Roswell Revisited

In the years since the Roswell case exploded all over the media and dozens of people have begun investigations, there has been quite a bit of false, faked and lousy information published. I confess that I have been guilty of my share of it, such as giving Frank Kaufmann a voice much louder than he deserved, but I’m not alone. We’ve been graced with Glenn Dennis, Gerald Anderson, Jim Ragsdale and dozens of other lesser lights who really knew no more about the case than we did.

A bigger problem, however, might be all the investigators who have national forums and who sometimes use these forums for personal agendas with the authenticity of the information taking a back seat. I want to address some of these issues here, trying for a middle of the road approach that leaves personal agenda far behind. I want to look at some of the allegations hurled in th attempts to negate or eliminate the Roswell case. In other words, I hope to answer some of the questions about Roswell with solid information rather than speculation and invention.

The case of the reports of Air Force Brigadier General Arthur Exon is a prime example of these personal agendas. Remember, Exon, as an Air Force lieutenant colonel was assigned to Wright Field when the Roswell debris was forwarded for analysis in 1947. Exon provided, from his perspective, what he knew personally and what he had learned from friends and colleagues at the base.

Plock, Korff and Exon

Karl Pflock ignored Exon’s testimony, mentioning it in only two paragraphs in his book. In one of those paragraphs he noted what I had written about Exon and then suggested, “As we will see, General Exon has quite a different take on what he actually said and intended to convey.”

Later in his book, on page 124, Pflock wrote, “When first made public in 1991, it seemed Exon’s memories of the possibility that the bodies had been flown from Roswell to Wright Field in 1947 might be based on firsthand information. If so, this would be highly significant, especially since Exon also seemed to have firsthand knowledge of the debris field and crash site, as well as a shadowy high-level group established to keep the truth about Roswell under wraps. However, in a lengthy September 1992 telephone conversation, Exon told me his comments about bodies and debris at Wright Field were based solely upon rumors he heard from colleagues at Wright Field and nothing more. As for the ‘control group,’ he said he was merely making educated guesses as to who likely would have been selected for such a group. Finally, with respect to his all alleged knowledge of the debris and crash sites, he told me he remembered flying over several sites in New Mexico quite some time after July 1947, on missions having nothing to do with the Roswell incident. One such location might have fit what he had been told about the crash site by ufologists because it had vehicle tracks running to it.”

That’s all that Pflock has to say about Exon. He references a personal telephone call to Exon, provides nothing in the way of transcripts or tape of that conversation, and then dismisses the testimony as irrelevant and unimportant. Exon didn’t see anything first hand. Exon heard rumors. Exon didn’t fly over the crash site… well, maybe he did, but it was later and it might not have been the right place.

As we have seen, and as will be reinforced later, Pflock’s assessment of the importance of Exon and what he said is way off base. In fact, some corroboration for Exon’s testimony has come from George W. Towles, who, in 1947 was also at Wright Field and worked inside the T-2 Intelligence there. Wendy Connors and Michael Hall, in Alfred C. Loedding and the Great Flying saucer Wave of 1947, report that Towles had told them that T-2 Intelligence knew of a crash of an object and the some of the personnel were dispatched to Roswell for further investigation.

Kal Korff, in his hostile and poorly researched, The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don’t Want You to Know, takes the same reductive course with Exon. I could go on at length about the mistakes that Korff makes and the misrepresentations that he makes, but that would just be more of the same he said, he said variety of argument.

Fortunately, a third party, Greg Sandow, provided an interesting commentary about Korff’s book and his opinions on Errol Bruce Knapp’s UFO UpDates Internet discussion group not long after Korff’s book was published. In response to some of the Korff nonsense, Sandow wrote:

Now a look at Kal's comments on General Arthur Exon. Remember my disclaimers — that I'm not commenting on the nature of the Roswell crash, or on the overall worth of Kal's book. I won't be drawn into arguments about those subjects. I'm only commenting on three passages in the book…

What does Kal say? Something really sharp: "There is no excuse for how Exon's 'testimony' is misrepresented in the Randle-Schmitt book. It is blatant fiction on the part of the authors…Randle and Schmitt were deceptive in their presentation of both Exon's recollections and his supposed 'involvement' in the Roswell affair."

