would make of the collaboration. Karl, it turned out, had to do most of the final work because I found myself called to active duty in Iraq.

In the beginning, I think, we agreed on little and clashed more often than not. We debated the Mogul explanation at the 1997 Roswell Fiftieth Anniversary. We managed to fill the house but I think neither of us persuaded many in the audience. Those who believed in the aliens continued to do so and those who believed in Mogul continued to do so. If there was a winner, it was based solely on the beliefs of those who attended and not the merits of the arguments offered.

I believe he was a good researcher and he aspired to be a good writer as many of us do. Once I got away from the shadow of Don Schmitt, my relation with Karl became much more cordial. (I found that to be true with a number of other researchers with the exception of Tom Carey).

Karl, I think, had a bit of the flair for the dramatic, which explains to some extent, the Kurt Peters episode. Karl had told writers investigating a wave of cattle mutilations that his name was Kurt Peters rather than Karl Pflock. I was never convinced by his explanation for it, but heck, we've all done dumb stuff at younger ages. I had meant to ask him about it on a number of occasions but just never got that done.

I'm reminded too of a trip that he and I took in a limousine in LA nine years ago. We were going to do the Sci Fi Channel's SF Vortex and argue about Roswell and UFOs. Also in the car was Russ Estes and I realized that all three of us had been part of the intelligence community at some point. I wondered then what the conspiracy theorists would make of that... but now, two of those people are gone and given our ages, I wouldn't have expected it quite that quickly.

Just another note here. Karl had worked for the CIA but I never really knew what he had done for them. I suspect it wasn’t real exciting, in a covert way, but something necessary. I believe based on what he had said in the past that he had served in the Marines as well. He’d even been a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. Those inside the UFO community like to suggest he was a "spook," but then, they like to say that about nearly everyone. Of course, his connection to the CIA didn’t help.

Karl liked to twist the tail of those in the UFO community, and sometimes we need it. I believe he was honest in most of what he did and said just as most of us are honest... I keep thinking of things to put here... things that many of us hold as self evident truths but that might not be quite as solid as we'd like them to be.

There were those in the UFO community who don’t see it this way and had their own arguments with Karl. It is impossible to do research and publish those results without offending some. It is also impossible to deal with people daily without offending some. Maybe there is good reason for that offense, but for me, Karl was fair and honest, and I believe we became friends.

We had planned to write a book together, though in the last couple of years, I think that was more of a dream for Karl. We exchanged ideas and thoughts, and had decided on a case to review at length. Then Karl suggested that he would gather the data and maybe I should do the writing. This was, of course, a result of ALS. I knew this and while I don’t really like these projects where I end up doing the writing, here it wasn’t Karl’s fault. Besides, he would do the editing and that is always a big problem. Finally, Karl had to bow out because he was afraid that he would be unable to finish his share of the work.

Anyway, I always enjoyed the exchanges with Karl, learned things during them, and kept in touch with him during my service in Iraq. I'm sorry that he was taken from us at this point because I think he could have added something to our research. He was much too young to be gone already.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

New Thoughts On the Autopsy Fake


When Ray Santilli admitted recently that he had faked the footage of the alien autopsy film there were those who were didn’t believe this new revelation. They began to suggest reasons why they didn’t believe Santilli was telling the truth. And they asked a very interesting question of the rest of us. If we didn’t believe Santilli in the beginning, when he first released the film, why did we believe him now?

The answer is simple. Evidence.

When Santilli appeared on the scene in the mid-1990s, he came with what seemed to be hard evidence. He had the statement from the cameraman who took the film and he had the film itself. At the time he first appeared he made a number of statements such as claiming that President Truman could be seen on the debris field and that trucks and cranes were there, all things hard if not impossible to fake. There were supposed to be nearly two hours of film including the in the field, preliminary autopsy and then another conducted in a morgue. At one point Santilli produced some classification sheets that he said were on the film canisters but which were more consistent with something from Hollywood than they were with military orders. After they were criticized, he quickly withdrew them.

Here are a few of the original problems. Take the film. This is a piece of physical evidence. We can examine what is on the film and see if it conforms to the standards of other such films shot at the time. First, it didn’t conform. Autopsy footage, according to former military cameramen, was always shot in color. There were normally three cameras, one fixed motion picture, one motion picture camera operated by a human operator, and one still camera operator. Santilli’s footage was in black and white with a single movie camera. Although the alien autopsy would have been a unique event, there was no reason to violate the norms of the time.

The film could be tested for age. Kodak said they would do it, but they wanted a frame of the film with the alien on it. Santilli never would allow that to happen providing a variety of excuses. If the film was dated to the proper time, 1947, while not proving the footage real, it certainly would go a long way in that direction. Refusal, however, suggested that there was either no film at all (meaning the thing was only on videotape) or that Santilli knew that Kodak would learn the truth about the age and that would uncut its value.

Kodak did say that all its film stock was marked with a code so that the year of manufacture could be determined. The problem was that they recycled the codes. So, while Santilli’s film had the code for 1947, the proper year, it could also have been 1967 or 1987. This proved nothing.

The real trouble was the lack of provenance for the film. Santilli said that it came from an U.S. Army cameraman who had inadvertently ended up with some canisters of classified film. He hadn’t known what to do with it or how to return it to the Army. But, Santilli would never identify the cameraman. Instead, he produced a transcript of an interview with the cameraman. It was filled with British colloquialisms. When challenged, Santilli said his British secretary had typed it, though that didn’t explain why an American was using British terminology. A new version was released without the British accent.

Then, while viewing footage of the wreckage on display in a tent, there was a metallic I-beam with some kind of strange symbols on it. Well, not so strange. The symbols spelled out video. What were the odds that alien symbols would spell out an English word when we had so few samples of the alien writing? That seemed to tell many of us that this was a video joke.

These, among other things, raised red flags for many of us. These were questions that were asked but were never satisfactorily answered. Instead, we were told that no one had come forward admitting this film was a hoax. It couldn’t have been carried out by one man, so where were all the others claiming they had participated in its creation?

Then, several years ago Phillip Mantle released a statement that the tent footage had been faked. This was of the first, preliminary autopsy, allegedly conducted in a tent on the crash site. Santilli, the story went, was disappointed by the quality of the tent footage, so he had recreated it in hopes of having something a little better to show and to make a little more money. Santilli was admitting that the tent footage was a hoax. He and friends had created it. The reason for it was irrelevant. The point was that it had been faked.

Now, several years later, Santilli was telling us all the footage was a recreation. He even identified the man who made the alien body and that man had expertise that allowed him to create it. Not only that, the man was proud of his work and confirmed that he had made the alien creature.

So, why do we believe Santilli now when we didn’t so long ago? Because all the evidence supports the admission and there is corroborating testimony from a man who has been identified as one of the participants in the hoax. There is no cameraman, and if there is film (as opposed to only videotape) of the autopsy, it was film Santilli and his friends created. There is no evidence to suggest that the alien autopsy is real and there never was.

But what astonishes me, as it has in the past, is that the man responsible has admitted the hoax and there are people who refuse to believe him. He told us how it was done, identified the other participants, and gave us a good reason for why it was done. And still people want to believe that the footage is real.

Well, it’s not. It’s a fake and I would hope that we never have to deal with it again. This is, however, UFO research and no matter what the outcome of a case, no matter how thoroughly it has been researched and then explained, it will resurface as people with little critical thinking skills tell us why it was real.

Friday, April 07, 2006

The End of the Alien Autopsy


I first saw the Alien Autopsy film when working on a documentary with a British film producer for a show to highlight the film. He sought comments from those of us who had spent time and money investigating the Roswell UFO crash. I studied the film, saw that it bore no resemblance to the descriptions of the aliens provided to us, noticed many other things wrong with the film, and thought that the autopsy as portrayed seemed to be rather superficial if not a bit cavalier.

We learned later that one part of the autopsy had been faked. Philip Mantle, a British UFO researcher had learned that the tent footage, a rather poorly lit, hard to see segment of the film had been "recreated" because the original footage was too poor to use on television. The tent autopsy wasn’t used because it was nearly blacked out and the body on the table could have been almost anything. In other words, the tent footage had been faked, though for the best of reasons, according to Ray Santilli, the man responsible for the whole Alien Autopsy mess. He had recreated it.

Now, comes more interesting news. Mantle, in a letter posted to various places on the Internet, tells us:

Tonight showed the SKY ONE TV show 'Eamon Investigates - Alien Autopsy’. The show starts of with Santilli still claiming that he saw real film of aliens and that he purchased it from a former US military cameraman. However, there is now a change in the story. Santilli & his colleague Gary Shoefield claim that it took 2 years to buy the film & that when it finally arrived in London 95% of it had 'oxidised' and the remaining 5% was in very poor condition.

They therefore decided to 'reconstruct' it based on Santilli's recollection and a few frames that were left. To do this they hired UK sculptor John Humphreys. Humphreys tells of how he used sheep’s brain for the brain and a lamb’s leg for the leg joint.

The cameraman's interview film is also a fake. The man in the film is someone they literally brought in off the street and gave him a prepared script to read from.

Santilli and Shoefield continually try to insist that the AA film as we know it is a restoration, but in fact it was made by John Humphreys.

