Talk:Roswell UFO incident/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Beware Calling Out Problems

Please be careful when referring to so-called "problems with the theory." In essence there are no problems with the theory, it's quite air-tight as far as circumstantial evidence is concerned - check the few FOIA reports that have been released on the matter, and that the cannibalistic UFO people have already no doubt consumed. Rather, simply show that there are some people in the world who believe it, why they do so, and others who do not, and why they do not believe it is credible. But the theory on its own, as do most theories not related to the physical sciences, can be as airtight as one wishes to make it, or view it.

I believe that specifically the paragraph that starts with "If, though, it was ..." is far too insinuating. It should not be the purpose of an encyclopedia to imply that the US government is lying, as much as this paragraph does. Especially the sentence that US military might hold 'alien' weapons is beside the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Still... I didn't change the text because I'd like to hear other opinions about this first... Hwebers 6 Jan 2004

This article makes a couple of logical leaps that cannot be supported. You say that if it were ever established that the thing that crashed at Roswell was indeed an alien craft, this was would prove that (a) the film of the purported autopsy of an alien would be verified as true, and (b) it would be proven that the USA has adopted alien technology.

Neither of these outcomes follows at all.

If the film was bogus rather than a true record of an actual alien autopsy, then any proof that whatever crashed was alien would not suddenly convert the film from being bogus to being true. The same argument for the alien technology - because just because the US govt could be proven to have had contact with alien life forms does not of itself prove that they have been able to adopt any of their technology. Cheers JackofOz 10:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I call Six Days... a "semi"documentary because some of the framing elements are staged. The Maysles Brothers, it ain't. Will elaborate in a separate entry on the film at some point. LazloNibble 29 Apr 2004

1==POV== This article is heavily slanted toward the idea that there was an alien crash and cover up at Roswell in 1947. It is structured in such a way that dissenting viewpoints are immediately rebutted and often unfairly. For instance it was noted that the the governement has suggested that people who claim to have seen bodies may be remembering the bodies of dummies used in the 50's and 60's and mistakely associating them with the Roswell crash. The article then claim that this is at odds with the original report which does not mention bodies. But how was a report written in 1947 supposed to mention events that would not occur until the 1950s! The article is full of these problems to the point that fixing it will be a very involved process. The article also ingnores any significant problems with the conspiracy theory.-- 13:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

About the dummies being mistaken for dead aliens. In 1997 (the 50th anniversary of the event), the US Air Force had a televised news briefing concerning the events of 1947. One of the things that came out was that the "alien" bodies seen were actually test dummies used for, I believe, was high altitude parachuting experiments, in 1953. When asked how the dummies could be mistaken for alien bodies when the dummies event happened six years later, the Air Force officer giving the briefing said that it was due to "time compression" on the parts of the witnesses, which met that the 1947 event was long enough ago to be confused with later events because the further away in time from the event, the more the years just run together.

The "original report" referred to was the Air Force's 1994 report, not 1947. I thought this was clear but apparently not. (BTW, there was no 1947 public investigation and "report", just brief press releases, which are something else entirely.) Regardless, a minor edit was added to remove any ambiguity. I've also added some language to make it clearer that other counterarguments presented elsewhere represent the POV of some.

The 1994 report did indeed skirt the issue of bodies, instead saying it wasn't necessary to consider because the crash was caused by a Mogul balloon, which didn't have an alien crew therein. That was how the Air Force in 1994 (not 1947) worded it and dealt with it.

I felt the article as originally written was heavily slanted towards the skeptical viewpoint, and for balance, opposing arguments were presented while leaving the skeptical viewpoint in place. E.g., there really is zero historical evidence to support Roswell as a "broken arrow" atomic accident--there were no bombs in the atomic arsenal then and no records of such a crash. Why not point that out? Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be based on facts, not mere speculation. (Incidentally, the first "broken arrow" air crash in the U.S. was near Albuquerque in 1950, not Roswell in 1947.)

Regarding a Mogul crash, why not point out that there are also serious objections with that theory. It is just another POV of some and certainly not a given. There is another side to this.

Unlike many encyclopedia articles, Roswell is not a neutral subject and there are strong viewpoints on both sides, which need to be presented in as factual a way as possible while trying to maintain a sense of overall neutrality. Some point/counterpoint is essential when dealing with such topics. I do have a POV but did strive for balance and to let both sides have their say.

If you think a brief counter to the "conspiracy theory" is warranted, go ahead and add it. BTW, labeling something a "conspiracy theory" is already loaded and expressing a strong POV, as are some who label legitimate researchers as "believers" or "UFO buffs" or "conspiratorialists." These are propaganda terms and have no place in an encyclopedia article. Simply say something like, "An argument against this theory is..." or "Advocates of this position believe ...", or similar neutral wording to that effect.

Incidentally, the presented theories from Pflock's book, such as the burned bodies from an aircraft accident years later or "the blunder of a particular officer suffering from an attack of hubris" are best described as highly biased, wild-assed speculation rather than fact-driven. They probably don't even belong in an encyclopedia article. I considered editing them out entirely, but left them in without rebuttal so that a particular skeptical POV could be presented. Dr Fil

I feel that the article is not POV, although it could use some cleaning up in that regard. Why is it NPOV? Because it describes the existent viewpoints, and in this case, there are two important ones - that there was an alien crash and a coverup, or that there was not. Argumentation is presented for both viewpoints, and the chosen argumentation is that which is indeed usually presented by supporters of either viewpoint.

All arguments are supposed to be placed together with their refutals. That's what makes sense. With how, before crash-support arguments, words and phrases like "as some continue to instist", "if indeed it was", etc., are inserted, I absolutely fail to see how this article is biased towards the crash point of view. Solver 22:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Clinton comments completely out of context

The section about Bill Clinton's Roswell statement is inaccurate and out of context, it implies he was in the Irish Republic when a member of the press put a question about Roswell to him. None of that happened, he was not "asked", he wasn't in the Republic.

