to the UFO Updates Mail List, June, 1997)
Kent Jeffrey, in his latest article,
essentially challenges those of us who believe that something crashed
outside of Roswell in July 1947 to prove the case to him. To do so, he
suggests that we must deal with seven points that he brought up at the
end of his article. He raises other questions in his article which are
easily challenged, and he accuses us of selective reporting of the data.
Let's take a quick look at some of that, and then answer his seven
points one at a time. Please remember that I do not have endless space
in which to address his comments and therefore have selected some of
them for response but not others.
Kent writes, about the men of the
509th Bomb Group, "Most of them heard nothing about the supposed
crashed-saucer incident until years later, after all the publicity
started. The few men who did recall hearing about the incident at the
time of its occurrence said that the inside word was that the debris was
from a downed balloon of some kind and that there was no more than 'one
Overlooking the fact that highly classified events would not be
discussed among the officers because they were, by definition, highly
classified, let's look at a statement by Colonel (later brigadier
general) Thomas DuBose. According to him, and recorded on video
tape (August 10, 1990), "He (Major General Clements McMullen, deputy
commander of SAC) called me and said...Nobody, and I must stress this,
no one was to discuss this with their wives, me with Ramey, with anyone.
The matter, as far as we're concerned, it was closed."
What we have here is evidence of orders, coming from the headquarters
of the Strategic Air Command that the officers of the Eighth Air Force
and the 509th Bomb Group were not to discuss this matter amongst
themselves. Those who were not involved would not be told about it
because of the high classification. And those former members of the
509th who believe that had something like this happened they would have
heard about it must rethink their theory. Many military units have
secrets that are shared only with those who have a need to know. To
suggest a sharing of classified material with those who are not cleared
to hear it reveals a misunderstanding of how this works. And, remember,
DuBose acknowledged that an order had been given.
Kent also uses the testimony that was published by William L. Moore in
The Roswell Incident and later by Moore and Jaime Shandera in their
articles about the debris taken to Brigadier General Roger Ramey's
office. I have suggested all along that the debris photographed was not
the real stuff. Kent, however, writes, "Among Marcel's responses were
'They took one picture of me on the floor holding up some of the
less-interesting metallic debris...The stuff in that one photo was
pieces of the actual stuff we had found. It was not a staged photo."
Kent does not report the rest of the quote which tends to refute his
contention that the debris on the floor was never switched. Marcel
supposedly also said, "Later, they cleared out our wreckage and
substituted some of their own. They then allowed more photos. Those
photos were taken while the actual wreckage was on its way to Wright
Field. I was not in those." If that wasn't enough, when we check the
record, we find that Moore and Shandera have published three versions of
the original quote, each altered to fit the circumstances as they were
developing during various investigations. Moore provided a transcript of
the February 1979 interview with Marcel that now said, "General (Roger
Maxwell) Ramey allowed the press in to take two pictures of this stuff.
I was in one, and he and Col. DuBose were in the other. [Emphasis added
to show the difference in the quote.]"
In their article "Three Hours That Shook the Press," Focus, new series
Vol. 5, nos. 7-9, September 30, 1990, Shandera and Moore write, "In his
interview with Moore (The Roswell Incident) Maj. Marcel maintained that
the debris in the two photos of him is the real stuff [Emphasis added]."
So we see that the quotes by Moore and Shandera referring to the number
of pictures taken in General Ramey's office, who was in those pictures,
and the situation around them, can't be trusted. In fact, Marcel himself
has been quoted by a disinterested third party. Reporter Johnny Mann
accompanied Marcel to Roswell in 1980 to interview him about the UFO
crash. Mann found the picture of Marcel posed by the weather balloon and
told him, "Jess, I gotta tell you. This looks like a weather balloon."
According to Mann, Marcel said, "That's not the stuff I found on the
ranch." In other words, the only ones to report that Marcel was
photographed with the "real" debris was Moore and Shandera. All evidence
to the contrary was apparently overlooked by Kent as he attempted to
prove that what was on the floor in Ramey's office was the material
found out on the Foster ranch. Kent also wrote, "Rancher Mac Brazel is
quoted as talking about sticks, foil, and tape with flower patterns."
But Kent doesn't quote the last, and possibly most important part of the
July 9, 1947 story. Speaking of the balloon explanation, the newspaper
reported, "Brazel said, that he had previously found weather observation
balloons on two other occasions... but that what he found this time did
not in any way resemble either of these."
