How the Military Debunked the Saucers After Roswell
"Reports of flying saucers whizzing through the sky fell off sharply today as the Army and Navy began a concentrated campaign to stop the rumors."
So began the July 9, 1947, United Press article on the Roswell incident, the day after the infamous Roswell air base flying disk press release. This was followed quickly by Gen. Ramey's debunking of it as a recovered weather balloon and radar target.
Although many are familiar with the photos of the balloon and radar target in Gen. Ramey's office at Fort Worth, Texas, few are aware of other military-related demonstrations that followed immediately afterwards. Weather balloons and assorted paraphernalia, particularly radar targets, were trotted out as the explanation for the nationwide flying saucer reports. In retrospect, these demonstrations were clearly part of the "concentrated campaign to stop the rumors."
The follow-up debunking campaign using weather balloons was suggested in the last line of the Ramey message. The end of the Ramey message reads very close to the following:
....AT ROSWELL. ASSURE THAT CIC/TEAM SAID THIS MISSTATE MEANING OF STORY AND THINK LATE TODAY NEXT SENT OUT PR OF WEATHER BALLOONS WOULD FARE BETTER IF THEY ADD LAND DEMORAWIN CREWS.
These lines contain a thumbnail sketch of the Roswell cover-up. First there was the Roswell base press release (the "misstate meaning of story") followed quickly by Gen. Ramey's weather balloon debunking in Fort Worth. Then in a mop-up operation in the days to follow came the weather balloon demonstrations and stories. Seemingly there was some question in their minds as to whether the public or press would buy into it without a follow-up propaganda campaign.
The term RAWIN in "DEMORAWIN" was a meteorological jargon term for a RAdar WINd target. Not only was Gen. Ramey telling the press he thought the rubble in his office might be a weather balloon and radar target, he obviously knew it was judging, among other things, through his use of proper terminology. Later bringing in a weather officer (Irving Newton) for official identification was obviously just for show.
Besides the Ramey telegram, another recently discovered document also indicates that military intelligence in Washington was preparing to use radar targets to explain away the flying saucers. In a telegram from a Kalamazoo radio news editor about five hours after Ramey's telegram it states,
INTELLIGENCE DIV WASHDC SUGGEST SAUCERS ARE RADAR TARGET FOR WEATHER OBSERVATION PURPOSES
The debunking campaign started the next day. So far, nine military balloon demonstrations in various parts of the country have been documented, with several more involving civilians being very suspicious, since they were spouting the same basic debunking story line and/or had close ties to the military. E.g. two demonstrations were held in New Jersey, one by the radar target/weather balloon manufacturers and another by a military scientist.
The Fort Worth AAF Demonstrations
Beneath the words "land demorawin" is some small handwriting which says "stage" and "photos yes." Likely these written notations were added by Gen. Ramey after sending his message. In any event, Ramey was indeed "staging" a photo opportunity at the very moment that the image of the message was captured. But another weather balloon/radar target demonstration was also staged at the Fort Worth base less than 2 days later, with more photos taken by the same newspaper (Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
The caption which accompanied one of the photos on July 11 in the Star-Telegram was typical of the debunkery of the other military balloon demonstrations, to be detailed below. First there was a claim that local residents mistook the balloon/RAWIN target for a flying disk. This was followed by the statement: "It was the wreckage of such an apparatus which discovered Tuesday on a New Mexico ranch, gave rise to an international report that a flying disk had been recovered by the Army Air Forces." The obvious purpose of this demonstration was to debunk both the saucers and the widely publicized events at Roswell.
In addition to the radar target, a large radar tracking trailer is shown in the photos taken. Supposedly neither item was present at the base. Either this notion is grossly mistaken or the target and trailer were rushed in from the outside specifically for this demonstration. Either way, it is obvious the radar targets were readily available.
