Quick digression: I went into several second hand bookshops a couple of weekends ago, and while I found a few nice historical books to keep me occupied, what struck me was the complete lack of the usual breathless UFO books. In the olden days (i.e. five years ago), these used to fill the shelves, so why are they now so few and far between? Might conspiracy theorists have moved on from UFOs to (who knows?) vaccine, woke, Brexit, Russian political funding, MAGA, Trump, Jewish space lasers, American democracy, doomscrolling? Is Roswell too distant a memory for anyone but me to give a stuff about?
Anyway… one of the big ‘traditional’ focuses of UFO conspiracy theorists is Major Jesse Marcel. It was he who famously went to Mac Brazel’s ranch in Corona NM (near Roswell) where pieces of strange metal foil and curious beam fragments (some with odd writing on) were found. Plenty of books and documentaries have been made featuring Marcel, mainly because he combined a credible straight-down-the-line military career with his firm belief that what crashed near Roswell was, ummm, extra-terrestrial.
Yet another very similar military man went to Brazel’s ranch that day: Counter Intelligence officer Captain Sheridan Cavitt. Relatively little UFOlogical ink has been spilt on Cavitt, perhaps because he combined a credible straight-down-the-line military career with his firm belief that what crashed near Roswell was… ummm, just a balloon. Which would, of course, make for far less juicy books and tabloid headlines.
Still, it’s time to take a look at Sheridan Cavitt, the other well-known military Roswell responder…
Captain Sheridan Cavitt
Perhaps the best place to start is Nick Redfern’s two-part article on Sheridan Cavitt: here’s part one, and here’s part two. The most ‘horse’s mouth’ thing Cavitt said about Roswell was in a May 24, 1994 interview with Colonel Richard L. Weaver, USAF:
“There were no, as I understand, checkpoints or anything like that (going through guards and that sort of garbage) we went out there and we found it. It was a small amount of, as I recall, bamboo sticks, reflective sort of material that would, well at first glance, you would probably think it was aluminum foil, something of that type. And we gathered up some of it.”
As to how large that debris field was, Cavitt asserted that it was “Maybe as long as this room is wide.” And he was sure (he said) that it was “a weather balloon”.
UFO researcher Kevin Randle interviewed Cavitt in 1990: Cavitt told Randle that because in 1947 he was working for the CIC (Counter Intelligence Corps), any report he made would have gone to Washington (there’s a persistent rumour Cavitt wrote a report that has since disappeared). As far as the Roswell incident goes, Randle was sure Cavitt was lying (which he was), and Cavitt was pretty sure Marcel was lying (he probably was). At the same time, Randle pointed out that “Cavitt doesn’t even agree with Cavitt“, so we have to exercise caution when trying to make sense of all this.
But there was in fact a third Army early responder, Bill Rickett. And according to Rickett’s later testimony, it was Rickett and Cavitt who got to Brazel’s ranch first, with Rickett coming back later with Marcel. And that kind of broadly squares with Cavitt saying that he took the stuff he collected from the site with Rickett back to the base at Roswell and handed it to Marcel; and that he thought Marcel claiming that he’d gone to the site first with Cavitt was wrong, and had caused Cavitt a load of problems.
So… what did happen?
On balance, I think that the actual first Roswell responders were probably Sheridan Cavitt and Bill Rickett; and that Jesse Marcel, having been handed debris from the site by Cavitt back at the base, had then gone to the site with Bill Rickett a little later that day. Generally, even though Cavitt wasn’t a particularly reliable witness, I’m a little more comfortable with parts (though, again, not all) of Rickett’s account.
Does that mean that I think Jesse Marcel embiggened his role up in the whole affair, and should really have been recorded as third or fourth or fifth responder? Yes, probably. Really, my guess is that Marcel had told his family stories for several decades about what happened that day, and in the end wasn’t really comfortable untangling that whole knot if that meant reducing his heroic role in the story.
At the same time, Marcel was sure what had been in the field wasn’t a weather balloon, even if Cavitt was: yet if the debris resembled aluminium foil and bamboo, it can’t have had anything to do with Project Mogul, as Cavitt and others later (incorrectly) claimed. I believe they all tried to frame what they saw in terms of what they knew: but what they saw it wasn’t anything that they knew. By which I mean to imply not that it was some kind of ‘alien technology’ (because I’m sure it wasn’t): but rather non-Army technology sufficiently advanced to confuse the heck out of them both (while still not being magic).
Finally, on the matter of the mysterious “bodies” at the other site close to Roswell, Cavitt kept resolutely schtum: but that’s definitely a topic for another day (i.e. not today).
PS: here’s a nice video of Project Mogul balloons being launched, courtesy of the Black Vault. Might one of these have come down on Mac Brazel’s ranch? I really don’t think so, sorry.
The mystery that intrigues us all.
Cavitt was a counter intelligence officer, Captain, subordinate to Marcel who was also some kind of Intelligence officer.
