The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, February 02, 2010



Skeptics who say that the Roswell UFO crash was never discussed before 1980 with the publication of the seminal book "The Roswell Incident" are wrong. In fact, the 1947 UFO event in New Mexico was brought up in many ways -and at many times- throughout the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's.

These naysayers maintain that witnesses only came forward when the Roswell story became "popularized" by the numerous books, movies, TV shows, documentaries and articles done in the 1980s and 1990s- many years after the crash event itself. They would like us to believe that after the original press release and newspaper articles in July of 1947 on the crash had appeared that nothing more was ever said until much later. The implication made by these disbelievers and cynics is that Roswell was a virtual "non-event" until the release of the first book on Roswell in 1980 and the subsequent publicity in following decades. But an examination of the literature -and confirmation of stories told privately- reveal that the alien episode was known and discussed well before all of the "hoopla."




Dr. Wilhelm Reich was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who worked closely with Sigmund Freud. Known for his development of radical theories that related to a "life energy" that he referred to as "orgone energy," Reich was also very interested in the subject of extraterrestrial life and UFOs. Reich died in 1957, but his last book, published in the last year of his life, refers to Roswell and UFOs.

In 1957's "Contact With Space" Reich recounts a 1955 trip to Tucson, AZ to conduct "weather and energy experimentation" using a device that he designed and called a "cloudbuster" along with other devices made to attract UFOs. On his way to Tucson, he relates that he "felt compelled" to stop at a small town called Roswell, NM. Reich decided to make "field observations" there at Roswell. In the 1957 book, Reich makes specific (albeit brief) mention of what he called the Roswell area's "strange imbalance" of what he believed were "UFO energies" related to forces he called "DOR/OR."

Reich was known to conduct such unusual experimentation in geographic areas that he felt held special meaning and that were relevant to his UFO study. Though Reich was controversial -and his mention of Roswell oblique, without speaking to the actual crash there- others were far more direct:




Noted Ufologist and author Kevin Randle relates an intriguing story about a pre-1980 mention of Roswell. Randle explains that he did not understand the significance of the story until much later, as at that time, he never had even heard of the Roswell UFO crash.

In 1976 he and researcher Robert Cornett were researching trace landing cases in the Midwest. They both had an opportunity to interview a former Air Force sergeant who told them that he was tasked to "stage a solution" to a UFO sighting. The sergeant had explained to the investigators that he had trucked the debris of a weather balloon into a town, and, according to Randle, "told all who would listen that this is what they had seen, or what their neighbors had seen. The wreckage contained the silvery elements of the rawin radar reflectors, the neoprene balloon envelope, and the balsa sticks that had formed the frame of the reflector." Randle asked him "how often have you done this?" The sergeant replied, "Only once." When Randle asked him where this had taken place, the sergeant replied, "at Roswell, NM." This remarkable story was told in 1976, years before the publication of the first book on the Roswell crash.



In 1973, author Peter Gutilla was a correspondent with the the now-defunct publication "Saga." Saga was a long-running mens adventure magazine which competed with magazine with titles such as "Argosy" and "True." Gutilla relates that he had a conversation with a Park Ranger that he identified as "G. Sleppy." The Park Ranger was giving Gutilla an account of a UFO sighting that he had experienced in the woods while on duty sometime prior. He then mentioned to Gutilla that his mother Lydia had a far more interesting and unusual UFO story that she had been telling for a very long time.

The now-famous Lydia Sleppy story (published only in part, and without using her name) appeared on page 60 of the Winter 1974 issue of Saga magazine in a special "UFO Report" edition. It read:

"In New Mexico a woman with a responsible position received a call from a station manager. He had been checking out reports of a UFO which had crashed in a field and was trying to track down the rumor that pieces of the object were supposedly stored in a local barn. In his excited call to the newsroom, the station manager verified the UFO crash report, and also claimed to have seen metallic pieces of the UFO being carried away to a waiting Air Force plane destined to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. As the woman was typing the fantastic news item over the teletype to their other two stations, a line appeared in the middle of her text, tapped in from somewhere, with the official order, 'Do not continue this transmission!' "

Today the story of Lydia Sleppy is well known to Roswell followers. She since expanded on this story in the book "The Roswell Incident" and to other researchers, and agreed to allow her name to be divulged. But with my re-discovery of this early "Saga" article we learn that she first told her Roswell story publicly in 1973 and -according to her son- for many years before to her close friends and family.