It was later the contention of both Roswell intelligence officer Major Jesse Marcel and Ramey's Chief of Staff, Brig. Gen. Thomas Dubose, that Ramey substituted a radar target and weather balloon for the real Roswell material. Based on this testimony, crashed saucer proponents have long contended that Ramey must have had ready access to such a target. Ironically, the Fort Worth demo two days later, originally designed to further debunk Roswell and the saucers, now provides strong evidence to support the position of the crashed saucer camp.
A similar demonstration was held July 9 in Alamogordo, N.M. at the site of the Mogul balloon launchings. One claim is that the demonstration served as a cover story for the secret Project Mogul. But rather than trying to conceal Mogul, they used the various balloon launches to again explain the flying saucer reports. The headline of the Alamogordo News story, "Fantasy of Flying Discs Explained Here," made that quite clear.
People were allegedly seeing the reflective radar targets (even though Mogul records actually show that they were rarely used during that time frame). They also suggested that one of their targets was probably what the rancher found that was mistaken for a flying saucer. Buried deep in the story was a lame explanation for the balloon launches, saying they were used to train crews in radar tracking. This probably was a cover story for Mogul, but judging by the actual press coverage, it wasn't the primary purpose of the demonstration.
Besides the Alamogordo News, the El Paso Times and United Press also covered this demonstration and the story received regional coverage. In the United Press version, it mentions that the widely publicized sightings from the Pacific northwest were probably due to similar Naval experiments. (However, in one story, it mentions that the Navy flatly denied that they had such a project.)
The military also put together some sort of demonstration or used stock footage and a debunking newsreel was made. The radar targets were called the source of the "famous flying saucer." The targets were demonstrated being launched and said to be made of "rubber and sticks." This newsreel was probably widely disseminated in movie theaters throughout the country. Before TV news finally displaced the movie newsreels in the 1960s, they were a major source of both news and propaganda for movie goers. Probably millions of people would have seen this part of the debunking campaign. It would have been very influential in placing the idea in the public mind that the so-called saucers were nothing but weather balloons.
Other Weather Balloon Demonstrations
The saucer-debunking demonstrations by the military were not restricted to Alamogordo and Fort Worth. Two were held by the Navy in Atlanta on July 9 and July 10, got picked up by United Press wire service, and received some national coverage. The Naval officers in charge of the demonstration made it quite clear that the sole purpose for the demonstration was to debunk the flying saucer reports. They called the enterprise "Project Saucer" and admitted never having used radar targets before at that weather station. There was also a claim made that the radar targets were used all over the country and in the same areas where people were reporting flying saucers. And just as in the Fort Worth demonstration, they claimed that their radar target demonstrations provoked a flood of flying disk reports from local residents.
These demonstrations often had participants saying very similar things, as if they were working off of a common script of what they should tell the press. Another very noteworthy common thread was how all the demonstrations referred to the radar targets as "discs." But in the Ramey memo, Ramey draws a clear distinction between what was found and what the public was being told. What was found Ramey calls a "disc." The story the public was going to be told, however, was "of weather balloons." Equating the very undisk-like radar targets to the "flying discs" was an obvious attempt to blur the distinction between the two in the public mind. This also occurred in what the Dallas FBI office was told by one of Ramey's intelligence officers, according to a surviving FBI teletype from the late afternoon of July 8, in which the "hexagonal in shape" radar target was again equated to a "disc."
Associated Press ran a photo on July 9, carried by various newspapers in the Midwest, showing the Army weather service in Kansas City launching a Mogul-style ML-307 radar target. Again there was the not-so-subtle suggestion that the radar targets accounted for the nationwide flurry of saucer reports and for what was recovered in New Mexico. Another noteworthy aspect of this photo is that it shows a portable radar-tracking trailer that is identical in style to that shown in the Fort Worth demo and also the military newsreel.
