_RAYMOND A. MADSON, 1ST LT., USAF_
_AERO MEDICAL LABORATORY_
OCTOBER 1957
WRIGHT AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER
WADC TECHNICAL REPORT 57-477 (II)
HIGH ALTITUDE BALLOON DUMMY DROPS
II: THE STABILIZED DUMMY DROPS
_RAYMOND A. MADSON, 1ST/LT, USAF_
_LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS LABORATORY
AEROSPACE MEDICAL LABORATORY_
AUGUST 1961
AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO
]
1.3
High Altitude Balloon Operations
Research has shown that many high altitude balloons launched
from Holloman AFB, N.M., were recovered in locations, and under
circumstances, that strongly resemble those described by UFO proponents
as the recovery of a “flying saucer” and “alien” crew. When these
descriptions were carefully examined, it was clear that they bore more
than just a resemblance to Air Force activities. It appears that some
were actually distorted references to Air Force personnel and equipment
engaged in scientific study through the use of high altitude balloons.
Since 1947, U.S. Air Force research organizations at Holloman AFB,
N.M., have launched and recovered approximately 2,500 high altitude
balloons. The Air Force organization that conducted most of these
activities, the Holloman Balloon Branch, launched a wide range of
sophisticated, and from most perspectives, odd looking equipment into
the stratosphere above New Mexico. In fact, the =_very first_= high
altitude data gathering balloon flight launched from Alamogordo Army
Airfield (now Holloman AFB), N.M., on June 4, 1947, was found by the
rancher and was the first of many unrelated events now collectively
known as the “Roswell Incident.”
[Illustration: Fig. 44. Inflation of a U.S. Air Force 626 ft. long,
34.6 million cu. ft. research balloon on August 13, 1972. This
balloon was launched from Roswell Industrial Air Center (formerly
Roswell AAF), Roswell, N.M., to test components of the NASA VIKING
space probe. (_photo by Ole Jorgeson_) ]
On the Threshold of Space
In 1956, Twentieth Century Fox released _On the Threshold of
Space_, a full-length motion picture based on Air Force aero
medical projects conducted at Holloman AFB, N.M. Starring Guy
Madison, John Hodiak, and Dean Jagger, this drama chronicled the
high altitude balloon experiments of projects HIGH DIVE/EXCELSIOR
and the high-speed track studies conducted by Col. John P. Stapp.
Filmed on location at Holloman AFB, Air Force personnel, high
altitude balloons, aircraft, vehicles, and other equipment,
including the actual anthropomorphic dummies responsible for
sightings of aliens, were used in the making of this film.
In an ironic twist, in 1990 the television program _Unsolved
Mysteries_, featured a segment on the Roswell Incident. The
program, hosted by actor Robert Stack, depicted a dramatized
version of the claims of “aliens,” space ships and mysterious
government recovery crews. Interestingly, a review of newspapers
from 1956 announcing the Hollywood premiere of _On the Threshold
of Space_, listed Stack among the persons scheduled to attend this
star-studded event.[70]
[Illustration: Fig. 45. Lobby card of the 1956 Twentieth Century
Fox release, _On the Threshold of Space_ starring Guy Madison
(_seated_) and Martin Milner (_right_).]
[Illustration: Fig. 46. Publicity photograph from _On the Threshold
of Space_ with (_from left_) Cameron Mitchell, Guy Madison and
Dean Jagger. Scenes from the movie clearly depict the actual
anthropomorphic dummies described nearly 40 years later as
extraterrestrial “aliens.”]
[Illustration: Fig. 47. Col. J. P. Stapp’s historic 1954 rocket
sled test was re-created for _On the Threshold of Space_ (_see
figure 33, page 31_).]
High Altitude Polyethylene Research Balloons
In 1946, as a result of research conducted for project MOGUL,
Charles B. Moore, a New York University graduate student working
under contract for the U.S. Army Air Forces, made a significant
technological discovery: the use of polyethylene for high altitude
balloon construction.[71] Polyethylene is a lightweight plastic that
can withstand stresses of a high altitude environment that differed
drastically from, and greatly exceeded, the capabilities of standard
rubber weather balloons used previously. Moore’s discovery was a
breakthrough in technology. For the first time, scientists were able to
make detailed, sustained studies of the upper atmosphere. Polyethylene
balloons, first produced in 1947 for Project MOGUL, are still widely
used today for a host of scientific applications.
High altitude polyethylene balloons and standard rubber weather
balloons differ greatly in size, construction, and utility. The
difference between these two types of balloons historically has been
the subject of misunderstandings in that the term “weather balloon” is
often used to describe both types of balloons.
High altitude polyethylene balloons are used to transport scientific
payloads of several pounds to several tons to altitudes of nearly
200,000 feet. Polyethylene balloons do not increase in size and burst
with increases in volume as they rise, as do standard rubber weather
balloons. They are launched with excess capacity to accommodate the
increase in volume. This characteristic of polyethylene balloons makes
them substantially more stable than rubber weather balloons and capable
of sustained constant level flight, a requirement for most scientific
applications.
[Illustration: Fig. 48. Relative sizes of a modern high altitude
polyethylene research balloon, an airliner, and a hot-air balloon.
Inaccurate characterizations of the giant high altitude research
balloons as “weather balloons” (which are typically 15 feet in
diameter) has historically been the source of confusion. (_courtesy
of Mike Smith, Raven Industries_)
Raven Industries 40 million cubic foot balloon. 450 ft in diameter
at 130,000 feet
Hot-air balloon. 50 ft in diameter
DC-9 airliner 104 ft long]
The initial polyethylene balloons had diameters of only seven feet and
carried payloads of five pounds or less.[72] As balloon technology
advanced, payload capacities and sizes of balloons increased. Modern
polyethylene balloons, some as long as several football fields when
on the ground, expand at altitude to volumes large enough to contain
many jet airliners. Polyethylene balloons flown by the U.S. Air Force
have reached altitudes of 170,000 feet and lifted payloads of 15,000
pounds.[73]
During the late 1940’s and 1950’s, a characteristic associated
with the large, newly invented, polyethylene balloons, was that
they were often misidentified as flying saucers.[74] During this
period, polyethylene balloons launched from Holloman AFB, generated
flying saucer reports on nearly every flight.[75] There were so many
reports that police, broadcast radio, and newspaper accounts of these
sightings were used by Holloman technicians to supplement early balloon
tracking techniques.[76] Balloons launched at Holloman AFB generated
an especially high number of reports due to the excellent visibility
in the New Mexico region. Also, the balloons, flown at altitudes
of approximately 100,000 feet, were illuminated before the earth
during the periods just after sunset and just before sunrise. In this
instance, receiving sunlight before the earth, the plastic balloons
appeared as large bright objects against a dark sky. Also, with the
refractive and translucent qualities of polyethylene, the balloons
appeared to change color, size, and shape.
The large balloons generated UFO reports based on their radar
tracks.[77] This was due to large metallic payloads that weighed
up to several tons and echoed radar returns not usually associated
with balloons. In later years, balloons were equipped with altitude
and position reporting transponders and strobe lights that greatly
diminished the numbers of both visual and radar UFO sightings.
One classic misidentification of a Holloman balloon that was mistaken
for a UFO, was launched on October 27, 1953.[78] According to the
following account published in a widely distributed 1958 history of
Air Force balloon operations, _Contributions of Balloon Operations to
Research and Development at the Air Force Missile Development Center
Holloman Air Force Base, N. Mex. 1947–1958_, a suspected Holloman
balloon was tracked both visually and by radar over London, England on
November 3, 1953.
“English accounts of the incident contained such statements as
‘tremendous speed,’ ‘practically motionless,’ ‘circular or spherical
and white in color,’ ‘emitting or reflecting a fierce light.’ Altitude
was reported as 61,000 feet—and as no research balloon had recently
been sent up from Britain, there was ample room for local saucer
enthusiasts to claim the ‘unidentified flying object’ as proof of their
theories. A much likelier explanation, however, is that this was really
the balloon launched from Holloman on 27 October.”[79]
High Altitude Balloon Payloads
Over the years, payloads transported by high altitude polyethylene
balloons ranged from simple radio transmitters to anthropomorphic
dummies to sophisticated satellite components and NASA interplanetary
space probes. Many of these payloads, some of which weighed many tons,
were not what someone would typically envision as being associated with
a balloon. Examples of payloads flown in New Mexico by Air Force high
altitude balloons can be found on pages 52 and 53 at the end of this
section.
Research projects of the late 1940’s and 1950’s conducted at Holloman
AFB which began with the Project MOGUL flights in June 1947, covered
a wide spectrum of scientific research. One important experiment
in space biology measured the effects of exposure to cosmic ray
particles on living tissues.[80] Other projects gathered meteorological
data and collected air samples to determine the composition of the
atmosphere.[81] The first high altitude photographic reconnaissance
project, a forerunner to today’s reconnaissance satellites, Project
119L, also used high altitude balloons launched at Holloman AFB.[82]
As early as May 1948, polyethylene balloons coated or laminated with
aluminum were flown from Holloman AFB and the surrounding area.[83]
Beginning in August 1955, large numbers of these balloons were flown
as targets in the development of radar guided air to air missiles.[84]
Various accounts of the “Roswell Incident” often described thin,
metal-like materials that when wadded into a ball, returned to their
original shape. These accounts are consistent with the properties of
polyethylene balloons laminated with aluminum. These balloons were
typically launched from points west of the White Sands Proving Ground,
floated over the range as targets, and descended in the areas northeast
of White Sands Proving Ground where the “strange” materials were
allegedly found.
In 1958 the first manned stratospheric balloon flights were made from
Holloman AFB (see page 102). In 1960, balloon tests of components of
the first U. S. reconnaissance satellite were also flown at Holloman
AFB. In the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s high altitude balloons were used
in support of Air Force, and other U.S. Government and university
sponsored research projects. Instrument testing of atmospheric entry
vehicles for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
space probes is one prominent example.