What actually happened was this (I saw the speech on television, it was a big event at the time): He was on a trip to Northern Ireland (which whether you agree with it or not is part of Britain, and officially recognised as such by the Irish Republic's new constitution). He was due to switch on the Belfast Christmas tree lights. Before doing so he gave a speech during which he read out several letters sent to him by children from Northern Ireland before he came there.

-- Sorry, but if you want be TOTALLY accurate, Northern Ireland is NOT part of Britain, it's part of the UK. --

Most of them were (obviously) to do with the peace process which he'd invested a lot of time in, but as a moment of light relief he said that a child (can't remember the name, let's call him Timmy) had written to ask if alien bodies were recovered by the US Air Force in Roswell in 1947 and being stored at a secret base. Clinton had a broad smile on his face when answering the question, "No, Timmy, as far as I know they did not. And if they DO have them stored somewhere, I want to know about it!" There wasn't an ounce of seriousness in the statement, and it's impossible to tell from it if Clinton has any genuine interest in Roswell at all.

OK, so in the interest of absolute factual accuracy, let's change Ireland to Northern Ireland and reword slightly to indicate that he was responding to a letter from a child.

The fact that the question was in a prescreened letter rather than a spontaneously asked question actually strengthens the argument about Clinton's interest. Prearranged presidential statements are usually carefully vetted to prevent Presidents from saying the wrong thing. Out of all the things Clinton could have responded to, he and his staff deliberately had him answer a potentially loaded question about Roswell, something they could have easily avoided. The question is why?

Also read the part about Clinton instructing Webster Hubbell to find out about UFOs. That's in Hubbell's book written after he left the White House. That's a fact, not an interpretation. Clinton also had a book on Roswell (the first one by Randle and Schmitt) on his Presidential bookshelf when his books were inventoried while he was under investigation by Kenneth Starr. That's another fact. The book was given to him by Paul Davids, who produced the HBO movie "Roswell." According to Davids, his father, Dr. Jules Davids, was one of Clinton's professors at Georgetown. That was the connection between Davids and Clinton.

Another indication of Clinton's deep interest in UFOs was attested to by senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who noted other senior officials in the White House were also briefed on the matter. See, e.g., .

The recent quotes on Roswell and UFOs from N.M. Governor Bill Richardson, Clinton's DOE head, and John Podesta, Clinton's chief of staff, are also part of the public record. Dr Fil 22 May 2005

I'm not saying ANYTHING about Clinton's opinions on Roswell, I have no idea what they are. The other references you mention sound like more important sources about this topic.

All I'm saying is I saw the speech and the particular reference included in the article doesn't really tell you anything about Clinton's views either. If you want to present convincing evidence of something you have to be careful not to read too much into less convincing things.

The context of the speech was in a region where there had been mass murder for 40 years, with literally thousands of people killed, beaten and jailed in a self-sustaining cycle of violence and persecution from both sides that seemed to have no end in sight. The work Clinton was doing in Belfast was literally a matter of life and death for his audience, the Good Friday Agreement which he helped to broker was hanging in the balance.

The speech was meant about very serious issues but it also needed to be upbeat and hopeful, especially as it was at Christmas, so Clinton needed a few lighter items completely unconnected to any of the feuds in Ulster.

You asked why he mentioned Roswell as if the reference had no reasonable explanation, but it definitely does have an eminently reasonable explanation: Clinton wanted to lighten a serious speech in a very serious life-threatening situation with something totally utterly unlikely to offend either Catholics or Protestants, so what could be less likely to offend than a joke about aliens?

Also, at the time he made the speech Roswell was very much a "pop culture" reference with the recent huge successes of things like X-Files, Independence Day and Men In Black, and nearly all politicians love to make references to anything that's fashionable (that's why George W Bush tried a Segway in front of TV cameras, for example).

As well as Roswell, in the same speech he also talked about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, saying he didn't have their amazing athletic ability. It lightened the speech and was another pop culture reference (the MMPR were extremely popular at the time), just like the Roswell mention.

First of all, I got the date of Clinton's Belfast comments on Roswell wrong. It was November 30, 1995, not 1999 (this has been corrected). I am looking at Clinton's comments in a much broader context than you are. It is part of the public record that various people in the Clinton White House were very interested in the subject, including the Clintons. For more on this, see: [1][2]

Another important part of the context is to realize that Clinton made his Belfast comments just a few days before the Air Force issued their final version of their initial Roswell report. (They issued a short "executive summary" a year before in Sept. 1994, what Newsweek magazine called a "preemptive strike," but their much longer "phone book" version came out right after Clinton's remarks.)

Given the context, I seriously doubt Clinton's remarks were made for comic relief, though they were made in a light-hearted manner. This tone has a rather more direct interpretation than Clinton doing a stand-up comedy act to relieve tension in Northern Ireland. One has to realize that taboo subjects like UFOs and Roswell are one of the third rails of politics. Almost no politician dares to go near it for fear of ridicule. New Mexico Congressman Steven Schiff, who got the initial Roswell GAO probe going, was the rare exception. Clinton couldn't publicly discuss the subject with total seriousness. Hence the lighthearted approach, giving him plausible deniability should he be asked afterwards whether he did take it seriously. In the meantime, Clinton and his speechwriters were delivering a prepared, carefully worded message to the Air Force. "You didn't touch the subject of bodies in your first report, I'm the President, and I want to know."

(You might be interested to know that when the Air Force issed their press release about the Roswell report a few days after Clinton's comments, they quoted the first half of Clinton's remarks, that he was unaware of a saucer crash at Roswell, as supporting their conclusions, while leaving out the second half of his remarks, that the Air Force hadn't told him anything and also hadn't addressed the issue of bodies. Talk about quoting out of context!)