Near Wright Field, Ohio, where at least some of the Roswell debris was taken, the Army's weather station at Wilmington carried out a demonstration on July 10. A Mogul-style radar target and the more commonly used radiosonde observation balloon (or raob) were shown being launched. Yet again, it was suggested that either one of these type weather balloons could account for the flying saucers. The Atlanta demo was mentioned along with the claim that it caused an immediate flurry of flying saucer reports. Also thrown in was the statement that the radar targets were used by weather stations all over the country. One of their weather officers had said the same thing a few days before commenting on a crashed radar target found near Circleville, Ohio..
In Seattle on July 9, there was a minor Naval demonstration of a raob balloon, along with the suggestion that maybe these weather balloons could account for the flying saucer sightings.
Over at Boeing Aircraft Field on the same day, another Seattle newspaper took photos of a Mogul-style target in use there by the civilian weather service and used it to spoof the saucers. A military debunking connection is less clear here, even though Boeing Aircraft is obviously a major military contractor. Possibly someone connected to the military could have given the newspaper a call and suggested the photo shoot, but there is currently no evidence that this was the case.
Back east, across the Hudson River from Manhattan, yet another RAWIN target demonstration was held at a New Jersey amusement park on July 10. The Brooklyn manufacturer of the Army ML-307 radar targets (the ones sometimes used by the Mogul balloon project) teamed up with the New Jersey weather balloon manufacturer, and then debunked the saucers as definitely being radar target sightings. One would think two businessmen would have better things to do in the middle of the work week. With military contracts being an important source of income, it seems plausible that a simple phone call from Washington could have "inspired" the two of them to get together and hold the debunking demo. The radar target manufacturer also gave an interview to another New Jersey newspaper where he again made similar absolutist claims that the radar targets explained the flying saucer reports.
Further south in Asbury Park, N.J., only a few miles from the home of the Mogul Project, an engineer, who said he was affiliated with the local Army signal laboratory, contacted the newspaper and told a similar story. The flying saucer reports might be explained by the radar targets and radiosondes developed before the war at nearby Ft. Monmouth. Photos of both types of weather balloons accompanied the article. As in the Atlanta demo, a claim was made that the radar targets were widely used, and that many were constantly "used in the areas where flying discs have been reported."
Once again, the similarity of wording is suspicious, and raises questions as to whether this individual was truly acting on his own initiative in going to the press.
Another suspicious story originated in Albuquerque, N.M., was carried by the Associated Press, and reprinted in the Roswell Daily Record on July 9 and Tucumcari (N.M.) Daily News on July 10. The story began, "A weather bureau source, who declined use of his name..." The mysterious anonymous source claimed that a radiosonde balloon was the Corona, N.M. crash object mistaken for a flying disk and that these weather devices might also explain other flying saucer reports. Then the article has the source equating radiosonde and "ray wind" target weather balloons, when they were distinctly different. Similar mistakes in identity were made by military sources on July 8 after Gen. Ramey began circulating his weather balloon cover story. Conceivably this story, with a source refusing to identify himself and espousing similar mistakes and explanations as the military, could have been a military plant as part of their overall flying saucer and Roswell debunking campaign.
In Tucson, Arizona, on July 11, two men claimed that a radar target nearly hit them while driving their truck. They were allegedly so unnerved at first, that they almost wrecked their vehicle while avoiding the device. One of the men then definitively declared that he was now sure this was the same object he had seen before and that everybody else was now seeing. The radar target was also compared to the one found near Roswell which had recently caused all the ruckus.
There is no clear evidence that these men were connected with the government or military, yet the wording of the story is very suspicious. There was also no photo to show that the men had, in fact, had a near collision with a radar target, an oddly missed photo opportunity for the newspaper (The Arizona Daily Star, July 13).