[Illustration: Fig. 49. Holloman Balloon Branch personnel prepare a
polyethylene balloon laminated with aluminum to serve as a target
for radar guided missiles over White Sands Proving Ground, N.M.
(_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
High Altitude Balloons and America’s First Satellite
An illustration of the important contributions of the Holloman AFB
Balloon Branch, and the necessity for a rapid recovery of a high
altitude balloon payload, were evaluations of components of the
first U.S. satellite-based reconnaissance system, code named CORONA.
The Soviet Union had already beaten the U.S. into space with
the launch and orbit of SPUTNIK I on October 4, 1957. The next
achievement in the quest for space superiority were the physical
recovery of a payload that had been in orbit.[85] The DISCOVERER
satellite, the sensor used in the CORONA program, was to be
propelled into orbit and then eject a capsule containing an
American flag to enable the U.S. to claim this honor.[86]
The DISCOVERER program had been plagued by failure with 10
unsuccessful missions in 1959 and 1960. With the eyes of the nation
watching, and the Soviets testing a similar system, more failures
could not be tolerated. To test the faulty components of the
DISCOVERER, U.S. Air Force high altitude balloons at Holloman AFB
were determined to be the most expedient method of conducting the
evaluations.
In April 1960, DISCOVERER XI, on the launch pad at Vandenberg
AFB, Calif., was put into a hold pending results of the balloon
tests.[87] The first test at Holloman AFB on April 5th was
unsatisfactory due to a parachute failure.[88] On April 8th, with
pressure mounting, the Balloon Branch launched another balloon
with the DISCOVERER capsule. This test, in which the capsule was
dropped over White Sands Missile Range and recovered immediately,
was a total success.[89] The results were relayed by telephone
from the Balloon Control Center at Holloman AFB to the launch pad
at Vandenberg AFB where the countdown resumed.[90] Despite the
successful balloon drop, DISCOVERER XI and DISCOVERER XII were
failures.[91] Therefore, balloon testing continued throughout the
summer of 1960.
Finally, on August 11, 1960, DISCOVERER XIII successfully ejected
a capsule and, amid much fanfare, the first recovery of a manmade
object that had orbited the earth was accomplished.[92] This first
successful mission of an American satellite, made possible in part
by Holloman AFB high altitude balloons, enabled the U.S. to beat
the Soviets and claim the honor of the first space recovery by only
nine days.[93]
[Illustration: Fig. 50. (_Left_). A Holloman Balloon Branch launch
crew prepares a nosecone of the DISCOVERER satellite for a high
altitude balloon flight at Holloman AFB, N.M. in April 1960. (_U.S.
Air Force photo_) ]
[Illustration: Fig. 51. (_Right_). A U.S. Navy helicopter aboard
the _USS Haiti Victory_ is shown here with the capsule from the
DISCOVERER XIII satellite. It was recovered from the Pacific Ocean
330 miles northwest of Hawaii on August 11, 1960. (_U.S. Air Force
photo_) ]
The SURVEYOR (Moon), VOYAGER-MARS (Mars), VIKING (Mars), PIONEER
(Venus), and GALILEO (Jupiter) spacecraft were tested by Air Force high
altitude balloons before they were launched into space.
=VIKING and VOYAGER-MARS Space Probes.= Examples of unusual payloads,
not likely to be associated with balloons, were qualification trials of
NASA’s VOYAGER-MARS and VIKING space probes. Both of these spacecraft
looked remarkably similar to the classic dome-shaped “flying saucer.”
In 1966–67 and 1972, eight of the UFO lookalikes were launched by the
Balloon Branch from the former Roswell Army Air Field (now Roswell
Industrial Air Center), N.M.[94] The spacecraft were transported by
Air Force balloons to altitudes above 100,000 feet and released for a
period of self-propelled, supersonic, free-flight prior to landing on
the White Sands Missile Range.[95] While the origins of the “Roswell”
scenarios cannot be specifically traced to these vehicles, their
flying saucer-like appearance, and the fact that they were launched
exclusively from the original “Roswell Incident” location, leaves an
impression that perhaps these odd balloon payloads may have played
some role in the unclear and distorted stories of at least some of the
“Roswell” witnesses.
[Illustration: Fig. 52. A NASA VIKING space probe is rolled out of
its assembly building at Martin Marietta Corporation in Denver,
Colo. (_NASA_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 53. (_Above Left_) The aeroshell of a NASA
VOYAGER-MARS space probe just prior to launch at Walker AFB, N.M.
(formerly Roswell AAF). (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 54. (_Above Right_) This NASA VIKING flying
saucer-like space probe was test flown by U. S. Air Force high
altitude balloons in 1972 at the former Roswell Army Air Field.
(_NASA_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 55. (_Right_) Following a supersonic test
flight in 1972, a VIKING space probe awaits recovery at White Sands
Missile Range, N.M. (_NASA_)]
=Tethered Balloons.= The Holloman Balloon Branch, in addition to high
altitude research activities, also conducted low altitude tethered
balloon flights. It appears that descriptions of these balloons may
have become part of the “Roswell Incident.”
Most standard shaped tethered balloons are readily identified when near
the ground or when the tether is visible. Other experimental tethered
balloons are not so easily identified. During the 1960s, Balloon Branch
personnel flew experimentally shaped tethered balloons from deep
canyons of central New Mexico. To a distant observer, from a vantage
point above the canyon rim, where the tether and ground anchors are
not visible, an experimental tethered balloon might lead some persons
to speculate as to the oddly shaped balloon’s origin and purpose. One
design of a low altitude tethered balloon may have inspired at least
one account of an “alien” craft. In _The Truth About the UFO Crash at
Roswell_, the authors published a drawing of a crashed alien spaceship
allegedly based on a drawing given to them by an anonymous witness.[96]
When this drawing is compared to a photograph of an experimental
tethered balloon flown at Holloman AFB in March 1965, the similarities
are undeniable.[97] The tethered balloon and the NASA space probes are
just two examples of the uncommon technologies that were flown in New
Mexico by the Holloman Balloon Branch.
[Illustration: Fig. 56. (_Left_) A drawing from a popular UFO
book, _The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell_, depicts an alien
spacecraft allegedly drawn by an anonymous witness. (_The Truth
About the UFO Crash at Roswell_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 57. (_Right_) A tethered “Vee” balloon shown
here at Holloman AFB, N.M. in March 1965. This experimental
balloon, is strikingly similar to the “alien” craft. (_U.S. Air
Force photo_)]
Today, the Air Force maintains a reduced but still highly capable
high altitude balloon program at Holloman AFB. The Space and Missile
Command, Test and Evaluation Unit (SMC/TE, OL-AC) represents the sole
Department of Defense high altitude research balloon capability. The
ability of a U.S. Air Force high altitude balloon to lift a scientific
payload to more than 100,000 feet, above 99 per cent of the earth’s
atmosphere, for days at a time, presents a profoundly useful scientific
tool at a fraction of the cost of a space research platform. Recent
tests that utilized Holloman balloons included atmospheric sampling
and gravity measurement experiments, high altitude astronomic studies,
weapons systems evaluations, and gamma ray detection experiments. While
most tests continue to be launched from the permanent balloon launch
facility at Holloman AFB, U.S. Air Force balloon crews have recently
launched balloons from numerous field locations in the U.S. (including
two sites in Roswell), as well as Alaska, Panama, and Antarctica.
[Illustration: Fig. 58. Present members of the Holloman Balloon
Branch in front of the Balloon Operations Center, Building 850, at
Holloman AFB, N.M., (_from left_) TSgt. Roger J. Welch, Mr. Joseph
Fumerola, Mr. Alvin W. Hodges, Mr. Joseph Longshore, MSgt. Ray A.
Pitts, Sr., Amn. John Witkop, and Mr. Harvey L. Harris. (_U.S. Air
Force photo_)]
Balloon and Payload Recoveries
UFO theorists support their claims of an extraordinary occurrence in
the New Mexico desert by describing mysterious U.S. military personnel,
operating a variety of vehicles and aircraft that always seem to
arrive shortly after the crash of a “flying saucer.” When carefully
scrutinized, the descriptions of the mystery crews, their equipment,
methods, and the areas where the recoveries allegedly occurred—in
targeted high altitude balloon recovery areas—indicates that Holloman
Balloon Branch activities were most likely responsible for the claims.
To successfully recover high altitude balloons, balloon recovery
technicians regularly ventured far from Holloman AFB. In most instances
the balloons and their scientific payloads were recovered from
predetermined recovery areas. These regularly targeted areas, located
in Arizona, West Texas, and New Mexico, included the area surrounding
Roswell.[98] From 1947 to the present, the Roswell area has been the
site of hundreds of balloon and payload recoveries (including those
that carried anthropomorphic dummies).[99]
The regularly targeted areas were the result of the evolution of high
altitude balloon control techniques developed at Holloman AFB. These
techniques were based on meteorological, geographical, and operational
conditions that exist in New Mexico. These factors, combined with ample
amounts of skill and experience of balloon controllers at Holloman AFB,
determined the impact points of Holloman high altitude balloons.
Many of the procedures used to position Air Force balloons are
described in _General Philosophy and Techniques of Balloon Control_,
and _Meteorological Aspects of Constant-Level Balloon Operations in
the Southwestern United States_, both by Bernard D. Gildenberg (see
statement in Appendix B).[100] Gildenberg served as the Holloman
Balloon Branch Meteorologist, Engineer, and Physical Science
Administrator from 1951 until 1981. During this period, Gildenberg, a
recognized world expert in upper atmospheric wind patterns, pioneered
methods to launch, control, track, and recover high altitude balloons.
Many of these methods are still used today by the U.S. Air Force and by
research organizations throughout the world.