So what's that about? The indictment, as it turns out, rests on one lone accusation, that Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt presented Exon's remarks as if he were relating first-hand testimony, when actually he was only reporting things he'd heard from others. This, in some ways, is a remarkably trivial charge. Why do I say that? Well, suppose that it's true. Then we can shout "gotcha" to Randle and Schmitt, and we'll be careful to check anything either of them says in the future.

But then what did Exon say even as a second-hand witness? As Kal himself tells us (see p. 93 of his Roswell book), Exon talks about Roswell debris being flown to Wright-Patterson. "The boys who tested it," Exon says, "said it was very unusual….It had them pretty puzzled." First-hand, second-hand….either way we've got a banner headline, even if Exon never said one word beyond what Kal quotes. An Air Force general, even if he's only giving his general impression of what he's heard about Roswell, says the same things about the Roswell debris as some of the controversial first-hand witnesses do! If you put any weight on Exon's impressions, the Mogul theory [the glorified weather balloon explanation offered by the Air Force in 1994] takes a big hit. Isn't that more important, in the overall scheme of things, than any question about Randle and Schmitt? And, as we'll see, Exon said much more than that.

But then is Kal right to say Randle and Schmitt distorted Exon's remarks? I don't think so, for three reasons.

(1) I've heard Kevin's first interview with Exon on tape, and read Kevin's scrupulously accurate transcript. I thought Exon said exactly what he's quoted as saying in Kevin's book.

(2) Even the passage Kal quotes doesn't support his view. Here's how Kal presents it: "To read the RandleSchmitt book, it appears that Exon corroborates the Roswell UFO recovery by providing impressive-sounding testimony that appears to be firsthand. 'We heard the material was coming to Wright Field….It was brought into our material evaluation labs. I don't know how it arrived but the boys who tested it said it was very unusual.' Exon described the material: '[Some of it] could be easily ripped or changed….there were other parts of it that were very thin but awfully strong and couldn't be dented with very heavy hammers….It was flexible to a degree,' and, according to Exon, 'some of it was flimsy and was tougher than hell and almost like foil but strong. It had them pretty puzzled.'"

"To almost anyone reading this," Kal writes, "it would appear that…[Exon] was a firsthand source who was present and personally saw what he describes." But I don't see it that way at all. Consider these statements: "We heard the material was coming….I don't know how it arrived, but the boys who tested it said…It had them pretty puzzled." Isn't it clear that Exon isn't speaking of first hand knowledge? Who wouldn't understand that Exon didn't handle this debris himself?

A page later in the Randle-Schmitt book comes another Exon quote, which Kal doesn't reprint: "The metal and material was unknown to anyone I talked to. Whatever they found, I never heard what the results were. A couple of guys thought it might be Russian but the overall consensus was that the pieces were from space."

Again, it's perfectly clear that Exon didn't handle or analyze the material himself, and even that his knowledge was limited. But he appears to think he'd spoken to people who knew at least something about what the analysis had shown. How sure was he of this knowledge? Let me quote a few suggestive passages. First, an Exon quote from Randle's book: "I know [my emphasis] that…[General Ramey] along with the people out at Roswell decided to change the story while they got their act together and got the information into the Pentagon." (UFO Crash at Roswell, paperback, p. 111.) Another Exon quote from Randle: "I just know [again my emphasis] there was a top intelligence echelon represented and the President's office was represented and the Secretary of Defense's office was represented…" (He's talking about the secret UFO committee that he's sure existed; UFO Crash, p. 232.)

And here's something Exon said on the tape, which wasn't quoted in Randle's book. Kevin asks, referring to stories we've all heard about alien corpses at WrightPatterson: "You've heard the rumors about the little bodies, haven't you?" "Yes, I have," answers Exon. "In fact, I know people that were involved in photographing some of the residue from the New Mexico affair near Roswell." [My emphasis.] Here's something else, about how Exon knows that there were alien bodies from Roswell at Wright-Patterson: "People I have known who were involved with that" told him so. [Sandow’s emphasis.]

