SUN 27 (May 1994)

Magazine Overview

Title: Skeptics UFO Newsletter
Issue: SUN #27
Date: May 1994
Publisher: Philip J. Klass
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of the Skeptics UFO Newsletter, edited by Philip J. Klass, critically examines the new "crashed saucer" scenario for the Roswell Incident proposed by authors Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt in their book "The Truth About The UFO Crash At Roswell." The newsletter questions the credibility of the "new witnesses" presented in the book, highlighting inconsistencies with previous accounts and even within the authors' own earlier publications.

Randle/Schmitt Scenario Under Scrutiny

The article begins by pointing out a significant contradiction in the Randle/Schmitt (R/S) narrative regarding Frank J. Kaufmann's knowledge of ET bodies recovered at the Roswell impact site. In their new book, Kaufmann is quoted as knowing what was in the crate, while in their 1991 book, he was stated to not know. This sets the tone for the newsletter's detailed deconstruction of the R/S scenario.

The newsletter revisits the original timeline provided by rancher "Mac" Brazel, who discovered the debris. Brazel's initial account, given on July 8, 1947, placed the discovery on June 14, with his family gathering debris on July 4 and July 5. However, R/S #1 claimed the discovery was on July 3, and R/S #2 changed it to July 5. Brazel himself reportedly stated June 14. The newsletter notes that Brazel, lacking a radio, would not have heard of Kenneth Arnold's June 24 sighting, which is relevant to his later speculation about flying disks.

According to the original account, Sheriff George Wilcox contacted the Roswell Army Air Field, leading Maj. Jesse A. Marcel and another individual to collect debris from Brazel's ranch. R/S #2, however, shifts this timeline, claiming Brazel came to town on Sunday, July 6, to sell wool. This new timeline is also questioned, as dealers would be closed for a three-day holiday.

New Claims of an Earlier Crash and ET Bodies

The core of the R/S "new scenario" involves a flying saucer crashing "shortly before midnight on Friday July 4" near the Brazel ranch, but approximately 40 miles south, not on the ranch itself. Jim Ragsdale, one of the "first-hand witnesses," claims he and his girlfriend found the crashed craft while camping. Due to failing flashlight batteries, they did not investigate closely and returned the next morning to find "bodies," though no count was given. Ragsdale apparently did not report this significant discovery to the authorities.

R/S #2 also introduces a group of archaeologists, led by Dr. W. Curry Holden, who allegedly "stumbled upon the [crashed saucer] site about dawn on the morning of July 5." However, Ragsdale does not mention seeing them, and Holden, interviewed in 1992 at age 96, reportedly had a jumbled memory and had never mentioned such an event. Despite Holden's apparent confusion, R/S #2 claims he sent a student to find a phone to alert authorities about an "aircraft accident."

Further complicating the narrative, Ragsdale claims that on July 5, a large military contingent arrived at the impact site and established a cordon. However, he states that none of the military police spotted him or his jeep. Mrs. Frankie Rowe, daughter of a city fireman, claims her father was dispatched to the site and saw the craft and ET bodies. She also recounts a civilian contractor's story of seeing a live ET walk into the base hospital on July 5.

The newsletter highlights the apparent contradiction that by noon on July 5, many Roswell civilians and military personnel involved in recovery operations knew about the crashed saucer, yet Maj. Jesse Marcel and Base Commander Col. William Blanchard were allegedly not informed. This contrasts sharply with the fact that Marcel was later called to investigate debris found by Brazel.

The "Steve MacKenzie" Enigma

Frank J. Kaufmann is presented as a key "first-hand witness" under the pseudonym "Steve MacKenzie." R/S claim Kaufmann requested anonymity due to a "former CIA employee" discrediting witnesses. The newsletter identifies Kaufmann as Karl Pflock, a long-time UFOlogist with ties to NICAP and former work for the CIA and the House Committee on Armed Services. Pflock is researching the Roswell incident, partly funded by FUFOR.