Interaction with Civilians
[Illustration: Fig. 59. Bernard D. “Duke” Gildenberg (_center_)
Balloon Branch Meteorologist, is shown here in May 1957 in front
of the MAN HIGH I gondola. With Gildenberg are MAN HIGH I pilot
Capt. Joseph W. Kittinger, Jr. (_left_), and MAN HIGH project
scientist/pilot, Lt. Col. David G. Simons (MC). When Gildenberg
attempted to inform UFO theorists that high altitude balloon
projects were likely responsible for some of the UFO claims, his
explanations were rejected, _see also_ pages 8 & 9. (_U.S. Air
Force photo_)]
In several accounts, unsubstantiated allegations have been made
that military personnel who retrieved equipment from rural areas of
New Mexico intimidated and threatened civilians. Contrary to these
charges, Balloon Branch personnel enjoyed good relations with the
local community and often solicited their assistance in the area of a
balloon or payload landing. In the flat, featureless desert areas of
southeastern New Mexico near Roswell, the parachutes, payloads, the
balloons themselves, and circling chase aircraft often drew crowds of
curious onlookers from the local community. In fact, so many civilians
were often present at balloon or payload landing sites, the scene was
described by longtime civilian Balloon Branch recovery supervisor,
Robert Blankenship, as being like the “circus coming to town.”[101]
Allegations that civilians were threatened or told to “forget what they
saw” are profoundly inaccurate. Threats, intimidation, or other types
of misconduct by Balloon Branch personnel would have served no purpose
since without the cooperation of local persons, many recoveries would
not have been possible.[102]
[Illustration: Fig. 60. (_Right_) This ranch family assisted in the
recovery of a Project STARGAZER high altitude balloon payload and
is shown here with a panel from the unmanned gondola. (_U.S. Air
Force photo_)]
Most balloon recoveries were coordinated in advance with local
law enforcement agencies.[103] If a balloon or payload landed on
private property and the owner could not be located, Balloon Branch
operating instructions dictated that the local sheriff or police
must be contacted.[104] In situations where local persons arrived at
balloon landing sites before the recovery crews, they were simply
asked to “step back” to allow recovery personnel to secure the
balloon equipment.[105] If these persons inquired as to the purpose
of a balloon flight, they were informed by technicians that it was a
U.S. Air Force scientific study and were given a telephone number at
Holloman AFB if they required additional information. At Holloman AFB,
individuals qualified to answer detailed questions responded to these
inquiries. There was never a reason to mislead or threaten individuals
who observed balloon operations. Relations with local citizens were
good, and Balloon Branch personnel and equipment were a common sight to
residents in areas with high incidences of balloon operations.
In a few instances, situations arose when persons not familiar with the
procedures and equipment used by the Balloon Branch misunderstood their
activities. Such misunderstandings occurred several times during the
1970s and 1980s when recovery crews not only attracted the attention of
local citizens while coordinating balloon recoveries, but also drew the
attention of federal law enforcement agencies.[106]
Checks with the local sheriff revealed that the trucks and circling
aircraft in the desert near Roswell were part of a balloon recovery
mission, and not a drug smuggling operation. Apparently, balloon
recoveries appeared to be something suspicious even to federal agents.
[Illustration: Fig. 61. A typical Holloman Balloon Branch recovery
crew is shown here with a man known as “The hermit” who assisted
them in a balloon recovery northwest of Silver City, N.M. in the
1960s. (_photo collection of Robert Blankenship_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 62. A mule (named Ida) was borrowed from a
local rancher when a balloon payload landed in difficult terrain 20
miles north of Wickenburg, Ariz. in October 1966. (_U.S. Air Force
photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 63. On occasion, Air Force balloon recovery
crews rented or borrowed equipment from local residents. This
bulldozer was rented for one recovery in the Sacramento mountains
west of Roswell. (_photo collection of Robert Blankenship_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 64. Balloon Branch vehicle at roadside café.
This M-43 ¾-ton field ambulance, converted by the Holloman Balloon
Branch into a communications vehicle, was a common sight in the
areas surrounding Roswell during the 1950s and early 1960s. (_photo
collection of Ole Jorgeson_)]
[Illustration: Figs. 65 & 66. Examples of unusual payloads flown by
Air Force high altitude balloons at Holloman AFB, N.M. (_U.S. Air
Force photos_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 67. (_Left_) This U.S. Army communications
payload was flown at Holloman AFB, N.M. on September 30, 1976.
(_U.S. Army photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 68. (_Right_) Payload launched by an Air Force
high altitude balloon from Holloman AFB, N. M. on March 20, 1965.
This payload was a scientific experiment for The Johns Hopkins
University Astrophysics Laboratory. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 69. High altitude balloon payload launched from
Holloman AFB on September 14, 1976. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
1.4
Comparison of Witnesses Accounts to U.S. Air Force Activities
Were they aliens or dummies? This question can be answered by comparing
witness testimony and the Air Force projects of the 1950s, HIGH
DIVE and EXCELSIOR. Both of these projects employed anthropomorphic
dummies flown by high altitude balloons and appeared to satisfy the
requirements of the previously established research profile:
_a._ An activity that if viewed from a distance would appear
unusual.
_b._ An activity for which the exact date was not likely to have
been known because many dummies were dropped over a six-year period
(1953–1959).
_c._ An activity that took place in many areas of rural New Mexico.
_d._ An activity that involved a type of aerial vehicle with
dummies that had four fingers, were bald and wore one-piece gray
suits.
_e._ An activity that required recovery by numerous military
personnel and an assortment of vehicles that included a wrecker, a
six-by-six, and a weapons carrier.
The testimony used in the following comparison, an undocumented mixture
of firsthand and secondhand re-countings, are the actual statements,
not the interpretations of UFO proponents, that are presented to
“prove” the Earth was visited by extraterrestrial beings and the U.S.
Air Force has covered up this fact since 1947. This comparison is
augmented by references to photographs whenever possible to illustrate
the undeniable similarities between the descriptions provided by the
witnesses and the equipment and methods employed by the Air Force
projects.
[Illustration: Fig. 70. Project HIGH DIVE anthropomorphic dummy
launch. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
“Crash” Site 1
(Allegedly North of Roswell)
This summarized account is the basis for the alleged “flying saucer”
crash site north of Roswell.[*] The exact location is not known since
the witness, Mr. James Ragsdale, in two separate sworn statements, has
described two different sites, many miles apart.[107] This account was
excerpted from an interview with Mr. Ragsdale by author Donald Schmitt.
A transcript of the complete interview is included in Appendix C.
[*] In _The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell_ (Avon Books, 1994, p.
131), the authors provided a corroborating account for this testimony
from a 96-year-old man who was in ill health, whose interview was not
tape recorded, and has since died. According to the book, the man’s
“wife and daughter said that he was easily confused” and “memories of
his life were jumbled and reordered.”
The Account
James Ragsdale
“_They was using dummies in those damned things_”[108]
Testimony attributed to Ragsdale, who is deceased, states that he and
a friend were camping one evening and saw something fall from the sky.
The next morning, when they went to investigate, they saw a crash site:
“One part [of the craft] was kind of buried in the ground and one part
of it was sticking our [out] of the ground.” “I’m sure that [there] was
bodies ... either bodies or dummies.” “The federal government could
have been doing something they didn’t want anyone to know what this
was. They was using dummies in those damned things ... they could use
remote control ... but it was either dummies or bodies or something
laying there. They looked like bodies. They were not very long ...
[not] over four or five foot long at the most.” “We didn’t see their
faces or nothing like that ... we had just gotten to the site and the
Army ... and all [was] coming and we got into a damned jeep and took
off.”
This testimony then describes an assortment of military vehicles used
to recover the “bodies”: “It was two or three six-by-six Army trucks a
wrecker and everything. Leading the pack was a '47 Ford car with guys
in it.... It was six or eight big trucks besides the pickup, weapons
carriers and stuff like that.” Ragsdale also said that before he left
the area he observed the military personnel “gathering stuff up” and
“they cleaned everything all up.”
Assessment
In his testimony, Ragsdale made numerous references to equipment,
vehicles, and procedures consistent with documented anthropomorphic
dummy recoveries for projects HIGH DIVE and EXCELSIOR. The repeated
use of the term “dummy” and the witness’ own admission that “they was
using dummies in those damned things” and “I’m sure that was bodies ...
either bodies or dummies” leaves little doubt that what he described
was an anthropomorphic dummy recovery.
Based on testimony attributed to this witness, the confusion could
have resulted from the fact that he observed these activities from a
distance. If the witness was even a short distance from the odd looking
anthropomorphic dummies, it would be logical for him to believe, when
interviewed 35 to 40 years after the event, that he “thought they were
dummies or bodies or something.” Also, for some of the high altitude
drops, the dummies did not separate from the suspension rack and
“rode the rack” to the ground without deployment of a parachute.[109]
If the parachutes of the dummies or parachutes of the rack assembly
did not deploy (a common occurrence during the early dummy drops),
then they free-fell from up to 98,000 feet.[110] As a result of these
malfunctions, the arms and legs of the dummies were often separated
from the body on impact.[111] This may account for the witness’
description of bodies [not] “over four or five foot” tall.