Look back at the quote Kal thinks is so damning: 'We heard the material was coming to Wright Field….It was brought into our material evaluation labs. I don't know how it arrived but the boys who tested it said it was very unusual.' Exon described the material: '[Some of it] could be easily ripped or changed….there were other parts of it that were very thin but awfully strong and couldn't be dented with very heavy hammers….It was flexible to a degree,' and, according to Exon, 'some of it was flimsy and was tougher than hell and almost like foil but strong. It had them pretty puzzled.'"

Given the full context of Exon's remarks…and bearing in mind everything I've quoted from Kevin's interview with him….isn't it clear (a) that Exon certainly thought he knew quite a bit (even if not first hand) about the subjects he was quoted on, that (b) he says quite clearly that he'd talked to people who were involved first-hand, and (c) that therefore the passage Kal quotes from Kevin's book is really quite reasonable in both its tone and content? I don't think it misrepresents Exon at all. (Here's another quote from Exon, from the tape: "Most of the people you're talking to are a little bit like me. Close enough to know that there was something happening. They had no direct responsibility for any of it." Anyone who reads the complete sections on Exon from Randle's books will, I think, form exactly that impression.)

And now let's take a closer look at what Exon actually said. Let me say again that I've done more than read Kevin's two Roswell books (and, by the way, the second, which Kal doesn't mention at all, has additional material that continues to make it clear that Exon wasn't speaking first-hand). I've listened on tape to the interview Kevin quotes, and read Kevin's entirely accurate transcript.

What does Exon say? Taking account the full text of the interview, and the full extent of accurate quotes from it in Kevin's book, including many things I haven't mentioned here yet:

1. Exon says he believes the Roswell crash was extraterrestrial. ("Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space.")

2. He says he knows that debris from the crash was studied at Wright-Patterson, and that the debris was extremely unusual. His description matches that of alleged first-hand witnesses.

3. He says that "apparently" there were bodies found, and that they were located at "another location," or in other words not at the location of the metallic debris. The main body of the craft, he says, was also found there. (What he means by "apparently" isn't clear. He says this, however, just after he talks about what people have told him about the metallic debris. It seems reasonable to assume the same people told him about the bodies. Note that Exon's mention of "another location" supports Kevin's thesis of two crash sites. When you hear the interview on tape, it's clear that Exon says this all on his own. Randle hasn't even brought up the topic.)

4. He says the bodies were brought to WrightPatterson.

5. He says he flew over the Roswell crash site, and saw the "gouge" the crashed object made in the ground. (Kal, rather oddly, mentions this elsewhere in his book, but doesn't dispute it — or, in fact, even mention it — in the passage I'm discussing, which is his major examination of Exon's role as a Roswell witness. I can assure everyone that Exon indeed did say this. I heard him say it on the tape.)

6. He says there was a coverup. In fact, he calls it (on the tape) "a national coverup project."

7. He talks about which government officials served, in his opinion, on a secret UFO project.

8. He talks about a secret Air Force team that investigated UFO events. This is first-hand knowledge. He dispatched the planes that flew the team to the events they investigated.

It's also notable that he brings up Roswell all by himself. Kevin didn't know he knew about it. Kevin's only thought was to talk to someone who'd been at WrightPatterson about the rumors of crash debris there. Let me repeat a passage from the tape that I quoted earlier. Kevin asks, referring to stories we've all heard about alien corpses at Wright-Patterson: "You've heard the rumors about the little bodies, haven't you?"

"Yes, I have," answers Exon. "In fact, I know people that were involved in photographing some of the residue from the New Mexico affair near Roswell." This is the first mention of Roswell in the interview….and it comes from Exon.

Is all of this remarkable? Of course it is. An Air Force general, whose assignment at Wright-Patterson suggests he might have been in a position to know what he was talking about, says, in great detail, that he thinks the Roswell crash was real. This is big news. Does Kal give any hint of how big the news is? Not at all. In fact, his book raises a screaming, unspoken question. Suppose Kal's right to say that Kevin exaggerated Exon's knowledge. That doesn't change the fact that Exon really believed the Roswell crash was alien. Why, then, did Exon believe that? How deeply did he believe it? Does he believe it still? Aren't these the basic questions here? Why doesn't Kal seem even remotely interested in them?