A year and half later out came the "crash dummy" report. This was released exactly on the 50th anniversary of Kenneth Arnold's sighting of June 24, 1947, and also just in time for Roswell's 50th anniversary. This again was no accident, but another "pre-emptive strike" by the AF public relations spin-meisters.

Incidentally, Clinton's remarks did not predate X-files, but they did predate Independence Day (1996) and Men In Black (1997), and also "The Rock" (1996), which also mentioned Roswell. Even if these popular movies somehow made Roswell "fashionable," they had nothing to do with what Clinton said before they came out. Dr Fil 00:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"It should also be known that a theory has been postulated that the Roswell incident was, in fact, a mid-air collision between two alien spacecraft. The first completely fragmented and its remains were found over Mack Brazel's ranch. The second, according to witnesses and people who uphold this theory, landed a short distance away. It was reported that four extraterrestrial entities were found--one alive, one dying, and two dead. This was witnessed by many people, including a university professor and his class, who were going on a field trip. Then the army came, warned the others away, and took care of the crash. The surviving alien was christened Extraterrestrial Biological Entity 1 (EBE-1), and survived at a safe house in New Mexico until 1952, where it died of unknown causes."

Where's the source for this?

--- Not sure, but I've seen SciFi movies claiming things like that. Like most if not all "proof" of aliens at Rosswell it seems to be a myth perpetuated by UFO adherents and SciFi authors in order to make themselves look important and/or make money out of disinformation. After all, UFOs sell a lot more books and advertising revenue than do weather balloons.

At current the only evidence for any alien involvement are the original two newspaper articles which are nothing more than speculation from junior USAAF officers who had no experience or knowledge of Mogul balloons. The "disc shaped" object might well have existed but in fact be a roughly circular piece of mylar from the balloon (for example) misidentified as something else (or maybe the latter part was omitted by the press to stir up a story that wasn't there).

This artile is seriously slanted towards the "believer" point of view. For example, testimony of purported witnesses to the event is offered as being a true and accurate repetition of their statements, but the article doesn't say who reported their testimony, an important element in judging whether to credit that the "witness" ever said it.

Use of terms_UFO_and_purported_

This may be nitpicking on my part, but it seems like the use of [i]purported[/i] describing the UFO crash is unnecessary, as it is very widely believed that something did indeed crash at Roswell. It is only the identity of the object that is in dispute. All that [i]UFO[/i] means is [i]Unidentified Flying Object[/i]. This would include flying saucers and weather balloons--exept of course that many people claim they know what the object was so calling it [i]unidentified[/i] would to them be a misnomer. My recommendation for the first sentence is one of the following:

The Roswell UFO incident is the crash of an unidentified flying object (UFO) in Roswell, New Mexico, USA, in 1947.

Or, if you would prefer to avoid the term [i]UFO[/i] entirely:

The Roswell UFO incident is the purported crash of an object in Roswell, New Mexico, USA, in 1947, which some claim to have been a weather balloon or other man-made device, and others claim to have been a flying saucer.

Theshibboleth 00:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what UFO means, the common usage of it is going to be for alien spacecraft, not Unidentified Flying Object as it stands. Using UFO broadly instead of its common use will only slant the article to the casual viewer. -Senori 19:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Influence (small suggestion)

Didn't the TV show futurama do an entire episode about Roswell too? I'd write up the details....but I don't actually know them.--Joewithajay 22:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

In essence, they go through a singularity and end up in Roswell, where Bender is tossed about and his wreckage left on the desert is thought to be a spacecraft, while Zoidberg is the alien. -Senori 19:13, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Roswell_That_Ends_Well was more then likely a nod to Tommorrow is Yesterday (ST-TOS) and Little Green Men (ST-DS9) then an actual attempt at analyzing the Roswell incident. -cverlo, May 26, 2006

UFO game series

A strong influence can be seen in UFO (later X-Com) games where SECTOIDS default alien race + UFO`s are EXACTLY THE SAME as in Roswell

--Rastavox 01:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The Leak-Free Conspiracy

One of the things which has always amazed me about the Roswell "alien" claim is that this is a conspiracy theory with no leaks. If anyone can track down the people who organised this completely leak-free conspiracy, I think the current POTU would be interested, and some previous Presidents would have been more than happy to meet those guys!

It is also interesting to note that none of the first-hand witnesses to what actually happened near Roswell in July 1947 ever said that they saw aliens. Bubba73 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


I reverted the last edits because of NPOV issues. To begin with, the article was almost totally on the pro-extraterrestial spacecraft POV. When I started working on the article, ALL of the sources listed were from the pro-ET POV. There was almost no balance. I tried to make it more balanced, but even then it was strongly pro-ET POV. I put in undisputed facts about what was actually reported at the time. Now someone is claiming that I'm putting in POV!

I changed some inflamatory wording, for instance "claim". The Air Force didn't "claim" that the debris was from a Mogul balloon, they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. But I didn't say that in the article, I said that their conclusion was that it was a baloon. All the ET-POV has is second-hand rumors.

A "claim" is a statement made without proof. I can claim that my neighbor threw trash in my yard. That is a claim. If I have proof then it goes beyond a claim. Like in a court of law ... evidence. And, similarly, all the ET-POV has is hearsay. Bubba73 (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Your extreme bias is again showing. You repeatedly claim the Air Force proved its case, end of story, and then use language in the article saying as much. Please don't pretend that the language of your edits doesn't have a strongly biased POV. When you state that the A.F. presented "overwhelming evidence" showing a Mogul balloon explained Roswell, you are using blatantly obvious POV language. When you state about their "crash dummy" report, "They showed that the testimony of the people saying they had seen bodies near Roswell was in good agreement with actual events..." you are again using POV language that has no place in an encyclopedia article. When you state above, "I put in undisputed facts about what was actually reported at the time," you are again making a biased POV statement. The point is the "facts" are disputed. There are inconsistencies in newspaper accounts, and the independence of the accounts, such as Brazel's, are also disputed. Just because the newspapers were told certain things by the military doesn't necessarily make them true.

