Documents / FOIA release

roswell

Office of the Secretary of Defense · 993 pages · text from the file's own layer

The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert was published in 1995 by Headquarters United States Air Force. It was written in response to Representative Steven H. Schiff's request and a General Accounting Office audit, and it contains Col. Richard L. Weaver's report and 1st Lt. James McAndrew's synopsis, along with attachments, appendices and photographs. The report says researchers found no evidence of an extraterrestrial craft or crew. It concludes that the 1947 debris came from a Project MOGUL balloon train.

  • p. 39 …and Maj Jesse Marcel. Capt. William E. Anderson said it was from a flying saucer. After…
  • p. 143 …Sam Anderson 12:00 Tc ~.'iar CoWlcil in absence of Ge.-1. Spaatz 12:20 ?. 1…
  • p. 149 …General Anderson - General Va."l inrCil"l'led Gen. Amerson tlla t he was definitely againSt…
23-24). These interviews confirmed that Project MOGUL was a compartmented,
sensitive effort. The NYU group was responsible for developing constant level
balloons and telemetering equipment that would remain at specified altitudes
(within the acoustic duct) while a group from Columbia was to develop acoustic
sensors. Doctor Spilhaus, Professor Moore, and certain others of the group were
aware of the actual purpose of the project, but they did not know of the project
nickname at the time. They handled casual inquiries and/ or scientific inqui-
ries/papers in terms of "unclassified meteorological or balloon research." Newly
hired employees were not made aware that there was anything special or
classified about their work; they were told only that their work dealt with
meteorological equipment.
An advance ground team, led by Albert P. Crary, preceded the NYU group to
Alamogordo Army Air Field, New Mexico, setting up ground sensors and
obtaining facilities for the NYU group. Upon their arrival, Professor Moore and
his team experimented with various configurations of neoprene balloons;
development of balloon "trains" (see illustration, Atch 25); automatic ballast
systems; and use of Naval sonobuoys (as the Watson Lab acoustical sensors had
not yet arrived). They also launched what they called "service flights." These
"service flights" were not logged nor fully accounted for in the published
Technical Reports generated as a result of the contract between NYU and Watson
Labs. According to Professor Moore, the "service flights" were composed of
balloons, radar reflectors, and payloads specifically designed to test acoustic
sensors (both early sonobuoys and the later Watson Labs devices). The "payload
equipment" was expendable, and some carried no "Reward" or "Return to ... "
tags because there was to be no association between these flights and the logged
constant altitude flights which were fully acknowledged. The NYU balloon flights
were listed sequentially in their reports (i.e., A, B, or 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 ... ), yet gaps
existed for Flights 2-4 and Flight 9. The interview with Professor Moore indicated
that these gaps were the unlogged "service flights."
Professor Moore, the on-scene Project Engineer, gave detailed information
concerning his team's efforts. He recalled that radar targets were used for tracking
balloons because they did not have all the necessary equipment when they first
arrived in New Mexico. Some of the early developmental radar targets were
manufactured by a toy or novelty company. These targets were made up of
aluminum "foil" or foil-backed paper, balsa wood beams that were coated in an
"Elmer's-type" glue to enhance their durability, acetate and/or cloth reinforcing
tape, single strand and braided nylon twine, brass eyelets and swivels to form a
multi-faced reflector somewhat similar in construction to a box kite (see photo-
graphs, Atch 26). Some of these targets were also assembled with purplish-pink
tape with symbols on it (see drawing by Moore with Atch 21).
According to the log summary (Atch 27) of the NYU group, Flight A through
Flight 7 (November 20, 1946-July 2, 1947) were made with neoprene meteorologi-
cal balloons (as opposed to the later flights made with polyethylene balloons).
Professor Moore stated that the neoprene balloons were susceptible to degrada-
26

Cases discussed

About this file

FOIA release, from the osd collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 993 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.