To try and justify they claim that some of the surviving original frames are seen mixed in with the reconstruction/restoration. Interestingly neither Santilli, Shoefield or Humphreys could point out where and which are these frames when viewing the AA film.

Santilli admitted that the six-fingered panels in the debris film were the result of 'artistic license' and he even produced one of the I-beams from the boot of his car. The debris film was also made by John Humphreys.

In fact, Humphreys is the surgeon in the film, and a former employee of Shoefield's in behind the window. He's Gareth Watson, a man I met several times in Ray's office.

Nick Pope and myself appear briefly in this show and I dare say Nick will have his own comments to make.

For anyone interested in the AA film I do recommend watching this if you can. I've taken part in another show for Channel Five in the UK the content of which I am not permitted to disclose.

After watching this tonight I can honestly say that I do not believe one word of either Santilli or Shoefield and I have no doubt that the film is nothing more than a complete fake.

There is and never was any original film and there is and never was any US military cameraman. Santilli & Shoefield had little credibility as it was but now they have none.

The alien autopsy film is dead and I hope to put it to rest, once and for all, soon. Watch this space.

Philip Mantle

I could review the many reasons that I believed the film to be a fake, but those who are interested can find the opinions in my 1997 book, The Randle Report: UFOs in the ‘90s. You can also look at the Alien Autopsy wetsite hosted by v j enterprises at:

This also sets up a number of interesting questions. As some have pointed out, there are those who claimed to have seen the footage elsewhere. It was those witnesses, and Cliff Stone comes to mind here, who said they saw the footage long before Santilli released it into the public arena. Interestingly, none of those people are on record about such a film prior to the announcements made in 1995. Even more interestingly, with Santilli’s admission, none of those people ever said that the film didn’t look quite right. They just claimed to have seen it all before.

Yes, I know what the fall back position will be. Santilli said the film was so poor that they could use very little of it, so they recreated it. A very small part of the footage is real and the rest reconstructed. So, those claiming to have seen the film can now say, well, yes, it’s a reconstruction of what I saw long ago. I just couldn’t compare the original to what I saw but it looked like the same thing.

Crap.

Mantle said it all when he said the Alien Autopsy is dead. That’s where it should be, but there will be those who will claim that the government (whose… US or UK) got to Santilli and forced him to say the film was a recreation. There will be those who claim that the sheep’s brain or the lamb’s leg don’t make sense and this is proof of government pressure to discredit the film. There will be those who will see conspiracy everywhere in the confession, but will never acknowledge the real conspiracy is the one created by Santilli and friends to make money.

So, I agree with Mantle. The Alien Autopsy is dead. Let’s leave it there and move on.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

UNSOLVED HISTORIES SOLVED


I happened to catch the Unsolved Histories that dealt with UFOs. I now understand something about that program that I didn’t know for certain before. The experiments conducted are so much eyewash and have nothing to do with reality. All three of the experiments that were performed on that program were badly flawed and the results, while interesting, were virtually useless.

Taken in reverse order, I’ll look at the Mantell case, where a National Guard pilot died chasing a UFO, the Roswell case, which is, of course, the alleged crash of an alien ship, and finally the Arnold sighting which is credited with launching the modern UFO era.

For those interested in a complete examination of the circumstances surrounding the crash of Captain Thomas Mantell, all the relevant material is in a paper at www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/. For the Unsolved Histories experiment to be relevant, the producers should have reviewed everything that had been written about the case since January 1948. They avoided the eyewitness testimony of those on the ground, including the crew in the Godman Army Airfield Tower near Ft. Knox, Kentucky, the other pilots in the flight with Mantell, and dozens of others who reported the object in the afternoon sky.

For the experiment, and making it sound as if they were doing a scientific study, they used the services of a professional astronomer who would calculate the position of the sun in the sky to duplicate the condition from 1947. They also used information about a new type of balloon in 1947, known as a Skyhook, so they could create a model of the balloon with lighting that would be similar to that Mantell saw. They found one of the few working F-51 Mustangs, the type of fighter that Mantell have been flying. They were now ready for their experiment.

I would have believed the experiment relevant, except they were in California rather than Kentucky, they were in the middle of summer rather than winter, they were flying in the early morning rather than the middle of the afternoon, the Mustang they used was configured with a jump seat for a passenger when Mantell’s was not, and the sky was clear while the evidence shows that the sky was slightly obscured in 1948. And, of course, there was nothing in the sky for them to photograph. They had to add that to the tape later, to show us what Mantell might have seen.

While I thought it impressive that they reconstructed the Skyhook balloon on a small scale and duplicated the lighting conditions as best they could, all of this didn’t have to be done. If they had read the eyewitness statements, available in the Project Blue Book files, on-line at the NICAP web site, or on microfilm from the National Archives (Marked as RG 341, Records of the United States Air Force, Project Blue Book T-1206, Roll 2), they would have read descriptions that make it clear that the object was a balloon. It hung in the sky for hours, giving the witnesses a chance to study it, some of them using binoculars. When you read the descriptions, it’s quite clear that what Mantell saw was a balloon, probably 60,000 feet above him, made of a material that had a metallic sheen. A type of balloon that Mantell had never seen, and which fooled him. Nearly everyone who has studied the case now understands that Mantell chased a balloon. It was a conclusion reached without an elaborate looking experiment that was of little real value but that made good television.


Next they went after Roswell; suggesting that human memory is fallible and that people add and subtract from their memory over time. They suggested that memory might not be accurate, though the person relating the memory might believe that he or she is telling it exactly as it happened. So, is there something new in that?

Their experiment was to bring in some volunteers who would believe that they were going on a nature hike, but along the route, they would pass a crash site where there would be metallic debris and armed guards. Later, weeks later, they would be asked what they had seen and it would be compared to the videotape made from their helmet cameras.

Once again, there are problems with the experiment. First, the witnesses whose Roswell testimony is considered reliable all spent hours on the field and handled the debris. Second, armed men did not intimidate many of them, because they too, were soldiers. And finally, the implication of the experiment was that all memories are untrustworthy and that all people suffer from the same memory problems and that just isn’t true.

Their experiment was unnecessary if they were attempting to show that memories can, and the key word here is can, be altered over time. Psychologist Ulric Neisser conducted an experiment when the Challenger was destroyed in 1986. The day after the disaster he had the students in his freshman psychology class answer a short questionnaire about the explosion. These were simple questions about where they were when they heard and how they had learned about the disaster. He then filed those questionnaires away until the students were seniors. He then gave them all the same test with one additional question. He wanted to know how accurate they believed their memories to be.

According to the results, a quarter of the students didn’t have one memory that was accurate. In one case, for example, the student reported he had been home with his parents, but the truth was, he had been at college.

At the other end of the scale were those whose memories were completely accurate and that didn’t seem to be colored by the passage of time. So, what have we learned? That some people have memories that have been altered over time and others don’t. Some people remember an event accurately and some don’t. And that the experiment performed by the Unsolved Histories, while interesting, has nothing to do with the Roswell case, other than suggest that some witnesses, while honestly reporting what they remembered, might be in error. But there is no reason to believe that those talking with us today, or who have been interviewed in the past, were relating memories that have been altered, especially when those witnesses have their testimony corroborated by other witnesses and documentation.

Instead, Unsolved Histories trotted out the anthropomorphic dummies that the Air Force had used in ejection system tests in the 1950s and suggested that the Roswell witnesses might have been confused by the wreckage and dummies left by those experiments. They failed to mention that those experiments took place ten years later, only one experiment fell near Roswell, and that there is no evidence that a witness relating his or her experience about the alien craft had even been in a position to see the Air Force experiment. In fact, without being able to produce that evidence, this anthropomorphic dummy theory fails.

The Unsolved Histories crew again, should have reviewed the available literature. Maybe they would have then questioned some of the Air Force assertions. For example, Colonel Richard Weaver interviewed retired Lieutenant Colonel Sheridan Cavitt. In 1947, Cavitt was in the Army’s Counter-Intelligence Corps and was stationed in Roswell. Major Jesse Marcel said that Cavitt accompanied him out to the ranch where the debris had fallen. Marcel, of course, described metal that could not be dented with a sledge hammer, some parchment like material that could not be set on fire, and had loaded his car with debris to be taken to the Roswell Army Airfield. In later interviews he would explain that the material was something that had fallen to earth but that was something that had not been made on Earth.

When I interviewed Cavitt in the early 1990s, he told me that he had never been involved in the recovery of any balloon material which, unfortunately contradicts what he told the Air Force five or six years later. He was too busy in 1947 to worry about balloons. But when Weaver interviewed him, the story was different. Weaver asked, after Cavitt had described the scene that he and Marcel have found, "What did you think it was when you recovered it?"

Cavitt said, "I thought it was a weather balloon."

The next logical question, at least to my way of thinking, should have been, "Did you communicate this rather important bit of information to Marcel?"

Instead, Weaver asked, "Were you familiar with weather balloons at the time?"

Unsolved Histories didn’t bother with the testimony of Lewis Rickett, who worked with Cavitt in Roswell and whose story is completely at odds with him. Nor did they search for any of the documented and video taped interviews with Jesse Marcel, nor did they worry about finding any of those who had handled the debris to describe it. Instead they performed an experiment that was irrelevant but which looked good to those who don’t understand true scientific testing.


