The changes in the tale told by Ragsdale were detailed in The Jim Ragsdale Story, written by Max Littell. Littell told how he learned of Jim Ragsdale. "In 1993… we did have an investigator/author visiting us, and when his partner took the car on another errand, he needed a ride to his motel. I offered, and the individual said, 'Great, but I need to go by and see a party on the way, if it's all right.' This turned out to be Jim Ragsdale."
There was a suggestion of an affidavit, and Littell wrote, "Within a few days, the instrument [affidavit] arrived, and I met Ragsdale for the first time. The instrument was read to him, he signed it, the document was notarized, and I mailed it back to the investigator. Notaries do not make copies of the instrument, so I do not remember any of the statements made."
This where the statements made by Littell concerning that aspect of the episode divert from established fact. Ragsdale was interviewed by Schmitt on January 26, 1993, and the affidavit was signed on January 27. Mark Chesney, who had waited in the car with Littell and who had listened to the tape, suggested an affidavit be made. Chesney prepared a handwritten version. He discussed it with Littell and the two of them, in Littell's office, made a few changes. Then Littell, because he could type much faster than Chesney, typed it up. In other words, the instrument was not sent to Littell. He had a hand in preparing it as well as getting Ragsdale’s signature on it and once that was done, Littell notarized it. He sent the original to me, but kept copies in the files of the International UFO Museum.
These are but a few of the problems with the tales told by Ragsdale and now endorsed in the book The Jim Ragsdale Story. It is clear from these major changes that Ragsdale’s tale, while exciting, cannot be trusted. Few inside the UFO community believe much of what Ragsdale said during his many interviews. Because much of the material was recorded, the various versions can be compared and when that is done, it is clear that the information is invented and not very imaginative.
Lieutenant Colonel Philip J. Corso
Lieutenant Colonel Philip Corso interjected himself into the middle of the Roswell case in 1995 as he began shopping around a book about his experiences with both alien creatures and the metallic debris collected. His story, while exciting, has many holes in it and Corso himself, seems to have stretched the truth on more than one occasion.
The first, and probably the dumbest of these distortions is on the cover of his book. It said he was a colonel, but his military records showed that he had never risen above lieutenant colonel. When asked about it, Corso said that he assumed that he had been promoted on retirement, as sort of a going away present, but that just wasn’t the case.
Could this be classified as a simple mistake, no worse than some of the statements that other Roswell witnesses have made? Certainly. And if this was the only problem we could let it go there. But it’s not.
One of the most telling of the events surrounding the publication of Corso’s book is the Foreword written by Senator Strom Thurmond. Here seems to be an endorsement for Corso’s book from a man who has served in the United States Senate longer than almost anyone. When the book was published, Thurmond, objected, claiming that the Foreword he had written had been for a different book.
Corso tried to explain the mistake away, saying that Thurmond’s staff had written the Foreword but that “the old man knew it” and while they hadn’t really known the nature of the book, Thurmond did. The whole flap, according to Corso, was a misunderstanding about the nature of the book and who actually authored the Foreword. As a matter of courtesy, given the controversy, Simon and Schuster decided to pull the Foreword.
Karl Pflock, who had been around Washington, D.C. in various capacities, decided to look into the matter himself, believing that his friends and sources inside the Beltway would given him a unique perspective on the matter. Pflock, it turned out, knew the senator’s press secretary, and learned that “Yes, it’s true the foreword was drafted by one of the senator’s staff… It was done at the senator’s’s direction on the understanding he had from Corso that it was to be for Corso’s memoirs, for which he and his staff were supplied an outline, a document which made no mention of UFOs.” Pflock added, “I know of my own certain knowledge the senator was and is mad as hell about the cheap trick that Corso pulled on him…”
Pflock continued, pointing out that Deputy General Counsel Eric Raymond demanded, “Recall all copies of the first printing — failing that, remove all dust jackets with the senator’s name on them; stop using any reference to the foreword by the senator in promoting the book; do not use the foreword in any subsequent printings of the book; issue a statement acknowledging the truth, ‘to establish for the public record’ that the senator ‘had no intention or desire to write the foreword to The Day After Roswell,’ a ‘project I completely disavow.’”
The apology issued by Simon and Schuster was not as bland as Corso had characterized it but was, in fact, damning in its wording. It was clear that Thurmond did not know the nature of the book and that the outline he had read was for a completely different book. The publisher did remove the foreword from all subsequent editions of the book.
That, of course, was not the end of it. Don Ecker, writing in UFO magazine in the October/November 2001 issue, suggested that Thurmond had known the truth about the book and had signed a release from on February 7, 1997, prior to the publication of the book. On that release, it says in part, “… permission to use and publish the material described below, in any and all editions of the book presently entitled…” There is a blank space and the words “Roswell Book” have been typed in. To Ecker, that meant that Thurmond knew the nature of the book.
It’s a nice thought, but probably not true. The word Roswell might have meant nothing to Thurmond, and it is clear that the original outline submitted to the senator so that he, or his staff, could prepare a forward had nothing to do with Roswell, crashes or UFOs. Although it probably has nothing to do with this, it should be noted the UFO magazine publisher is William Birnes, Corso’s coauthor on the book.
Gildas Bourdais, a French UFO researcher of some standing, wrote, in late October 2001, that to him, this settled the matter. He supported Ecker’s conclusions then, but UFO research is also about reevaluation of information as we learn more, so I asked him about that in Late 2006.
Bourdais wrote, “Yes, I have changed my mind about the question of the release by Thurmond. It was a very tricky article by Don Ecker in UFO magazine, which kind of convinced me at the time that he was aware that the book dealt with Roswell. But I realized later that the argument was suspect.”
He added, “Today, I have mixed feelings about Corso, as a man. I realize that, to say the least, some parts of his story are not credible… But I remain perplexed by the man himself.”It seems, however, that Corso has a history of this sort of unreliable behavior. The FBI, for some reason (he probably annoyed someone with some power in Washington, D.C.) investigated Corso in the 1960s. They concluded, in part, “As a matter of background, as previously indicated in referenced memorandum, Corso is a self-styled intelligence expert who retired from the military approximately 3 years ago, and he has been working as one of Senator Strom Thurmond's many assistants. He has been somewhat of a thorn in our side because of self-initiated rumors, idle gossip and downright lies he has spread to more or less perpetuate his own reputation as an intelligence expert.”