One last point. Kal says that Exon doesn't stand behind what Kevin and Don Schmitt wrote. And sure enough, he has a quote from a letter [Exon] wrote to Randle: "Further, you both [Randle and Schmitt] likely recall on many occasions during my visits with you in person and on the phone…that I did not know anything firsthand. Although I believe you did quote me accurately, I do believe that in your writings you gave more credence and impression of personal and direct knowledge that [sic — I think he means "than"] my recordings would indicate on their own! I felt that throughout the portions where my name was used." Fine. Let's forget for a moment that Exon might have every reason to back off from what he'd said — he'd been talking out of school, and someone might have firmly told him so — and assume he really stands behind this criticism. He truly thinks Schmitt and Randle exaggerated his direct involvement. But he also says they quoted him accurately! In other words, he doesn't challenge their assertions that he thought the crash was extraterrestrial, that he'd heard the metallic debris was really changed, that he'd heard there were bodies, that he believed there was a coverup, that he believed top government officials were involved in a secret UFO committee, and that he himself had dispatched planes on secret UFO-related missions. If he's not challenging all of that, then his words to Kevin are the mildest of rebukes. If this relatively minor point is the full extent of his disagreement with the things about him in the book, isn't he in effect endorsing everything important that Schmitt and Randle said?

It should be noted here that Greg Sandow did visit me in my home and that I provided him with full access to all the notes, files and recordings that I had about the case simply because I have nothing to hide about it. Many of the debunker attacks are launched with information that I have provided in an attempt to be honest with the direction of the investigation. Without that, they would never have had some of the information about my work that they do. They would never know, for example, about the letter that Exon wrote to me because it came to me and it was clear from Exon that he had not made a copy of it. This demonstrates that I have been careful in what I said about Exon and his testimony.

The Attacks on Jesse Marcel

The same sort of smear has been directed at Jesse Marcel and it all is based on an interview that Marcel granted to National Enquirer reporter Bob Pratt (who, I should point out here was a very careful reporter regardless of the nature of the publication for which he worked) who graciously shared his interview transcript to all who asked for it. The problem is that it is often confusing and the answers Marcel gave might have been misinterpreted by Pratt. Others have suggested that Marcel was a liar whose story could now be rejected based on that transcript. In fact, Karl Pflock, in an open letter to Stan Friedman, made just this allegation.

But the situation has been muddied by those who wish to believe the worst about a man who is dead and can no longer defend himself. They have assumed that Marcel's military record is one hundred percent complete and accurate, and that the transcript Pratt made of his interview, as provided to various UFO researchers and as published by UFO researcher Karl Pflock, is one hundred percent accurate and complete.

It has been suggested by many debunkers that few of Marcel's claims about his background have stood up to scrutiny. Author Peter Brooksmith, in one of his most recent UFO books, for example, suggested that Marcel had no real combat experience. He was nothing more than “a passenger on combat flights” in the South Pacific during the Second World War. Reporters for a San Francisco television station, in a multi-part story, suggested much the same thing. Although such an allegation certainly calls Marcel’s record into question, it is a ridiculous statement with no evidence to support it. No one flies into combat as a passenger (unless, of course, they’re paratroopers on the way to battle, for example).

In fact, in the two citations for the Air Medal in Marcel's military file, it was written, "For meritorious achievement while participating in sustained operational flight missions… in the Southwest Pacific area during which hostile contact was probable and expected. These operations consisted of bombing missions against enemy airdromes and installations and attacks on enemy naval vessels and shipping. The courage and devotion to duty displayed during these flights are worthy of commendation."

In other words, Marcel was on the missions as part of his job as intelligence officer for various units in the Southwest Pacific during the war. Passengers on such flights, if there ever were any, were not routinely handed medals for "riding" along. (Okay, Lyndon Johnson got a Silver Star for riding along, but he had already been a high-ranking member of the Senate so he doesn’t count.) Marcel was doing his job, and to suggest that "his combat flying was limited to a passenger's job" as Brooksmith claims is an attempt to belittle the reputation of a man without evidence to support the allegation.