A "claim" is indeed a statement made without proof. You then again assert that the Air Force somehow proved its case, somehow confusing "evidence" presented with proof. No, your BELIEF that the A.F. proved their case is just that, your personal belief.

I honestly don't see how "claim" is "inflamatory" language. The Air Force did indeed make unproven claims. Do you really think 6 foot human mannequins or a man with a swollen head from a balloon accident would be confused with small aliens with big heads or that witnesses could be so grossly confused about times, locations, and body descriptions because of "time distortion" of memory? Well maybe you believe such rubbish, but most people don't (including most of the normally cynical press, BTW) and such absurd claims hardly constitute "proof."

I have no problem with the A.F. arguments being briefly summarized with neutral language, but I have a big problem with your language and your rants defending A.F. methods, which you just reinserted. This section as orginally written was a quick summary for the general reader of recent Roswell theories, including Air Force conclusions, using neutral language. Some arguments for and against the Mogul theory were presented further below. Then you jump in and change the language to the A.F. absolutely proving their case and inserted a lot of unnecessary and biased material. Every time I tried to make the language more neutral, such as using "claim," you couldn't stand that. No the A.F. always "showed" beyond all doubt. No, they claimed to show, just as the pro-ET POV claims to show. It only goes beyond claims if the evidence presented by one side or the other is absolutely incontestable, which it is not, despite your personal _opinion_ to the contrary.

It is also not your place to literally invent rationales for why the Air Force didn't interview or mention key witnesses to bodies, reasons even the A.F. didn't use. They originally said that witnesses to bodies were not credible and besides, there were no aliens bodies on Mogul balloons. (Of course, in 1997, those same unreliable witnesses suddenly become credible, even the hoaxers, and by gosh, there was something to those body stories after all.) I tried to quickly summarize their actual arguments, but you removed that, and reinserted your own personal rationales for them not dealing with bodies. Again, an encyclopedia article isn't supposed to be your personal soapbox.

I also removed your paragraph on Gen. Exon, because it was indeed redundant. The skeptical position about Exon had already been amply made in a paragraph in the previous section. There was no need to repeat it, interrupt the flow of the article, and unnecessarily lengthen it with your POV defense of the A.F. ignoring Gen. Exon. It's completely out of place.

I also notice you are putting an endless number of unnecessary links to skeptical treatments of the Roswell case, even extremely trivial treatments. A few carefully chosen ones would suffice. The A.F. report has been linked to more than once. So has Peebles. Isn't once enough? Maybe you hope to sway readers through shear numbers of links to skeptical articles?

There is no need to insert the texts of the FBI telegram or Brazel's interview into the article. Simple links to the text would be sufficient. Be warned, I'll insert links to differing interpretations of the same material.

The reason the article is beginning to turn into an unreadable monstrosity is that you are inserting all sorts of unnecessary, highly biased, and often inaccurate material. You need to learn to edit more effectively and be much more terse in your points. And for godssake, stop the soapbox rants and try to keep your language more neutral. We all have our biases. But you don't even seem to recognize that you are biased. At the very least, try to curb the highly biased POV language, please.

Having said all that, I would like to comment further about your repeated claims that the A.F. unquestionably proved their case.

What the Air Force really did to "prove" their case was interview a carefully selected and small group of people to give it a one-sided Mogul slant and ignore, ridicule, or carefully edit all contradictory evidence and witnesses.

The whole report is shabby affair of distorted evidence written by AFOSI officers, i.e., counterintelligence people. The head guy, Col. Richard Weaver, used to teach propaganda courses and there is some evidence he was involved in putting out UFO disinformation in the 1980s. Guys like Weaver are trained and paid to lie and deceive. That's their job. Even the GAO in their investigation said the Air Force wasn't cooperating and was hiding something. And contrary to all government protocol, the Air Force deliberately preempted the findings of the GAO by putting out its "Executive Summary" 9 months before the GAO had finished. What they should have done is given their findings to the GAO for them to include in their final report. But these weren't independent historians the Air Force used to "investigate." Instead they used their own internal spook unit to investigate themselves, a classic example of the fox guarding the hen house.

As for their carefully selected group of witnesses, Mogul engineer Charles Moore, has since been shown to be a hoaxer (though I don't think he started out that way). In his book published in 1997 he fraudulently calculated a trajectory for his Mogul Flight #4 to try to "prove" winds would take it to Brazel's place. (The fact that his calculation is fraudulent can be unambiguously proven from his own math.) Also, might I point out, that Moore was in no way directly involved with Roswell. He wasn't in the military, he wasn't at Roswell base; he wasn't on the Brazel debris field to see what was really there; he wasn't in Fort Worth when the story switched to a weather balloon. He's another one of those second-hand witnesses telling stories decades after the fact, frequently changing his story and clearly lying at times to promote his lost Mogul hypothesis. But his second-hand, decades-after testimony is probably OK with you because it fits your prejudices.

Another witness, Sheridan Cavitt of the Roswsell CIC, was the only witness interviewed by the A.F. who was directly involved. But he was also clearly lying in his interview on a number of major points and his testimony actually does NOT support Mogul, unless you think a Mogul crash would be no bigger than his living room and he could find it in the middle of nowhere without help from rancher Brazel, whom he claimed he never met. He also denied there were any markings or "hieroglyphics" on the debris, the infamous "flower patterns" that were supposed to be the "proof" that this was from Mogul. Instead he said stories of "hieroglyphics" were the inventions of crashed saucer promotors trying to make money. Did you also know that before being interviewed by the A.F., Cavitt denied for years being at Roswell or in any way being involved? His wife Mary told researchers that he would never talk about what really happened.

