Likewise, there was no indication in official records from the period that there was heightened military operational or security activity which should have been generated if this was, in fact, the first recovery of materials and/or persons from another world. The post-War US Military (or today’s for that matter) did not have the capability to rapidly identify, recover, coordinate, cover-up, and quickly minimize public scrutiny of such an event. The claim that they did so without leaving even a little bit of a suspicious paper trail for 47 years is incredible.
It should also be noted here that there was little mentioned in this report about the recovery of the so-called «alien bodies.» This is for several reasons: First, the recovered wreckage was from a Project Mogul balloon. There were no «alien» passengers therein. Secondly, the pro-UFO groups who espouse the alien-bodies theories cannot even agree among themselves as to what, how many, and where, such bodies were supposedly recovered. Additionally, some of these claims have been shown to be hoaxes, even by other UFO researchers. Thirdly, when such claims are made, they are often attributed to people using pseudonyms or who otherwise do not want to be publicly identified, presumably so that some sort of retribution cannot be taken against them (notwithstanding that nobody has been shown to have died, disappeared or otherwise suffered at the hands of the government during the last 47 years). Fourth, many of the persons making the biggest claims of «alien bodies» make their living from the «Roswell Incident.» While having a commercial interest in something does not automatically make it suspect, it does raise interesting questions related to authenticity. Such persons should be encouraged to present their evidence (not speculation) directly to the government and provide all pertinent details and evidence to support their claims if honest fact-finding is what is wanted. Lastly, persons who have come forward and provided their names and made claims, may have, in good faith but in the «fog of time,» misinterpreted past events. The review of Air Force records did not locate even one piece of evidence to indicate that the Air Force has had any part in an «alien» body recovery operation or continuing cover-up.
During the course of this effort, the Air Force has kept in close touch with the GAO and responded to their various queries and requests for assistance. This report was generated as an official response to the GAO, and to document the considerable effort expended by the Air Force on their behalf. It is anticipated that that they will request a copy of this report to help formulate the formal report of their efforts. It is recommended that this document serve as the final Air Force report related to the Roswell matter, for the GAO, or any other inquiries.
[…]
Royal Institute Of International Affairs
The Royal Institute of International Affairs is the legal name for the British think-tank more popularly known as Chatham House. At first viewing everything about the RIIA seems open and above-board; it is a membership-based organization that hosts discussions any member can attend (providing he or she pays up an annual membership fee in excess of £300). Staff are listed on the RIIA website, and posts are advertised publicly.
Critics claim, however, that behind the elegant 18th-century facade of Chatham House there machinates a cabal of politicians which seeks to undemocratically influence world opinion. More darkly still, some internet websites argue that the RIIA and its sister US organization, the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), are home to a secret society which actually runs the earth’s affairs.Few would disagree that Chatham House lies both literally and metaphorically in the heart of the British Establishment; founded in 1920, it provides a regular sounding board for senior statesmen, especially the incumbent of the head job at the Foreign Office. A
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
Inevitably, Chatham House maintains that the secrecy rule is necessary for free speech to occur at meetings; if there were no such rule, participants would not genuinely engage for fear of their comments being reported in the press.