Friday, July 01, 2005
Is Timing Everything---As Related to the Roswell Incident?
One thing that does seem consistent, at least to me, is the fact that on several occasions in the recent past, coming out with “new” information has been timed to coincide with the anniversary date of the Incident. By coincidence or for publicity, promotion of books, or reports about the Roswell Incident is probably good salesmanship, because every year for the past several years the Roswell Incident has garnered media attention during the anniversary period around July 4th. This year will probably be no different, with several thousand people that are interested or maybe just curious converging on the town of Roswell to try and find the truth. It’s my thinking however that the truth will not be revealed during this year’s anniversary here in Roswell, but as on several occasions in the past, new information is being distributed, this time in the form of a new book by UFO Researcher Nick Redfern entitled, “Body Snatchers in the Desert; The Horrible Truth at the Heart of the Roswell Story”, which I’ll discuss later.
One of the problems I’ve experienced with these “final answers” to the Roswell Incident books is their lack of references or factual information to support their claims. Three other examples of well-timed documents are the 1995 United States Air Force Report, “The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert” and the 1997 report, “Case Closed”, and Lt. Col. Phil Corso’s book “The Day After Roswell”. “Case Closed” and Corso’s book were released (escaped) in 1997, pretty much in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the Roswell Incident.
I am well familiar with the need for confidentiality when it comes to this research. I learned many years ago from Stanton Friedman that there are situations where the only way to obtain information, is to guarantee the persons confidentiality. Such was the case for me, several years ago when researcher Wendy Connors and I interviewed a key Roswell witness for three and a half hours on video tape, and have since copyrighted the information for posterity. We will eventually go public with the information, at a time that is appropriate for Ms. Connors and I, and do not plan on using unnamed witnesses or vague information. What we will present is what was recorded on videotape.
I also believe that when the United States Air Force or an individual goes public in book or report form, it is essential that all information be made public in order that it might be confirmed or denied and some form of finality can be addressed about the information presented.
The memorandum that Colonel Richard Weaver wrote to the Secretary of the Air Force pertaining to New Mexico Congressman Steven Shiff’s request for an investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) about the Roswell Incident was dated July 27, 1994. That July date was possibly a coincidence date-wise, since the actual report was dated in 1995.
I have tried for several years through Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain detailed information about some of the comments Col. Weaver made in the 1995 report about the “Ramey photos” to no avail. I simply want to obtain copies of the reports done by a national laboratory, according to Weaver, on those photographs for the Air Force report. If the photos were analyzed as Weaver states, make the information available.
On June 24 1997 when the United States Air Force revealed their “The Roswell Report: Case Closed”, it was made public 10 days prior to the 50th anniversary of the Roswell Incident. The timing for the release of that report was absolutely astonishing, since Roswell was receiving worldwide exposure for the 50th anniversary. I don’t need to go into any detail about the absurd remarks made in that report about crash test dummies, which were not used until 6 years after the Roswell Incident.
So in both the 1995 and 1997 Air Force reports, we have information that cannot be confirmed after several years of trying by myself and other researchers, and out right lies about anthropomorphic test dummies that weren’t used until 6 years after the Roswell Incident. In the case of the 1997 report, the timing by the Air Force was great regardless of whether any of the information in the report was accurate or not. It was intended to take attention away from the 50th anniversary, but in my opinion failed miserably. I talked to several active duty Air Force serviceman when the report was published, and most were embarrassed by the Air Force’s attempt to cover up the Incident with such ridiculous comments. It’s my sincere opinion that “Case Closed” by the Air Force wasn’t closed, and we should well expect another report from the Air Force at some point in the future.
Lt. Col. Corso’s book “The Day After Roswell”, quickly became a best seller, and was one of those “can’t put it down books”; until I reached the end of the book and found that there were absolutely no references to his many claims in the book.
I had met and talked with Corso on several occasions prior to his death, and found him to be extremely cordial and fairly impressive about his thoughts, however later when in-depth research was done about him, it was discovered that not all of what he said he was involved with was true. This was just another situation where we were led to believe that this was the final word on the Roswell Incident when in fact it wasn’t, but the timing was there to release it in July 1997.
That brings us up to date, and as in the past, 2005 will be another year when the definitive explanation for the Roswell Incident is finally made public (or is it?) According to some reviews I’ve read about Nick Redfern’s new book, it also has several unnamed witnesses, and several well-known researchers are questioning some of the claims he’s making about the Roswell Incident involving a balloon attached to a Horten Brothers flying wing, containing Japanese individuals being used for experiments on the effects of radiation.
The unnamed witnesses, (whistleblowers) being referred to currently, and in the past could easily resolve the questions about the Roswell Incident if only a few would come forward and be allowed to be proven truthful or not. As long as witnesses remain unnamed, we have only to rely on the authors of the books we read for their validity, and that requires skepticism on those of us searching for the truth, but we will do that as part of our obligation to reach a final chapter on the 1947 Roswell Incident.