Richard Glaze was a Professor of Agriculture at New Mexico State University (NMSU) and honored by the Las Cruces-based University with a Distinguished Service Award in recognition for his long service over and above normal routine duties. He was also known for his contributions to the University in Experimental Statistics and Quantitative Anaysis. In addition to his scholarly achievements, Glaze was an avid amateur archaelogist and arrowhead hunter. He relates that in 1960 he took his family to the Proctor ranch near Roswell on the recommendation of one of his students. It was suggested that the ranch was a particular appropriate spot to find such Native American arrowheads.

He maintained that during the summer of 1960 he introduced himself to Loretta Proctor (still alive today at 96) and sought permission from her to search for arrowheads on her property. Loretta Proctor was a close friend of rancher Mac Brazel, who was custodian of the Foster Ranch and who had reported the crash to the Roswell Sheriff George Wilcox and to the RAAF base. Loretta's son Dee was with Mac when the discovery was made. Loretta was herself shown a piece of the strange debris by Brazel. Her story is well-known to those who follow the Roswell crash story.

Glaze stated that Loretta granted him permission to explore her property, but also told him what he thought to be a "wild story" at the time. Loretta told Glaze, "If you find anything unusual, let me know." Loretta then related to Professor Glaze that about a dozen years prior a "crashed UFO" from another world had fallen to Earth on a nearby ranch- the Foster Ranch. Glaze stated that Loretta "talked a lot" about this event but that he did not hold much credence to it until he was reminded of his encounter with her after he read the book "The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell" many years later. Glaze then remembered the long conversation that he had decades earlier with the ranch woman- and that what was told in the book was the precise story she had told him so many years prior.

So here we have an example of a Roswell witness, Loretta Proctor, telling her story privately as early as 1960- and well before her public confession on the subject over three decades later in an affidavit signed in 1991!

OTHER MENTIONS OF ROSWELL - 1950's and 1960's


Now deceased UFO author Frank Edwards may have been one of the very first researchers to relate details on the UFO crash at Roswell. Though incomplete on the details, he spoke of the crash at a New York City meeting of the early UFO research group Civilian Saucer Intelligence. On April 28, 1956, Edwards told the assembled group that "at Roswell a farmer reported that he saw something strike a mountainside and crash."

Though sparse on information in his 1956 lecture, Edwards later expanded on the story. In his 1966 "Flying Saucers: Serious Business" book on page 76 he writes: "There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altititude and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of his house. We were not told, however, why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage."

A review of the literature reveals other (brief) mentions of the Roswell crash event:

1) "Flying Saucers on the Attack" (Harold Wilkins, 1954)
2) "Flying Saucer Review" (Volume 1, No. 1, Spring, 1955)
3) "The Flying Saucer Story" (Brinsley LePour Trench, 1966)


Of course it is impossible for many of us today in 2010 to relate to or identify with just what it was like to live during the 1940s in impoverished rural New Mexico. Most did not have telephones, there was no TV and much of that part of the country did not have even have electrification. As rancher Loretta Proctor said to me, "In those days, travel was a 'big deal' and you watched the amount of gas you used and even how much wear you put on your tires." To say that those at Roswell at that time were in many ways isolated would be a very true statement.

The UFO crash at Roswell could not have happened at a better place or time to ensure secrecy- and little talk of the event by the involved to the outside world. But to be sure, there was talk amongst themselves about the incident. I have several other accounts of this in my research records.

Though many of the involved had left Roswell in the intervening years, over time the "secret of Roswell" was no longer secret. It must have been a relief when, beginning in the 1980s, researchers began re-examing the event and started to ask the involved what had happened. As more and more came forward, those people were likely more inclined to tell what they knew. You would tell what you knew when you realized that others were doing the same. Because others were now saying what you knew to be true, you would feel that people would not think of you as "crazy." A "strength in numbers" dynamic had come into play.