Peter Brooksmith apparently searching for anything to destroy Marcel's reputation continued in this same vein when he wrote that Marcel claimed to be the sole survivor of an aircraft accident during the war. Like the other allegation, this simply isn't true and seems to be the result of a misreading of Pflock's recreation of the transcript of the Pratt interview.

In his conversation with Pratt, Marcel mentioned that he had been shot down on his third mission. Pratt had then asked Marcel, "Did everyone survive?"

Marcel said, "All but one crashed into the mountain." It seems to be quite clear that Marcel is saying that everyone survived, except for one crewman, who died when he crashed into the mountain.

Here is where one of the problems with the transcript arises. Pflock, in his attempt to make the transcript clear, changed it. According to Pflock, Pratt asked, "How many missions did you go on?"

Marcel: "I had a total of 468 hours of combat time…was intelligence officer for bomb wing, flew as pilot, waist gunner and bombardier at different times… I got shot down one time, my third mission, out of Port Moresby."

Pratt: "Did everyone survive?"

Marcel: "All but one crashed into a mountain."

What the transcript actually says is, "A — I had a total of 468 hours of combat time…was intelligence officer for bomb wing, flew as pilot, waist gunner and bombardier at different times… I got shot down one time, my third mission, out of Port Moresby (everyone survive) all but one crashed into a mountain [reproduced exactly as is appears in the Pratt transcript, ellipses and all]."

One interpretation of that statement could be that Marcel was saying that everyone survived, except for a single crewman who crashed into a mountain. All we have to do is add a comma to make it clear.

Pratt asked, "Did everyone survive?" Marcel answered, "All, but one crashed into a mountain."

It could also be interpreted to mean that all but one of them crashed into a mountain and were killed. But that still doesn't make Marcel the sole survivor as Pratt claimed because there is that one other man who lived. No matter how you slice it, Brooksmith's interpretation of the comment is flawed. Marcel made no claim of being a sole survivor of that combat mission, but Brooksmith is quick to smear his name and reputation by suggesting that he did.

On the other hand, can it be proved that his record is incomplete? Marcel, according to a notation in the record, received the Bronze Star for meritorious service on May 8, 1945. There is no citation in his file for the award of the Bronze Star. That means the record is incomplete.

The citation for the Bronze Star was included in the unit history of the bomb group to which Marcel had been assigned in 1945. That proves there was a citation and it should have been included in his file. The citation suggests the award was made on May 3, 1945. In other words, the file is wrong on that point. Yes, it is a minor mistake and could easily be the result of carelessness in transcribing the records. But, isn't that the point here. Debunkers are attacking Marcel because his record does not agree with what he said but that record is incomplete and inaccurate.

In fact, this sort of inaccuracy confounds other aspects of this controversy. Debunkers and skeptics are attributing actions to Marcel for which he is not the blame. The press release made on July 8, 1947 about the capture of the flying saucer is a prime example of this. The debunkers have all suggested that Marcel made the press release under his own authority. Marcel didn't have the authority to make a press release. It could only be authorized by Colonel William Blanchard, the commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group.

But, to make a case against Roswell, they must create the idea that the press release was a blunder made by Marcel. The fact is that it did not affect Marcel's career, and it certainly didn't harm Blanchard. Both men were promoted after the press release was issued. Blanchard climbed to four stars and might have been named Chief of Staff of the Air Force had he not died of a heart attack prematurely.

Marcel is now blamed for an action that could have only come from the commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group. Only Blanchard could order the public relations officer to issue the press release. Had Marcel wanted it done, either he, or the public relations officer, would have had to get approval for it from Colonel Blanchard. Walter Haut, the public relations officer in 1947 has said repeatedly that Colonel Blanchard ordered the press release. So, Marcel didn't create the press release to thrust himself into the public eye as been alleged by Brooksmith and others.