Another portion of his testimony suggesting that the witness observed
an Air Force high altitude balloon and dummy recovery was the
statement: “The federal government could have been doing something
because they didn’t want anyone to know what this was ... they was
using dummies in those damned things ... they could use remote
control.” Balloon controllers used remote control to relay commands to
the balloon control package to valve gas and drop ballast.[112] The
dummies themselves were also dropped from the suspension rack by remote
control.[113]
[Illustration: Fig. 71. Numerous vehicles and various types
of equipment, were often present at high altitude balloon and
anthropomorphic dummy launch and recovery locations. (photo collection
of Ole Jorgeson) ]
The witness also described a Balloon Branch procedure that required the
area of a balloon or payload landing to be restored to its original
condition. It was evident in the statements “They cleaned everything
all up” and “They began gathering the stuff up.” Thoroughly cleaning
a balloon or dummy landing site and removing any debris deposited
there was a standard procedure to maintain good community relations and
avoid legal claims that could arise over property damages or livestock
losses.[114] Cattle were known to ingest scraps of polyethylene balloon
material that sometimes littered entire fields following a balloon
failure or flight termination.[115]
The military vehicles described were also consistent with recovery
and communications vehicles used during the 1950s to retrieve
anthropomorphic dummies and suspension racks.[116] The witness stated
he saw a “wrecker,” a “six-by-six,” a “weapons carrier,” a “'47 Ford
car,” and a “pickup.” The “wrecker” was most likely a M-342 5-ton
wrecker that was assigned to the Balloon Branch for launch and recovery
operations.[117] Other vehicles described were also the type used to
launch and recover anthropomorphic dummies. The “six-by-six” is a
likely reference to a M-35 2½-ton cargo truck; “weapons carriers” were
the common name of a Dodge M-37 ¾-ton utility truck. References to
“the pickup” and a “'47 Ford car,” were likely descriptions of other
civilian and military vehicles often present at high altitude balloon
launch and recovery locations.
“Crash” Site 2
(Allegedly 175 miles Northwest of Roswell)
This purported flying saucer “crash” site is allegedly 175 miles
northwest of Roswell in an area of New Mexico known as the San Agustin
Plains.[118] The contention that a flying saucer crashed at this
location and was recovered by the U.S. military is supported by three
principal testimonies, two secondhand and one firsthand.
The Secondhand Accounts
These accounts were related by Mr. Vern Maltais and Ms. Alice Knight,
who were acquainted with the alleged original eyewitness, Mr. Grady
L. Barnett, who is deceased. Unless otherwise noted, the following
statements appeared on footage used to prepare a video, _Recollections
of Roswell Part II_, by The Fund for UFO Research (see Appendix C).
Alice Knight
“_I don’t recall the date_”[119]
“I don’t remember whether it was before my husband and I were married
or after, I don’t recall the date. But he [the eyewitness] saw a UFO
fall ... and he got nearly to the site ... but they got nearly up to
the UFO but it was close enough that you could see some creatures.
He said they didn’t look like human beings out there. And along came
government cars and trucks. I guess it was government. You know it was
a long time ago ... and they told him to go on back and forget that
they ever saw anything, and that’s all I recall.”
Assessment
This brief testimony suggests that the witness did not know the date
of this event. It also appears that the “creatures” were seen from a
distance, as evidenced by the statement, “They got nearly up to the
UFO but it was close enough that you could see some creatures.” The
testimony also seems consistent with a description of anthropomorphic
dummies as the witness stated they “didn’t look like human beings.”
Vern Maltais
“_Their heads were hairless ... no eyebrows, no eyelashes, no
hair_”[120]
This secondhand witness alleged that the eyewitness told him he
observed “beings” from a “flying saucer that had burst open” that were
“about three and a half to four feet tall, very slim ... their heads
were hairless, with no eyebrows, no eyelashes, no hair” with “sort of
a pear-shaped head.” He also related that “the beings were ... not
exactly like human beings ... similar but not exactly.” He described
that the hands of the beings “were not covered” ... and [they] only had
“four fingers.” He also related that the clothing of the beings was
“one-piece and gray in color”.[121] The witness concluded that “As they
[the witnesses] were just starting to look things over really closely,
the military moved in and gave them a briefing to not say anything
about it.”
[Illustration: Fig. 72. “Their heads were hairless ... no
eyebrows, no eyelashes, no hair,” a likely description of Alderson
Laboratories type anthropomorphic dummy. These Alderson dummies, of
the same type used for Projects HIGH DIVE/EXCELSIOR, were used to
test NASA’s APOLLO spacecraft three-man couch at Holloman AFB, N.M.
in 1965. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
Assessment
This description of events also indicates that the eyewitness
apparently did not closely examine the scene and was “just starting
to look things over” when the military arrived. As with the previous
testimony, from a distance the dummies were likely to look, as
described by the witness, “not exactly like humans ... similar but not
exactly.” The description of the flying saucer that had “burst open”
is a likely description of the dummy suspension rack that was open on
the sides (see figures 74, 75, 76). The detailed descriptions of the
“beings” as “about three and a half to four feet tall, very slim in
stature ... their heads were hairless, with no eyebrows, no eyelashes,
no hair,” with “hands that were not covered” and “had only four
fingers,” is a likely description of an Alderson Research Laboratories
model anthropomorphic dummy. The head of the Alderson dummy was “bald”
and the area of the eyebrows protruded but had no “hair” (see figure
72). Also, a distinguishing feature of the Alderson dummy, unlike the
Sierra dummy, was that it had individual fingers not covered by gloves
that were often damaged during the tests resulting in the loss of
fingers (see figures 35, 73, 75).
Due to the secondhand nature of these accounts, even UFO theorists were
not convinced that this “incident” actually occurred. Corroborating
testimony of a firsthand witness was necessary to verify these claims.
The firsthand testimony is examined next.
The Firsthand Account
This testimony became part of the Roswell Incident in 1990 following an
episode of the television program _Unsolved Mysteries_.[122] Following
a dramatized re-creation on the program, persons with information
concerning this event were encouraged to call a special toll free
telephone number.
From the outset, some UFO theorists were skeptical of this testimony
due to the amount of detail provided from the witness who was only five
years old in 1947. In fact, UFO organizations sponsored a conference
in February 1992 to evaluate the testimony for authenticity.[123]
The witness was asked to take a polygraph examination, which he
passed.[124] Many UFO enthusiasts remained skeptical of the claims and
denounced this testimony as “no more than a fabrication.”[125]
Unless otherwise noted, two sources of testimony attributed to the
witness have been used in this examination; interviews used to prepare
the video _Recollections of Roswell Part II_ by the Fund for UFO
Research (see Appendix C) and _Crash at Corona_ by Don Berliner and
Stanton Friedman (passages from this book were used only when exact
quotations of the witness were indicated).
Gerald Anderson
“_I thought they were plastic dolls ... I didn’t think they were
real_”[126]
Anderson related that as a five-year-old boy on an outing with his
family in west central New Mexico, they stumbled upon the crash of
some type of aerial vehicle.[127] When he first saw the craft he
thought it was a “blimp.”[128] According to Anderson he “didn’t really
get very close,”[129] but thought he saw four bandaged crewmembers
and at first he “thought they were plastic dolls.”[130] He also
described attempts by persons in his party to communicate with one
of the “crewmembers.”[131] Soon after, other civilians arrived (some
wearing pith helmets) followed by military personnel in an assortment
of vehicles and aircraft commanded by a “redheaded captain.”[132] The
military personnel, after “screaming and hollering” at the civilians
“this is a military secret,” started a recovery operation of the alien
craft and crew.[133] Anderson also recalled that the military personnel
threatened some of the civilians with imprisonment or death before
escorting them out of the area.[134]
Assessment
Anderson’s choice of the terms “blimp” to describe the crashed vehicle,
and “dolls” to describe the “crew,” strongly suggests that a balloon
with an anthropomorphic dummy payload was the foundation for this
testimony. He also provided an abundance of supporting details that
accurately described vehicles, aircraft, equipment, and procedures
used by the Holloman AFB Balloon Branch to launch and recover
anthropomorphic dummies.
An aspect of this testimony that is not accurate is the alleged threats
and intimidation of civilians by military personnel. The use of such
heavy-handedness was not a tactic used by the Air Force. A careful
review of official records and interviews with numerous persons
who actively participated in and were responsible for the conduct
of Air Force members on high altitude balloon recovery operations
revealed that these allegations are untrue.[135] Additionally, the
witness alleges that the military personnel were “screaming and
hollering” “this is a military secret.”[136] This statement might lead
uninitiated persons to believe that the witness observed something
highly classified and that by telling everyone present that it was a
“military secret” would somehow help it to remain so. However, logic
dictates that if something was classified “screaming and hollering”
it was “secret,” would compromise it and not serve to protect its
classification. This application of logic, combined with the fact that
the launch and recovery of anthropomorphic dummies was unclassified,
widely publicized, and often observed by local civilians, indicates
that the witness’ recollections are in error. There was never a reason
to disrespect, “scream,” “holler,” or forbid any person from talking
about the launch or recovery of anthropomorphic dummies.
=The “Crewmembers.”= The statement “I thought they were plastic
dolls” seems an odd choice of words to describe an extraterrestrial
being and is a likely reference to an anthropomorphic dummy whose
skin was made of plastic.[137] This description is similar to that
of the sole witness of the other crash site, north of Roswell, who
described the “aliens” as “dummies.”[138] Other references provided
by this witness further indicate that anthropomorphic dummies were
the basis for these descriptions. The heads of the “crewmembers” were
described as “completely bald” with “no visible ears ... just a rise
... and then a hole.”[139] This is an accurate description of Alderson
Research Laboratories model dummies that did not have “hair” and had
either plastic “ears” molded to the head or a circular opening where
a “demountable ear” or additional instrumentation was attached (see
figure 22).[140] The statement “they didn’t have a little finger,”[141]
a detail very similar to one provided by another witness, also appears
to be a description of dummies manufactured by Alderson Laboratories
that were often damaged during the balloon tests resulting in the loss
of fingers.