R/S #1 mentioned Warrant Officer Robert Thomas reporting a "special flight from Washington" on July 8, while R/S #2 has Thomas calling "MacKenzie" and arriving in Roswell on July 4, before the alleged crash, suggesting precognition.

SUN's editor visited Roswell and spoke with Kaufmann, who denied knowing anyone named "MacKenzie" and stated his name was Kaufmann. Kaufmann, who was based at Roswell before leaving the military in 1945, worked on "special assignment" but refused to elaborate. He also denied working on radar, being a mechanic, or a pilot.

According to R/S #2, "MacKenzie" received a call from Brig. Gen. Martin F. Scanlon on July 2 to monitor a mysterious craft detected on radar near White Sands. "MacKenzie" allegedly set up mirrors to monitor the screen while on duty, a detail the newsletter calls "inventive."

"MacKenzie's" Account of ETs and Recoveries

"MacKenzie" claims he was told by Gen. Scanlon to abandon his radar watch on July 4 and return to Roswell. He states that only nine men with "highest clearance" had access to the impact site, and he was one of them. He described seeing a live ET with a "damned serene look on its face."

"MacKenzie" also claims he accompanied a shipment of bodies in a C-54 that left for Andrews Army Air Field "at two or three in the morning." The newsletter questions the timing, stating a C-54 could not have made that flight before daylight. R/S #2 claims the pilot was Capt. Oliver W. Henderson, while R/S #1 states Henderson flew a C-54 load of wreckage to Wright Field.

Master Sergeant Lewis S. Rickett is described in R/S #1 as being dispatched to the Brazel ranch on July 8 to collect debris. However, R/S #2 places Rickett at the Impact Site three days after it was cleaned, where he reportedly saw a craft with a curved front and wide wing. The newsletter notes that Rickett is widely quoted in R/S #1 but does not mention seeing the crashed saucer in that book.

Accounts of ET body recovery also differ. R/S #1 cited Beverly Bean, daughter of Sgt. Melvin E. Brown, stating ET bodies were loaded into trucks. R/S #2 changes this to bodies being placed in body bags in old ambulances, with Sgt. Brown ordered to ride in one.

The newsletter questions the logic of a "dum-dum" ET flying a badly disabled craft 40 miles over flat terrain to crash into a cliff, especially if the debris found on the Brazel ranch was from that craft. It notes the lack of reported search efforts for debris along the flight path.

Diverse ET Descriptions and the "Diversionary Cover-up" Theory

Regarding ET bodies, "MacKenzie" claims there were five ET bodies, while Mrs. Rowe's father saw one live ET and two bodies. Other accounts vary, with one witness reporting "four little men...one was alive," and his wife recalling "just two."

Schmitt stated that witnesses did not refer to the craft as an "Alien spacecraft" or the bodies as "Aliens," but Randle countered that witnesses said the bodies were not human and were "Aliens." Randle also claimed the base provost marshal, Edwin Easley, personally stated it was extraterrestrial and that Easley promised the President he would never reveal what he learned.

Randle noted that descriptions of ETs from "first-hand witnesses" differ from those of "UFO-abductees." The ETs reportedly had large heads, skin described as pasty white or gray-white with peach fuzz, and were about 4-1/2 to 5-1/2 feet tall. Randle asserts that six such witnesses corroborate each other despite differing details.

Schmitt characterized the Roswell incident as "the most important, the most significant of all UFO cases of all time."

The newsletter then proposes its own scenario, "SUN's Unified Covert Crashed ET Saucer Scenario (SUCCESS)," to explain the loose ends in the R/S narrative. This scenario posits that if the "first-hand witnesses" are truthful, the ET craft and bodies were recovered on July 5. It suggests that President Truman decided to keep the event secret. The theory proposes that Maj. Marcel, realizing the difficulty of keeping the crash secret due to numerous witnesses, devised a "Diversionary Cover-up."