Captain Oliver "Pappy" Henderson makes this very point very well in a confession to his family. Henderson was stationed at RAAF in 1947. In 1981, he indicated to his wife Sappho and to his daughters -after reading a newspaper article on the crash event: "I want you to read this article because it is a true story. I am the pilot who flew the wreckage of the UFO to Dayton. I guess now that they're putting it in the papers I can tell you about this. I wanted to tell you for years." Publicity about the event -and the knowledge that others were talking- was Pappy's motivator to tell all.


Indeed, the "hoopla" about Roswell in later years had finally freed those who knew the truth to speak the truth: extraterrestrials had fallen to the desert floor, forever changing the lives of the involved. It was a memory never forgotten- and a memory now to be shared with the world.


  • Great article! It's still pretty amazing to me that the story kept such a low profile for so many years. It seems that Edwards was the only one writing Roswell up and even then there doesn't seem to mention the Army actually publicly announcing they found a "flying disc."

    I don't know what Roswell was, but I know it wasn't just a bunch of nonsense.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Tuesday, February 02, 2010  

  • This is a very well done piece, Tony.

    I think these early mentions of Roswell never really entered the public consciousness but it is still nice to see them collected like this.

    A small quibble is that you say there are "many" such instances, more accurate would be to simply say, "a few".

    Why you mention Pappy Henderson in this piece is mystifying. I think almost every researcher now agrees that his story was hogwash.

    Oh well. I still enjoyed the piece.

    Lance Moody

    By OpenID Lance Moody, at Tuesday, February 02, 2010  

  • Although I was searching for a news item I had in my files, from a British news source, this is roughly the same info.

    It is from 1955.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Wednesday, February 03, 2010  

  • Yes, some reasonable points.

    Frank Edwards' story is a bit of a hotch-potch; I wonder where he got it from. Kevin Randle's story (with Robert Cornett) has no date of the said event, only the town. No reason to connect it with the Roswell crash, none at all. See "Case MJ-12" by Kevin Randle, p.50-51. Kevin naturally makes this connection, but....?

    As for Richard Glaze, I wonder: is Glaze recalling Loretta's exact words as told to him in 1960, or has he jazzed them up a bit when retelling the account of his meeting with her. We don't know the date he first wrote about it, do we?
    (Several decades later I assume).

    The Lydia Sleppy story was first written up by Stan Friedman & Ann Slate in 1974, as Tony says, but at the time they also had no date and it was only connected up with Roswell several years later. Notice how the contents of that teletype interrupt has 'improved' with the telling. No mention of the FBI in the original story, no mention of any national security either.

    There were certainly early mentions of Roswell (pre-1980), but none had any impact on the public or on ufology at all. They were just brief references, nothing else.

    I agree that Pappy Henderson's tale is irrelevant and probably phoney. His story dates from, we assume, 1981, and so is outside the pre-1980 timescale.

    Loretta Proctor's bit about use of gas and wear & tear on tires is an oddity. So what? There is just as much concern about gas and tires today, 63 years later.

    Tony's piece is still a useful addition to Roswell research.

    To Bob Koford:
    If the Dorothy Kilgallen reference is the one I think it is, the person she is alleged to have spoken to in the UK was Lord Mountbatten. However, neither he nor his secretary have ever confirmed this, and Kilgallen never answered later queries about it. A likely 'cocktail party' tale.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, February 03, 2010  

  • Good post! I have often agreed that these were "missing" decades when it came to Roswell and that an event of this magnitude would have had to crop up from time to time. This is often the case with such anomalies. We often think of the time when they explode onto the scene and into public consciousness as being the point of origin when, as is often pointed out, the story has always been there. It's just been ignored.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Wednesday, February 03, 2010  

  • Well, here is an interesting counter-point. The late Coral Lorenzen wrote in her 1962 book “The Great Flying Saucer Hoax” about the UFO events of 1947 in the South-West: “During this period discs were the favourite topic of conversation, especially in those areas where they had been sighted, and many who had seen unconventional objects in the past came forward to relate details of their observations” (p. 20). And then she goes on to underline a number of sightings occurring in the region, including the 1947 sightings from personnel at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, which is about 120 miles west of Roswell, on the other side of the Sierra Blanca (pp. 20-21). Could it be that Roswell was just one of “many other flying saucer reports during 1947 [where] the objects were flying along mountain ranges” (p. 21). For people who lived in the region at the time, and who were interested in UFOs, the Roswell story was just one among many, and obviously not a very interesting one.