Unlike somebody like Marcel, Cavitt had nobody to back him up, conflicting with everybody else's testimony, including his wife. His CIC aide Lewis Rickett contradicted him, saying the metal was indeed anomalous, there was high secrecy and security including secret shipments of debris, and there was a large, follow-up clean-up operation at the ranch which he witnessed. Marcel, of course, contradicted him about the debris, large debris field, and being with Brazel. So did Mack Brazel himself in his interview, saying that "a man in plain clothes" accompanied Marcel and him to his ranch. How does this square with Cavitt saying he had never made Brazel or not going out with Marcel? Or how does Brazel's 1947 statement of the crash site being 200 yards across or Marcel's 1947 statement from the AP that debris was scattered over a SQUARE MILE fit with Cavitt's statements of a tiny balloon crash no bigger than his living room that could all fit in the trunk of a car?

And Cavitt and Moore were the Air Force's star witnesses.

As for your precious contemporaneous news stories, since when does contemporaneous necessarily equal true or accurate, which seems to be your logic? Similarly, since when does decades later or second-hand testimony necessarily equal false, which also seems to be your logic (but only when applied to "pro-ET" testimony, not to "pro-Mogul" testimony)? Contemporaneous simply means that is how the press reported the story, i.e., that is what they were told by various sources and how the various reporters and editors interpreted it. The many Roswell press stories back then were not uniform and full of contradictions. You also seem to make no allowances for even the possibility that the press was being lied to about some things, or even the FBI in their telegram. (There's a whole documented history of the FBI usually being kept out of the loop by the Air Force on the UFO question, and J. Edgar Hoover being furious about it.)

Note the telegram also mentions only a singular balloon and radar target--inconsistent with a Mogul. That story came directly from Gen. Ramey, who had his intel officer Kirton give it to the FBI.

What about Brazel's balloon story? Did you mention that it is full of internal inconsistencies (e.g., Brazel basically recanted it at the end) or did you mention testimony of about 10 other witnesses, including the Roswell base provost marshall, that Brazel was detained by the military, and directly admitted to one witness, Frank Joyce, of being coerced into changing his story? Most of that is first-hand testimony from people who were there.

If multiple-witness testimony like that was admitted in a court of law that a key witness had been coerced by the prosecution into changing testimony, a mistrial would likely be declared. (And BTW, even second-hand testimony is admittable evidence in a court of law and frequently used. Only debunkers who don't like what they hear reject it, unless, of course, it supports their own POV.)

How about Marcel's 1947 balloon comments? Again you failed to mention that Marcel and Gen. Dubose stated that everybody was under orders from Gen. Ramey and that the weather balloon was just a cover story to get the press off their backs. Dubose stated he was ordered from Washington to start covering it up. Don't you find it interesting that the AFOSI agents never quoted Dubose's testimony about the cover-up, one of their own generals and an important first-hand witness? No I suppose not. I'm sure you have another rationalization for that as well, why they treated Dubose as a complete nonentity, just like Gen. Exon, another of their generals.

Is it therefore surprising that both Dubose and Marcel would be quoted in Ramey's presence telling a balloon story back in 1947? It's very simple. Both men were under orders to do that. Under the circumstances, two military guys could hardly tell the press back then that the balloon story was a setup ordered by the general, now could they?

But no doubt, you will dismiss this as well, even though they were first-hand witnesses, because both men told their stories decades later when they were civilians. By your usual inconsistent logic, only stories told by old Mogul guys decades later who had no direct involvement should be be accepted as evidence, if not "proof." Only ET-POV testimony is "hearsay."

But even back in 1947, Marcel slipped in that the debris was scattered over a square mile, totally inconsistent with what was displayed in Ramey's office or what would even be expected from a Mogul balloon crash. And even back in 1947 Gen. Ramey was always describing the debris as coming from one balloon and one radar target, again totally inconsistent with a Mogul. And even back in 1947 (and today) his weather officer stated that what he saw was from an ordinary, single weather balloon that could have come from anywhere.

Wasn't Mogul supposed to be multiple weather balloons and multiple radar targets. Where are they in the balloon photos taken? Where's the so-called "flower tape" that's suppose to clearly link Ramey's balloon debris with Mogul? Those balloon photos have been blown up and carefully scrutinized, including by the Air Force, and even they admitted that their photoanalysts couldn't find any evidence of it in the photos.

So please tell us what the "overwhelming evidence" is that so clearly proves Roswell was caused by a Mogul balloon.

Governments do put out cover stories to conceal secrets. When the first A-bomb was tested at Trinity, the cover story was that an ammunition dump had exploded. When the U-2 was shot down, the cover story was that it was an errant NASA weather plane that crashed because the pilot passed out from oxygen deprivation. The CIA even had NASA contrive phony transcripts of the pilot's last conversations and repainted another U-2 with a NASA symbol and phony ID number and then showed it to the press. The U-2 incident is a great example because it shows the lengths the government will go to cover up their secrets. The only reason they recanted is because they had no choice. Unfortunately for them, the Soviets within a week produced both the live pilot and the spy cameras from the plane and caught the Eisenhower Administration in an awkward lie.

But by your logic, the official story as originally reported in the newspapers is necessarily the 100% unvarnished truth, even all the lying and contrived "evidence" that goes with it, like the phony NASA weather plane explanation, pilot transcripts, and repainted U-2. These are quite similar to Gen. Ramey's singular weather balloon story, what both Marcel and Dubose stated was the cover story to get the press off their backs. But because such comments didn't appear in the newspapers in 1947, you will no doubt continue to dismiss their testimony as unreliable or "hearsay" because it doesn't fit your own POV. Dr Fil

Beyond Top Secret

Just a quick note on the meaning of top secret. In the article, someone states that the truth is "beyond top secret," but in actuality, that isn't saying much. "Top Secret" is the second lowest clearance that can be granted in the military. Secret clearance is given to every officer as soon as they commission, and several immediately get "Top Secret" if their job involves any kind of intelligence.