Finally, in a controversy that should be embarrassing to the skeptics and the debunkers, they claim that Marcel said he was a pilot on active duty. That is not what the Pratt transcript or the Pflock version of it said. What Marcel told Pratt was that he had flown AS a pilot, bombardier and waist gunner during his service in the South Pacific. That is quite clear on the transcript and is a real difference.

The real problem might be Marcel's claim of three thousand hours of pilot time and eight thousand total flight hours. That seems to be what he said to Pratt. But searches of FAA records show no pilot's certificate for Marcel, and when he was filling out his forms to join the service, he made no claim of such extensive flight experience prior to entering the Army.

Clearly some of that experience was gained in the Army Air Force. As an intelligence officer in aviation units he would be expected to fly on a number of occasions. In a unit that had strategic bombers as its main equipment, there would certainly be a number of long, high-hour flights. For someone with nine or ten years of active service, it is not unreasonable to expect him to have several thousand hours of flight time as a crewman on those missions.

The real question comes down to his claim of three thousand hours of pilot flight time and no record for it. Marcel, in the Pratt interview claimed that he began flying in 1928, the same year that the FAA was formed. In the beginning the licensing requirements were much looser and more difficult to enforce. It is easy to believe that, in the late 1920s and the 1930s, someone would fly without the benefit of a government license to do so.

Marcel worked for Shell Oil Company as a map maker and he used aerial photographs in his work, according to his military file. Records from that time at Shell Oil are hard to locate and the specific aviation records have long been lost. If they could be found, the records might shed some light on Marcel's claim that he began flying in 1928. It could be that, as part of his cartographer's duties, he was required to fly. It could be that he acted as co-pilot on those flights. If true, it explains quite a bit. This is speculation on my part and the truth is, the records that we do have do not corroborate Marcel’s claims as to pilot time.

When his record is examined there are some conclusions to be drawn. First, Marcel didn't claim to be a rated military pilot. Anyone who reads the transcript carefully realizes that Marcel never said that he was a pilot, only that he had flown as one. It's not the same thing, though it is splitting a fine hair.

Second, to believe that Marcel was a liar, his military record must be accepted as one hundred percent accurate. This is not true. The missing citation for the Bronze Star demonstrates that. If that is missing, what else can be missing?

There is nothing in the Marcel record, at this point, to allow us to brand Marcel as a liar. There are disagreements between what he allegedly said to Pratt, how Pflock interpreted those comments, and what is in the record. There are even discrepancies between what is in Marcel's personal file and other records in which he is mentioned. But none of these discrepancies are of much consequence and can be explained as simple mistakes in Pratt's transcript or the military record or even in Marcel's memory.

The skeptics and the debunkers seem to believe that if they can destroy Marcel's reputation then the whole Roswell case collapses. But they do not report that Marcel was held in high esteem by the officers appointed above him. His officer ratings by Blanchard and those at Eighth Air Force are all excellent. Even the rating in the months that followed the Roswell crash, Marcel was rated as an excellent officer.

The only negative to be found is a suggestion that he tended to over react to some situations. Debunkers have used this to suggest that Marcel invented the Roswell crash because of this overreaction. Of course, they always neglect to report that Marcel was seen as a perfectionist and this caused him to micro-manage some aspects of his job. This is certainly not a major criticism and is of little real consequence in the overall picture.

What is seen, in the end, is a man, Major Jesse A. Marcel, Sr. who was promoted to lieutenant colonel shortly after the Roswell crash, who served his country with distinction and valor, and who was just who he said he was in July 1947. That is, he was the air intelligence officer of the only nuclear strike force in the world at the time.

This was a man whose military record does not reflect what he told a single reporter some thirty years later. The points of the discrepancy are little more than trivia. They simply are not relevant given the nature of the interview, the military record, and Marcel's otherwise exemplary career and character.

Verification of the Alien Crash

The Roswell case does not rise or fall on Marcel because he isn't the only man who told the tales of the alien spacecraft. As noted earlier, others on Blanchard's staff confirmed the alien nature of the craft recovered. So even if what the skeptics report about Marcel was true, it would mean little in the overall scheme of things. It's a shame that the memory of a fine officer and World War II veteran has to be attacked because there are those who can't handle the truth. Jesse Marcel deserved better from everyone.