[Illustration: Fig. 73. “Some kind of container, a metal box,” was
described as laying on the ground near the alleged aliens. This
appears to be a reference to boxes containing electrical components
of the remote controlled systems positioned on the top of the dummy
suspension rack. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 74. “They looked like they had some sort of
bandages on ’em ... over his ... arm ... around his midsection and
partially over his shoulder”—witness description of tape and nylon
webbing used to prevent arms and legs from flailing, and parachute
harness that had chest and shoulder straps. Tape was also used to
secure the removable back plate of the head (_also see figs. 29,
30, 73, 75_). (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
The assertion that “they were all wearing one-piece suits ... a shiny
silverish-gray color,” “trimmed in ... maroon-like cording”[142] is
a likely reference to a standard issue, gray, Air Force flightsuit
used to outfit the dummies and red duct-type tape used in the tests
that prevented air from filling the flightsuit (see fig. 30).[143] The
recollection that “crewmembers” had “bandages”[144] on their bodies
were likely references to tape and nylon webbing used to prevent
flailing of a dummy’s arms and legs during tests.[145] A reference to
a bandage “around his [the crewmember’s] midsection and partially over
his shoulder”[146] is a likely reference to the standard B-4 or B-5
parachute with chest and shoulder straps worn by the dummies.[147]
[Illustration: Fig. 75. “Its uniform was torn in a couple spots ...
their uniforms were in pretty sad shape”—witnesses description of
secondhand flightsuits that were used repeatedly on tests; tears
and other damage were common. In this photo, 1st Lt. Raymond A.
Madson “rigs” a dummy to its suspension rack for project HIGH DIVE
at Holloman AFB, N.M. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 76. A witness described at least one person
at a “crash” site wearing a pith helmet. In the 1950s, the pith
helmet was part of the Air Force uniform and was often worn on
balloon launches and recoveries. In this publicity photo from _On
the Threshold of Space_, Air Force members at Holloman AFB who were
extras in the film can be seen wearing pith helmets. (_also see
figure 49_)]
=The “Craft.”= In what appears to be a clear reference to a balloon,
was that when he saw the crashed vehicle he “thought it was a
blimp.”[148] Additional descriptions of cables that “went from one
kind of a package of components to another kind of package” and a
“metal box” were likely references to the balloon control package that
was positioned on top of the dummy suspension rack.[149] A further
reference to a balloon payload is the statement that on a hot New
Mexico day the crashed vehicle was “ice cold, it felt like it just
came out of the freezer.”[150] This accurately describes a physical
condition known as “cold soaking” common to high altitude payloads
that had recently been exposed to sub-zero temperatures of the upper
atmosphere.
[Illustration: Fig. 77. “An observation aircraft ... a high-winged
aircraft”—a witness’s probable reference to a U.S. Air Force L-20
aircraft used extensively by Holloman AFB crews to track and
recover anthropomorphic dummies. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 78. Described as present at a flying saucer
“crash” site was a C-47 aircraft. This is a probable reference to
a U.S. Air Force C-47 transport aircraft used to move equipment to
launch sites distant from Holloman AFB. These aircraft were also
used for aerial tracking of high altitude balloon flights including
those that flew anthropomorphic dummies. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
=Military Aircraft.= The witness also described two aircraft of the
same type used for anthropomorphic dummy recoveries as having been
involved in the activity he witnessed. One aircraft was described as
a “C-47” and another as an “observation aircraft ... a high-winged
aircraft.”[151] These were a C-47 and a L-20 aircraft used extensively
by the Balloon Branch during the mid 1950s for tracking and recovering
anthropomorphic dummy balloon flights.[152] This testimony also
described aircraft that were typically overhead during a recovery and
an established procedure of landing on a rural road or in a field to
reach isolated balloon launch or recovery locations.[153]
=Military Vehicles.= Numerous military vehicles, several of which
were described by other witnesses as having been at the other crash
site north of Roswell, were also described. Witnesses at the two
different sites described a “wrecker” and a “six-by-six,” both of the
type used for anthropomorphic dummy recoveries.[154] The account also
described two vehicles unique to the Balloon Branch that were used for
the majority of high altitude balloon recoveries during the mid- to
late-1950s.
The witness described a “jeep-like truck that had a bunch of radios
in it”.... There was a guy sittin’ in there wearin’ earphones and he
was talking on the radio.“[155] This is a likely description of a
Dodge M-37 ¾-ton utility truck, known as a weapons carrier, that had
been specially modified to carry radio equipment for balloon recovery
operations. The Holloman AFB Balloon Branch modified these vehicles
in 1953, ruling out the possibility that the witness observed them in
1947, when such vehicles were not available to organizations performing
balloon operations.[156] The other vehicle described and used by the
Balloon Branch were “military ambulances.”[157] During the mid-1950s,
the Balloon Branch modified three M-43 ¾-ton ambulances for use as
balloon recovery and communications vehicles.[158] These vehicles were
used for anthropomorphic dummy launch and recovery missions to relay
messages to circling recovery aircraft and the balloon operations
center at Holloman AFB.[159] The witness also described “a trailer with
a motor on it, like a generator.”[160] This@ is a likely description
of a 1½-ton cargo trailer with an MB-19 15 Kilowatt diesel generator.
These generators were used primarily on balloon launch sites during the
1950s and 1960s (see fig. 71).
[Illustration: Fig. 79. “Stretching stuff out on the ground,
dragging stuff out of trucks”—a likely witness reference to high
altitude balloon inflation procedure that required the balloon to
be stretched out on a protective ground cloth prior to inflation.
(_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
=Balloon Branch Procedures.= Descriptions of military personnel
“stretching stuff out on the ground, dragging stuff out of trucks”[161]
is a likely description of a balloon launch procedure that required
the fragile polyethylene balloon and its protective ground cloth to
be removed from a launch vehicle and laid out on the ground prior to
inflation. Another procedure described by the witness was an apparent
reference to a balloon recovery practice of recording the names of
civilians who observed high altitude balloon recoveries.[162] The
witness stated that military personnel “took everybody’s name and
everything,”[163] which was a procedure to ensure payment of a $25
dollar reward to persons who assisted in the recovery. This procedure
was also necessary to settle future claims of property damage caused by
the balloon, payload, or recovery vehicles.[164]
[Illustration: Fig. 80. Witnesses described a “tanker,” “military
ambulances,” a “6 × 6,” and a “wrecker”—probable references to
(_from left_) a helium tank trailer, a M-43 ambulance (converted to
a communications vehicle), a M-35 cargo truck (partially obscured),
and a M-342 wrecker. These vehicles were used for off-range launch
and recovery operations of anthropomorphic dummies for Project HIGH
DIVE/EXCELSIOR. Shown here is a May 29, 1957 dummy launch near
Hatch, N.M. (_also see figs. 23, 28, 64, 71, 81_). (_U.S. Air Force
photo_)]
[Illustration: Fig. 81. Scene typical of a mid- to late 1950s
off-range high altitude balloon launch. (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
Summary
When the claims offered by UFO theorists to prove that an
extraterrestrial spaceship and crew crashed and were recovered by the
U.S. Air Force are compared to documented Air Force activities, it is
reasonable to conclude, with a high degree of certainty, that the two
“crashes” were actually descriptions of a launch or recovery of a high
altitude balloon and anthropomorphic dummies. This conclusion was based
on the remarkable similarities and independent corroboration between
the witnesses who described _both_ of the “crash sites.” Statements
such as “they was using dummies in those damned things” and a
characterization of the crashed vehicle as, “I thought it was a blimp”
are two of the many similarities. The extensive detailed descriptions
provided by the witnesses, too numerous to be coincidental, were of
the equipment, vehicles, procedures, and personnel of the Air Force
research organizations who conducted the scientific experiments HIGH
DIVE and EXCELSIOR.
Though it is clear anthropomorphic dummies were responsible for these
accounts, the specific locations of the events described was difficult,
if not impossible, to determine since the witnesses were not specific.
A witness to the “crash site” north of Roswell, Mr. James Ragsdale,
was not certain of the actual location as evidenced by a change in
his sworn testimony that moved the site many miles from its original
location.[165]
However, since Ragsdale reportedly lived or worked in the Roswell,
Artesia, and Carlsbad, N.M. areas during the period when the dummies
were used, it is likely he described one or more of the nine documented
dummy recoveries in areas near there.
Reports of the other crash site, allegedly 175 miles northwest of
Roswell on the San Agustin Plains, is likely based on descriptions of
more than one launch and recovery of anthropomorphic dummies. Since
one witness, Gerald Anderson, described procedures consistent with the
launch _and_ recovery of high altitude balloons, it is likely that he
witnessed both of these activities, with at least one that included an
anthropomorphic dummy payload.
The two secondhand witnesses to this “crash,” Vern Maltais and Alice
Knight, could have related descriptions from any of the dummy launch
or landing sites. However, Maltais and Knight repeatedly described the
impact location of the flying saucer as on the San Agustin Plains.
One possible explanation is that the witnesses, in the 30 or more
years since they were told the story by the original eyewitness, Mr.
Barney Barnett, a soil conservation engineer who reportedly traveled
extensively throughout New Mexico, may have confused San Agustin
Plains with San Agustin Pass or San Agustin Peak, an area in the San
Agustin Mountains of New Mexico. These areas are just outside the
boundary of the White Sands Missile Range and the adjacent Jornada
Test Range. Numerous anthropomorphic dummy balloon flights terminated
and were recovered in this area. Furthermore, if the civilians
witnessed dummy landings on either the White Sands Missile Range or the
Jornada Test Range, both test areas and restricted U.S. Government
reservations, then this explains why they may have been told to leave
the landing site. In the popular Roswell scenarios, witnesses were
allegedly instructed by military personnel to leave the area because
they witnessed something of a highly classified nature. This would
be unlikely since the witnesses described projects that utilized
anthropomorphic dummies which were unclassified. It is likely, however,
that if the witnesses ventured onto one of these ranges they were
instructed to leave, not because of classified activities, but for
their own safety.
These conclusions are supported by official files, technical reports,
extensive photographic documentation, and the recollections of numerous
former and retired Air Force members and civilian employees who
conducted Projects HIGH DIVE and EXCELSIOR. The descriptions examined
here, provided by UFO theorists themselves, were so remarkably—and
redundantly—similar to these Air Force projects that the only
reasonable conclusion can be that the witnesses described these
activities. These many similarities are summarized in Table 1.1.
The next section will examine the accounts of “aliens” at the hospital
at Roswell Army Air Field. As previously stated, due to the lack of
general or detailed similarities with testimony of the two rural “crash
sites,” the hospital account was determined not to be associated with
these reports.