The key may be found in Stanton Friedman, a genuine nuclear physicist and scientist who was diligent in his investigations. If Friedman believed Marcel, that is good enough for me because Friedman, being a scientist, would have checked multiple things before taking a position.
One thing is, however, no longer in doubt, irrespective of whatever did or did not happen at Roswell. From videos, a famous 2017 NY Times article, credible Navy pilots, and sworn Congressional testimony, we now are certain that hypersonic aircraft exist with capabilities that make our most modern jets appear like World War 1 biplanes compared to an F14. I don’t care if some boffins back in the 1950’s figured it out or it was from reverse engineering the crashed craft of little green men from another planet or time traveling interdimensional beings. My vote is for the boffins who made the breakthrough on anti-gravity which remains top secret although (look of puzzlement) somebody somewhere is sure enjoying themselves sending the new craft out over military bases, flying rings around our jets and otherwise thumbing their nose at us. If they really are aliens, they are a playful bunch.
“they all tried to frame what they saw in terms of what they knew: but what they saw it wasn’t anything that they knew. ”
well said.
Is Stanton Friedman connected to William and Elizabeth?
All legends, even conspiracy theories, have an element of truth. Particularly, a conspiracy theory is a legend, which is used as a smokescreen to obfuscate an uncomfortable truth.
On one side, UFO stories are no longer useful to divert the attention of curious people. On the other side, sci-fi stories (and hard science in general) are a bit out of fashion.
Re: the Roswell debris…the short version of the extended extract from William J. Birnes’ _UFO Hunters: Hoax or History_ linked to below is that they set up a test involving two of the witnesses who claimed to have handled the “memory metal” material (Earl Fulford and Jesse Marcel, Jr.), who were presented with samples of a number of materials (aluminum, magnesium, steel, cardboard, silver-painted
acetate, and Mylar) for comparison to their memory of what they handled. The bottom line was that “[Marcel] and Earl Fulford identified the qualities of acetate, each in a blind test and each now knowing what the other had identified. Ted Acworth called it ‘amazing.’ ‘Both of them zeroed right in on the acetate making it clear to me that both of them found the weight, the thickness, and the malleability almost a one-to-one match with what they handled in 1947.'”
Birnes factually incorrectly claims “The acetate, although developed in the 1930s, according to the official 1994 Air Force report on Project Mogul, was not used in the construction of the balloon or any parts of the apparatus.” — the report (https://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/Roswell/RoswellIncident.html) actually specifically states, “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,…” — and then concludes that if it looks like an acetate duck, and walks like an acetate duck, and quacks like an acetate duck, then since acetate ducks were not (he incorrectly claims) used in Project Mogul the “memory metal” wasn’t from a Proj. Mogul balloon. I guess the aliens were using acetate, maybe?
The passage in question starts at https://www.google.com/books/edition/UFO_Hunters_Hoax_or_History/mGINCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=But+what+about+the+strange+memory+metal&pg=PT46&printsec=frontcover and runs for four pages.
Re: James’ statement “From videos, a famous 2017 NY Times article, credible Navy pilots, and sworn Congressional testimony, we now are certain that hypersonic aircraft exist with capabilities that make our most modern jets appear like World War 1 biplanes compared to an F14. ”
“We” are certain of no such thing. The “GOFAST” video, for instance, does not show an object close to the surface of the water traveling at high speeds — it shows a slow moving object much closer in elevation to the fast moving fighter plane it is being imaged by (https://defensescoop.com/2024/11/19/uap-aaro-findings-go-fast-puerto-rico-mt-etna-objects/). Visually both of those situations will produce a high rate of angular motion that looks the same to a tracking camera or eyeball. There have been non-gov’t analyses of the other Navy video also questioning whether there is anything anomalous about the objects they show (https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-skeptics-guide-to-the-pentagons-ufo-videos/).
As for “credible Navy pilots”, this is one of the misconceptions about how perception works that just drives me batsh*t crazy when I see people engage in it. A highly trained combat pilot flying a mission who is trying to interpret a visual stimulus they can’t identify is actually going to be one of the least reliable witnesses you could possibly have. Visual perception is not a little homunculus in your head sitting in an armchair, munching popcorn, and watching a live video feed from the eyeballs on a big screen TV. It is an incredibly heavily constructive and expectation driven process. You “see” what your brain has been trained to expect to see — sleight-of-hand magic weaponizes this (Penn & Teller do an absolutely brilliant bit demonstrating how this works — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4U-kHdXgz0). If you’re a combat pilot, and your *** not getting shot down depends of tracking objects in your vicinity on the assumption that they are hostile aircraft maneuvering to attack you, then your visual system is going to use the highly trained perceptual hammer its been tuned to be to interpret unfamiliar stimuli as nails. Back in the Blue Book days there were a number of cases of military pilots getting into dogfights with what turned out to be balloons — quoting an example from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Report_on_Unidentified_Flying_Objects/Chapter_3,
“The other dogfight occurred September 24, 1952, between a Navy pilot of a TBM and a light over Cuba.
