The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Monday, January 17, 2011

The "Official" AF Roswell Report

For those who haven't read the official Air Force account of the Roswell incident, we provide a copy.

(This is for newbies, as old-timers have certainly read and, as Don/Sourcerer says, parsed the document we assume.)

Clip here for a PDF.

13 Comments:

  • Thanks for publishing the AF 1994 report.

    The nitpickers can find small holes in this report - it is not perfect.

    You seem to have lost the CONCLUSION page. I quote a relevant sentence from it (p.21):

    "Likewise there was no indication in official records from the period that there was heightened military operational or security activity which should have been generated if this was, in fact, the first recovery of materials and/or persons from another world. The post-war US Military (or today's [1994] for that matter) did not have the capability to rapidly identify, recover, coordinate, cover up, and quickly minimize public scrutiny of such an event. The claim that they did so without leaving even a little bit of suspicious paper trail for 47 years is incredible".

    That more or less sums up my attitude. If the ET proponents want to challenge this, that is their right. But they ought, by now, to have produced something from the "little bit of suspicious paper trail". They have not. I predict they never will.

    David Rudiak, Kevin Randle, Stan Friedman and many others, have the stock response. The report is all a big whitewash. Colonel Richard Weaver was a disinformation agent (ex-CIA?). Therefore he is merely spreading lies and more lies.

    Larry:

    Here you have the perfect example of a real 'ad hominem' attack. Someone is ex-CIA (or whatever). Therefore whenever he writes anything official, it must be a cover-up.

    Sure.

    Enough said.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Yah, Christopher...

    I was surprised that the document was truncated.

    I don't know why, and I don't remember where we got the thing from.

    But someone might have the whole document, which handles the Roswell event judiciously, and sensibly to my way of thinking.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Both FULL reports can be found at:

    http://contrails.iit.edu/history/roswell/

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Thanks, Tim...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "The post-war US Military (or today's [1994] for that matter) did not have the capability to rapidly identify, recover, coordinate, cover up, and quickly minimize public scrutiny of such an event. The claim that they did so without leaving even a little bit of suspicious paper trail for 47 years is incredible".

    That more or less sums up my attitude."

    What "public scrutiny"?

    Do you have some evidence for your opinion about their capabilities? There were military crashes in the area during the 1940s, for example. The collision of two bombers near Rudioso (17 reported dead), as well as the P-80 crash in Carrizozo (4 reported dead civilians, the pilot, and destruction of civilian property) less that two weeks after Roswell.

    The army, sheriffs, and civilians capabilities are there to analyse in the locale and in the timeframe.

    What is the source of your beliefs about their "capabilities"?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Don:

    Look at Anthony Bragalia's latest and see. Think how many people from all manner of scientific disciplines/skills would need to be involved in keeping this great knowledge secret for 47 years (63 now).

    Do you seriously think this bears any comparison to the recovery of an aircraft and its personnel?

    I am saying that I agree with Weaver's sentiments, that's all. However, if you believe he is merely spreading disinformation, I decline to discuss it further.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • "Look at Anthony Bragalia's latest and see. Think how many people from all manner of scientific disciplines/skills would need to be involved in keeping this great knowledge secret for 47 years (63 now).

    Do you seriously think this bears any comparison to the recovery of an aircraft and its personnel?"

    Oh. You guys are talking about the Roswell Myth, again. And here I am writing about the real Roswell. I keep making that mistake. Sorry. This is getting embarassing.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • Don:

    You really have to take a look at Hamlet's Mill or some other tome about history and myth, the intertwining of the two.

    It's like separating the peanut from the shell.

    The peanut is the shell and meat, but one really just wants the meat, right?

    The Roswell myth -- I prefer mythos -- needs to be separated from the actual incident or event.

    And I believe, as do you I think, that the Haut release is key to pulling the Roswell meat away from the (mythical) shell that encrusts it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • Despite the potential incoherence that obviously occurs when mixing myth and history, I'll continue.

    "Do you seriously think this bears any comparison to the recovery of an aircraft and its personnel?"

    Yep -- well, except for the notifying next of kin part. Maybe that's why there hasn't been any "disclosure". How do you notify ET's next of kin?

    Weaver is telling us that the US military, neither in 1947 nor in 1994, had the capability to drive a couple of Studebaker 6xs from the RAAF 85 miles to the Foster Ranch, load them up with {fill in the blank} and drive 35 miles to the railroad ('railway' for speakers of British English) and load it all onto railcars.

    ps

    Here's my favorite sentence from the Report:

    "Concerning the initial announcement, ”RAAF Captures Flying Disc,” research
    failed to locate any documented evidence as to why that statement was made."

    I guess a million newspapers aren't "documented evidence".

    Then there is its contribution to Name That Haut. To Warren Haught, Warren Haupt, Walter Haught (and one actual 1947 Walter Haut), we can add the Report's William Haut.

    I guess we can thank Stanton Friedman for getting it right for the rest of us.