[Illustration: Fig. 82.]
Table 1.1
Comparison of Testimony to Actual Air Force Equipment, Vehicles, and
Procedures Used to Launch and Recover Anthropomorphic Dummies
Notes:
“Crash Site” 1—Site North of Roswell
“Crash Site” 2—Site 175 miles Northwest of Roswell
Shaded areas indicates corroboration between witnesses.
Boxed shaded areas indicates corroboration between witnesses at
different “crash” sites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force
Witness Description Equipment/Procedure “Crash Site”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=The “Aliens”=
+--------------------------+
1. “They was using dummies in |Reference to | Site 1
those damned things.”[166] |anthropomorphic dummies |
_Ragsdale_ |(figs. 11, 14, 21–22, 29, |
|30–33, 35, 40, 72–75, 45).|
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
2. “I thought they were |Reference to | Site 2
plastic dolls”[167] |anthropomorphic dummies |
_Anderson_ |that had plastic skin. |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
3. “an experimental plane with |Reference to | Site 1
dummies in it”[168] |anthropomorphic dummies. |
_Kaufman_ +--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
4. “I’m sure that was bodies |Reference to | Site 1
... either bodies or |anthropomorphic dummies. |
dummies.”[169] +--------------------------+
_Ragsdale_
+--------------------------+
5. “it was either dummies or |Reference to | Site 1
bodies or something laying |anthropomorphic dummies. |
there.”[170] +--------------------------+
_Ragsdale_
+--------------------------+
6. “his eyes was open, staring |Reference to | Site 2
blankly”[171] |anthropomorphic dummy. |
_Anderson_ +--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
7. “not exactly like human |Reference to | Site 2
beings ... similar, but not |anthropomorphic dummies. |
exactly.”[172] +--------------------------+
_Maltais_
+--------------------------+
8. “didn’t look like human |Reference to | Site 2
beings”[173] |anthropomorphic dummies. |
_Knight_ +--------------------------+
9. “they didn’t have a little Reference to Alderson Site 2
finger”[174] Laboratories dummy that
_Anderson_ were reused many times and
were often damaged but
remained in service.
(figs. 35, 73, 75).
10. “they had four Corroboration of Site 2
fingers”[175] description #9. See above.
_Maltais_
+--------------------------+
11. [the beings were] “three |Likely description of | Site 2
and a half to four feet |anthropomorphic dummy |
tall”[176] |missing legs after fall |
_Maltais_ |from altitude. |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
12. [the beings were] “four |Corroboration of | Site 2
foot tall, four and a half |description #11. See |
feet tall.”[177] |above. |
_Anderson_ +--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
13. “they weren’t over four or |Corroboration of | Site 1
five foot long at the |description #11. See |
most.”[178] |above. |
_Ragsdale_ +--------------------------+
14. “Their skin coloration ... Probable description of a Site 2
[was] a bluish tinted milky “Sierra Sam” dummy with
white”[179] pale white “skin” (fig. 21).
_Anderson_
15. “their heads were Anthropomorphic dummies Site 2
hairless ... no eyebrows, did not have “hair” (figs.
no eyelashes, no hair”[180] 21, 22, 36–38, 40).
_Maltais_
16. “no hair ... completely Corroboration of Site 2
bald”[181] description #15. See above.
_Anderson_
17. “no visible ears ... just Dummies had ears that were Site 2
a rise there and then a molded to their heads with
hole”[182] openings for placement of
_Anderson_ instruments (fig. 22).
18. “The hands were not Reference to Alderson dummy Site 2
covered”[183] which did not have gloves on
_Maltais_ hands (figs. 35, 73–75).
19. “they were all wearing one Reference to gray flight Site 2
piece suits ... a shiny suits worn by the dummies
silverish gray color”[184] for some of the tests (figs.
_Anderson_ 14, 29, 30).
20. “Their clothing seemed to Corroboration of description Site 2
be one piece and gray in #19. See above.
color.”[185]
_Maltais_
21. “It’s uniform was torn in Dummy uniforms were often Site 2
a couple spots ... their secondhand, rips and other
uniforms were in pretty sad defects were common but
shape.”[186] they remained in service
_Anderson_ (fig. 75).
22. “Around the collar it [the Reference to red duct tape Site 2
suit] was trimmed in ... used to prevent air from
maroon-like cording”[187] filling the dummy’s
_Anderson_ flightsuit (figs. 29, 30).
23. “They looked like they Reference to tape and nylon Site 2
had some sort of bandages webbing used to prevent
on ’em ... over his [the arms and legs of dummy
crewmember’s] arm.”[188] from flailing. Tape was also
_Anderson_ used to secure the removable
back plate of head (figs. 29,
30, 35, 72–75).
24. [bandages] “around his Reference to parachute Site 2
midsection and partially over harness that had chest and
his shoulder”[189] shoulder straps.
_Anderson_
=The “Craft”=
25. “It [the crewmember] felt Description of a high Site 2
dead when I touched it, it was altitude balloon payload that
very cold.”[190] was cold soaked at sub zero
_Anderson_ temperatures of the upper
atmosphere.
26. “it was a dirigible, a Reference to a partially Site 2
that had crashed”[191] inflated or deflated high
blimp altitude balloon (figs. 23,
_Anderson_ 70).
27. “a flying saucer that had Reference to the dummy Site 2
burst open”[192] suspension rack that did not
_Maltais_ have sides (figs. 35, 73–75).
28. “clusters of thread-like Numerous cables and wires Site 2
material in the form of a were used in the dummy
cable”[193] instrumentation kits and
_Anderson_ balloon control package.
29. “others of those [cables] Both balloon control package Site 2
went from one kind of package and dummy instrumentation
of components to another kind kits were connected by cables
of package”[194] (fig. 73).
_Anderson_
30. “some kind of container, Reference to balloon control Site 2
a metal box”[195] package or dummy
_Anderson_ instrumentation kit (fig. 73).
31. “it was ice cold, it felt Condition of a balloon Site 2
like it just came out of a payload after it has been
freezer”[196] “cold soaked” in the upper
_Anderson_ atmosphere at temperatures
far below zero.
=Vehicles=
+--------------------------+
32. a “jeep-like truck that had |Reference to a modified | Site 2
a bunch of radios in it and two |M-37 ¾-ton utility |
big antennas.... There was a |truck commonly referred to|
guy sittin’ in there wearin’ |as a weapons carrier, |
earphones and he was talking |unique to the Balloon |
on the radio.”[197] |Branch. One of the primary|
_Anderson_ |vehicles used by recovery |
|crews. Balloons were |
|tracked by direction |
|finding gear and required |
|a radio operator to wear |
|headphones (fig. 32). |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
33. “weapons carriers”[198] |Corroboration of | Site 1
_Ragsdale_ |description #32. See |
|above. |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
34. “six by six Army |Reference to M-35 | Site 1
trucks”[199] |2½-ton cargo truck used |
_Ragsdale_ |to transport dummies and |
|suspension racks for |
|launch and recoveries |
|(fig. 31). |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
35. “six by [six] ... military |Corroboration of | Site 2
truck with canvas ... wagon |description #34. See |
type ... thing over it”[200] |above. |
_Anderson_ +--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
36. “wreckers [with] cranes |Reference to M-246 wrecker| Site 2
on ’em”[201] |used to launch and recover|
_Anderson_ |anthropomorphic dummy |
|payloads (figs. 23, 28, |
|70). |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
37. “a wrecker”[202] |Corroboration of | Site 1
_Ragsdale_ |description #36. See |
|above. |
+--------------------------+
38. “there was military Reference to a converted Site 2
ambulances”[203] M-43 ambulances used as
_Anderson_ balloon recovery
communications vehicles
(figs. 64, 71, 80).
39. “the pick-up”[204] Pick-up trucks were often Site 2
_Anderson_ used to recover
anthropomorphic dummies
(figs. 71, 79).
40. “tankers, like, maybe had Reference to M-49 fuel Site 2
fuel or water in ’em”[205] trucks used to refuel
_Anderson_ aircraft or helium trailer
used to inflate balloon
(figs. 23, 70, 80, 81).
+--------------------------+
41. “a military car”[206] |A variety of military and | Site 2
_Anderson_ |civilian cars were often |
|used for balloon |
|recoveries and launches |
|(fig. 71). |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
42. “’47 Ford car”[207] |Corroboration of | Site 1
_Ragsdale_ |description #41. See |
|above. |
+--------------------------+
43. “there was a jeep that was Reference to 1-ton trailer Site 2
pulling a trailer with a motor and MB-19 15 Kilowatt
on it, like a generator.”[208] diesel generator that were
_Anderson_ used at balloon launch and
recovery locations (fig.
71).
=Aircraft=
44. “observation aircraft ... Reference to an L-20 Site 2
high winged aircraft”[209] aircraft, primary “chase”
_Anderson_ aircraft used for balloon
recovery in the mid 1950s
(fig. 77).
45. “C-47 sittin’ there” [on C-47 aircraft were often Site 2
the road][210] used on dummy launch and
_Anderson_ recovery operations (fig.
78).
=Procedures=
46. “The federal government Reference to balloon borne Site 1
could have been doing anthropomorphic dummies
something because they didn’t that were dropped by remote
want anyone to know what this control by balloon
was ... they was using dummies controllers at Holloman AFB
in those damned things ... they
could use remote control”[211]
_Ragsdale_
47. “they took everybody’s Procedure used by Balloon Site 2
name and everything”[212] Branch to ensure payment
_Anderson_ of $25 reward and to settle
claims of property damage.
48. “they cleaned everything all Balloon Branch personnel Site 1
up ... I mean they cleaned were required to remove as
everything”[213] much debris as possible from
_Ragsdale_ balloon and payload landing
areas to avoid complaints
and legal actions.