But, if what was found was a Project Mogul balloon as alleged, or just
any sort of balloon as Kent suggests, then it would have been exactly
like those. That is what we are talking about when we talk of Mogul
Flight #4. It was a cluster of regular weather balloons and contained
nothing to fool Brazel, Marcel, or anyone else.
But, with space running out, let's look at Kent's seven points that
must be addressed according to Kent himself. He wrote, "A machine with
unimaginable technological sophistication and consequent incredible
reliability would have simply broken down and crashed."
Even if the "perfect" machine could be built, there are always the
human factors (in this case alien factor unless you want to believe them
infallible too), and the environmental factors in this extremely weak
argument. In today's world, aircraft are designed to withstand strikes
by lightning. However, according to a recent PrimeTime Live on ABC,
lightning was a contributing factor in the recent destruction of a
commercial jet. Yes, the mean time to failure has improved. Yes, our
computers, electronics, and machinery all operate much longer, but they
do still break. And when they don't break on their own, there is always
someone there to make a mistake causing them to break. In other words,
this argument is without foundation. Kent next wrote, "The only known
wreckage from this sophisticated vehicle, capable of interstellar
travel, would have consisted solely of a few short beams, pieces of
foil-like material, and small pieces of thin plastic-like material."
Yes, that is basically the debris as described by those who were on the
Foster ranch. I would add the fiber optics described by Bill Brazel,
Jr., but that doesn't alter Kent's point. There is not the range of
debris you would expect from a crashing craft.
Of course, that doesn't cover the craft and bodies found elsewhere.
Kent was quick to tell me, angrily, that there was no craft and there
were no bodies and therefore his point remains valid. He rejects, out of
hand, all reference to the craft and bodies, weakening his argument
considerably. You can't reject testimony simply because you don't like
it. If you can offer a reasonable motive for that rejection, then you
can proceed with your case. If you reject it because it is inconvenient,
then your point is not valid. Kent has ignored the statements by Major
(later full colonel) Edwin Easley, Major (later full colonel) Patrick
Saunders, Brigadier General Arthur Exon, Dr. W. Curry Holden, reporter
Johnny McBoyle and many others. Each spoke of the second crash site in
Kent's next point is "Despite the fact that this would have been the
most spectacular event in recorded history, and despite the fact that
word was already out that something had happened (because of Lt. Haut's
press release), there was absolutely no contemporary discussion or talk
about such an earthshaking event among the pilots and navigators of the
close-knit 509th Bomb Group."
This is absolutely ridiculous when it is remembered that these were
trained officers who were schooled in keeping their mouths shut and when
it is remembered, according to General DuBose, orders had been issued.
When the 509th was formed, with the purpose of dropping the atomic
bombs, the men were brought to the base and told that they would be
involved in a special assignment.
They were told to tell no one of this. As a security check, they were
allowed to glimpse "special" equipment, or "special" orders. They all
were given a leave before having to report back for training. Herculean
efforts were made to track each of these men, engage them in
conversation, and to see just how much they would talk about their
"special" assignments, or the "special" equipment they saw. Each who
mentioned anything as dismissed from the unit and returned to his
original assignment. The point is, these men knew that you didn't talk
out of school to anyone who did not have "A NEED TO KNOW."
Kent then wrote, "West Point graduate and retired general Thomas DuBose,
would have had lied nine times in an interview when he stated that the
debris (definitely that from an ML-307 radar reflector) shown in the
pictures in Ramey's office was not substituted material and was "real
debris" recovered from the ranch northwest of Roswell."
This is one of the weakest arguments that Kent has made. First, he
accepts, as completely accurate, Shandera's interview with DuBose, but
according to DuBose and his wife, Shandera took neither notes nor made a
tape recording. In other words, we are treated to Shandera's version of
the events with no corroboration.
But, when DuBose was asked if he had seen the Roswell debris, he said,
"Never." After the publication of Shandera's interview, he was asked
again if he had ever seen the real debris and in a letter, he wrote,
"NO!" Billy Cox, a disinterested third party and a writer for Florida
Today, interviewed DuBose for an article he wrote for the November 24,
1991 edition of that newspaper. Cox reported that DuBose told him
essentially the same story as outlined in UFO Crash at Roswell. In a
letter dated September 30, 1991, Cox wrote, "I was aware of the recent
controversy generated by an interview he (DuBose) had with Jamie
Shandera, during which he stated that the display debris at Fort Worth
was genuine UFO wreckage and not a weather balloon, as he had previously
stated. But I chose not to complicate matters by asking him to
illuminate what he had told Shandera; instead, I simply asked him,
without pressure, to recall events as he remembered them... he seemed
especially adamant about his role in the Roswell case.