On July 9, in Nashville, Tennessee, a member of the Civilian Air Patrol (CAP), an auxiliary of the Army Air Force, claimed he had released three weather balloons as a publicity stunt, which then allegedly resulted in reports of three flying saucers. Further he claimed that a white matchbox he had attached to one of the balloons "glittered in the sun like silver." He said the CAP had sought unsuccessfully for the saucers and he was of the opinion that all reports were simply people spotting weather balloons or seeking publicity. He then carried out a balloon launch for the newspaper to demonstrate the circular, "saucer-like" appearance of the balloon as it receded into the distance. (Nashville Tennessean, July 10)
Again we are left with the question as to whether this was merely a private citizen independently expressing an opinion or a military-affiliated CAP member publicly debunking the saucers as weather balloons at the behest of somebody else.
Other Military Debunking
The military effort to debunk was aided and abetted by an already skeptical press, which ran a number of articles, columns, and editorials generally ridiculing the phenomena before and after the Roswell incident.
Besides articles and photos on the weather balloon demos, there were also some quotes from various high-ranking military officers expressing extreme skepticism about the saucers, sometimes resorting to deliberate ridicule.
A particularly blatant example of this appeared in the Washington Post on July 10. Rear Admiral Daniel V. Gallery, Asst. Chief of Naval Operations for guided missiles, at first seemed to be giving a rather dramatic personal UFO account as follows:
HUGE DISC SEEN IN FAIRFAX [Virginia] SKY; UNEARTHLY SIGHT!
A very bright, saucer-shaped disc suddenly appeared in the sky to the southwest, was visible for about 10 seconds, and then disappeared. It was moving from east to west. . . .
I estimate that the altitude of this object was a least 10,000 feet and its diameter was greater than 100 feet. It appeared to be traveling at a ground speed of about 750 miles per hour.
But then Gallery pulled out the joker:
"I do not believe that this phenomena was of United States origin. In fact, it is my opinion that it was the sun ducking behind two clouds."
(As a historical aside, Gallery later also publicly ridiculed an article in the March 1950 issue of True Magazine by Commander Robert McLaughlin, chief of the Navy's guided missiles unit at White Sands. McLaughlin wrote about flying saucer incidents at White Sands and stated definitively that they were extraterrestrial in origin. According to Gallery, he responded to McLaughlin's official report to the Pentagon with the comment "What kind of whisky are you drinking out there?") [Time Magazine, April 17, 1950 and ref 3, "The Report on Unidentified Flying Object," Chapt 5.]
Another high ranking Naval officer to debunk the saucer reports (though in a more restrained manner) was Admiral William H. Blandy; former commander and chief of the Pacific Fleet, and now commander of the Atlantic Fleet, and Task Force commander of the Bikini A-bomb tests a year earlier. Blandy stated in the New York Times front page story on the Roswell incident (July 9, 1947), "I remain to be convinced there is any such thing. I am convinced that there is nothing the Army and Navy is concerned with. I am curious, like everybody else, to see what's behind it." The famous Blandy's remarks were widely reported in the nation's press.
(On July 7, Blandy had met with President Truman, the first time that year, and one of his very rare meetings with Truman. Whether this had anything to do with the flying saucer situation is unknown, but the next day the busy Blandy was making skeptical comments to the press.)
President Truman also got into the act. At a press conference on July 10, Truman compared the "Flying Saucers" controversy to the great moon hoax over a 100 years before. The moon hoax was printed in the New York Sun in 1835 and told of the discovery of man-bats living on the moon and seen through a secret, powerful telescope. Many people thought the story was true. After ridiculing people's belief in the saucers, Truman added that he knew nothing more about the saucers other than what he read in the newspapers.
Back in Fort Worth, the debunking continued through Col. Alfred Kalberer, Ramey's chief intelligence officer. Kalberer along with Ramey had already been scoffing at the saucer reports in interviews back on June 30 and July 1, according to some news stories in the Texas and New Mexico press.