But in this world, perception is everything and the Air Force understands that as well. Remember, they produced two books about the Roswell case, the first, longer, focused on Project Mogul as the culprit and used interviews conducted with very few people about the Roswell case. Most of the witnesses interviewed were members of the Mogul Project.

What is missing from the Air Force investigation is an interview with Brigadier General Arthur Exon. Here is a retired Air Force officer who was available to the Air Force and who had said some astonishing things about the Roswell crash as noted by Greg Sandow earlier. He did talk of bodies, of debris, and of first-hand observations. When the Air Force was conducting its investigation, Exon was alive and available to speak to them, on the record. Why did they leave out any mention of him or his comments?

There were others they could have interviewed as well. Some of those, such as Bill Brazel, were not in the military during the Roswell case, though Bill had served in the Navy during the Second World War. The Air Force set a precedent by interviewing Charles Moore who, as far as I know, has no military background at all. So, it wasn’t as if they weren’t going to interview civilians.

They couldn’t interview Edwin Easley because he had died before their investigation, but they could have listened to the tapes of the interviews I conducted, they could have seen the notes I made, and finally they could have interviewed his family members about his comments. Granted, the interview notes and the interviews with the family are not as good as listening to the man himself, but they could have done that. I offered them copies of the tapes and notes, but they just weren’t interested.

We could have done the same with the interviews with Bill Rickett who did say he had seen a military cordon in direct opposition of what Sheridan Cavitt said to their investigator Colonel Richard Weaver. They could have had both audio and video tapes of those interviews with Bill Rickett and while certainly not as good as interviewing the man himself, certainly more instructive than ignoring his testimony altogether.

The same could have been done with Brigadier General Thomas DuBose, who, as a colonel, was Ramey’s Chief of Staff. Video-taped interviews of the man existed and what he says on the tape flies in the face of some of the things the Air Force issued in their report.

There is some controversy surrounding what DuBose has said, but that conflict is simply resolved. Use only those portions that were recorded and ignore those that have no unfiltered notes. That means, simply, ignore the statements of those who cannot produce a taped back up. I can say this because I have the taped back-ups and those others do not.

I know why the Air Force ignored all that testimony. No matter what we’ve seen in the past, how various writers and investigators have handled the statements made by Exon, DuBose, Easley, Marcel, and the others, the Air Force didn’t want to be put in a position of calling retired officers liars. What if Exon took offense at being labeled a liar and decided to sue? The consequences would be ugly, no matter what was learned or what the truth was.

Or, what if the Air Force believed that none of the living officers would respond to the allegation so there was nothing to fear in the way of a lawsuit? The problem would remain that either high-ranking officers were fairly incompetent, or were, in fact liars. That certainly wouldn’t make the Air Force look very good no matter which way the public opinion broke.

They took the only course available to them and that was to ignore the testimony of these men. Let the UFO researchers and the debunkers fight it out, let one side smear the names and reputations of the other, and ignore the problem.

The only trouble with that course was that it makes the Air Force investigation look incomplete. Why not interview these men or listen to the tapes of what they had to say? Listen for the nuances of their statements, look for the leading nature of the questions, point out any inaccuracies if they could be found, but don’t ignore a body of important evidence because you probably won’t like the outcome.

As we have seen, it’s easy to smear someone, turn a word or a phase around and suggest the person isn’t honest. We’ve all seen the negative campaign ads that take a statement or vote out of context to suggest the opposition is something less than human. In fact, in Iowa, during a nasty turn in a campaign ad one candidate suggested the other might be a communist because a communist group had endorsed one of his ideas. In today’s world, who really cares? But more importantly, the candidate was obviously not a communist and his support of raising the minimum wage induced the communist endorsement. Suggesting the candidate was a communist was not based on fact but on allegation. It was a twisted point of view told to win votes and the accuracy of the statement, or how the endorsement had been made was not important.

Today, we must look beyond that and decide if these men, whose words have been twisted by the reporters and investigators, were honest in what they said. The simple answer is, “Yes.” The complex answer is “Yes, but they could be mistaken.”