Finally, let’s look at the Kenneth Arnold sighting. Unsolved Histories found an aircraft like that flown by Arnold and they traced his course as he flew across Washington State in June 1947. Arnold said he saw a group of objects traveling at what he believed to be about the same altitude as he was flying and judged them to be about fifty miles away. He timed their flight between two points and calculated they were flying about 1800 miles an hour, or much faster than anything of that era.

During the experiment, Unsolved Histories determined, to their satisfaction, that Arnold couldn’t have made the observations as he claimed. The objects wouldn’t have been visible to him. They were suggesting that he had made a mistake and therefore there could be an explanation for his sighting. They came up with a reflection on the cockpit windows and the possibility of geese.

But here are the problems. If they had bothered with reading any of the material about Arnold, they would have known that he thought of reflections of some kind, and turned the aircraft to find out if that solution worked. He also thought of water on the windows and opened one to make sure that he wasn’t being fooled in that way.

As for the birds, if they were closer than he estimated, then they would have been flying slower. The problem is if they had been much closer he would have recognized them as birds. If they were farther away, then they would have been flying even faster, if he could have even see them.

And, they didn’t account for the sighting of Fred Johnson who told the Air Force that he had seen the objects about the same time as Arnold. Johnson even wrote that he had seen the objects through a telescope. So, there is independent corroboration for Arnold’s sighting, if Johnson is to be believed.

What we have in Unsolved Histories are producers who have the answers before they perform their experiments and experiments that are full of design flaws. Only the Arnold experiment adds anything to our knowledge of the case. In both the Roswell case and the Mantell tragedy, we have badly flawed experiments. A little on-line research could have saved them all some trouble, but then that wouldn’t have had the cloak of scientific investigation. And this ignores that the first step is to review the available literature so that you don’t duplicate the earlier investigation unless, of course, you are attempting to corroborate those results.

In the end, they solved nothing, though they drew conclusions. Had they bothered with the latest UFO research, they would have known that the Mantell sighting was solved long ago, that their information about the Roswell case was out of date, and that the Arnold sighting was not stand alone. They could have saved themselves some time and they could have attacked other sightings, maybe adding something to the research. In the end, they offered entertainment but not science.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Lovekin is a General... But...

Well, the answer is finally in. After writing to many people requesting information, after actually calling Stephen Lovekin at home (and learning to my horror that he was just out of the hospital), after emailing a relative who was defending him, I have learned the truth about Lovekin. It turns out that I was right… He was not a brigadier general on active duty with the Army, he was not a member and brigadier general in the North Carolina National Guard and he was not a brigadier general in the Army Reserve. He is, as I speculated, a brigadier general in the State Guard of North Carolina Association, a volunteer, civilian organization. For those wishing to the Disclosure Project evidence, click on the comments after the other Lovekin article for the links.

Yes, this seems to be splitting a fine hair here, but it is not. As I wrote, during World War II, when the National Guard in all states was activated, the states responded by creating the State Guard. It was an organization that took on the role of the National Guard while those soldiers were deployed. When the war ended and the National Guard soldiers were demobilized, these state guards were disbanded or allowed to disintegrate. Their charters, in many cases expired. In the 1990s, many of these organizations were revitalized, but often without the state recognition they once held.

With the information, supplied by Dr. Stephen Greer of the Disclosure Project, I learned about Lovekin’s military connection. I used Google to find the State Guard of North Carolina. It has a one page web site that explains in their mission statement, "The NCSGA (North Carolina State Guard Association) is deicated (sic) to provide an organized trained group of volunteers to help in times of emergency and as a manpower multiplier force for the CERT program in the State of North Carolina."

They also note, "We train to assist our local law enforcement, fire, and medicial (sic) teams. We have training with the Red Cross Emergency System, Mass Care, Housing, Comm First Aid, etc. We have volunteered and helped on the NC coast with hurricanes, in the mountains with floods and in our communities with search and rescue."

There is a link to another, more comprehensive web site for that organization. For those interested in more information Contact: Tom Griffith (Chief of Staff) 225 Edgeland Dr.PO Box 17171, Charlotte, NC 28277 Matthews, NC 28105 Phone: (704) 847-4855 Fax: Website: http://www.ncstateguard.org USAFreedom Corps: Citizen Corps.

This organization is somewhat similar to the Air Force’s Civil Air Patrol (CAP). All CAP members wear the Air Force uniform, but they are not members of the Air Force. The CAP is the official auxiliary and they perform a great service in search and rescue. But they are civilian volunteers who serve without pay and often with little recognition.

And so it is with the North Carolina State Guard Association. They perform service and are a benefit to the community, but they are an organization of civilian volunteers in a paramilitary organization who serve without pay.

So, the answer to the question in the original article, "Is Lovekin a Brigadier General," is yes. But it is a qualified yes, meaning that he holds a commission as a Brigadier General in an organization that has no official recognition.

If I was to complain about the way he is listed in the various articles and on various web sites, it would be about the claim of National Guard Reserve. As I have said, there is no such thing though both the National Guard and the Army Reserve are parts of the Reserve Component. In all official planning for the force structure the National Guard and the Army Reserve are featured. The North Carolina State Guard Association is not.

To correct the problem, all that needs to be done is to change the listing from National Guard Reserve to North Carolina State Guard Association. Those who wish to understand the significance of Lovekin’s commission can then find their way to the web sites. They will have the information necessary to understand what is going on.
But let’s go just a little bit further. I now understand why my search failed to find any reference to an officer named Lovekin in the Army Registry. When Lovekin said that he was assigned to the White House Signal Agency, he was not an officer. He was a specialist, meaning he was a low-ranking enlisted man. Given the timing, and Lovekin’s biography, it means he entered the Army shortly after he finished high school, served for a limited time, and then went to college. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he joined the Army for the GI Bill which would have helped pay for college.

Lest anyone think I am disparaging Lovekin’s course, let me point out that I served as a private on active duty, later as a specialist (E-5) before finishing flight school and receiving a promotion to Warrant Officer. One of my goals was to obtain the GI Bill to help pay for college. In fact, there are many who served in the military with the idea of receiving money for college. As I mentioned before, I have nothing against teenagers in the Army. I was one myself.

Where does that leave us? Well, Lovekin was a member of the White House Army Signal Agency, but as an enlisted man. He serves, or served, as a Brigadier General in North Carolina State Guard Association but has not held that rank in the Armed Forces of the United States. What this does is clarify his position and helps us understand and assign credibility to his claims of what he heard at the Eisenhower White House.

I’ll make one more quick comment. I laid out the information I have carefully. I showed that there were no official documents that showed Lovekin served as a general in any of the officially sanctioned military services. I suggested then that he might have been appointed a general in this loosely organized State Guard, which is the case. I had asked for help from those supporting Lovekin such as Dr. Michael Salla, who said he would find out and let me know. I wrote to Lovekin’s cousin, twice, asking for documentation and said I would post it immediately (I find that I don't have to do that because of the emails in the comments section... There are links there to the documentation). I received nothing. Instead, I’m attacked for wanting to get to the truth. This I knew would happen.

So, for those who want to believe, Lovekin is a general. For those who want the truth, the source of his commission is important. If the media were to check on this, what conclusion do you think they would draw? And it is those people who are disinterested that should drive the train, not the true believers or the hardcore debunkers.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

IS LOVEKIN A GENERAL - Revised

Over the last week or so there has been a raging controversy over my posting of the information about Stephen Lovekin, his status as a brigadier general, his work as part of the White House Army Signal Agency, and his claims of information about UFOs from President Dwight Eisenhower. I have received many nasty emails, several that were critical, but made their points without resorting to personal attacks, and I have even received a few that were supportive.

But the real point here is that the complaint I have is not with Lovekin, but with how he was presented to the world as a UFO whistle blower. I could have handled this in a more professional manner and basically left him out of it. As near as I can tell, he was careful in what he said about his military service and that the source of his commission was never fully explored. In other words, and as you can read in the preceding article, he is a brigadier general in the North Carolina State Guard Association. These state guards are strange beasts and there is no universal protocol for them. A few, California and Ohio spring to mind, have some sort of state recognition while others seem to be little more than clubs for those interested in the military. A few, maybe most, do serve a purpose as a source of volunteers during natural disasters. To some, these distinctions are unimportant and to others they are.

In the article that this replaces, I detailed my investigation into the source of Lovekin’s commission and then speculated that it might be in one of these state guards. In that respect I was correct and I should have left it right there. However, I was working under the impression that Lovekin had suggested he was an officer at his time with the White House Army Signal Agency and this turns out to be incorrect. Because of this, I wrote, in part, "Once again, if we read Lovekin’s law biography carefully, we find no time for him to have been trained and then serve as an Army officer, complete his under graduate training and then attend law school. He received his law degree in 1964. He would have had to graduate from high school in 1957 or 1958, complete OCS which, in that time frame lasted six months, serve his military term, attend college and then go on to law school, all in six or seven years."

What is really embarrassing here is my suggestion that we read his law biography carefully and then I go on to make an elemental mistake. HAD I read it carefully, I would have noted that he received his law degree in 1967, not 1964. As an officer in the White House, it would have been tough. For an enlisted man, not. Clearly he was able to complete his Army training, be detailed to the White House, finish his tour and then enter college. Three years after graduation from college, he received his law degree. Oh, if I have only taken my own advice and read it carefully.