    Regards,

    Don,

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • Don:

    Weaver is saying a lot more than you indicate. The actual recovery of the 'disc' and whatever occupants there were constituted perhaps less than one per cent of the total effort required. The other 99 per cent was all the subsequent analysis of the debris and bodies by scientific labs, universities, et al. And the documentation of it all.

    So I repeat: do you really think the recovery of a crashed aircraft and humans has ANY comparison with the recovery of an ET craft and its occupants (something totally new to science)?

    The former needs a few AF personnel to deal with. The latter might need several hundred or a thousand scientific specialists over, maybe, a long period of time. It is like discovering intelligent life on another planet.

    Newspaper headlines mean little now and meant little in '47. It is the underlying text that matters, and even that is not always reliable.

    As for Stanton Friedman, it is he, more than anyone, who has filled this case with his dotty 'Cosmic Watergate' ideas and conspiracy theories. Without him in 1978-79 we would have been spared all the resulting Roswell mania that still grips us. Far from "getting it right" he has got it woefully wrong.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • CDA "Far from "getting it right" he has got it woefully wrong."

    I was referring to getting Haut's name right for us. You may not be aware of this but the newspapers referred to a "Lieut. Warren Haught" throughout the news cylce. So, it was amusing that the USAF Report referred to him as "William". Even Bloecher had "Walter Haught", in 1967).

    "Weaver is saying a lot more than you indicate."

    CDA: "...the subsequent analysis of the debris and bodies by scientific labs, universities, et al. And the documentation of it all."

    He wrote nothing of the sort.

    He wrote: "The post-war US Military (or today's [1994] for that matter) did not have the capability to rapidly identify, recover, coordinate, cover up, and quickly minimize public scrutiny of such an event."

    They were very capable of, for example, minimizing "public scrutiny". The story was dead within hours, although the corpse still kicked since many newspapers could only publish the following morning and by that time Ramey and Newton were the story. But, there would have been no need to "minimize" public scrutiny -- if they hadn't decided to issue the press release, so they were not trying to avoid public scrutiny, just control ("minimize") it.

    There are plenty of Roswell advocates who accept that the stuff was hauled around Roswell in covered trucks and flown out by bombers from the RAAF.

    It would have been a lot easier to just use rail from Corona or Carrizozo , or any crossing in between, and take it to Alamagordo or Ft Bliss, for example.

    "Newspaper headlines mean little now and meant little in '47. It is the underlying text that matters, and even that is not always reliable."

    Did the headlines lie? Were they inaccurate? Were there 'millions' (hyperbole) of them? Did or did not the RAAF issue a flying disc press release?

    Except for some misspelled names the 1947 national news stories were as accurate as the army, Brazel, and Wilcox were accurate and truthful.

    The newspapers said that the AP office in Albuquerque said that George Walsh at KSWS in Roswell New Mexico said that "Lieut. Warren Haught" said that the RAAF was in possession of a flying disc.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • I accept that Friedman (and Moore) did valuable work in correcting some of the names. Beyond that, there is little to commend them for.

    I also agree the press reports were as accurate as they go, but there are contradictions in the dates, measurements, etc. People like David Rudiak are fond of pointing these out.

    Headlines such as "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer..." are too eye-catching. What does 'capture' indicate to you? To me it indicates the RAAF actually fought a battle, with some enemy, and captured the 'saucer'. But the word can have other meanings. Not really a suitable headline, do you think? And remember they had certainly NOT 'captured' all of it, only a (probably) small portion.

    Have you worked out what the words 'many rumors' in the press release actually mean?

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "Headlines such as "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer..." are too eye-catching. What does 'capture' indicate to you? To me it indicates the RAAF actually fought a battle, with some enemy, and captured the 'saucer'. But the word can have other meanings. Not really a suitable headline, do you think? And remember they had certainly NOT 'captured' all of it, only a (probably) small portion."

    That headline was in the Roswell Daily Record. A few thousand local people saw it. No one besides locals saw or heard any of the Roswell media. The RDR headlines and stories are unique. The source is Paul McEvoy or an editorial board of some sort -- whoever wrote or authorized content and layout.

    Headlines from July 8, 1947:

    Army Finds Flying Saucer

    Army Declares Flying Disk Found

    Army Reports Disk Found In New Mexico

    Army Grabs New Mexico Flying Disc

    The "Captures" headline is not the only remarkable thing in or about the Daily Record on July 8 and 9, 1947.

    "Have you worked out what the words 'many rumors' in the press release actually mean?"

    The work will have to be done on location and I haven't done that, but hope to have the chance to do so. The information would not be found in Roswell nor the RAAF so just about all of the Roswell investigations of the past 30 years are pretty much useless for the task, except for the ranchers. I read a bit into the witness era for the ranchers to see if anything catches my attention. I have a few non-rancher names (well, the 1947 people are all dead. They are family names).

    With luck, I'll convice a relative in New Mexico to do some research for me.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home