While he stated that he didn't think the debris was extraterrestrial in
nature (though he had no facts to support his opinion), he was insistent
that the material that Ramey displayed for the press was in fact a
weather balloon, and that he had personally transferred the real stuff
in a lead-lined mail pouch to a courier going to Washington... I can
only conclude that the Shandera interview was the end result of the
confusion that might occur when someone attempts to press a narrow point
of view upon a 90 year old man. I had no ambiguity in my mind that Mr.
DuBose was telling me the truth."
What we see here is that DuBose didn't lie nine times. We have a
disagreement between what Shandera reported about what DuBose said, and
the video tape and reporters notes of what DuBose actually said. The
problem is not Dubose but Shandera.
Next Kent wrote, "Major General C.P. Cabell, Director of Intelligence
for the Air Force at the Pentagon, who prepared a report on the
unidentified flying object situation for the Secretary of Defense,
astoundingly, would have been preparing the report totally ignorant of
the fact that the Air Force was in possession of a crashed flying
Actually that is not exactly true. Can we find any instances in which
military officers wrote to civilian representatives of the government
and lied? Yes. Senator Jeff Bingaman asked the Congressional Inquiry
Division, Office of Legislative Liaison about Project Moon Dust.
Lieutenant Colonel John E. Madison wrote, "In addition there is no
Project Moon Dust or Operation Blue Fly. Those missions have never
existed." This is not an accurate statement.
More importantly, when Madison's statements were challenged, Colonel
George M. Mattingley, Jr. wrote that Moon Dust had existed, but it was
never used. Mattingley had to know that Moon Dust had been deployed. He
gave Bingaman a history of Moon Dust. Therefore, Mattingley knowing lied
to a United States Senator, as did Madison.
This is not exactly the same situation as described by Kent but it does
establish a precedence. Yes, military officers have knowingly lied to
the civilian governmental representatives when they believed national
security was at stake.
Finally Kent wrote, "Three retired Air Force colonels, all former top
officials at the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base would have been lying to me -- unnecessarily wasting
inordinate amounts of their own personal time in a protracted game of
charades." Again, this argument is weak on the face of it. If we look at
history we find many examples of military officers serving in critical
positions but not in possession of complete information. During the
Second World War we had broken a number of the Japanese codes and were
reading intercepted messages under the code name Magic.
Very few knew about it. I believe that MacArthur's staff in the
Southwest Pacific contained two people who were "Magic" qualified,
MacArthur and MacArthur's chief of intelligence. To suggest that Magic
didn't exist because other, high-ranking members of MacArthur's staff
had said they heard nothing about it is ridiculous. If you interview
those men, would they be lying if they said Magic didn't exist, because,
to them, it didn't. Finished with that, Kent asked, "What basis is there
now for postulating the existence of a crashed UFO?"
Simple. The testimony of Edwin Easley, himself a retired colonel who
told me the craft was extraterrestrial. The testimony of Patrick
Saunders, himself a retired colonel who wrote on the flyleaf to The
Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell that "Here's the truth and I still
haven't told anybody anything!" which he then signed. And the testimony
of Arthur Exon, himself a retired brigadier general, who talked of two
distinct sites, and who talked of the people at Wright-Patterson who had
examined the debris and bodies of the alien creatures. My two colonels
and one brigadier general trump Kent's three colonels.
The question that can be asked here, in sort of a reverse on what Kent
has written is "Why would these men create this story if it was not
true?" They did not seek the spotlight as so many others have. They did
not expect a monetary reward for their information. In fact, they gained
nothing by suggesting there was anything true to the story of the
crashed saucer. Would they spend their time lying to me? Exon and I even
ate lunch in the Wright-Patterson officers' club.
I had hoped, in reading Kent's article, I would find something that was
persuasive. I had hoped that there would be a revelation that would
suggest a good reason for Kent to so radically alter his position. That
I didn't find. Kent has written that the case is closed. To his mind, he
has solved it with interviews he conducted and his analysis of the
situation. But such isn't the case because he dismissed too much of the
testimony that doesn't fit with his view. As I said, you can't reject
inconvenient testimony until you provide a proper framework for that
rejection. He has failed to do so and therefore his reasons for
rejecting the Roswell UFO crash are less than persuasive.