There is a second paragraph in the article that this replaces that I shouldn’t have written. Or rather, a sentence that should have been modified. I wrote, "This all suggests to me that the ‘whistle blower’ testimony offered by Stephen L. Lovekin is of little use in developing any policies related to UFOs or extraterrestrial visitation…"

Which those of a skeptical bent would take given the nature of the testimony meaing, simply, if UFOs are not extraterrestrial, then the testimony of Lovekin can be ignored because the suggestions of extraterrestrial involvement are clearly in error. It’s a sort of circular argument. UFOs aren’t extraterrestrial and therefore any information suggesting they are is somehow in error.

I’m not saying this, that there is no extraterrestrial visitation, and my conclusion about Lovekin’s value was based on the source of Lovekin’s commission. The best I can say about it is that I might have overstated the case. Or for those who support Lovekin and his testimony, I was wildly overstating the case.

I also wrote, "There is no corroboration of his many claims of military service as a high-ranking officer," which is true, but I should have written that the many claims, rather than his claims… Well, he did say he was a general and that implies high-ranking military service. We can argue if his commission in the North Carolina State Guard Association qualifies. At this point, I think I’ll just leave that alone and let everyon conduct his or her own research into the value of these state guard associations.

Then I drift off into the real speculation and write, "[N]o verification of his positions in the White House…" While it is true when I wrote that I had no verification, the statement is a conclusion not based on fact. Clearly Lovekin did work in the White House Army Signal Agency, and there is no way to spin this mistake. I should not have written it. I guess I was blinded by the lack of success in finding any record in the Army, National Guard or Army Reserve of an officer named Lovekin. Had I searched a little harder, I might have learned that it was a claim that others made for him, but not one he made himself.

Finally, I wrote, "[A]nd little reason to believe he was witness to the things he claims." Well, again, that question is open because we seem to lack corroboration for his claims. But then, it could be that others who witnessed the same thing have decided not to talk about it, or didn’t hear the same things, or interpreted them in a different fashion.

I suppose I could say that those making the extraordinary claims should be prepared to provide evidence for them, but then, is this Lovekin’s fault? Has his comments been taken out of context or embellished by the enthusiasts for his information? Certainly possible.

The best conclusion, based on what we know now, having seen some documentation, having explored the source of his commission, and having reviewed some of the transcripts of his testimony (some of that offered by Grant Cameron and Dave Rudiak) is that the question is still open.

Although I have replaced the original column, I have left the comments attached to it intact because they link to a site that provides documentation for those who would like to see it.

(NOTE: I came to the realization that unlike a mistake in a book, magazine or newspaper, I did not have to live with it. I could fix the situation simply by taking down the article. I also felt that an explanation was required, so I replaced it with this. I could say that the original article served its purpose by shaking everything loose and we now have a more accurate picture, but the reality is that I simply drew too many conclusions from the information I had. I should have been careful and I should have left Lovekin out of it.)

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Walter Haut Dead at 83

Walter Haut, the man who issued the press release that claimed the Army had recovered a flying saucer died Thursday, December 15, 2005. He was 83 according to published reports.

Haut, it might be said, was the father of the Roswell UFO crash story. He was the man who gave the interviews, provided leads, and always seemed to have a new idea when the old began to fade. He was the link to Glenn Dennis, the mortician who reported bodies at a Roswell funeral home; to Frank Kaufmann, who claimed to have been an intelligence agent in Roswell and one of the creators of the cover up; and the man who conceived the International UFO Museum and Research Center for Roswell.

Haut will be best remembered as the man told the world about the Roswell flying saucer. In later years he would confess that he no longer remembered if Colonel William Blanchard, the commander of the bomb group in Roswell, had called him with the specifics of the crash, had called with an already completed press release, or if Blanchard had ordered him to report in person. No matter which it was, Haut took the completed press release to the four media outlets in Roswell, the two daily newspapers and the two radio stations, and then went home. He told Russ Estes that he mowed the lawn.

There was, for several hours, a firestorm around Roswell. Haut said that he got telephone calls from around the world, and at one time had a stack of envelopes and stamps from nearly every foreign nation. Although he had reported the debris found was from a flying saucer, the Army later said that it was from a secret balloon project. As that story took over, the phone calls dwindled.

Haut told most researchers that his only involvement had been to write the press release. He hadn’t seen anything else personally, but he believed that the debris came from an alien spacecraft.

Although the details he provided were sometimes confused, the overall story he told remained the same for nearly twenty years. The Army had recovered one of the flying saucers, sent it on to higher headquarters, and then those in Roswell had gone back to work.

In the mid-1990s, Haut began to hint that he might have seen more than he had said originally. He had told me, repeatedly, that his only role was as author of the press release. He had attended staff meetings. In one of them Colonel Blanchard made it clear that they had found a weather balloon and no one was to talk about it again.

Stories began to circulate that Haut was closer to the inside than he had let on. In a video-taped interview conducted by New Mexico UFO researchers, Haut said he had seen the craft and the bodies. That information was not to be released until his death.

Haut, with friends Glenn Dennis and Max Littell, started the International UFO Museum in 1991. He was president until 1996. Littell died several years ago. Of those three, only Dennis remains.

Haut was born June 3, 1922, in Chicago. He had trained during World War II as both a navigator and a bombardier. He served in the Pacific during the war and later, in 1946, participated in Operation Crossroads, the atomic tests at Bikini. He had been assigned to the 509th Bomb Group on temporary duty for the atomic tests, but that duty was expanded into a permanent assignment. In July 1947, he was a first lieutenant and worked as the Public Information Officer for the bomb group. He left the service the next year and remained in Roswell for the rest of his life.

Haut was one of the main reasons that the Roswell case achieved international attention. He was well spoken, sometimes funny and always articulate. He provided information to all who asked for it, was courteous to the hundreds of people who showed up at his front door over the last two and a half decades, and who enjoyed his role as "Mr. UFO." With his passing, one of the pillars of the Roswell UFO crash has been lost.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

A Reply to Dr. Kevin Randle's Critique of Exopolitics

In the interest of fairness, and because witness testimony is an important part of UFO research, I invited Dr. Michael Salla to respond to my comments on Exopolitics. Following is the unedited letter that Dr. Salla supplied. KDR
Dr Kevin Randle, has produced a thoughtful critique of my reliance on whistleblower testimonies as a basis for getting to the truth about the UFO cover up and the extraterrestrial hypothesis (see “Exopolitics”, 18 November 2006, http://www.kevinrandle.blogspot.com/ ). Dr Randle (also a Major in the Iowa National Guard) is on the record that the Roswell crash happened and that a political cover up of UFO and extraterrestrial related evidence exists. However, he believes that other than the Roswell case where whistleblower testimonies have been exhaustively vetted, and supporting evidence analyzed, that there is not sufficient credible evidence to support other whistleblower claims of UFO crashes and cover up of extraterrestrial technologies and entities. So Dr Randle cannot be dismissed as unsympathetic to the claims of a Cosmic Watergate and the veracity of whistleblower testimonies, it's just that in his view these need to be independently verified by hard evidence and documentation as the basis for reliable research. So he has consistently attempted to establish a very high evidentiary benchmark where all claims and background details of a whistleblower need to check out in order for the testimony to be accepted as reliable. If it is found, for example, that a whistleblower has embellished a part of their service record or testimony, then their entire testimony concerning UFO crashes, extraterrestrial entities or technologies, becomes unreliable.In his critique where he specifically focuses on my approach to exopolitics research, Dr Randle identifies four whistleblowers that I use as the principal anchors in my research and analyses: Master Sgt Clifford Stone, Command Sgt Major Robert Dean, Lt Col Philip Corso and Bob Lazar. In picking these whistleblowers, all of whom I believe to be credible, Dr Randle wishes to demonstrate the danger of using testimonies that are in his view unreliable and analyzing the political implications of these testimonies in a new discipline called exopolitics. He believes that using unreliable testimonies in this way leads to a highly distorted conceptual framework for understanding the UFO phenomenon and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. He concludes his critique with the following statement: "In other words, isn’t it time for the proponents of exopolitics to properly vet the backgrounds and the tales of the whistleblowers rather than simply defend them? Isn’t time for us to stop embracing every tale we are told that appeals to us simply because it appeals to us? Shouldn’t we instead search to find the truth in a field with the voices of the charlatans seem to drown out the voices of reason."I think Dr Randle is quite correct in his statement that the backgrounds and stories of whistleblowers have to be vetted rather than simply defended. However, this straight forward request takes us into three very difficult process issues when it comes to vetting whistleblower testimonies. First, what threshold standards need to be established in vetting whistleblower testimonies? Second, what investigatory standards should be expected of those vetting whistleblower testimonies? Finally, what national security processes contextualize the vetting of whistleblower testimonies?

As far as the first process question is concerned, Dr Randle advocates as a very detailed and exhaustive study of whistleblower claims, evidence and background to check for consistency and accuracy. If the whistleblower fails to be consistent and accurate, then the testimony is considered unreliable and either dismissed or put into the proverbial gray box. I will describe Dr Randle's method as the “parsimonious vetting approach”. On the other hand, there is a more 'nuanced' or 'whistleblower friendly' approach to vetting whistleblower testimonies where as long as certain threshold criteria are met then whistleblower testimony can be accepted as credible even if a few inconsistencies or inaccuracies are found.

