Misleading Information

Kent Jeffreys, Monday, June 16, 1997

Many of the books and documentaries about Roswell imply that it is highly probable, if not certain, that the recovered debris was from a crashed flying saucer. Some of that information, however, is misleading or incorrect. It ranges from fabricated stories on the part of seemingly credible witnesse to exaggeration and selective presentation of fact.

In some instances, it is probably more a case of overzealousness on the part of authors than intentional deception. In other instances, credibility is stretched beyond limits. For example, after the conclusion of the story in the movie Roswell, statements of purported fact just prior to the credits inform us that Jesse Marcel, Sr., died in 1986 and that "since then over 350 witnesses to the event have agreed to talk." In actuality, because so few people ever saw the debris, it is doubtful whether even one tenth that number of witnesses could ever be produced.

In retrospect, there is much about Roswell that I wish I had questioned more thoroughly, early on. For example, I received a very interesting letter, dated March 20, 1993, written on the stationary of a respected major UFO organization. The author of the letter, in addition to being a board member of that organization, was a well-known Roswell researcher and the co-author of a leading book on the subject. I had no reason to question his credibility.

In part the letter read:

"...a very important trip to New Mexico where we secured another first-hand witness to the bodies. This brings our total to EIGHT (emphasis in the original) with yet additional prospects."

My immediate thought was that if these (secret and primarily military, I was told) witnesses could be convinced to come forward, we would be able to break the Roswell case wide open. The letter represented a major turning point in my support for and involvement with the Roswell crashed-UFO investigation.

I subsequently retained, at my personal expense, a major Washington, D.C., law firm to offer counsel to the eight witnesses in the hope of encouraging them to come forward. In September, 1993, I arranged for two of the attorneys from the firm to travel to New Mexico, where they were to be put in to ch with three of the supposed eight secret witnesses. Once the attorneys arrived in Roswell, however, they were put in contact with only one such witness. I would later learn that this particular so-called secret witness was already known to other researchers and that his story was considered outlandish and unbelievable -- an assessment with which I now fully agree.

Sending the two attorneys to New Mexico was a tremendously expensive waste of time and resources. The researcher and author who wrote the March 20, 1993, letter telling of the eight witnesses was, himself, eventually discredited. Although a very personable individual, he proved to be less than honest. He was subsequently removed from the board of the UFO organization with which he was affiliated and his co-author, still a respected researcher, disavowed any association with him. As for the other seven "secret" witnesses, nothing has ever been heard from or about them since.