On July 10, Kalberer went to the local Lions Club. Kalberer adopted a scattershot approach. He attributed the "flying disc" sightings to mass hysteria, glimpses of distant P-51s, and specks before the eyes. As to the highly publicized and highly credible sighting by a United Airlines' crew on July 4, Kalberer said, "The airlines pilot who saw the discs might have seen a guided missile directed by a plane some distance away. We are playing around with all sorts of freak things." Of course, the mystery guided missile project was pure confabulation by Kalberer. Nobody knows of any such project. Interestingly, the Pacific northwest disk sightings were also singled out for mention at the Alamogordo demonstration the day before (see above) and a very similar, erroneous explanation of "secret experiments" was proffered as an "explanation". This again illustrates some level of coordination to the debunking.
Kalberer then claimed that the Army Air Forces was doing everything possible to determine if there was any basis to the so-called "flying discs," but emphasized that nothing definite had been discovered. (El Paso Times, July 11, accompanied their Alamogordo debunking demonstration article and photos.)
In a bit of irony, Gen. Ramey contradicted Kalberer's secret projects explanation five days later while visiting Harlington, Texas on unknown business. According to a United Press story, Ramey "flatly denied that flying saucers were part of Army experiments." Ramey was reported to have said, "We have no discs as weapons. There's nothing to speculation that the Air Force is testing new secret weapons." (El Paso Times, July 15, 1947)
Roswell Report: Case Closed
In July 1994, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force concluded an exhaustive search for records in response to a General Accounting Office (GAO) inquiry of an event popularly known as the "Roswell Incident." The focus of the GAO probe, initiated at the request of a member of Congress, was to determine if the U.S. Air Force, or any other U.S. government agency, possessed information on the alleged crash and recovery of an extraterrestrial vehicle and its alien occupants near Roswell, N.M. in July 1947.
The 1994 Air Force report concluded that the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Air Forces, recovered debris from an Army Air Forces balloon-borne research project code named MOGUL. Records located describing research carried out under the MOGUL project, most of which were never classified (and publicly available) were collected, provided to GAO, and published in one volume for ease of access for the general public.
This report discusses the results of this exhaustive research and identifies the likely sources of the claims of "alien bodies" at Roswell. Contrary to allegations, many of the accounts appear to be descriptions of unclassified and widely publicized Air Force scientific achievements. Other descriptions of "bodies" appear to be actual incidents in which Air Force members were killed or injured in the line of duty.
The conclusions are:
Air Force activities which occurred over a period of many years have been consolidated and are now represented to have occurred in two or three days in July 1947.
"Aliens" observed in the New Mexico desert were actually anthropomorphic test dummies that were carried aloft by U.S. Air Force high altitude balloons for scientific research.
The "unusual" military activities in the New Mexico desert were high altitude research balloon launch and recovery operations. Reports of military units that always seemed to arrive shortly after the crash of a flying saucer to retrieve the saucer and "crew," were actually accurate descriptions of Air Force personnel engaged in anthropomorphic dummy recovery operations.
Claims of "alien bodies" at the Roswell Army Air Field hospital were most likely a combination of two separate incidents:
1. a 1956 KC-97 aircraft accident in which 11 Air Force members lost their lives; and,
2. a 1959 manned balloon mishap in which two Air Force pilots were injured.
This report is based on thoroughly documented research supported by official records, technical reports, film footage, photographs, and interviews with individuals who were involved in these events.
The Center For UFO Studies Response To The Air Force’s 1997 Report “The Roswell Report: Case Closed”`
by Mark Rodeghier
In June of this year, the Air Force released their second massive report on the now well–known Roswell incident that occurred in and near Roswell, New Mexico in early July, 1947. The first Air Force report in September 1994 concluded that the debris found by rancher Mac Brazel was from an Army Air Forces balloon–borne research project code named MOGUL. Despite the seeming finality of that first report, the Air Force clearly felt the need to release a new report that discusses the claims of alien bodies that were found at a second location in New Mexico in 1947.
The new report concludes that:
1) The witnesses to the reports of alien bodies are generally telling the truth;
2) But. . . these witnesses are mistaken about when the events they saw occurred, and they are also seriously mistaken about details of the events. Additionally, witnesses are conflating together several events that occurred at different times into a single event, and in every instance, the events the witnesses saw were normal Air Force activities.