No, the part about "the truth" being "beyond top secret" is not correct. Part of Gen. Dubose's testimony was about receiving calls from Gen. McMullen in Washington about what had just been discovered at Roswell. Dubose said McMullen ordered him not to discuss this with anyone, that it was so secret that it went "beyond top secret." Dubose was saying that what was happening at Roswell had a very, very high level of security. You can hear a short audio of Dubose saying this at this link: [3] Dr. Fil 7 December 2005


I've added NPOV back to the article. It is a long way from NPOV. the reasons are too numerous to list. But I would like to mention that if you look at Kenneth Arnold, he is holding a drawing of what he said he saw, and it was not a saucer. He said that the objects moved as if they were saucers skimming across water, he didn't say they looked like saucers. Bubba73 (talk), 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional reference: The UFO Encyclopedia, by John Spencer: ",,, he described the formation of the objects ads moving 'like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water'. ... Although often held as a description of the 'shape' of the objects, it was infact intedned to be a description of their 'movement'. Arnold in fact described the objects as boomerang-shaped, althugh he later referred to them as disks... This point was not picked up at the time and and there was a general perception that Arnold had reported a saucer shape. The significance of this is that it shows the power of the media in influencing the public's perception of events ..." Bubba73 (talk), 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You could start by reading the Wiki Kenneth Arnold article which has some of Arnold's 1947 contemporaneous quotes (according to you, those are the only ones that count) plus his drawing from July 12, 1947, to Army Air Force intelligence. Notice, no "boomerang" descriptions and his drawing is of a thin flat object, rounded in front, chopped and coming to a point in the back, i.e., very saucer-like, and just like his quoted verbal descriptions. For a very complete listing of Arnold's 1947 quotes describing both shape and motion see [4].

It wasn't until five weeks after Arnold first reported his sighting that he told two AAF intelligence officers (during the Maury Island incident that ONE of the objects was boomerang or sickle-shaped, but the other EIGHT objects were as he drew them in his report to AAF intelligence. It wasn't until 3 years later that Arnold complained that he was misquoted, but there are numerous contemporaneous quotes from Arnold in 1947 where he definitely used words like "saucer-shaped" and "disk-shaped" and "pie-plate" in describing the shape. I doubt this will convince you of anything because you don't seem to like being confused by FACTS. Anything that doesn’t conform to what you read in Klass you claim to be NPOV. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005


Points on the 12/2/05 version of the article

1. Paragraph starting "Within an hour " says "...began changing the story. The object retrieved was now ......" I don't like the tone of this - it makes it sound as if they were doing something sinister.

Why is it sinister and what's wrong with it? It's a statement of fact as to what happened. Within an hour after the Roswell press release of the "flying disk" came out, Ramey started putting out a different story. That's also the way the 1947 press reported it, such as the N.Y. Times: "Within an hour after Lieutenant Haught had given new impetus to the 'flying saucer' derby, his boss, Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, had a somewhat different version of the "flying disk." Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

2. In the caption of the photo of General Ramey "...A controversial message ..." It is known what message he holds in his hand. There was an attempt to determine what it was that failed, plus there was what appeared to be a fake interpretation of it.

What the heck is meant by “It is known what message he holds in his hand?” The Air Force did claim in 1994 that a government photoanalysis lab (which they have never identified) allegedly couldn't read anything in the message. Researcher Dennis Balthaser has spent the last 6 years filing FOIA requests and trying to get the actual written report of what the analysis really said and has been given the runaround by the Air Force. (See [5])
It's amazing that you've determined that there is a "fake interpretation" of it. As usual you confuse your opinion and biases as being the same thing as incontestable fact. Below you are further claiming that the photo of the message was faked, which proves you know absolutely nothing. People should follow the link to the message and determine for themselves if nothing can be read, as the A.F. claimed. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

3. Paragraph on Gen DeBose - What was he ordered to "cover up"? The secret Project Mogul or a flying saucer? To say that he was covering up something without saying what it was or why is misleading. Also, he said this in the mid 1990s, when he was nearly 90 and his memory was clearly failing (Klass, 89-94).

The Roswell base press release issued by base commander Col. Blanchard said they had recovered a "flying disk." There was press feeding frenzy when this went out over the wire, and Dubose said he received a call from Gen. McMullen, acting chief of staff of the SAC, ordering him to start a coverup to kill the story and get the press off their backs. They were trying to kill the ongoing press story of the "flying disk", not Project Mogul. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

4. the paragraph starting "Gen. Ramey also had": "Wright Field also stated that they disagreed with the weather balloon assessment" I'm fairly certain that this was said without seeing it. It is misleading, leading the reader to think that Wright Field did not think it was a balloon/radar reflector.

What's ironic is that it was you who insisted on putting the text of the telegram into the article. Now you don't like having it pointed out that portions of the telegram contradict the weather balloon story. The telegram reads, "MAJOR CURTAN [Kirton] FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE OBJECT FOUND RESEMBLES A HIGH ALTITUDE WEATHER BALLOON WITH A RADAR REFLECTOR, BUT THAT TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEIR OFFICE AND WRIGHT FIELD HAD NOT BORNE OUT THIS BELIEF." The Air Force in their 1994 Executive summary quoted the first part but chopped out the last part about Wright Field disagreeing--talk about "misleading!")
What's so hard for you to understand here? It clearly states that Wright Field disagreed with Kirton's given assessment of a weather balloon and radar reflector? Wright Field wouldn't need to see it given a suitable verbal description over the phone. Radar reflectors were simply balsa wood kites with a foil/paper covering. There's not that much to describe. Balloons are balloons. And the Mogul balloon materials back then were no different that standard weather balloon equipment. Also part of Dubose's story was of an earlier, highly secret shipment of debris from Roswell to Fort Worth to Washington and then to Wright Field. Wright Field may already have had a chance to examine the debris from this earlier shipment, another reason they might disagree. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

5. The paragraph starting "Shortly after the new press release ...", "The base provost marshall likewise later confirmed that they were holding Brazel at the base" - it is probably not true that Brazel was held or detained (Pflock, 169-171).