The second process question is more difficult since Dr Randle assumes that this is simply a matter of independent investigators coming in with a parsimonious vetting approach and imposing this on whistleblower testimonies. In contrast, I argue that investigators need to be sensitive to the national security implications of whistleblowers coming forward to make unauthorized disclosures of classified information. This means asking questions that are sufficiently nuanced and sensitive to the possible penalties faced by whistleblowers in revealing classified information. This means that those taking a parsimonious vetting approach may be asking the wrong questions of whistleblowers, and therefore get unsatisfactory answers or an incomplete picture of what is occurring. I have described in a short paper, ten examples of the wrong questions asked by investigators when interviewing whistleblowers disclosing classified information (see: http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-30.htm ). Of course, researchers are free to agree or disagree with my list of ten questions to ask/not to ask whistleblowers. The important issue is that there is a difficult process issue involved here since there are severe penalties for disclosing unauthorized information that need to be considered when it comes to the vetting of whistleblowers.

Finally, this takes me to the third and most controversial process issue: the national security processes that contextualize whistleblower testimonies. There is generally agreement among most UFO investigators including Dr Randle that a Cosmic Watergate exists. There is great disagreement, however, over the extent to which this Cosmic Watergate contextualizes the data collection process and the vetting of whistleblower testimonies. Some such as Dr Randle would argue that Cosmic Watergate involves merely the withholding of classified information; and that claims of evidence tampering, destruction and fabrication, are not supported by the evidence. On the other hand, some researchers (including myself) argue that evidence tampering, etc., is an important part of the national security system associated with Cosmic Watergate. I include this on a list of ten ways in which the national security system is designed to prevent unauthorized disclosure of highly classified information concerning the extraterrestrial hypothesis and UFOs (see http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-32.htm ).

Each of the three process issues I've identified impact on the vetting standards that should be used for alleged whistleblowers disclosing classified information concerning extraterrestrial technologies or extraterrestrial biological entities. I certainly don't agree with the vetting standard advocated by Dr Randle which in my view is too parsimonious, and fail to adequately take into account the national security implications of whistleblowers disclosing unauthorized information. At the same time, there is a need not to accept whistleblower testimony at face value and so some vetting is required in order to exclude charlatans and frauds as Dr Randle is rightly concerned about. Finding the right vetting standards in my view requires considering all three process questions when it comes to vetting and certainly requires those doing the vetting being sensitized to the national security implications for each whistleblower being investigated. I believe that the vetting standards I have used satisfy the minimum threshold in terms of the whistleblower being extensively interviewed by competent researchers, their military service or corporate service record being corroborated, independent witnesses interviewed, internal consistency of their claims, all circumstantial evidence checked, etc.

I will now briefly respond to the inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the testimonies pointed out by Dr Randle in his critique of the four whistleblowers he cites: Stone, Dean, Corso and Lazar. I think that Dr Randle has pointed to several inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the testimonies of these whistleblowers that in his view exclude the reliability of their testimonies. I have had a debate with Dr Randle on these whistleblowers on previous occasions where we have gone into more details in arguments both for and against their credibility (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exopolitics/message/158 )

In the case of Clifford Stone for example, he points to Sgt Stone's 22 year military service record as not supporting Stone's claim of having been covertly trained for elite UFO retrieval teams, and that he only was trained as an administrative typist. Stone claims that his service record never included his covert training and even his regular commanding officers were not made aware of his covert service that he was secretly summoned to do. I consider Stone's claims to be very plausible and in fact reflect what I consider a very logical way of setting up a covert UFO retrieval system within the regular military system where operational security is maintained by restricting access to only those doing the covert service. A system where Stone's regular commanding officer is not in the loop is consistent with numerous testimonies where senior military and political officials are not informed. This is certainly a logical corollary of a Cosmic Watergate so I consider Stone's views plausible; and his sincerity, consistency and commitment to detail in interviews with myself and other investigators leads to my conclusion that he is credible. A number of competent researchers have extensively interviewed Stone and find him to be credible. For more on the other points discussed by Dr Randle and myself, please go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exopolitics/message/218

In the case of Robert Dean, Dr Randle points to the cavalier way in which Sgt Dean was given the alleged Assessment detailing UFO/extraterrestrial visitations and the threat they posed to NATO. He argues against the plausibility of a such a top secret document being handled in that way, and the subsequent difficulty in proving the existence of such a document by Timothy Good. Nevertheless, it is a matter of the public record that Dean did serve in the Supreme Headquarter of the Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) and served in the Supreme Headquarters Operations Center (SHOC). So Dean served in the apex of the military command system for NATO in Europe and was in a position to view such a document if it existed. Given the extensive data supporting a UFO presence, it is quite logical to assume that NATO did authorize a top secret study of the possible threat posed by UFOs and any visiting extraterrestrials. If such a study was commissioned, then one or more copies would have been in the SHOC as Dean described. Given his distinguished 27 year military service and government employment, there is no reason to believe that Dean would fabricate such a story. He was in the right place and time where such a classified NATO study would have been authorized and analyzed by senior NATO military officers. He would be an example of someone who meets the minimum threshold criteria for whistleblower credibility.

This take me to the case of Col Corso who continues to be dismissed by UFO researchers for allegedly embellishing his service record by claiming to work in the National Security Council as opposed to the less prestigious Operations Coordinating Board that reported to the NSC. Further, he has been criticized for claiming to be the head of the Foreign Technology Desk at Army Research and Development for two years, when his service record states he was only in this position for three months. In Dr Randle's views, these embellishments make Corso's testimony unreliable. I have argued elsewhere that an independent FBI report stated that Corso served in the Operations Coordination Board National Security Council thereby answering critics such as Brad Sparks who claim that the OCB was not part of the NSC prior to 1957 and Corso deliberately embellished his background. As for his military record stating he was head of the Foreign Technology Desk for three months rather than the two years he claimed, there are a number of plausible explanations for this discrepancy such as the slow moving nature of the Army bureaucracy, but no reason to deny that Corso was a trusted aide of Lt General Arthur Trudeau who gave Corso the special assignment he claimed and expedited the process whereby Corso could begin the covert duties assigned to him regardless. The recent testimony by Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Defense Minister, where he claims an anonymous retired USAF General confirmed Corso's claims, suggests that these minor inconsistencies do not in any way impact on the veracity of Corso's central claims concerning the dissemination of ET technology into the civilian sector. Again, I would argue he meets the threshold criteria for whistleblower credibility.

This takes me finally to Bob Lazar who has been vilified by many UFO researchers for his claims to have worked at S4 on the reverse engineering of extraterrestrial vehicles. There are a number of inconsistencies pointed out by researchers such as Stan Friedman concerning Lazar's testimony, but there continues to be strong support for Lazar from credible investigators such as George Knapp. Knapp and his investigatory team have been able to, for example, confirm that the W2 supplied by Lazar was authentic and that he did indeed work at the Meson facility at Los Alamos, and that other Los Alamos personnel were given threats not to discuss Lazar's employment. Most criticism of Lazar rests on the absence of evidence of him completing two masters degrees, yet it is highly unlikely that someone would work at a prestigious facility at such as Meson Particle Facility without having at least completed a Bachelor's degree. It is very likely that, as I and others have argued, his educational and employment records were removed as part of the security procedures in place for him working at S4 and/or for minimizing the impact of his disclosure once he became a whistleblower. In conclusion, each of the four whistleblowers have been extensively investigated and there continues to be strong support for their credibility by a number of competent researchers. If one attempts a vetting process that is based on the three process issues I have described above, I believe that each of the four whistleblowers would pass a satisfactory threshold of credibility to exclude possible charlatans and ensuring whistleblowers with high credibility emerge. As a result of accepting the testimonies of these whistleblowers, considerable headway can be made in understanding the nature of the national security system that has been created to maintain Cosmic Watergate. That is the basis of the exopolitical model I use in doing my own research on the political implications of the extraterrestrial presence.

I consider a parsimonious vetting approach to whistleblower testimonies plays into the hands of those wanting to perpetuate Cosmic Watergate by interfering with the evidence and documentation that is cited by whistleblowers or used to determine their credibility. This often leads to the criticism that whistleblowers who claim that hard evidence and documentation has been removed that would substantiate their claims are making claims that can't be falsified (as in Karl Popper's 'falsifiablitiy thesis) and therefore one moves out of the scientific arena into the arena of faith. In contrast, this criticism can be turned on its head since it is a matter of faith to believe that a purely objective scientific process can be used in a field distorted by national security processes where hard evidence and documentation is removed or altered. This is an important process issue that whistleblower testimonies force researchers to confront, albeit with great reluctance as evidenced by Dr Randle’s critique. I nevertheless thank Dr Randle for providing his critique and giving me an opportunity to reply, and explain the appropriateness of my exopolitical approach to whistleblower testimony.

In peace

Michael Salla

Friday, November 18, 2005

Exopolitics

I have spent a great deal of time in the last few weeks looking over the Exopolitics sites that Dr. Michael Salla has created. I have followed many of the links that Dr. Salla listed. I expected very little in the way of evidence to be associated with this information given the nature of the discussions I have read. I wasn’t disappointed. There is little of substance there.