3) In particular, the Air Force claims that the bodies observed were from scientific and engineering tests using anthropomorphic test dummies carried aloft by balloons, and "unusual" military activities were actually high altitude research balloon launch and recovery operations.
4) A Mogul balloon is still needed to explain some witness accounts, so the Air Force is now claiming that both a Mogul balloon and a balloon with dummies caused the Roswell testimony.
As with the 1994 report, the new report is clumsily padded to make it appear to be lengthy and impressive. This is done by using a large font, many irrelevant photos, and wide margins. A great deal of research was done by the Air Force to gather information about balloon projects in New Mexico, including interviews with surviving members of the balloon teams. But as was the case in the 1994 report, no effort was devoted to interviewing still–living witnesses of the events from 1947. This makes a mockery of the claim by Secretary of the Air Force Sheila E. Widnall in the Foreword that "Our objective throughout this inquiry has been simple and consistent: to find all the facts and bring them to light."
In the statements below, we detail the errors, omissions and faulty reasoning in the Air Force report. These defects are so egregious in some instances that we wonder whether the report was even reviewed at the Pentagon. The general flaw in the Air Force report is clear: if the testimony is taken at face value, then the Roswell events occurred in 1947, and the Air Force could find no explanation for tales of alien bodies from its activities in that year. Accordingly, the Air Force, with no supporting rationale, simply assumed that the witnesses were mistaken about the date of the incident. In other words, if the Air Force, in good faith, treated the events as occurring in 1947, they would have been stuck without an explanation. The result is the preposterous report they just produced.
Specific Errors, Flaws, and Problems in the Report
Using Discredited Witnesses
Problem: The Air Force considers Gerald Anderson to be an honest witness who is simply mistaken about dates, places, and details. It relies heavily on his testimony to demonstrate similarities between Anderson’s description of the alien bodies and anthropomorphic dummies.
Fact: No pro–cover-up Roswell researcher considers Gerald Anderson to be an honest or believable witness. Anderson has admittedly falsified his telephone records and a diary to support his claims. Don Berliner, a primary investigator of his claims, has written as early as 1993 that he "no longer has confidence in the testimony of Gerald Anderson."
Ignoring Credible Witnesses
Problem: The Air Force ignores the testimony of Frank Kaufman.
Fact: Kaufman claims to have been involved with the recovery of the alien bodies, and he was in the military stationed at Roswell. His claims have never been convincingly refuted. His testimony should have been included in the report. It was, most likely, not included because it is impossible to suggest that Kaufman could be confused about events in which he participated and for which he took written notes.
Ignoring Their Own Experts
Problem: The Air Force, although interviewing balloon project members, did not ask them what they thought of its new theory to explain the stories of alien bodies.
Fact: Lt. Col. (Ret.) Raymond A. Madson, a project officer on Project High Dive for four years, told the Associated Press last week that there is no way the dummies could be confused with aliens. Moreover, he noted that there was a reward notice on the dummies and that they were stamped with labels identifying them as Air Force property.
Selective Use Of Testimony
Problem: James Ragsdale’s testimony is not considered in full, even though a transcript of an interview done by ufologists is included in an appendix.
Fact: Ragsdale’s description of how the object he saw landed (with a bright light and at high speed at night) is ignored, as is his description of the appearance of the debris, which looked nothing like a balloon. Instead, his use of the word "dummies" is taken out–of–context throughout the report.
No Balloons With Dummies Fell Near The Roswell Crash Site
Problem: Only one balloon landing was even remotely near the site north of Roswell where the craft and bodies were allegedly found.
Fact: There is no reason for witnesses to be confused by a balloon and dummy recovery that took place miles from the crash site.
Dummy And Balloon Tests Were Well–Known To The Public
Problem: The Air Force claims that anthropomorphic dummies "were not widely exposed (sic) outside of scientific research circles and easily could have been mistaken for something they were not."