There are about a dozen eyewitnesses to Brazel being accompanied by military officers in Roswell, being kept at the base, being forced to change his story, or complaining bitterly afterwards to family and friends of being held at the base and treated badly by the military. The base provost marshal, Edwin Easley, the man in charge such things, admitted that they held Brazel at the base. But in your world of denial, if a debunker like Pflock says it never happened, then it never happened. Pflock’s mere assertion (based on what exactly—psychic abilities of a man who was never there?) trumps the testimony of a dozen eyewitnesses, including the base provost marshal. Figures. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

5.1 Later in that paragraph "Also contradicting the initial balloon story, Brazel said at the start of his interview that he "whispered" to Sheriff Wilcox that "he might have found a flying disk." It is misleading to say that this contradicts the balloon story. Brazel found the debris, he didn't know what it was. The modern UFO era had just started, and there was a flurry of excitement and sightings. Then he heard about flying saucers, and thought this might be one. He never said it had a saucer shape or anything like that.

Brazel is seemingly describing balloon material, even mentions everything being held up by a “balloon”, then absolutely recants the story at the end saying that what he found didn’t resemble “in any way” the other weather balloons he had previously found. The weather balloons used on a Mogul were no different than the weather balloons used anywhere else—they were exactly the same thing. If Brazel had actually found balloon material, as he initially stated, then Brazel at the very least would have known he was dealing with some sort of balloon. He would have told the Sheriff Wilcox when he first came to Roswell that he had found some sort of balloon, not “whispered” to him that maybe he had found a ”flying disk.” That’s one thing inconsistent with Brazel’s balloon descriptions. Another is Wilcox’s press statement that Brazel came in saying he had found a “weather meter.” That absolutely contradicts Brazel’s unambiguous statement that what found absolutely was not some sort of weather observation device. The article as written is pointing out the various ‘’contemporaneous’’ stories of what happened are inconsistent.
Another huge inconsistency pointed out is the story Ramey had Marcel tell in Fort Worth of Brazel immediately cleaning up the debris when he found it in mid-June and throwing it under some brush. This directly contradicted Brazel’s story of not thinking much of it and not picking anything up until July 4.
One of your problems Bubba, is you don’t like hearing about all the conflicting stories. You use the usual Klass tactic of highly selective quotation from Brazel’s interview, and leave out the rest of the important context of all the various and conflicting ways the story was actually reported back in 1947. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

6. The paragraph starting "Sheriff Wilcox was also quoted ..." at the end of the paragraph: "Various Wilcox family members would later claim that he was threatened by the military." The daughter of Wilcox said this in a March 1991 interview, when it was popular to say such things. According to a contemporaneous (July 8, 47) report "Wilcox said that the military indicated to him it would be best if he did not say anything." Hardly a threat. Pflock (172) says that her report is second-hand and unsubstantiated, not credible, and came in the weeks following similar tales on 'Unsolved Mysteries'.

The usual bunch of denial and assertions masquerading as facts. Both Wilcox's daughters said their father was pressured into cooperating, also hinted at by Wilcox’s actual contemporaneous AP quote of “I’m working with those fellows at the base,” in explaining why he wasn’t going to give further details about what Brazel’s object looked like. That quote predates the “Unsolved Mysteries” story by over 40 years. Wilcox’s granddaughter said she learned from her grandmother that Wilcox’s cooperation was anything but friendly. She claimed her grandmother told her the military came and told both she and her husband they would be killed if they didn’t keep their mouths shut and cooperate. According to the family and one of Wilcox’s deputies, the military’s treatment so demoralized him that he lost all interest in being Sheriff and didn’t seek reelection.
The quote you gave ("Wilcox said that the military indicated to him it would be best if he did not say anything.") is not "contemporaneous," but from Jason Kellahin, the AP reporter at Brazel's press conference (as usual, you don’t have even your basic facts straight). It's in Kellahin’s affidavit from 50 years later. He's also one of the eyewitnesses who stated Brazel was accompanied by military officers to the interview. (But you and Pflock don't want to believe it, therefore it never happened.) Note that Kellahin’s independent account is perfectly consistent with the Wilcox family members and the actual contemporaneous quote direct from Wilcox of “working with those fellows at the base.”
That something funny was going on with Wilcox is also apparent in the fact that he was giving different, conflicting stories to various news people. As to when Brazel found the object, he told UP “about 3 weeks ago,” but told AP "two or three days before." As to when Brazel first came to his office, he told UP Sunday, July 6, or “the day before yesterday,” but told AP “yesterday” or “Monday.” His statement that Brazel came in thinking he had found a “weather meter” conflicted with Brazel saying he told the sheriff he thought he found a “flying disk” and that what he found was absolutely not a weather device. Wilcox couldn’t give a straight, consistent story, maybe sometimes forgetting or confusing the story he was supposed to tell with what really happened.
Yes, the family accounts of threats are second-hand and can’t be “substantiated” with some sort of document. But the multiple accounts are all consistent, including Kellahin’s and Wilcox’s 1947 quote. They would certainly be admissible in a court of law. There is ‘’zero’’ evidence the various statements were inspired by “Unsolved Mysteries” or confabulated by family members. Pflock’s other assertion that they are “not credible” is again merely his personal opinion, not a statement of fact. You, as usual, don’t seem to know the difference. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

7. The paragraph starting "A number of UFO researchers ..." says "the U.S. government was withholding or suppressing information. " We now know that they were suppressing information about Project Mogul.

