The Red Thread Files ◀ All entries Open the case room
Government / Military

Sheridan Cavitt

1947

Sheridan Cavitt, a Captain in the Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) and head of the Roswell CIC detachment in July 1947 (later retired Lt Col). One of the three men - with Maj. Jesse Marcel and MSgt Lewis Rickett - who recovered the debris from the Foster/Brazel ranch. In a signed, sworn statement to Col. Richard Weaver on May 24, 1994 he described the material as reflective foil and thin bamboo-like sticks with a small black box, and said he always believed it was a weather balloon - the account underpinning the Air Force's Project Mogul explanation. His reliability is contested: in earlier interviews (c. 1990-1993) he denied going to the ranch or being involved, then reversed in 1994 ("Cavitt vs Cavitt").

Explore Sheridan Cavitt in the live connections board → Open the case file

Connections (5)

confirmedRoswell Incident
officer who helped recover the debris
Source: Roswell case histories; Berlitz & Moore, The Roswell Incident (1980)
confirmedRichard Weaver
took his signed, sworn statement at his home on May 24, 1994
Source: USAF Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction (1994), muller.lbl.gov reproduction
reportedProject Mogul
his 1994 sworn account of foil-and-balsa debris is the primary witness basis claimed for the Mogul explanation
Source: USAF Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction (1994) and Case Closed (1997), muller.lbl.gov reproductions
disputedJesse Marcel
his account contradicted Marcel's claim
Source: Roswell case histories; Berlitz & Moore, The Roswell Incident (1980)
disputedLewis Rickett
CIC detachment head; his and Rickett's later accounts of the recovery diverged on site details (posted guards/MPs)
Source: Kevin Randle, Sheridan Cavitt and the Roswell Crash (2007); NICAP Rodeghier interview of Bill Rickett
Part of The Red Thread Files — an independent, evidence-first investigation into the UAP, USO, and consciousness question. Confidence labels (confirmed / reported / disputed) are an automated approximation based on the wording and directness of each source, not a verdict. Corrections: [email protected].