+--------------------------+
49. “they had the road |Procedure used for | Site 2
barricaded off”[214] |aircraft operations. |
_Anderson_ +--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
50. “they had the road |Corroboration of | Site 1
sealed off”[215] |description #49. See |
_Ragsdale_ |above. |
+--------------------------+
51. “airplanes sitting there Established procedure to Site 2
they had landed on the refuel an aircraft, launch
highway”[216] a balloon from an isolated
_Anderson_ location or recover a
small payload near a rural
road.
52. “there was airplanes in Reference to balloon Site 2
the sky” [over the crash “chase” aircraft used to
site].[217] direct ground recovery crews
_Anderson_ to balloon impact site.
53. “stretching out cables of Reference to balloon Site 2
some kind ... they were inflation procedure that
stretching stuff out on the required the balloon and
ground, dragging stuff out of ground cloth to be removed
trucks”[218] from a vehicle and laid on
_Anderson_ the ground (fig. 79).
*/
SECTION TWO
Reports of Bodies at the Roswell AAF Hospital
This section examines the remaining portion of the Roswell Incident
claims--the reports of “bodies” at the Roswell AAF hospital.
Examinations of the various “crashed saucer” scenarios revealed
references to the Roswell AAF hospital appeared in virtually all of
them. Most of these were based on the account of one individual, W.
Glenn Dennis. His undocumented and uncorroborated recollections,
reportedly first related in 1989, over 42 years after the alleged
Roswell Incident, are based on activities he allegedly encountered as
a mortician providing contract services to the Roswell AAF hospital.
Dennis’ recollections have, in turn, been interpreted by UFO theorists
as evidence that the U.S. Army Air Forces recovered “alien” bodies and
autopsied them at the Roswell AAF hospital in July 1947.
Dennis has been described as the “star witness” and his claims as the
most credible of the Roswell Incident.[1] This, even though his most
sensational assertions were not based on his own experiences but on
information allegedly related to him by unidentified mystery witnesses.
[Illustration: Fig. 1. The International UFO Museum and Research
Center in Roswell, N.M. ]
The mystery witnesses were allegedly an Army Air Forces nurse and a
pediatrician both assigned to the Roswell AAF hospital in 1947.[2] To
casual observers, this account, which contains references to actual
U.S. Army Air Forces and U.S. Air Force personnel and activities,
appears to have a ring of authenticity. However, when examined closely
by Air Force researchers, the dates of events, the events themselves,
and the people described as having participated in them, were found to
be grossly inaccurate and totally unrelated to activities of July 1947.
The Account
The following is a summary of information provided by W. Glenn Dennis,
who claimed he was a 22-year-old mortician at the Ballard Funeral Home
in Roswell in July 1947, when he alleged these events occurred.[*]
[*] Excerpts of interviews contained in this summary were taken
from audio or video recordings made by persons referenced in the
appropriate endnote. The sole exception is the interview conducted
by Stanton T. Friedman on August 5, 1989. Quotations from this
interview were taken from a transcript which is reportedly an
accurate representation of the interview. Friedman has not honored
repeated requests for an audio recording.
On July 7, 1947, Dennis alleged he received a series of phone calls at
the Ballard Funeral Home, where he worked, from the Mortuary Affairs
officer at Roswell Army Air Field. He recalled that the mortuary
officer inquired as to the availability of child sized caskets and
procedures for preserving bodies that had been “laying out in the
elements.”[3] Later that day he received an emergency ambulance call
(the civilian mortuary for which he worked also provided an ambulance
service) to respond to the site of a minor traffic accident in
Roswell.[4] The accident victim was an “airman” stationed at Roswell
AAF, and Dennis transported the airman to the hospital at the base.[5]
As Dennis walked into the hospital he noticed three military box-type
ambulances, one or more of which contained what appeared to be
“wreckage.”[6] He described the wreckage as being inscribed with odd
markings or symbols and bluish-purplish in color.[7] He recalled that
some of this wreckage was resting against the inside wall of the rear
compartment of the ambulance and two pieces of it “looked kind of like
the bottom of a canoe.”[8] He described other wreckage on the floor of
the ambulance as being “all sharp” and as best he could tell “was like
broken glass.”[9] He also recalled observing Military Policemen (MPs)
standing at the back of two of these ambulances.[10]
When he went inside the hospital, he encountered a military nurse who
was assigned there and with whom he was previously acquainted.[11] The
nurse, who looked upset, was covering her mouth with a cloth and told
him that “you’re going to get in a lot of trouble” and that he should
“just get out of here.”[12] Dennis also stated that he encountered
a military doctor who was assigned to the hospital, a pediatrician,
with whom he was “pretty good friends” but did not speak with at that
time.[13]
Having seen the wreckage in the rear of the ambulance and believing
there had been an accident, he asked another officer in the hospital if
there had been a plane crash. The officer, whom Dennis had never seen
before, asked him: “Who in the hell are you?” When he responded he was
“from the funeral home,” the officer summoned two MPs to escort him
from the hospital.[14]
However, before Dennis and the two MPs had left the hospital, he
heard someone say, “We’re not through with that SOB, bring him back
here.”[15] When Dennis turned around, he observed a redheaded captain
(in one version of these events Dennis is quoted as describing this
person as a “big redheaded colonel”[16]) who said, “You did not see
anything. There was no crash here. You don’t go into town making any
rumors that you saw anything or that there was any crash ... you could
get in a lot of trouble.”[17]
Angry about being called an SOB, Dennis informed the redheaded officer
that he was a civilian, not under his authority, and that he, the
redheaded officer, “can’t do a damn thing to me.”[18] The redheaded
officer was alleged to have threatened Dennis by responding “Oh yes we
can”.... “Somebody will be picking your bones out of the sand”.... “We
can do anything to you ... that we want to.”[19] A black sergeant, whom
Dennis recalled had accompanied the redheaded officer, allegedly stated
he would “make real good dog food.”[20] Following this exchange, Dennis
claimed he was “picked up ... arm and arm” and escorted back to his
place of business by two MPs.[21]
The following day, July 8, 1947, Dennis attempted to telephone the
nurse he had seen in the hall at the hospital to find out “what was
going on.”[22] He stated that he was unable to reach the nurse but did
reach another nurse, a “Captain Wilson,” who explained to him that the
nurse he was trying to contact was not on duty, but “Wilson” would give
her a message to call him.[23] The nurse called Dennis later that same
day at the funeral home where he worked and agreed to meet with him at
the officers’ club at Roswell AAF that afternoon.[24]
When the two met, the nurse appeared disturbed and ill.[25] Dennis
asked her to explain what was going on when they met in the hospital
the day before. The nurse explained that, in the course of her normal
duties, she entered an examining room to get some supplies and
encountered two doctors whom she did not recognize that “supposedly
were doing a preliminary autopsy” on “three,” “very mangled,” “black,”
“little bodies.”[26] The doctors requested the nurse remain in the
room because they needed her assistance.[27] She allegedly explained
that there was a terrible odor in the room that made both her and the
doctors ill.[28] Due to this terrible odor and inadequate ventilation,
the nurse allegedly told Dennis that the autopsies were moved to
another facility on the base and then “everything” was taken to “Wright
Field” (now Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio).[29]
The nurse described the little bodies in detail and even provided a
diagram.[30] She described “little bodies” three to four feet in length
that had large, “flexible,” heads, and concave eyes and noses.[31]
After this meeting Dennis claimed he never saw the nurse again, and he
was told she had been shipped out the same afternoon (July 8, 1947)
or the next day (July 9, 1947).[32] However, some time later Dennis
received a letter from the nurse that indicated she was in London,
England.[33] Dennis stated that he tried to respond to the nurse, but
his letter was returned stamped “return to sender” and “deceased.”[34]
After receiving this letter, he inquired at the base about the nurse
and was told by “Captain Wilson” that she didn’t know where the nurse
was, but there was a rumor that she and several other nurses had been
killed in a plane crash while on a training mission.[35]
Some years later, Dennis stated that he visited the unidentified
military pediatrician he had seen at the hospital.[36] The pediatrician
had since left the military and set up practice in Farmington, N.M.[37]
Dennis said he and the pediatrician discussed the incident of years
past but was stopped short when the pediatrician told him that he was
consulted regarding this incident, but that “it was completely out of
[his] field of medicine,” then ended the discussion.[38]
Based on this account, UFO theorists have presented the following
assertions:
=a.= Dennis, the “missing” nurse, and the unidentified pediatrician
inadvertently stumbled onto the highly classified autopsies of
alien bodies at Roswell AAF hospital in July 1947.
=b.= The two mysterious doctors at the hospital were sent
to Roswell AAF from a higher headquarters to conduct the
autopsies after which the bodies were transported to what is now
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
=c.= The bluish-purplish wreckage that looked like the bottom of
a canoe in the rear of the ambulance, were “escape pods” from a
flying saucer flown by the aliens that crashed in the Roswell area.
=d.= Dennis was forcibly removed from the hospital and threatened
with death by the redheaded officer because he had witnessed some
of these activities.
=e.= The nurse was kidnapped, possibly murdered, and all records
that she ever existed were systematically destroyed by government
agents, also because she witnessed these activities.
As in other accounts examined in this report, the episodes described
here became part of the Roswell Incident only because the witness
claimed they occurred at a very specific time, July 7–9, 1947. These
dates coincide with an actual event: the retrieval of experimental
Project MOGUL research equipment that was erroneously reported as
a flying disc (see Section One).[39] If the events described here
occurred at any other time—years, months, weeks, or even days before or
after July 7–9, 1947—they might be considered unusual to an uninformed
person, but certainly not part of the Roswell Incident.
Air Force research revealed that the witness made serious errors
in his recollections of events. When his account was compared with
official records of the actual events he is believed to have described,
extensive inaccuracies were indicated including a likely error in the
date by as much as 12 years.
2.1
The “Missing” Nurse and the Pediatrician
To illustrate the errors in this account and to identify actual events,
the following section will examine the accounts of the missing nurse
and the unidentified pediatrician. Both of these persons were allegedly
present at the Roswell AAF hospital when the events described by the
witness occurred.