    I think the Roswell story really stuck in the late 1970s because it was not long after the Watergate scandal, when even ordinary people started to have serious doubt about their government. The fact that there were a handful of mentions of Roswell in various books and magazines simply show that it was not an interesting story before, otherwise someone would have picked it up. Hence, the real question is what makes the Roswell story important? The fact that there was only 7 witnesses, of which 5 found nothing special about it as Karl Pflock found out, or is it because it came at the right time? I think people’s attitude in the late 1940s and 1950s about Roswell was the right one: no big deal.

    By Blogger Eric Ouellet, at Wednesday, February 03, 2010  

  • I was born in 1941 and by the time I was in the sixth grade, I was very aware of Roswell and that was well before the 1980 date. I think people spoke about it less back then because there was not the easy access to TV stories and new.

    By Blogger Wargerri, at Thursday, February 04, 2010  

  • Roswell is never - EVER - go'n'o go away for one simple reason: it's the only time in history the world's greatest military superpower not only publicly admitted flying saucers were REAL but declared it'd actually captured one.

    That fact alone makes it absolutely unique.

    The would-be debunkers try to portray it as a minor story about a tinfoil coated balloon being briefly misidentified, only to be sensationally reinvented decades later by various societal misfits, mental cases, and people on the make.

    Yet, at the time, this MINOR story was transmitted right across a breathless world; and given how the US'd already only just openly used two a-bomb on one of their enemies, then who knows what the highly paranoid Russians and Chinese might've made of the story's subsequent retraction, or how it influenced their technical development priorities, (such as the Russian efforts to get into Space), during the Cold War?


    By Blogger borky, at Thursday, February 04, 2010  

  • To Alan Borky:
    Do you really think a premature press release by one PR officer (who had not even seen the object) at one USAF base constitutes an official admission by the USAF they they had captured a UFO? It was followed within about 4 hours by a denial by another person (a General, who had seen the object) that any such object had been captured. Both statements were "transmitted right across a breathless world". Breathless for what? News of visiting ETs maybe?

    Oh yes, Roswell never go away now. Certain ufologists will see to that.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, February 05, 2010  

  • I am sending along these comments on this story. I originally posted this at Frank Warren's site, where he posted the same story. I sort of wish the comments were all collected together...

    I liked this article as a collection of these pre-Friedman mentions of Roswell. I don't think it means anything in relation to the actual case. It's just interesting.

    Roswell as a UFO case burned so quickly and so brightly that, by the time the main witnesses were exposed and a reasonable explanation came to light, it was too late: Roswell was a major fable in the mythology.

    As an example of how facts mean nothing now in relation to Roswell, I just listened to a 2 hour interview with a Roswell "researcher" and writer who still believes the execrable stories of Glen Dennis and, even worse, Frank Kaufmann! The "researcher" believed Kaufmann because, "I am a good judge of character."

    It would all be funny except the hosts, even though they were obviously aware that Kaufmann was a transparent fraud, gave their guest a pass and went on to talk about other silly UFO ideas (for instance, he was sure we would have warp drives in the lifetimes of his children! Good luck with that.).

    And this is regarded generally as one of more rational shows related to UFO's!

    If, as a hardcore skeptic, I made a single mistake in an interview on the same show, you can bet they would have ripped me to shreds for it.

    Such is the state of the UFO religion.

    Boy, I got off on a tangent. That has never happened before! :)

    Getting back to Tony's piece, I think Tony is superb at finding interesting facts related to UFO history and I love hearing about all of his finds. It is when he tries to draw conclusions about the meaning of his research, that he seems to spectacularly go off the rails--vastly over-promising, making assumptions that are not rational, and generally ruining whatever good will his original research deserves.

    But that is just me.


    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, February 05, 2010  

  • cda... I don't even know where to start. I'd say you're just a devout cynic, too bullheaded to open yourself even to the suggestion that your preconceived notion might be mistaken- but then I'd have to ask why you bother to post your naysayings after EVERY article? If you don't want to open yourself up to some possibilities, why not stick to MSN? Especially when you never offer the slightest evidence as to why your supposed refutations should be considered valid. You present nothing except cynical opinions and your own logical fallacies- you're entitled to both, but that doesn't make either of them matter. I'd suggest that you're nothing more than a clumsy disinformation agent without a head for actual debate, or any sense of subtlety- but then I doubt one such as yourself would be employed for long as a disinformation agent.

