From: dalefar@aol.com (DaleFar) Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Subject: Pflock Report in Perspective Date: 23 Nov 1994 21:15:16 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) THE PFLOCK REPORT IN PERSPECTIVE By Terry Endres and Pat Packard Co-founders, Associates for Scientific Knowledge The so-called UFO crash at Roswell has reached something of a turning point. Although artificial at best, certain issues have been thrust upon the public mind as though grounded in fact. This is an unfortunate situation, but one that was expected by most UFO researchers. After all, only the incredibly naive could think that a military cover-up could be ended simply upon request. A contributing factor to the recent Air Force dismissal of the Roswell incident is a report researched and written by Karl Pflock: Roswell in Perspective.At first glance, this document appears to be a solid piece of investigative journalism. But, like the Condon Report,it must be read carefully and critically before any of its conclusions can be accepted. Doing this reveals a wealth of inconsistencies that would require a book length rebuttal, but this article will focus on some of the more glaring problems. Pflock contends that he entered his research as a  ...Roswell Incident agnostic, with no ax to grind, no vested interest in one theory or another, no allegiance to anything but a commitment to uncover and make public the truth about this remarkable case -- the whole truth, unvarnished and uncompromised. (Pflock 1) First, we wonder how Pflock's agnosticism weathered his previous attempt to explain the Roswell case as a crashed Flying Wing. Surely he must have felt that was the truth, too.Second, Pflock betrays a specific attitude by describing Randle and Schmitt as Roswell revisionists. This label, which is not meant as a compliment, should only be used if a degree of concordance regarding an historical event is challenged or substituted with a deviant interpretation. There has never been a consensus on this case; it is still under investigation. Besides, what are Randle and Schmitt revising? The Roswell Incident? Crash at Carona? Their previous Roswell book? Such a pointed word choice is not characteristic of an objective evaluation. And, as we'll illustrate below, Pflock applies his own brand of varnish to the "facts" he's gathered and eventually publishes a compromised version of the Roswell case. BEING FRANK ABOUT KAUFMANN One is given to wonder about Pflock's basic investigative techniques. For example, whengiven the opportunity to interview Frank Kaufmann (whose request for anonymity was apparently ignored) Pflock neglects to take along a tape recorder. Since an appraisal of Kaufmann's testimony and character is essential to the case, one can only be amazed at the oversight. Not that we have any reason to question a reconstructed version, but since Pflock often makes an issue of memory not being wholly trustworthy, he is obliged to secure the most accurate record possible. This was not done, and the integrity of his investigation of Kaufmann is flawed. Furthermore, Pflock doesn't press the right points while interviewing Kaufmann: I asked who these people were, was President Truman among them? Kaufmann replied, "Well I don't know. I don't think so. Maybe." So I asked him where he was when the VIPs were filing past the bodies. "I was right there."(Pflock 48) At first blush this would seem to undermine Kaufmann's credibility. Surely he would've spotted Truman! This might have been resolved if Pflock asked Kaufmann why he didn't see or recognize Truman. Was his line of sight blocked? Did Kaufmann here from someone else that Truman was on hand although not present at the viewing? And, appreciating Kaufmann's ongoing reluctance to break his military oath of silence, was he simply struggling with the remnants of his loyalty to President Truman? Of course, Pflock would have to ask these questions indirectly so as not to lead the witness. But then again, an objective researcher would have made that effort since it would have provided a fix on Kaufmann's whereabouts and possibly developed a new lead. In fact, Pflock's entire treatment of Kaufmann is a masterwork of biased reportage. For example, Kaufmann states his reason for not going before congressional investigators with his story: What's that going to prove? There's no way they're going to prove it. There's no way they're going to get the information they need to back that up.So I'lljust come across as some kind of a nut and that will be the cover for this. (Pflock 52) Rather than see his concern and cynicism as reasonable (there are many instances from UFO and general history, such as McCarthyism and the Condon Report, that support Kaufmann's fears), Pflock characterizes Kaufmann as evasive. Furthermore, he uses phrases like "To the extent that I have been able to make sense out of what Kaufmann told me..."(Pflock 50) to undermine Kaufmann's statements and to imply, perhaps, a degree of mental instability on the part of the witness -- like Kaufmann is some kind of nut. Also, so that we appreciate Pflock's exasperation, he is always trying "another tack", unless he decides not "to press the point". In short, what Pflock has done with Kaufmann's testimony, sans recordings or transcripts, is exactly the kind of thing Frank feared. And now, thanks to Pflock disregarding Kaufmann's desire for anonymity, a pivotal informant's cover is blown. SELECTIVE FACT-FINDING Pflock is often rather selective about the unvarnished facts he collects. This is well illustrated in his treatment of Jason Kellahin's testimony: "The AP's Kellahin and Adair were on site the afternoon of July 8, and no security was in place."