This cover-up involved bringing the Brazel ranch debris back and having Lt. Walter Haut issue a press release announcing a "flying disk" recovered "on a ranch near Roswell." This would lead the media to falsely conclude the debris was from the Brazel ranch, diverting attention from the actual impact site. The debris would then be flown to Ft. Worth and identified as a balloon-borne radar target by Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey.

The newsletter also mentions a similar "diversionary cover-up" idea involving Grady "Barney" Barnett, who claimed to have found a crashed saucer and ET bodies on the Plains of San Agustin. This ruse, along with others involving numerous spurious crash reports fed to investigators like Leonard Stringfield, allegedly fooled prominent investigators for decades.

The newsletter questions the logic of focusing attention on the Roswell area if the true impact site was only 40 miles away, suggesting it would be more logical for a diversion to occur hundreds of miles away. It references Kenneth Arnold's June 24, 1947 sighting of nine craft in the Pacific Northwest, proposing that a crash there could have led to a diversionary incident in New Mexico.

It is suggested that Congressman Steve Schiff's request for the GAO to investigate the Roswell file might be futile if the real crash occurred in the Pacific Northwest. The newsletter raises the possibility that the R/S "first-hand witnesses" might be government disinformation agents, especially given Kevin Randle's military background and veteran benefits.

New Data Debunks Abduction Tales Similarity

The newsletter also presents findings from a two-part series in the MUFON UFO JOURNAL analyzing abduction tales. Contrary to common claims, the data from 95 subjects (27 males, 58 females, 10 mixed) suggests that abduction cases involve widely varying descriptions of entities, surroundings, and procedures, although some similarities are striking.

• Specific findings include:
• ET Attire: 37% wore robes/cloaks/capes, 23% jumpsuits, 18% wetsuits, 22% naked.
• ET Skin Color: 42% reported white-to-gray, 13% dark, 8% blue, 5% green. 10% reported glowing skin.
• UFO Shape: 47% discoid, 17% spherical, 6% rectangular, 6% triangular.
• Post-Abduction Effects: 34% reported scars, 37% nosebleeds, 17% headaches. 11% reported miraculous healing.
• Communication: ETs communicated via telepathy (two-thirds of cases) or audible voice (20% of cases).
• Tissue Samples: 13% reported ETs collecting tissue or hair.
• Sexual Systems: Barely half reported events involving their sexual reproductive systems.

The newsletter concludes that Wright, who analyzed the data, acquired recordings for roughly 200 new cases and believes entities are grouped into types with a strict ranking of duties.

Short Shrift Section

• This section provides brief updates:
• New Roswell Crashed Saucer Newsletter: A new quarterly newsletter by Randle/Schmitt, edited by Don Schmitt, is announced.
• New Crashed Saucer Movie: The movie "Roswell," based on R/S #1, will portray the saucer and ET bodies found on the Brazel ranch.
• Pro-UFOlogist Praises GAO Investigation: Fred Whiting of the Fund For UFO Research describes his role in prompting Congressman Schiff's GAO investigation into the Roswell Incident.
• Randle/Schmitt Challenge GAO Investigation: Randle and Schmitt publicly question the GAO's objective, stating they are looking for procedural violations, not proof of alien spacecraft.
• GAO's "Official Objective": A letter from GAO's Richard Davis to Schiff outlines the GAO's review of government policies and procedures regarding crash incidents like Roswell.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is skepticism towards claims of extraterrestrial encounters, particularly the Roswell Incident. The newsletter meticulously dissects and questions the narratives presented by UFO proponents, highlighting inconsistencies, contradictions, and potential disinformation. The editorial stance is clearly critical, aiming to debunk sensational claims by presenting alternative explanations, such as government cover-ups and the unreliability of witness testimony. The newsletter champions a rational, evidence-based approach to UFO phenomena, contrasting it with what it perceives as the gullibility of some UFOlogists.