I suppose I should point out here that this FBI assessment was written in a world where there was no Freedom of Information Act and therefore no reason for the FBI to create such an assessment if it didn’t reflect reality. In other words, those who might claim this was part of a smear campaign would have to explain the reasoning for creating this document when those writing it would expect it to remain hidden. This was not a smear of Corso to be used to discredit him later, but the opinions of those who knew him in the 1960s. This shows a pattern that would emerge in the 1990s as he attempted to inject himself, as an expert, into the Roswell case.
He also said that he was a member of the fictional MJ-12. To me, making such a claim shows that he was inventing tales to bolster his connection to the UFO community. While he didn’t make this claim often or widely, he said in one version of the proposal for his book that he was a member of MJ-12… a claim that was dropped from later proposals and not mentioned in the book, but a false claim nonetheless and indicative of his credibility as so aptly outlined by the FBI three decades earlier.
Corso did have his supporters inside the UFO community and some of them continue to be quite loyal in their support. What is interesting is what they now say in their support of Corso. One of them, Ed Gehrman, who seems to like the unpopular and controversial UFO claims and theories, wrote, “His own son [Philip Corso, Jr., who tried to take on his father’s work after his death] in a public forum (which he wouldn't allow to be taped) in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, (Journey's Beyond Conference)… claimed that only 10 % of the book [The Day After Roswell] was worthwhile because Corso had not been able to review it. That's correct. Col. Corso was not able to review the book but I think his son's statement is a bit of an exaggeration. Col. Corso stated many times that the main thesis of his book was absolutely true: he seeded alien technology to the US business community.”
Here’s the point. Corso’s son said that only about ten percent of the book was accurate… which means ninety percent is not. The younger Corso suggested it was because his father did not have the opportunity to review the manuscript after his co-author had finished it and it was sent to the publisher. As a writer, I know this to be false. There would have been ample opportunity for Corso to see what was written and correct it. That he didn’t question it is a tacit admission that he accepted the manuscript as accurate and it was only after the questions were raised that Corso and others began to claim he hadn’t had the chance to review it.
I’ll give Robert Gates, a careful UFO researcher, the last word on Corso here. He wrote, “He [meaning Corso] never admitted to making any mistakes. He merely maintained (last I knew) that Birnes stroked and joked the book. Birnes claims the book is accurate. The question comes down to what exactly was 'Birnes-ized' in the book? In essence the book… has been discredited to a degree by the supposed lead author, claiming that his co-author stroked the truth. So what is truth and what is stroked is not known.”
Walt Whitmore, Jr
There is one witness, unidentified by Karl Pflock in his book, who takes an important role in “proving” that Mogul is the solution and who was named "Reluctant" by Pflock. Reluctant provided the best clues to the Mogul balloon array explanation for the Roswell crash. Pflock wrote that Reluctant wanted to keep his name out of the story, and given the facts it is not surprising. If Reluctant was identified, it would become clear that Reluctant’s story, told to Pflock was significantly different than what he told William Moore in the late 1970s, when he, Reluctant, first appeared.
Today we know that Reluctant is Walt Whitmore, Jr., a life long resident of Roswell. He was in the house when his father brought Mack Brazel home, and heard the story of the debris field directly from Brazel. There is no reason not to identify Reluctant in today’s world. He died a number of years ago.
Describing the testimony of Reluctant (Whitmore), Pflock wrote, "… Brazel sketched a map for me, showing which roads to take and how to find the site. I drove there alone… a distance of 65 or 70 miles. No one was there when I arrived, I do not remember seeing any sign that anyone had been on the site… I am certain I was on the site before any military personnel got there."
According to Whitmore, "The site was a short distance from a ranch road. The debris covered a fan- or roughly triangle-shaped area, which was 10 or 12 feet wide at what I thought was the top end. From there it extended about 100 to 150 feet widening out to 150 feet at the base… The material was very light. I could see it blowing in the wind."
Whitmore, according to Pflock, described the material as"…white, linen-like cloth with reflective tinfoil attached to one side. Some pieces were glued to balsa wood sticks, and some of them had glue on the cloth side, with bits of balsa still stuck to it… None of the sticks was more than a foot or so long."
Whitmore told Pflock, and he told me in 1995, that he had collected some of the material and taken it home. Pflock reported that Whitmore told him, "It is… stored in a safe and secure place." He told me that place was his “junk room.”
Those aren't the only statements made by Reluctant on the record. Although the source is less than sterling, Charles Berlitz and William Moore report in The Roswell Incident that Whitmore"…said that while he did not see the actual crash site until after the Army Air Force had 'cleaned it up,' he did see some of the wreckage brought into town by the rancher. His description was that it consisted mostly of a very thin but extremely tough metallic foil-like substance and some small beams."
Other aspects of Whitmore’s statements to Pflock are corroborated by The Roswell Incident. According to the book, Whitmore"…ventured out to the site and found a stretch of about 175–200 yards of pasture land up-rooted in a sort of fan-like pattern with most of the damage at the narrowest part of the fan…"
Whitmore also provided Berlitz and Moore with a description of the material."…the largest piece of this material that he saw was about four or five inches square, and that it was very much like lead foil in appearance but could not be torn or cut at all. It was extremely light weight."
Comparing Whitmore's testimony to Berlitz and Moore with that given to Pflock and to me, a few changes are found. In the 1990s, however, Whitmore described seeing the debris, but with Moore he only described seeing the remains of the clean-up effort. When he mentioned seeing debris, it was in the custody of the sheriff.
Whitmore’s description of the material, as detailed in the Berlitz and Moore book, is more consistent with that provided by others such as Marcel, Brazel, and Rickett, than it is with his later interviews. When I spoke to him, it was clear that he was describing something that sounded like the material used in balloon construction. It is also clear that his description of the material has changed over the years.
Whitmore’s story has grown since he first told it to Moore. It has changed significantly since he first was interviewed, and his description now resembles a weather balloon. And, though he claimed to have bits of the debris, he was never able to produce it. Had he been able to do that, then the discussions about his testimony would be different. Without the debris to corroborate his tale, it is one that stands alone.