There is a great deal that is derived from the so-called whistleblowers testimony, taken by Dr. Salla as the truth, the whole truth and nothing by the truth. However, if it turns out that some of these whistleblowers have been less than honest, then much of his theoretical framework will collapse. This means simply, that if the whistleblowers are not telling the truth, or are embellishing their role in the recovery and investigation of UFOs, a structure that uses that information as its basis is fatally flawed.

Dr. Salla puts a great deal of faith in the testimonies of people such as Cliff Stone, a retired Army Sergeant First Class; Robert Dean, a former Command Sergeant Major; Philip Corso; who retired as a lieutenant colonel and who died several years ago, and Bob Lazar who claimed to have worked at the super-secret Area 51. There is good evidence that each of these people has embellished his role in relation to UFO evidence, and in some cases they told outright lies.

Sergeant First Class (SFC) Clifford Stone

Take as a quick example, the tales told by Cliff Stone. He says he was not trained as a clerk-typist when he joined the service but his Army records show only training as a clerk. His record shows that his only assignments were as a clerk or an admin specialist or in other roles in that arena. His record shows that he served in Vietnam, though it is not clear how long he was actually in-country. His records indicate that he was a clerk as the Army mission in Vietnam wound down and that he had no combat experience. He was awarded no decorations for valor.

Stone has said that when he reported for duty in Vietnam, he requested a combat assignment because he had no training as a clerk. His request was denied by the company first sergeant. He said that, during his tour, he would periodically crawl out of the base camp, through the wire, to engage the enemy. There is nothing in his record to suggest this is true. When he completed his Vietnam assignment, he returned to the United States and to the mundane world of clerk-typist.

Most Vietnam veterans would dispute Stone’s claims of personal firefights with the Viet Cong and his one-man missions outside the wire because they simply know better. Individual soldiers did not crawl through the base camp wire to engage the enemy. Those who tell similar stories have universally been shown to be lying about those events.

Stone and the Kecksburg Crash

To provide an additional example of embellishment, Stone has claimed that he was involved in the Kecksburg UFO crash. His role seems to have changed over the years, as additional information has come to light. For example, Stone had said originally he called the Unsolved Mysteries hotline after they ran their Kecksburg UFO story. Stone said he had personally witnessed the armed military convoy, helmeted soldiers and a flatbed truck carrying the damaged UFO out of Kecksburg. On Sightings in 1992, Stone made a similar claim (which means the claim is documented on videotape). Stan Gordon, the main researcher into Kecksburg, said that Stone told him that he, Stone, was a civilian and that a friend at Lockbourne AFB, Ohio, called to tell him that the UFO that was in the news had been brought to the base. The friend (conveniently unidentified), picked up Stone and drove him to the base where Stone hid in the car in the parking lot outside a back gate and saw the convoy carrying the UFO arrive, stay awhile and then leave for Wright-Patterson AFB, also in Ohio.

Stone has not renewed these claims since 1992 or 1993. Now, however, when challenged about his involvement in this case, Stone claims that he "remote viewed" the site. He hadn’t physically been there but had "seen" it. This seems to be a new twist to explain how Stone, then a 16 year-old student living some 90 miles away from Lockbourne AFB and not all that close to Kecksburg, might have been in a position to see the convoy. So, in all, Stone has claimed to have been in Kecksburg, then, rather than being in Kecksburg to witness the convoy and all the ancillary events, he changed the story to having seen the convoy arrive at one Air Force base before it was transferred to another. And, finally he remote viewed it. So, which version is the truth?

Stone and Project Moon Dust

As added evidence, if such is necessary, Stone has suggested that it was his research and his inside knowledge of government UFO investigations that lead us to the secret UFO project known as Moon Dust. He claims to be the first to reveal anything about it but when challenged to provide specific information, he has failed to do so, giving the excuse that he is not free to discuss all aspects of his military service.

What this means is that we know the code name of Project Moon Dust was changed after it was compromised in the mid-1980s. Since Stone suggests that he was the source of the original information for Moon Dust he released classified information and since he was part of that project, at least according to him, he should know the new, and classified code name. But, when we asked for the new name, he said that he wasn’t free to give out that information. Stone "cherry picks" the information he shares with us, but the real point is that nothing he provided was key to learning anything new. In other, more precise words, he told of nothing that wasn’t already available in the UFO community through other sources. But more importantly, there is no way to verify his claims because he would refuse to answer the specific questions, claiming that he was not free to release the classified details. With no way to verify his claims there simply is no reason to accept his story as being true.

Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Robert O. Dean

Robert O. Dean appeared on the UFO scene with the claim that, as a senior NCO at NATO in the 1960s, he saw a top-secret document he called "The Assessment." It was allegedly a report that detailed the recovery of a crashed extraterrestrial ship and the alien pilots.

Dean said that he had been a command sergeant major, which is the top enlisted grade in the Army. He said that he served at NATO Headquarters, and that he held a Cosmic Top Secret clearance while assigned there. As near as I can tell, all these claims accurately reflect reality.

As a brief, side note, many have suggested there is some significance to the term Cosmic Top Secret, believing that this proves some sort of a connection to the extraterrestrial. Cosmic Top Secret, however, is just a level of classification at NATO to determine that the clearance or the classified information comes from NATO as opposed to another organization.

"The Assessment"

Dean claimed when he spoke in Roswell that he was on duty about two in the morning in NATO’s War Room and was having trouble staying awake. Then, in a colossal breach of security, "an Air Force bird colonel thumped it ["The Assessment"] down on my desk…" In an interview published in the winter 1995-96 issue of UFO Update AZ magazine, Dean went a little farther saying, "…this Air Force controller, a bird colonel…pulled this thing out of the vault and he said, ‘Here, read this.’ This will wake you up."

Dean later amended the story saying that one night, while on duty, he removed "The Assessment" from SHAPE's security vault. In this version he says nothing about the Air Force colonel who dropped the document on his desk.

In yet another version, Dean suggested that when he arrived at SHAPE for a tour there, he learned the study was already underway and that having the required clearance, he often studied the pages while passing time in the quiet evenings. Except that having the required clearance didn't automatically give him a "Need to Know," and without that, he wouldn't have had access to the document. His position at SHAPE certainly didn't require that he be brought in on something like "The Assessment." In fact, his assignment at NATO does not suggest a need to deal with any classified material and certainly nothing classified as Cosmic Top Secret.

The reason for the "need to know" requirement is to limit access and reduce the possibility of compromise. In this case it seems the regulations would have worked had Dean not violated them. He then leaked the information to the rest of us. That is, if we can believe this is true.

An Investigation of "The Assessment"

Others inside the UFO community, especially those in Great Britain because some of the top NATO officers are from Great Britain, attempted to verify the story. Timothy Good, author of Above Top Secret and Alien Liaison working with a high-ranking British officer, Admiral of the Fleet, The Lord Hill-Norton, undertook an investigation about "The Assessment."

It should be mentioned here that Hill-Norton was a friend of Good and that he had written introductions to both of Good’s books. This suggests that he isn’t a governmental dupe or of a skeptical bent. He said that the report interested him, especially the alleged connection to NATO and he suggested that he and Good attempt to learn the truth about it.

Dean suggested that a number of academics had been brought into the research after the craft had been found. Dean said that Professor Sir Fred Hoyle had worked as a consultant. Good wrote to Hoyle telling him Dean had said that he was one of the "top brains consulted," and that he, Hoyle, had made a statement to the press on May 10, 1971, that suggested Hoyle believed the probability of extraterrestrial and/or extra dimensional beings.

Hoyle’s response? "There is not an element of truth in this story. There was no statement to the press."

There is always the possibility that there was some kind of a misunderstanding, but Hoyle’s response is quite definitive. He was not involved in any of this contrary to Dean’s claim.

There were others named by Dean and who were found and quizzed. Many of these were high-ranking officers inside of NATO and it could be argued that their denials are their attempts to protect the information. It could be argued that they would have to answer in the negative because the information would still be highly classified. However, the questions asked and the answers given, don’t seem to suggest that the officers were anything less than honest and that they were not protecting a still classified document.

Good and Hill-Norton told Rear Admiral Michael Moore, the one time Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Operations to the Supreme Commander SHAPE Europe, that Dean had claimed there was a UFO recovery in Europe and what did had been said about "The Assessment." Moore eventually wrote that they, meaning he and his assistants, had gone to considerable trouble to trace the officers who had been mentioned by Dean as having worked at SHAPE. In other words, they were attempting to learn as much as they could and were trying to verify the existence of "The Assessment."

Eventually Moore would write to Good telling him that he had found no trace of "The Assessment" at the Headquarters, and that he and his staff had searched carefully. They had been told by many that the document was nonexistent.

That certainly didn’t look good, but then, it only proved that "The Assessment," if it existed, was well hidden. In the world of classified information, especially with a document that is highly classified, it might be difficult to find any trace of it. It can be argued that the mere confirmation of the existence of the document is a violation of security. In rare cases that is true but the vast majority of the time, an admission of the existence of a document does not compromise it.