The “Missing” Nurse
Dennis recalled that the nurse was quickly and suspiciously shipped out
either the same day or the day after he met with her in the Roswell
AAF Officers’ Club. If this allegation was true, it certainly seemed
unusual—and verifiable. Therefore, the morning reports, the certified
daily personnel accounting records required to be kept by all Army Air
Forces units at that time, were obtained and reviewed. These reports
did not indicate that a nurse or any other person was reassigned on
the days alleged, July 8 or July 9, 1947.[40] The morning reports of
the 427th Army Air Forces Base Unit (AAFBU) Squadron “M,” the unit
that all the medical personnel at Roswell AAF were assigned in July
1947, did not indicate a sudden or overseas transfer of a nurse or
any other person. Records indicated that one nurse was reassigned on
July 23, 1947, over two weeks after the purported events described by
Dennis.[41] That nurse was transferred by normal personnel rotation
procedures to Ft. Worth AAF (now Carswell AFB), Texas, where she
remained on active duty until March 1949.[42] In fact, the Squadron “M”
morning reports revealed the strength of the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) at
Roswell AAF for July 1947 was only five nurses. Of these five nurses
none were transferred overseas or killed in a plane crash—the “rumored”
fate of the missing nurse.[43]
This review of the hospital morning reports also indicated that the
name of the missing nurse provided by the witness was inaccurate. The
witness stated in several interviews that he believed the nurse’s name
was Naomi Maria Selff.[44] A comprehensive search of morning reports
and rosters from the Roswell AAF Station Hospital indicated that no
person by this name, or a similar name, had ever served there. This
finding was supported by a search of personnel records at the National
Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Mo., a part of the
National Archives and Record Administration. NPRC is the depository for
all U.S. military personnel records. The search at NPRC also did not
find a record that a person named Naomi Maria Selff had ever served in
any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.
These findings were consistent with previous efforts of several
pro-UFO researchers who have also attempted to locate this nurse or
members of her family. They, likewise, were also unable to confirm
her existence.[45] While some UFO theorists continue to allege that
this absence of records regarding a nurse by this name is part of a
conspiracy to withhold information, the most likely reason for the lack
of records is that this name is inaccurate.[*]
[*] Interestingly, an article published in the Fall 1995 edition
of _Omni_ magazine, a publication that in the past has published
sensational “Roswell” claims, also independently accounted for all
five of the nurses and expressed a decidedly skeptical opinion of
the account of the “missing nurse.”
Even though the name of the nurse is incorrect, it appears that a nurse
assigned to the Roswell AAF Station Hospital in 1947 may have been the
basis for the claims. Eileen Mae Fanton was the only nurse of the five
assigned to Roswell AAF in July 1947, whose personal circumstances and
physical attributes not only resembled those of the missing nurse, but
appeared to be nearly an exact match.
The “Missing Nurse?”
[Illustration: Fig. 2. Eileen M. Fanton (_U.S. Air Force photo_)]
1st Lt. Eileen M. Fanton was assigned to the Roswell Army Air
Field Station Hospital from December 26, 1946 until September 4,
1947.[46] Fanton, who is deceased, was retired from the U.S. Air
Force at the rank of Captain on April 30, 1955, for a physical
disability.[47]
In this account, the missing nurse is described as single, “real
cute, like a small Audrey Hepburn, with short black hair, dark
eyes and olive skin.”[48] Lieutenant Fanton was single in 1947,
5′1″ tall, weighed 100 pounds, had black hair, dark eyes, and was
of Italian descent.[49] Dennis also stated that the nurse was of
the Catholic faith, and had been “strictly raised” according to
Catholic beliefs.[50] Fanton’s personnel record listed her as Roman
Catholic, a graduate of St. Catherine’s Academy in Springfield,
Ky. and as having received her nursing certification from St. Mary
Elizabeth’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky.[51]
The witness also recalled that the “missing nurse” was a
lieutenant, was a general nurse at the hospital, and had sent him
correspondence at a later date which stated she was in London,
England with a New York, N.Y. APO number (military overseas mailing
address) as the return address.[52] Records revealed that Fanton
was a First Lieutenant (promoted from Second Lieutenant to First
Lieutenant in June 1947), and she was classified as a “nurse,
general duty.”[53] Records also indicated that of the five nurses
assigned to the Roswell AAF Station Hospital in July 1947, she
was the only one that later served a tour of duty in England.
Furthermore, she was assigned to the 7510th USAF Hospital, APO
240, New York, N.Y., where she served from June 1952 until April
1955.[54] The 7510th USAF Hospital was located approximately 45
miles north of London at Wimpole Park, Cambridge, England.
An additional similarity between Fanton and the “missing nurse”
is that her personnel record indicated that she quickly departed
Roswell AAF and it is probable that the hospital staff would not
have provided information concerning her departure. Fanton’s
unannounced departure from Roswell AAF, on September 4, 1947 was
to be admitted to Brooke General Hospital, Ft. Sam Houston, Texas,
for a medical condition.[55] This condition was first diagnosed
in January 1946 and ultimately led to her medical retirement
in 1955.[56] Therefore, if someone other than a family member
contacted the Station Hospital at Roswell AAF and inquired about
Fanton, as Dennis stated he did, the staff was simply protecting
her privacy as a patient. The staff was not participating in a
sinister “cover-up” of information as alleged by UFO theorists.
The Pediatrician
In at least two interviews, the witness stated that a pediatrician
stationed at the hospital was involved in the events he described.[57]
When asked by an interviewer how he knew the pediatrician was
involved, Dennis was quoted as replying, “I know he was involved
because I saw him there.”[58] Dennis is also quoted as saying that
he and the pediatrician were “pretty good friends,” and after the
pediatrician left the military he [the pediatrician] set up a practice
in Farmington, N.M. “I used to go fishing all the time up north and
I visited him several times up there and he was involved,” Dennis
said. “I don’t remember his name, I think he is still practicing in
Farmington.”[59]
A review of personnel files and interviews with former members of the
Roswell AAF/Walker AFB hospital staff, revealed that only one physician
ever relocated to Farmington, N.M. following his military service. The
former Capt. Frank B. Nordstrom served at Walker AFB from June 1951
until June 1953.[60] Records also revealed that Nordstrom was indeed a
pediatrician and while at Walker AFB, served as the Chief of Pediatric
Services.[61] When Nordstrom, a resident of the small town of Aztec,
N.M., was interviewed for this report, he stated that he did not recall
ever meeting Dennis and could not recall any events that supported any
of his claims (see signed sworn statement in Appendix B).[62]
Farmington (population 8,000 in 1954) is located in the primarily
rural Four Corners region of New Mexico approximately 300 miles
northwest of Roswell. According to Nordstrom, Farmington did not have a
pediatrician before his arrival in 1954. From 1954 until approximately
1970, Nordstrom believes he was the only pediatrician in the area. His
recollections were confirmed by a local Farmington pharmacist, Charles
E. Clouthier.[63] Clouthier also served at the Walker AFB hospital,
from 1955 to 1957, and following his military service returned to
Farmington, his hometown, where he had lived since 1934. Clouthier has
been employed by and co-owned a business, Farmington Drug, since 1957.
He is familiar with most, if not all, of the doctors who practice
in Farmington and the Four Corners region of New Mexico. Clouthier’s
confirmation that Nordstrom was the first pediatrician to practice
in the Farmington area, was based on both his frequent professional
contacts with local physicians and his experiences as a longtime
Farmington resident.[64]
Although Nordstrom believed that he was the pediatrician described, he
was at a loss to explain how Dennis gained information concerning his
military and civilian employment history. In a signed sworn statement,
Nordstrom stated that he did not recall ever meeting Dennis and had
certainly never been visited by Dennis as he has claimed. One possible
source of the information is that from approximately 1958 until
approximately 1961 Dennis operated a drugstore in Aztec, N.M., a small
town near Farmington where Nordstrom resides (interestingly Aztec is
the location of the original “crashed flying saucer” story, see below).
However, Nordstrom also did not recall any contact with Dennis in his
capacity as a drugstore operator.
Behind the Roswell Incident?
[Illustration: Fig. 3. Story by J.P. Cahn, that appeared in the
August 1956, _True_ magazine.]
The “Roswell Incident” story is hardly original. In 1948, a work
of fiction reportedly appeared in the _Aztec_ (N.M.) _Independent
Review_ describing the crash of a flying saucer with “little
men” near Aztec, N.M. In 1950, Frank Scully, a columnist for
the theatrical publication _Variety_, published a book, _Behind
the Flying Saucers_, which proclaimed the story to be true.[65]
Based on the Aztec story, _Behind the Flying Saucers_ bears many
similarities to the Roswell Incident, most notably, descriptions
of covert “flying saucer” and “little men” recoveries interspersed
with doses of unsubstantiated accusations directed at the U.S. Air
Force.[66]
In his book, Scully claimed he had information from two scientists,
Silas M. Newton and a mysterious “Dr. Gee,” who he claimed
investigated the crash for the government.[67] In reality,
Newton and Gee were con-men who convinced Scully of the story’s
authenticity.[68]
Intrigued by the sensational claims made in _Behind the Flying
Saucers_, a reporter for the _San Francisco Chronicle_, J. P. Cahn,
decided to look into the matter. What resulted from Cahn’s research
were articles in the September 1952 and August 1956 edition of
_True_ magazine which determined that the story was as “phony as a
headwaiters bow and smile.”[69]
Cahn, with the assistance of a magician, devised a plan to “sting”
the two con-men.[70] To execute the sting, he used sleight of
hand switching an “indestructible” metal disk, claimed to be
from a flying saucer, with a slug of his own manufacture. After
the switch, Cahn submitted the disk to a laboratory for analysis
revealing that they were of earthly origin, in particular, a grade
of aluminum used to manufacture pots and pans![71]