    Make no mistake. I'm a fan of skepticism. I believe in the scientific method and evidence and in quantifiable, replicable results. But there's a big difference between healthy skepticism and the irrational cynicism that you seem to practice. I'm not saying that these articles are true, or even that I believe in this stuff. But the fact is that whereas the author has at least made an effort to research events, and to correspond with actual people involved, first- or secondhand, you simply try to poo-poo the whole post. "Well, that story was probably embellished," or "I think everyone would agree that scenario is ludicrous." Those may be arguments... but they're not very good ones.

    I think you'll find, after a time, that your brain has more uses than simply preventing your head from floating off your neck. Use it, buddy. You've got one, use it.

    By Blogger Quixote, at Tuesday, February 09, 2010  

  • God! The first thing a silly believer ALWAYS says is that they are skeptical by nature.

    Sure Christopher is a "disinformation" agent.

    Is that what you call anyone who disagrees with you?

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, February 09, 2010  

  • Quixote:
    You start by wondering where to start. If you were indeed wondering where to start, then why did you start?

    At the end you say I have a brain. Wrong, it is a double one. That is why I am employed as a disinformation agent.

    Thanks for printing the two quotes from me, neither of which I wrote at all.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, February 10, 2010  

  • Lance and CDA-

    You both are not careful readers! It makes me think that you are not that very attentive to details, and this is another major problem with both of you!

    Quixote says that he would "suggest" that CDA was a disinformation agent but then goes on to say facetiously "but then I doubt one such as yourself would be employed for long" as one due to your "clumsiness."

    Not only are you not a careful reader, are also humorless.


    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 10, 2010  

  • To AB:
    Me humorless?
    I had a big laugh over the tale about Roswell running out of ice, that someone wrote about recently. Until I finally realised that the AF wanted the ice to build a skating rink at the base.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, February 11, 2010  

  • Greetings and sorry for my english.

    Edwards 1966 quote have been a little cuted ^^

    It is, as a friend provided me and if we are correct :

    "There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altitiide and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of the house. The Sheriff called the military; the military came on the double quick. Newsmen were not permitted in the area. A week later, however, the government released a photograph of a service man holding up a box kite with an aluminum disc about the size of a large pie pan dangling from the bottom of the kite. This, the official report explained, was a device borne aloft on the kite and used to test radar gear by bouncing the signals off the pie pan. And this, we were told, was the sort of thing that had so excited the rancher. We were NOT told, however, how the alleged kite caught fire—nor why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage of a burned-out box kite with a non-inflammable pie pan tied to it."

    Out the fact Brazel didn't have the phone in his ranch, the total quote seems to demonstrate no one witness was really approached cause, without offense, it is totaly hilarious, invention or fantasy from what existed in the newpapers.

    I mean that this "version" is like to invent things from factual infos available in 1947 newpapers.

    So, I doubt this version cames from witnesses approached in 1966 or before.

    The real skeptic point is the strange amnesia pre 1978 of the witnesses, and Edwards 1966 seems to not give a counter-atgument on that.

    The first mention was in your 1954 reference (TY for the same friend to give me the quote) :

    "Close to the place where the fist atomic bomb was tested, a rancher in Roswell, New Mexico, was said, in July 1947, to have found a flying saucer. It landed in his ranch, and was inspected by officers of the 509th atomic bomb group of the 8th U.S. Air Force, who sent it to a ‘higher quarter.’ This reported find followed a report from D. C. J. Zohn, guided missile expert of the U.S. Naval Laboratory, that he and two other scientists had sighted a flying saucer near White Sands, a proving ground to which public access is prohibited, in New Mexico. Down came U.S. Army authorities who declared this was merely a weather balloon; despite the plain statement of Mr. Ivan B. Tannehill, weather bureau chief forecaster, that it was unlikely that this mysterious object speeding through the skies at a speed above the rate of transmission of sound waves, could have been a weather balloon. He pointed out that weather balloons have been in use for many years."

    Same, in my knowledge, those witnesses aren't not really "famous" or allegued by the post-1978 "investigation". Never seen or read those witnesses before. Dunno where Harold Wilkins found those "informations".

