Documents / Report

The Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert

USAF / The Black Vault · 1995 · 882 pages · text by OCR

The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert was published by Headquarters United States Air Force in 1995. The Black Vault distributes this copy. It reproduces the report by Col. Richard L. Weaver and the synopsis by 1st Lt. James McAndrew, both written after a General Accounting Office inquiry requested by Representative Steven Schiff. The Air Force search found no evidence of an extraterrestrial craft or crew. It concluded that the Roswell debris most likely came from NYU Flight No. 4, a Project MOGUL balloon train.

  • p. 26 …Since 1978-1980, other UFO researchers, most notably Donald Schmitt and Kevin Randle, claim to have…
  • p. 28 …Randle and Donald Schmitt; The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell (1994), also by Randle…
  • p. 131 …I have reviewed the pictures in the 1991 Book by Randle and Schmitt on the UFO…
  • p. 139 …It had been alleged in a number of books, including the one by Randle and Schmitt…
  • p. 141 …I went through and pulled out wherever, in this book UFO Crash at Roswell by Randle…
  • p. 142 …From the very start, when these clowns started hounding me, Randle and Schmitt, I told they…
  • p. 147 …He makes a number of claims that, at least Randle and Schmitt; and when I say…
  • p. 149 …risk injury to civilians on the ground. Randle asked if he remembered any talk at all…
  • p. 161 …Well, of course, Randle and Schmitt do claim that those people are out there and that…
  • p. 162 …Well, I got a perfect example of this with Randle and Schmitt. Randle is the outgoing…
  • p. 173 …On review of the photos in the Randle/Schmitt book, the material looks like one of…
A: You're right.

Q: This has it coming down northwest.

A: What's the origin of this?

Q: It's in the back of one of the reports.

A: It looks to me like it may have been out of this report.

Q: Not every report had this graphic depiction like this which was number eight.

(Pause to look through documents)

A: With those numbers it wouldn't have been in that first report because these flights were much later.

Q: Technical Report No.1.

A: Right. And Flight 58 and 55 aren't going to be in that early report. They occurred after that report was written.

(Pause)

A: I would say what was in that first report is more accurate than this. This, I think, occurred after I left NYU. It's a general summary. Flight 11 was a very important flight. They got very important data on it -- Crary and Peoples.

Q: Spilhaus based his article from Journal of Meteorology on it.

A: Right, and he wrote a paper in the bulletin. The fact that the balloon trajectory has this hook in it when it went over the mountain ridge...

Q: That's obviously the [ano-cyclonic] winds aloft.

A: Exactly. So he and Bernard Harwitz were very excited about the fact that the balloon at nominal constant level, had a change in direction when the air was forced over the mountain barrier, and they published a special paper on that. So everybody was happy with this flight.

As soon as that flight was made, that was the 7th, and we went home on the 8th.

Q: That would be the reason why there would be no one there in the area who could explain this debris that was brought in. There were no experts there who dealt with this particular type of material or radar reflectors.

Cited by

Cases discussed

About this file

Report, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. The text was read from the page images by an OCR model; expect the odd misread word. 882 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.