When you go on a fishing trip, you are always bound to catch something. However, what you may catch could easily be nothing more than an old shoe. This is about the best way to equate Randle and Schmitt’s search for an authoritative military figure to prop up their weak theory of a UFO crash. The man they chose to use was General Arthur Exon, who was a Wright airfield in 1947. The most interesting point to remember when listening to/reading Exon’s tale is that all of his stories are second hand and he never saw the actual spaceship or any aliens. In a strong desire to make these stories sound more like first hand accounts, Randle and Schmitt do a little trickery with their wording:
He was there when the wreckage from the Roswell crash came in and was aware of the recovery in New Mexico. A few of his colleagues performed tests on the metal, trying to determine what it was. And he learned from other colleagues that the bodies had arrived on the base. All in July, 1947. (Randle and Schmitt UFO 109)
He describes the material that was tested in some detail and a story about a cover-up generated by General Ramey. Apparently, Exon was not even at Wright field that weekend and as a result, Randle/Schmitt wrote a short section in the Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell (p.76) on why it didn't matter if he was there or not. Of course it didn't matter! You do not have to be present at the actual event when recounting rumors told months or years later.
Exon reports flying over the New Mexico desert and seeing the crash site(s):
[It was] probably part of the same accident, but [there were] two distinct sites. One, assuming that the thing, as I understand it, as I remember flying the area later, that the damage to the vehicle seemed to be coming from the southeast to the northwest, but it could have been going in the opposite direction, but it doesn't seem likely. So the farther northwest pieces found on the ranch, those pieces were mostly metal... I remember auto tracks leading to the pivotal sites and obvious gouges in the terrain. (Randle and Schmitt Truth 75)
Considering the problem with the direction he gives and the gouges being in the ground at the Foster ranch, one has to wonder how accurate the testimony is. Marcel said the direction was clear that nothing impacted the ground and the direction was lined up from northeast to southwest. Either Marcel was wrong in his description or Exon doesn’t quite remember right. If you recall, Bill Brazel talked about the gouge and direction being the same as Exon's in UFO Crash at Roswell but in The Roswell Incident he stated something more like Marcel's description. Even more amazing is how Exon states that this flight occurred in November 1947. If the tracks were there, wouldn't Tommy Tyree, Bessie Brazel, or Loretta Proctor remember them? They do not and there are no photographs of these gouges. Loretta has numerous pictures in many of the books but none of this immense gouge not far from her own home. The mention of a gouge and two sites suggests that Exon was recalling an overflight of a possible collision of two large aircraft and not an alien spaceship crash.
Exon is quoted as saying, "Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space" (Randle and Schmitt UFO 112). However, when Stanton Friedman read Exon's story, he wanted to know if Randle/Schmitt had shown the section of the book to General Exon so he could say that all of it was truthful. When he asked this of Don Schmitt, Schmitt responded they had not and "he hasn’t been returning our calls" (Friedman 128). Friedman decided to follow this up and called General Exon, who, according to Friedman, was very reachable. When Friedman read a portion of the book over the phone to General Exon, Exon responded that they (Randle/Schmitt) had attributed considerably more to him than he had said and that he had no firsthand involvement with Roswell. Most of what he told Randle and Schmitt was rumors and stories he had heard at Wright Field and in the pentagon. In a letter dated November 24, 1991, he told Kevin Randle,
...I did not know anything firsthand. Although I did believe you did quote me accurately, I do believe that in your writings you gave more credence and impression of personal and direct knowledge that my recordings would indicate on their own! (Korff 93)
Exon’s letter means nothing to Randle. Randle spends 20 pages on Exon’s supposed turn around in Conspiracy of Silence. He shows how Exon was speaking from firsthand knowledge of ordering flights, discussing UFO sightings, and the "unholy thirteen" (a group of high ranking people who hid UFO evidence from the public eye). Even more interesting is how Exon mentioned the USAF lost four aircraft to UFO's in between 1955 and 1960. This event is not recorded anywhere and Randle even admits that he has had no luck investigating this further. Randle spends an enormous amount of paper quoting all the interviews, what he said, and what Randle/Schmitt felt this meant. In conclusion, Randle feels that Exon was being truthful but when the story got out, he was approached by the government and told to change his story thus keeping "The Conspiracy of Silence". Randle is very good at trying to explain away these things but it seems that his ability to only quote what he desires is the big issue here. General Exon, realizing that Randle has attributed far more to him than what he actually meant, tried to correct Kevin Randle. Randle, always on the lookout for some form of support for his Roswell scenario, remains convinced that some form of conspiracy exists. However, there is very little evidence (if at all) and as a result, he must accuse others of hiding the vital information he needs to vindicate his writings. One must wonder that if such a huge conspiracy did exist and that the security system was so tight, how were people like Marcel, Exon, and Dubose allowed to freely talk about it. Marcel never stated anything about tight security and the other pilots of the 509th, when questioned by Kent Jeffrey, confirm that there was no such security measures in place. However, there is one pilot, who told a different story.