There were other troubles with Dean’s story. In 1992, Dean met with Good and Hill-Norton while Dean was traveling in Europe. After that meeting, Hill-Norton wrote to Good, telling him that he thought Dean was telling the truth. He did note, however, that although Dean claimed to have been in the Intelligence Section, his records showed that he was in the Language Group. Dean provided a document dated on June 20, 1963 that related to his clearance with SHAPE’s intelligence section but it was found to be a fake.

The Cover of "The Assessment"

Other documentation also failed to be authenticated. Dean provided a color photograph of the cover page of the English edition of "The Assessment." Tim Good passed it along to Moore. When Moore left SHAPE, the cover was passed on to Dr. Pedlow, Chief Historian at SHAPE. Pedlow took "The Assessment" apart. He wrote that those at the SHAPE Historical Office had spent two years trying to find "The Assessment." The color photograph of the cover, supplied by Dean, proved to be the downfall of Dean’s tale.

Pedlow detailed the steps they all had taken to find any reference to, or any indication that "The Assessment" was a real document. This included the office of the US National Military Representative of SHAPE, the files of the International Military Staff at NATO, Special Collections Division of the National Defense Library in Washington, D.C., and, quite naturally, their own historic files. Pedlow wrote, "Nowhere have we been able to locate evidence that such a document ["The Assessment"] ever existed."

Pedlow went even further. He wrote that the Cosmic Top Secret (CTS) control number did not use the proper format, that it was in the wrong place on the document and worst of all, there was a lack of a file reference number. All SHAPE documents from the time of "The Assessment" contained a series of numbers and letters that showed the originating office and subject area.

It goes on. The statement the document is classified NATO COSMIC TOP SECRET is incorrect. And the use of the code word, ULTRA on the cover sheet, gives it away. Pedlow wrote that to his knowledge, and that of his staff, ULTRA had never been an access control code in the NATO system. ULTRA referred to a project under British control during the Second World War.

In the end, Pedlow said that he was skeptical that a document like "The Assessment" ever existed. Both Good and Hall-Norton concluded that "The Assessment" was not real. When Good gave Dean the results of the investigation, Dean wrote that he had never said that he knew the photographs of the cover sheet were accurate and legitimate. He was, in other words, attempting to spin the negative results.

It can be suggested that these negative comments and results do not prove that Dean was less than honest. It can be said that those contacted had good reason to deny the existence of "The Assessment." They were merely protecting a highly classified report even though Dean had supplied what was supposed to be the cover of that document.

But the problem is that the investigation was made by men who clearly accepted the extraterrestrial as real and who were not part of a government debunking effort. In all the searches, neither Good nor anyone else had been able to corroborate the existence of "The Assessment." So, while Hall-Norton and Good believe that Dean was telling the truth about his military service they no longer believed there was a document called "The Assessment."

Finally, arguing in a somewhat circular fashion, Dean has suggested that he hasn’t been prosecuted for revealing the highly classified information because it would require an open court case that the government wants to avoid. This, he suggests proves he is telling the truth. The government doesn’t want to admit that "The Assessment" is real. To prosecute, they would have to admit that Dean had revealed classified information. But maybe the reason he has avoided prosecution is because he violated no laws, he revealed no classified information, and therefore broke no law. In other words, if "The Assessment" never existed, there would be no reason to prosecute him.

Finally…

If these two testimonies and already the discredited tales of Philip Corso (for more information on Corso please see http://www.cufon.org/cufon/corso_da66.htm) and Robert Lazar (for more information http://www.serve.com/mahood/lazar/lazarmn.htm and http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall3.html) were used to develop an exopolitics theme, then aren’t those theories badly flawed? And if these testimonies are removed from exopolitics, then won’t it be necessary to rethink the underlying themes of exopolitics? And finally, just what good are theories and suggestions for human behavior as it relates to alien visitation if those theories are the products of invention and fabrication?

In other words, isn’t it time for the proponents of exopolitics to properly vet the backgrounds and the tales of the whistleblowers rather than simply defend them? Isn’t time for us to stop embracing every tale we are told that appeals to us simply because it appeals to us? Shouldn’t we instead search to find the truth in a field with the voices of the charlatans seem to drown out the voices of reason.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

BS In the Desert*

The Roswell UFO crash case has been solved – yet again. Nick Redfern, writing in his new book, Body Snatchers in the Desert has proposed a somewhat new but not extraterrestrial explanation. He suggests that what fell in Roswell was an American high altitude experiment that contained the deformed and mutated bodies of Japanese captured at the close of the Second World War. The object that carried them was a huge balloon modeled after the balloon bombs launched during the war and a wooden flying wing type craft designed by the German Horten brothers, that was taken from the Nazis.

Redfern suggests that those who found the wreckage, the officers at the Roswell Army Air Field did not immediately identify the craft because of the weird construction, the aluminized rubber that made up the balloon and other elements that seemed to defy easy explanation. The craft had carried five pilots (or possibly four), all killed in the crash. As the strange contraption broke up, a segment about nine meters long, had fallen away. One of the pilots was sucked out the craft as it came apart, and this is what Mack Brazel found on the ranch he managed near Corona, New Mexico.

This experiment, designed to expose the captured Japanese to high altitude to find out what would happen to the human body, could not be exposed to the general public. At the time, July 1947, the United States was trying Nazis in Nuremberg for crimes against humanity. Some of those crimes included experimentation on human subjects without their consent. Now, according to the Redfern’s theory, the United States had done the same thing. It would be the height of hypocrisy if the United States were engaged in the same sort of human experimentation.

The one thing the theory does do is explain, to some extent, the various aspects of the Roswell case. It has a nice theory for the two crash locations, it explains why the government, in this case the military, would work so hard to hide the facts even today, and it explains the small bodies claimed to have been seen by so many of the witnesses of the Roswell case.

First, I’m not sure why the Horten Brothers flying wing designs have been dredged up again. During the 1930s and the 1940s, these two German brothers worked on what was thought of as tailless aircraft. They had ten or twelve different designs, some of which crashed after only a few flying hours and others that were thought to have been scheduled for mass production but never were.

The Nazis needed a long-range bomber, one that could reach to the United States, and one or two of the Horten brother designs were supposed to have had the range. At the close of the Second World War, the Horten brothers aircraft plants were overrun by the Soviets. Nearly everything was carted back to the Soviet Union and there was speculation that the Soviets would build as many as 1800 Horten flying wings as a bomber force to counter the United States build up of long range, strategic bombers.

In the United States, there was a similar flying wing project, this one created by Jack Northrop. It began prior to the Second World War. The plan also called for the development of a long-range bomber, but other priorities and technical problems kept it from completion. After the war, a four-engine version was created which flew a number of times. In June and July 1947, these aircraft were grounded with gearbox problems, which effectively removed them as one explanation for the flying saucer reports being made.

Although the Northrop flying wing was suggested as a possible source of the Roswell debris, there was never any evidence that it was. Some believed the flying wing might have been responsible for the sighting of strange objects on June 24, 1947 by Kenneth Arnold that launched the modern UFO era. But again, the craft were grounded at the time and there were not nine of them in the arsenal. The Northrop flying wing was proven not to be responsible.

Back to the Horten brothers. One of their designs, known as the Parabola, certainly looks like the object Arnold sketched in the years after his sighting. The problem is that the first drawings Arnold made, in the days after the sighting, look little like the Parabola. And, again, there is noo evidence that any of the Horten designs were flew from the White Sands Missile Range, or that anything designed by the Hortens was built here. The Soviets got all of that when German defense collapsed in 1945.

That takes us back to the Japanese, and what were called the balloon bombs. Starting in 1944, and continuing into 1945, the Japanese launched about 9,000 of these things. It was a project that started because the Japanese had discovered the jet stream and realized that a balloon launched in Japan would reach the western hemisphere, most probably the United States in two or three days. If they put bombs on the balloons, along with some instruments, they could conceivably attack the United States.

The trick actually worked. Balloons launched in Japan, rose during the day and fell during the night. Sandbags were attached and programmed to drop if the balloon dipped too low. This way it maintained its altitude. After cycling a number of times, two or three, the bombs would fall. The Japanese knew that the odds were that the bombs would not hit a city, but did make plans to drop incendiary devices in the northwest, hoping to start forest fires.

Records indicate that about 250 balloon bombs reached the Western Hemisphere, falling as far north as Canada, as far south as Mexico City and as far east as Michigan. Any damage done was of little consequence.

The US Office of Censorship, a wartime creation, working along with the FBI, suppressed the story during the war. They believed that Japanese spies, seeing the public information, would report home, telling of the success. That would increase the number of balloons launched.

The censorship worked well, but was changed when six people in Oregon; a woman and five children on a picnic were killed when a bomb detonated. They had found one of the balloons, lying in the forest and pulled on it causing one of the bombs to explode. At that point a "whispering" campaign began to alert the population about the bombs.

While the ingenuity of the project can’t be questioned, it is still a balloon. The technology to create the balloons wasn’t special, and in fact, wasn’t all that advanced. These were, after all, balloons. It means, there is no reason to suspect that Japanese balloon technology was married with Horten flying wing technology to create some sort of hybrid balloons toting aircraft which carried the deformed, captured Japanese two years after the war had ended.