(Pflock 70) While this reflects Kellahin's account accurately, it flies in the face of Robin Adair's recollection that they "...did take a plane up, but... couldn't land anywhere around it ... they (the military officers on the field) just waved ... You couldn't tell if they were just waving us off or just politely telling us to get the hell away from there. (Randle and Schmitt 79) At no time does Adair claim to have been on the actual crash site. We are given to wonder why, then, Pflock makes any reference to Adair without citing his testimony. In fact, at no point does Pflock reveal that Adair's testimony contradicts Kellahin's on almost every point. What an interesting take on corroboration. There are a number of other points about Kellahin's testimony that Pflock accepts uncritically. As Kellahin tells it, he received a morning phone call to go to Roswell and check out the story.(Randle and Schmitt 77) This would have to be July 8, since by the next day the story had been killed by Gen. Ramey's balloon explanation, and there'd be no reason to send out a reporter. The problem is that Col. Blanchard's press release wasn't issued until around noon, and no one knew anything about the crash until then. Kellahin also places the crash site south of Vaughn, New Mexico. No one else, supporter or detractor, places any debris there. These are major testimonial problems that Pflock appears to ignore. A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME? A further questionable (and possibly unethical) tactic is the use of an admission by Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr., that some "... of the geometric forms could resemble the petals of a flower ... maybe flower-like ..." (Pflock 89) to support the notion that the debris came from a Mogul balloon that sported adhesive tape embossed and/or printed with purplish-pink flowers. However, Marcel has consistently maintained that the figures did not resemble any known language or figures. In fact, his statements simply reflect a question like, "Would you say that some of the figures resembled flowers?' Marcel's references to "petals" and "flower-like" make sense only in terms of comparison, not positive identification. And lest we forget, Marcel's description of the fragment as an I-beam is certainly at odds with flimsy paper tape. At any rate, Pflock apparently has no qualms about supporting his thesis with out-of-context quotes. PHANTOM WITNESSES As part of the effort in developing his premise, Pflock had to locate witnesses that could identify the crash site material as typical of weather and similar balloons. He finds two: Bessie Brazel-Schrieber and "Reluctant." Bessie was 14 at the time of the incident and recalls accompanying her father, Mac Brazel, to the debris field. She describes the wreckage as resembling parts of a kite. This certainly doesn't sound otherworldly, but it does sound a lot like a balloon. The problem is that only Bessie can place herself on the scene at that time. Her brother Bill has never mentioned her specific presence, and Pflock neglects to interview him for clarification. Furthermore, the Stricklands and Proctors, Mac Brazel's neighbors, don't place her on the scene either. This does not mean that Bessie is fabricating her story. Since Mac Brazel had collected one or two weather balloons before the crash in question, Bessie may simply be associating one of those with it. What's important is that her presence within the crucial time frame cannot be corroborated, and her testimony cannot be considered conclusive. A similar difficulty haunts the testimony of "Reluctant" (Pflock appears to honor requests of anonymity inconsistently). Accordingly, "Reluctant" makes it out to the crash scene before the military and describes the debris in balloon- like terms: balsa wood and tin foil. In spite of its unremarkable nature, "Reluctant" saves some of the material and neglects to spill the beans to the press. He could've scooped Gen. Ramey! Further, "Reluctant" claims to still have his souvenir somewhere in his "junk room." He's looked for it unsuccessfully for the last two years. Once again we have a witness for whom no one can vouch. Without independent verification of his presence at the crash site, "Reluctant" is little more than a bandwagon witness. REJECTIONISM Another difficulty with Pflock's report is that he seems to simply dismiss witnesses who don't support his scenario. As described above, he completely overlooks Robin Adair's version of the Roswell debris site. Likewise, he makes no mention of Gen. Exon's overflight corroborating Adair's statement. These are not isolated cases. Of John Kromschroeder, who handled material and described it as unbendable, Pflock simply declares he has reason to doubt his credibility. He elucidates no further on what causes him to make such a judgment. We are entitled to know. Testimony cannot be rejected simply on gut reactions. Pflock also contends that "there is reason to question (Sgt. Robert E.) Smith's account" because it includes details "which it is unlikely he would have been privy to or even in a position to hear rumors about."