The pilot had just finished making some practice passes for night fighters when he spotted an orange light to the east of his plane. He checked on aircraft in the area, learned that the object was unidentified, and started after it. Here is his report, written immediately after he landed:
As it [the light] approached the city from the east it started a left turn. I started to intercept. During the first part of the chase the closest I got to the light was 8 to 10 miles. At this time it appeared to be as large as an SNJ and had a greenish tail that looked to be five to six times as long as the light’s diameter. This tail was seen several times in the next 10 minutes in periods of from 5 to 30 seconds each. As I reached 10,000 feet it appeared to be at 15,000 feet and in a left turn. It took 40 degrees of bank to keep the nose of my plane on the light. At this time I estimated the light to be in a 10-to-15-mile orbit.
At 12,000 feet I stopped climbing, but the light was still climbing faster than I was. I then reversed my turn from left to right and the light also reversed. As I was not gaining distance, I held a steady course south trying to estimate a perpendicular between the light and myself. The light was moving north, so I turned north. As I turned, the light appeared to move west, then south over the base. I again tried to intercept but the light appeared to climb rapidly at a 60-degree angle. It climbed to 35,000 feet, then started a rapid descent.
Prior to this, while the light was still at approximately 15,000 feet, I deliberately placed it between the moon and myself three times to try to identify a solid body. I and my two crewmen all had a good view of the light as it passed the moon. We could see no solid body. We considered the fact that it might be an aerologist’s balloon, but we did not see a silhouette. Also, we would have rapidly caught up with and passed a balloon.
During its descent, the light appeared to slow down at about 10,000 feet, at which time I made three runs on it. Two were on a 90-degree collision course, and the light traveled at tremendous speed across my bow. On the third run I was so close that the light blanked out the airfield below me. Suddenly it started a dive and I followed, losing it at 1,500 feet.
In this incident the UFO was a balloon.
The following night a lighted balloon was sent up and the pilot was ordered up to compare his experiences. He duplicated his dogfight—illusions and all. The Navy furnished us with a long analysis of the affair, explaining how the pilot had been fooled. “
There are innocent explanations for the inaccuracies in Captain Cavitt’s statements. Redfern (part 1 above) notes that Cavitt had been interviewed by a number of UFO researchers. He cites several, but surely Cavitt had been approached by more than that. (UFO researchers have a reputation for active imaginations as well as persistence.)
During the first Randle interview, Cavitt denies he was at Roswell during the time of the crash. Randle doesn’t give us an exact quote, but in the second interview he does. Cavitt states (or asks) rather cryptically: ‘Are you guys convinced that I wasn’t there.’ And his wife follows: ‘If he had been way overnight, at that time… I would for sure remember it.’
Later in the second interview, Randle quotes Cavitt: ‘You better believe that. He [Marcel (Randle’s note)] says I was out there is his biggest problem.”
When Roswell mentions alien bodies, Cavitt answers: ‘Bill Rickett tell you that?’
These statements are equivocal, to say the least.
Randle continues: ‘But then, as we continued to talk with Cavitt, he made it clear that he was, in fact, in Roswell at the right time.’
Randle paints Cavitt as a reluctant witness. Cavitt has no doubt been pestered quite a bit over Roswell, and saying he wasn’t there is one of the few effective defenses that doesn’t involve firearms. Nobody enjoys an interrogation, especially if (as Redfern notes in part 2) you could go to jail for violating a security oath. Cavitt begins by either lying or equivocating, and opens up a bit when Randle establishes a rapport. (Detectives are no doubt familiar with this kind of thing.)
So far, this seems innocent enough.
__________________
But when Cavitt provides details (mostly to Weaver), they don’t square with other witness statements. Why?
Cavitt gave his interviews some 45 years after the fact, and memory degrades over long periods of time. There are two ways this can happen. Both are documented by the psychologist Elizabeth Lofthus.
First, Cavitt remembers the big picture and tries to reconstruct the details. For example he remembers he was on the crash site, be doesn’t quite remember who was with him, Cavitt’s mind makes a logical guess, which to him appears as a memory. Because he did not believe the checkpoints were important, he did not memorize them, and he fails to recall them. He is not lying- his memory is playing tricks on him.
Second, Cavitt may not be recalling events directly. Cavitt had given a number of interviews and owned a copy of ‘The Roswell Incident’ (CDA, in comment to Randle). These no doubt colored his memory. Rather than directly recalling his own experience, Cavitt was, to a greater or lesser extent, recalling his recollections. The more you tell a story, the more likely the details are to blur.
What is most likely to remain, however, is the big picture. The sticks and foil he remembers are probably similar to what he picked up that day. And when Cavitt said ‘I thought it was a weather balloon’ he was probably telling the truth.
What it really was, however, is an entirely different question…