This wasn’t the first time that such a theory had been suggested at least in general terms. Back in the early 1990s, as I began my research into the Roswell crash, I interviewed a man who worked with NASA at the White Sands Missile Range. Gerald Brown suggested that experiments using the A-9, which is a two stage, modified V-2 rocket, might have been responsible for the debris found by Mack Brazel. He believed that Duraluminum might explain the lightweight, thin metal that had been described by Roswell Army Air Field intelligence officer, Major Jesse Marcel, Sr.

In fact, Brown had an explanation for everything found on the ranch with the exception of the bodies. He did speculate, suggesting that some kind of flying wing, this one designed by Northrop, had crashed while carrying five chimpanzees dressed in silver flying suits. Since the experiment related to the space race, and since launch operations at White Sands had been closed down because of an accident in May 1947, those involved hid their mistake. They feared for their jobs. All this was laid out in UFO Crash at Roswell on pages 168 to 170.

The problem here was, again, no flying wing was missing from the inventories, there was no record of such a launch at White Sands, though the records did exist for the period, and there were no reports that animals had been killed in the tests. A year later, as experiments were designed to test the rigors of launch physics and the dangers of upper atmosphere flight were made, animals were launched. Those records also exist.

What this tells us here is that rumors and stories of experiments pre-existed the revelations of Redfern. In fact, I had told many people that if I could find evidence of an experiment, preferably illegal, which had resulted in the deaths of human subjects, that would be a much bigger story, at least in terms of what the journalistic community was willing to believe. Too many reject the idea of an alien spacecraft crash out of hand. But discover, and prove, some sort of underhanded experiment by the government and nearly everyone would jump on board.

The problem for me was the lack of anything substantial. The records that I had examined at White Sands, in Alamogordo, at the National Archives, at the Southwest History Museum in Roswell, at the universities and government offices in Albuquerque and Santa Fe revealed nothing to lead in that direction.

Then there was the debris described by the witnesses including Jesse Marcel, Sr.; Bill Brazel, son of Mack; Loretta Proctor, and Sallye Tadolini, whose mother, Marian Strickland, had been a neighbor of the Brazels in the summer of 1947. If we stuck to these descriptions, then a terrestrially manufactured machine, even an experimental craft, seems less likely.

In an interview conducted in February 1989, Bill Brazel told me about the exotic debris he had found on the ranch. He said, "The only reason I noticed the foil was that I picked this stuff up and put it in my chaps pocket. I had it in there, two, three days and when I took it out and put it in the box I happened to notice that it started unfolding and flattened out… I would crease it and lay it down and watch it."

He also described a small piece of debris as light as balsa wood but that was incredibly strong. He said, "The piece I found was a jagged piece." He said that he tried to whittle on it, but couldn’t even get a sliver, suggesting something much tougher than anything used in a balloon.

He mentioned something like fiber optics. He said, "Now there’s this plastic they put a light down one end and it transfers the light down that thing and come out the end."

None of the items, as he described them, other than the fiber optics, appears in today’s world. It is as if we haven’t figured out the secrets of them.

He did say that his father, Mack, had told him, "That looks like some of the contraption I found." That statement, of course, connected the strange debris, which didn’t resemble either a weather balloon or the pieces of a Horton brothers flying wing, ties the strange material found by Bill to the descriptions of the others such as Jesse Marcel.

Sallye Strickland Tadolini was a young girl in 1947. Bill Brazel, about a decade older, showed up at the Strickland New Mexican ranch house a few days after the crash. He had the strange foil with him and let the others have a look at it and play with it.

Tadolini, in an affidavit for the Fund for UFO Research described it this way. "What Bill showed us was a piece of what I still think of as fabric. It was something like aluminum foil, something like satin, something like well-tanned leather in its toughness, yet it was not precisely like any one of those materials. While I do not recall this with certainty, I think the fabric measured about four by eight or ten inches. … Bill passed it around and we all felt of it. I did a lot of sewing, so the feel of it made a great impression on me. It felt like no fabric I have ever touched before or since. It was very silky or satiny, with the same texture on both sides. Yet when I crumpled it in my hands, the feel was like that you notice when you crumple a leather glove in your hand. When it was released, it sprang back into its original shape, quickly flattening out with no wrinkles. I did this several times, as did the others."

The others told similar stories of the material. Loretta Procter said they tried to burn a small piece, about the size of a pencil and failed. Jesse Marcel, Sr. said they hit a larger, metallic piece with a sledgehammer without doing any damage or marking the metal.

What this really means is that there is a body of first hand testimony that suggests the debris found near Roswell was something extraordinary. The elements, the foil that would return to its original shape without sign of a wrinkle or crease, the extraordinarily tough metal that was as light as balsa but so strong that it wouldn’t cut or break like ordinary metals, and some something that sounded suspiciously like fiber optics at a time when no such thing existed on Earth, suggested the extra-terrestrial.

Redfern’s theory hinges on the integrity of his anonymous, but alleged first-hand witnesses. Once, five or six years ago there were a number to stories told by alleged first-hand witnesses about themselves, what they had seen, and about alien bodies. Frank Kaufmann talked in detail about these things, as did Gerald Anderson, Jim Ragsdale and Glenn Dennis. Kaufmann offered copies of official documents to prove who he was. He had a letter that if authenticated, proved Roswell has been a spaceship crash.

Redfern, in an interview conducted for UFO Review (found at
http://www.uforeview.net) said that the witnesses he refused to name had proven who they were by documents in their possession. To Redfern, this is proof that they are who they claim to be and that their tales can be trusted.

Yet the same can be said of Kaufmann. His documents looked authentic, and were, after a fashion. Only after the originals were found, could we see the alterations he had made to the copies he had given us. He’d used whiteout and a copy machine to forge documents to support his claims. It should be noted that unless the original document is available for scrutiny, documents are of little value. As Frank Kaufmann said, "The Xerox is as loose as a goose." He meant that it was simple to forge documents in the modern age.

Interestingly, in Redfern’s book, he uses some of the Kaufmann testimony to bolster his case, seemingly unaware that Kaufmann invented his role in Roswell. If Kaufmann made up everything and had no role in the Roswell case, then where does that leave Redfern? He used Kaufmann's description of the craft suggesting it was authentic to bolster his Horton brothers flying wing theory. Since we know that Kaufmann was inventing his tale, that testimony does nothing to support Redfern’s theory, and, in fact, detracts from it.

So, if Redfern is wrong, and this wasn’t some kind of horrendous and illegal experiment, what is the answer? It’s the same as it has been for the last two decades. It was extraterrestrial.

Redfern has even suggested that his answer makes sense because he can find no documentation to support it. He reasons, with some logic, those conducting the experiments, knowing that they were illegal, destroyed the evidence when they finished. The files were shredded, the remains of the craft were dismantled and burned and those with knowledge were cautioned to never mention it to anyone at any time.

Redfern tells us that an extraterrestrial craft would not lend itself to such a cover up. Because the biological samples, meaning the alien bodies, were unique and because the craft and its components were unique, they would be preserved so that information could be gathered from it as our technology advanced.

And, it would seem that he would be right. Logic argued in favor of his scenario. Destruction of everything related to the case if it was an illegal experiment and preservation of everything if it was extraterrestrial.

But there are other aspects of this that do take us in the direction of the extraterrestrial. First, is the credible eyewitness testimony about the surprising and the unusual characteristics of the various types of material recovered on the field northwest of Roswell. Clearly, these were things that were beyond the technology of the times and, in fact, some of them are beyond our technology today.

Second is the testimony of the witnesses who were on the scene. Jesse Marcel, Sr., said that this was something that came to Earth. It had not been made on Earth but it came to Earth. As an air intelligence officer, assigned to the base at Roswell, he was in a position to know what they might find out there, if it was Earth-based. He knew about balloons and experimental aircraft and he was convinced that the components he found were none of those things.

Third is the testimony of Major Edwin Easley, the provost marshal at the base. In a conversation held about a year before his death, Easley told me that he believed the craft to be extraterrestrial.

Now, before we get off on a tangent, let me put this into perspective. I had asked him if we were following the right path. He wanted to know what I meant by that, and I said that we thought it was extraterrestrial. He said, "Let me put it this way, it’s not the wrong path."

Convoluted, and maybe a little confusing, but he, as a participant in the recovery, was telling me that the object that crashed was extraterrestrial. He confirmed that to family and friends in the weeks before he died.

And Patrick Saunders, who had been on Blanchard’s primary staff in July 1947 also, confirmed the extra-terrestrial nature of the crash. Although he was always reluctant to talk about his involvement in the retrieval operation with UFO investigators, he did buy copies of UFO Crash at Roswell. He sent them to friends and family who asked him questions about the crash. On the flyleaf he wrote, "This is the truth and I never told anybody anything."

To me it simply meant that the story as outlined, meaning there had been a UFO crash, was accurate. It meant that Saunders, based on who he was, had put into writing his opinion.

And, what all the evidence means, when it is all taken together, is that Roswell was not some rogue experiment using deformed and mutated captured Japanese, but was the crash of an alien spacecraft because, when you get to the bottom line, those who were there would have recognized everything as terrestrial if that’s what it was. That is the most logical conclusion. Not that they were somehow fooled by the Horten brothers flying wing, a modified Japanese balloon bomb, and the deformed bodies of captured Japanese. The only answer that takes all the evidence into account is that this was truly something from another world.
Nick Redfern's rebuttal can be read in Fate September 2005
*A tip of the hat to Karl Pflock for the title.