    LYDIA'S TELETYPE - 1973 didn't mention Roswell. A posteriori Roswell "followers" find a link.

    WILHELM REICH – 1955 : yep, totaly oblique and it is a little ad hoc to find a link with Roswell "crash", it isn't ?

    Richard Glaze : He remembered. When ? Post-1978 I suppose.

    Randle - 1976 : If it exists a document we can dated, it could be interesting IMHO. I understand that K.Randle "relates". When ?

    Out the fact it is as always a very interresting work Tony Bagralia did,

    I think and without offense (I'm not a fan of hypercriticism just to critic), the strange "post-event amnesia of the witnesses" 3 decades, for an event of this magnitude, receives again no one explanation (excepting the ad hoc ones like complot, harassing, military pression etc).

    Best Regard and one more time, sorry for my english.

    PS : I have not seen or read a news Mister Bragalia wanted to produce concerning the "archeologists". My mistake maybe. I wait it with great interrest.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, February 11, 2010  

  • PS : I forgotted Richard Glaze.

    Glaze remembered Loretta Proctor, telling her story privately... Good, but that's a testimony produced.

    Same, the "real" question is when he produced something on this conversation he remembers (by a document we can date and pre-1978 ?).

    I bad spelled Mister Bragalia before, accept my appologies please :(.

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, February 11, 2010  

  • To Gilles F.
    You have more or less echoed what I wrote. Many thanks, and I understand your English enough (I think!). But a guy called Quixote disapproved of my remarks, so presumably he will disapprove of yours. Bad luck!

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, February 11, 2010  

  • Hihi,

    To read you CDA, like Lance Moody, here or in Randle's blog is always a pleasure. A chance to have a discussion.

    Skeptics are rare, and a good thing they have a "rigth to response" or comment in US blog's.

    TY for your blogs then..

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, February 11, 2010  

  • There was a syndicated television show in the mid-50's called 'Science Fiction Theater.'

    In the late 1970's, WOR Channel 9 in New York ran re-runs of the series. I distinctly remember one episode (in color, yet) featured a story of a "flying saucer crash" in the New Mexican desert. While Roswell wasn't mentioned specifically, the parallels are obvious.

    At the time I thought it was far-fetched even for a fictional story. A lot has change since then.

    One strange footnote: years later, when the series ran again on cable (appropriately, the Sci-Fi Network) this particular episode was skipped for some reason.

    By Blogger will27, at Sunday, March 07, 2010  

  • As a kid growing up in the 1950's I remember the talk about the UFO crash in Roswell.
    I really don't know what to believe since it has been re-written and analyzed so much but I have wondered why photos haven't shown up? Usually when something unusual happens there are hundreds or thousands of pictures snapped so it seems like some of these would have leaked out.
    One thing that does bug me is forums that has disbelievers like CDA and Lance (maybe the same person? LOL). If they don't believe it at all, why not find another sand box to play in? I have never understood why someone would hang out on a site just to comment on how foolish everyone is... why are you here?
    Myself, I don't know what to believe but I will continue to watch and read hoping beyond a doubt that there is truth to it. I also do believe the AAF did try to cover up SOMETHING there, be it a super secret human built craft or one from ET's.
    Thanks to those who are trying and to those just trying to cause trouble please go away, or hang out together someplace else for what I read nobody really cares what you two think.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 07, 2010  

  • This tid-bit to add to your discussion is one that really has me scratching my head.

    My father was in the Army Air Corp and stationed at Roswell at the exact time of this reported incident.

    His position: Working the PBX switchboard on the air base. Shouldn't this mean that his switchboard would undoubtedly be overrun with calls during this week of spectacular claims and revisions?

    I have repeatedly questioned him about what he heard and saw during this time period. He has not the slightest recollection of ever hearing one thing about this! Impossible! I say to him. He smiles and says he was probably on leave, in town chasing women. Hmmm..that sure doesn't jive - chasing women in an area of New Mexico that was barren and isolated???

    The ambiguity of this phenomenal crash story and the guy sitting on the base switchboard not hearing a thing about it just astounds me!

    I might add that my father is a true-to-course, straight shooter, non-drinking, non-drug using, level headed and honest man....

    What's going on here?

    By Blogger Scrabblogger, at Sunday, August 24, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home