Fig. 30. A veteran of 100 combat missions during the Korean conflict, Fulgham flew 133 combat missions in F-4 aircraft (shown here) in 1966–67 as a member of the 555th “Triple Nickel” Tactical Fighter Squadron at Ubon Air Base, Thailand. (photo collection of Dan D. Fulgham)
Fulgham recalled that upon his return to work at the Aero Medical Laboratory he received reactions of “immediate compassionate sympathy” from persons he encountered, including his secretary, who cried when she saw him.[239] Within several weeks, Fulgham returned to flying status with no permanent effects. Fulgham went on to complete a distinguished career in the Air Force and retired as a colonel in 1978. Fulgham’s assignments included combat tours in fighter aircraft in both Korea and Vietnam, as well as an assignment as an experimental parachutist and physiologist for the space program.
Summary
In this section, documented research revealed that the reports of “bodies” at the Roswell AAF hospital were grossly inaccurate and most probably had origins in actual Air Force mishaps. Examinations of official records of the alleged primary witnesses revealed that the “missing nurse” was never missing, and the pediatrician did not arrive at the Walker AFB hospital until 1951—four years after the alleged incident. The many fundamental errors in the story, combined with the substantial similarities to the actual mishaps, show that the most credible account associated with the “Roswell Incident” is certainly not extraterrestrial and is unrelated to any events that occurred in July 1947.
Conclusion
When critically examined, the claims that the U.S. Army Air Forces recovered a flying saucer and alien crew in 1947, were found to be a compilation of many verifiable events. For the most part, the descriptions collected by UFO theorists were of actual operations and tests carried out by the U.S. Air Force in the 1950s. Despite the usual unsavory accusations by UFO proponents of cover-up, conspiracy, intimidation, etc., documented research revealed that many of the activities were actually historic scientific achievements of which the Air Force is very proud. However, other descriptions are believed to be distorted references to Air Force members who were killed or injured in the line of duty. The incomplete and inaccurate intermingling of these actual events were grounded in just enough fact to weave a sensational story, but cannot withstand close scrutiny when compared to official records.
To analyze reports of alien bodies that at first appeared to be so offbeat as to not be remotely based in fact, it was necessary to evaluate a wide range of books, interviews, videos, etc., that a less objective review might have rejected out of hand. Only through an inclusive evaluation of these sources were Air Force researchers able to understand the interconnectivity of the widely separated events believed responsible for this “incident.” And, in opposition to critics who believe Air Force research involving this subject is anything but objective, this research relied almost exclusively on the descriptions provided by the UFO proponents themselves. When collected and examined, the actual statements of the witnesses—not the extraterrestrial interpretations of UFO proponents—indicated that something was very wrong. When these descriptions were compared to documented Air Force activities, they were much too similar to be a coincidence. Soon, it became apparent that the witnesses or the UFO proponents who liberally interpreted their statements were either 1) confused, or 2) attempting to perpetrate a hoax, believing that no serious efforts would ever be taken to verify their stories.
In preparing this report, attempts were made not to only explain what conclusions were reached, but how they were reached. This undertaking was to try to de-mystify the research process by outlining the simple and logical research techniques that identified the underlying actual events. In regard to statements of witnesses that were clearly descriptions of Air Force activities, such as those that described anthropomorphic dummies, these could be generously viewed as situational misunderstandings or even honest mistakes. Other descriptions, particularly those believed to be thinly veiled references to deceased or injured Air Force members, are difficult to view as naive misunderstandings. Any attempt to misrepresent or capitalize on tragic incidents in which Air Force members died or were injured in service to their country significantly alters what would otherwise be viewed as simple misinterpretations or honest mistakes.