Fact: The Air Force, a few pages later, admits that the dummy program, and balloon programs in general, received extensive publicity, including in books, national magazines, and the 1956 movie On the Threshold of Space. This makes it highly unlikely that witnesses who lived in New Mexico would be confused by balloon activities and mistake them for aliens.
Key Witnesses Cannot Be Placed At Any Balloon Recoveries
Problem: The Air Force theory obviously depends on the UFO witnesses having actually viewed balloon and dummy recoveries.
Fact: No witness involved in Roswell can be placed at any recovery. In fact, Air Force balloon personnel, asked about the witnesses, such as Gerald Anderson, cannot ever remember seeing or meeting these people at sites of balloon recoveries.
The Air Force Dummies Were Too Large
Problem: All anthropomorphic dummies were the size of adult males because only men were pilots in those years.
Fact: Witnesses to the bodies all report that the aliens were small and child–like in size (about four feet tall).
Witness Glenn Dennis Could Not Have Been Mistaken About the Dead Air Force Airmen
Problem: The Air Force explains Glenn Dennis’s story about aliens by claiming that he inadvertently blundered into the base hospital when autopsies were being done on burned crewmen from an aircraft accident near the base.
Fact: Three of the bodies from that accident were taken to the Ballard Funeral Home where Dennis worked. Given this fact, it is preposterous to suggest that Dennis remained confused about just who or what was being autopsied at the base hospital.
As a final point, consider this bit of Air Force "reasoning." The report claims that Glenn Dennis’s testimony combines several disparate events, plus military and civilian personnel from different eras at Roswell. The Air Force claims that Dennis conglomerated all these events or persons into one coherent memory:
1) Autopsies of dead crewmen from a KC–97 accident on June 26, 1956.
2) A balloon mishap that occurred west of Roswell on May 21, 1959, and Capt. Joseph W. Kittinger, who had red hair, and who was present at the base hospital after the accident.
3) Colonel Lee F. Ferrell, who was at the base hospital from October 1954 to June 1960.
4) Nurse Lucille C. Slattery, who was Chief Nurse at the hospital in 1947.
5) Nurse Idabelle Wilson, stationed at the base from February 1956 to May 1960.
6) Nurse Eileen M. Fanton, stationed at the base from December 1946 to September 1947.
The reader is left to judge the likelihood of all these unconsciously being combined into one event by a sane, competent witness, one who cannot even be proved to have been at the hospital in 1959, or to have known or met any of these military personnel.
In summary then, examination of this latest report demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was NOT an objective inquiry. Regardless of one's personal opinion of UFOs, it is plain to see that SOMETHING occurred that has resulted in two "final" AF reports within three years. One can only conclude that it is simply another government whitewash attempt, or worse, a clear case of incompetence and waste of taxpayer money. We look forward in eager anticipation to the next "final" Air Force report on the Roswell event.
The Roswell Report: Case Closed, James McAndrew, Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington, DC, 1997.
Other Reference Material
Several articles have been published in International UFO Reporter, the magazine of the Center for UFO Studies, on the first Air Force report or matters relevant to this second report. These include:
The Continuing Search for the Roswell Archaeologists: Closing the Circle, by Thomas Carey (January/February 1994)
When and Where did the Roswell Object Crash?, by Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt (January/February 1994)
The Air Force Report on Roswell: An Absence of Evidence, by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney (September/October 1994)
The Project Mogul Flights and Roswell, Kevin Randle, (November/December 1994)
The Roswell Debris: A Quantitative Evaluation of the Project Mogul Hypothesis, by Robert Galganski (March/April 1995)
Project Mogul and the Roswell Crash, an exchange with Charles B. Moore, Robert G. Todd, Mark Rodeghier and Kevin Randle (March/April 1995)
What the GAO Found: Nothing About Much Ado, by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney (July/August 1995)
The Final(?) Air Force Report on Roswell, by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney, (Winter 1995)