(Pflock 74) However, a reading of Smith's sworn affidavit, provided by Pflock in Appendix H, does not bear this out. Simply saying someone's testimony is disputable is not proof that it is. MIRACLE MATERIAL It's hard to imagine a material whose properties are more astonishing than what many witnesses have claimed for the "otherworldly" Roswell crash debris. Yet, Pflock seems to have found one. Based on the recollections of Charles B. Moore who worked on Project Mogul, the balsa wood slats used in supporting structures of the balloon were coated with an "Elmer's glue-like" substance. This is also referred to as hardened balsa wood, and it makes perfect sense to reinforce the light, soft material with a hard shell. But Pflock goes the extra mile to suggest that it was this "hardened" balsa wood that resisted breaking, cutting or burning! If such a coating, as Pflock perceives it, does exist and existed in 1947, it would be more remarkable and commercially valuable than anything from another planet. Where is it now? DEBRIS So, what really does Pflock's report tell us? Not a whole lot. He goes to some length to break down the Roswell scenario, as researched by Randle and Schmitt, and to build up an alternate "Project Mogul" crash. In the end, however, he cannot prove his case. There is no documentation to back up his claims, only a strong suggestion that unrecorded Mogul balloon launch number nine fits the time frame. But this is still just a balloon, and as hard as Pflock tries to prove otherwise, twenty-three eyewitness (among whom were intelligence and other ranking officers) do not report balsa wood, heavy paper, metal foils and so on. Those witnesses, if we accept Pflock's logic, have clouded memories, are mistaken or confabulating. Oddly, Pflock doesn't seem to worry if his own key witnesses are similarly gifted. But remember, part of Pflock's goal was to illustrate that we know a good deal less about the Roswell crash than we thought we knew. Of course this depends on unjustifiably rejecting witnesses and corroboration, accepting the statements of unsubstantiated witnesses, and misquoting and misrepresenting testimony. Clearly, Pflock builds his case by selecting only that information which suits his thesis. Thus, Pflock's version of the Roswell event is fatally flawed. What we really have here is not an objective re-evalution but a debunking that may serve to further obscure the Roswell UFO crash. PERFECT TIMING It's curious that the release of Karl Pflock's report was delayed just long enough so that CUFOS had no chance to critique it in time to make the July/August IUR. The MUFON Journal apparently had no difficulty securing a copy, and Dennis Stacy seemed only too happy to bestow his approval upon it. In fact, Stacy claims that Pflock's report is "... a model of how any thorough, objective UFO case should be investigated..." One can only assume Stacy was so overwhelmed by the copious end notes that he was unable to see the inconsistencies and manipulations we've detailed above. The point is, CUFOS would have been able to provide a contrasting opinion that would have provided some balance to the discussion. And, perhaps, that balance would've included a warning as to what was to come. What came was the Air Force's official denial. Seriously, did anyone expect anything Although it is titled Report of Air Force Research Regarding the Roswell Incident, it reads like a press release. In fact, this "report", echoing Pflock's findings, was released against protocol established by the GAO's investigation into the Roswell case. The Air Force was supposed to submit its findings to the GAO for evaluation, not to the news media. One is forgiven for wondering if this was a strategy rather than an oversight. Having made its impact on the public through a national news media that has apparently forgotten the military's poor record on telling the truth (indeed, all of the anti-UFO references in the "report" could only be accepted by an incredibly naive reader), the Air Force has neutralized any comment the GAO could make. Indeed, a simple rejection of the Air Force's report would almost surely label Congressman Steven Schiff (R. New Mexico) a "flying saucer nut." Upon such reputations political greatness is not built. The date, ironically, on the AF report is July 1994. Why wait until September to state the case? In fact, why even wait until the GAO investigation when the same information had been declassified in the late 1970s? Because now, the only living Air Force witness to the crash site is Sheridan Cavitt, who claims the debris was from a downed balloon. When Randle and Schmitt originally interviewed Cavitt, he swore he wasn't even there. Later, he identified the wreckage as the wrong kind of balloon. Although his memory shows some variability, at least Sheridan Cavitt has remained consistently loyal to his service.  The insanity of this all is that it takes but one dissenting voice and a line of AF double-talk to nullify the testimony of 23 eyewitnesses and hundreds of substantiating testifiers. It's difficult not to think that this is not just one more layer of the cover-up. REFERENCES Pflock, Karl. Roswell in Perspective. Mt. Rainier: Fund for UFO Research, 1994 Randle, Kevin D., and Donald R. Schmitt. UFO Crash at Roswell. New York:Evans, 1994