Yet again you are confusing your personal assumption based on your obvious personal biases, as being the same thing as incontestable fact. There are, e.g., zero documents about a Mogul balloon being recovered at the Brazel ranch. Mogul kept detailed records of what happened to their balloons, yet over several years of balloon launches there was not one balloon that landed or passed anywhere near the ranch, much less one from June/July 1947. There isn't even any conclusive document showing that there ever was a launch of a Mogul Flight #4, what the Air Force claims (with zero evidence) was recovered at the ranch. Flight #4 is a convenient scapegoat because with zero documentation, all sorts of details for it (like its supposed makeup and trajectory) can and have been confabulated to try to force-fit it as a "solution."
Not quite accurate- Charles Moore clearly stated the Flight #4 was part of a short series of "calibration flights", and that the NYU team initially had no interest in attempting recovery of these early tests. These early flights were flown only to test the reliability of tracking the flights with radar. No detailed documentation exists because these early flights were not part of the experimentation series. Once the actual experimentation phase started, all flights were recorded in detail, tracked and and recovered. Mcferret 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Moore may have clearly stated it, but everything about Flight #4 is based on his 50+ year-old memories and say-so. Except for a short diary entry on June 4 about a flight being cancelled on account of clouds, then a balloon cluster being sent up with a sonobuoy (no other details about configuration), there is zero about the alleged Flight #4. Even Moore said at one time the diary entry was ambiguous and there may have been no Flight #4. Basically you are saying the same thing I did--there is NO documentation for #4 (much less detailed documentation) and nothing to clearly document any connection with the Roswell crash. Since these flights were all about developing altitude control (as you note below), it also makes no sense they would have tossed out all tracking data if they had been tracking the flight. Another early flight not listed in records is #9 from early July and is probably closest to the situation with the alleged Flight #4. The flight was cancelled after a V-2 launch on July 3 was scrubbed and the already inflated balloons were sent up anyway. Pflock discusses this cancelled flight in his book (p. 155-156) and notes surviving photos show it used the meteorological balloons. Moore claims they probably would have removed any radar targets from the #9 balloon cluster before sending it up. So why not for the alleged #4? Further he claims the reason for not recording #9 or #4 was the absence of useful performance data, i.e., no tracking data. Neither statement supports the idea that radar targets were attached to the balloon cluster of the alleged #4 when it was sent up after the planned flight was cancelled on account of clouds.
As for radar tracking, Mogul records for June/July 1947 show only Flight #8 in July had radar tracking. Flight #5, which is well-documented and went up June 5 (and which Moore claims Flight #4 was probably most like in configuration) clearly had no radar tracking and the schematic shows no radar reflectors. The same was true for Flight #6 on June 7 (and likewise #7, #10, & #11 in July--no radar tracking). Thus it is pure speculation that #4 carried radar targets. Dr. Fil 28 January 2005
It is also not true that the public was told nothing about the existence of Project Mogul. That's nonsense! As the people involved admitted, there was no way to keep the balloon launches themselves secret. The crashed balloons were being found all the time by civilians, including in June/July 1947. Nothing was classified about the equipment, and only the purpose was classified at the time. It was so non-secret that a mock Mogul launch with radar targets was held for the press on July 9, 1947, at Alamogordo and used to try to explain recent UFO reports in the area and what the rancher supposedly found. If you read the 1980 "The Roswell Incident", one of the project balloons was considered in this first Roswell book. Mogul super-secret? Nonsense! Dr. Fil 7 December 2005
Again, not quite accurate. Project Mogul was, at the time, one of the most secret progams in the U.S. It's goal, after all, was to spy on the Soviet Union by flying listening devices through Soviet airspace. But the project goals depended on being able to keep a listening platform aloft at a specified altitude for an extended period of time with balloons, which was a technology that had never been tried. Thus the need for extensive testing and experimentation by the team headed by NYU. As you pointed out, there was nothing classified about the balloons themselves, or the RAWIN reflectors used on the early flights. And, it would be very difficult to hide the tests, so the tests were technically unclassified, conducted under a weather-related cover. However, the ultimate goal of the NYU program was indeed a very closely guarded secret. Mcferret 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This also isn't quite accurate (but basically we agree). The goal of the initial Mogul program was to detect Soviet A-bomb tests by listening from afar for the sound of the blasts conducted through the stratosphere. In 1947, there were no plans to actually fly balloons over the Soviet Union. A spin-off balloon program called Project Moby Dick in the early to mid 1950s did send spy balloons over the Soviet Union while the Russians howled in protest. (The U.S. government, of course, denied it all.) There was indeed nothing classified about the materials in 1947 and the flights could not be concealed. The only thing classified at the time was the purpose, which couldn't be deduced from a balloon crash. This is already pointed out in the article as written. Because of this, other recoveries by other civilians didn't trigger any response from the military, but something about Mack Brazel's discovery sent the military into overdrive. Dr. Fil 28 January 2005

8. The paragraph starting "Even more controversial ..." says "... primarily second-hand accounts from friends and family members of those involved..." I did considerable reading on this, and all such reports are second-hand or worse. No first-hand report mentioned aliens. Furthermore, there are no contemporary reports of aliens or anything resembling a flying saucer, even second-hand.

The article as written already says all this, so what's the problem? Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

8,1 Later in the paragraph "Ramey's 1947 statements of the object being about 25 feet across if reconstructed" he may be referring to an inflated weather balloon.

There are numerous quotes attributed to Ramey of him saying the foil-covered "box kite" was 25 feet across if reconstructed. E.g.:
Washington Post:
Army Air Force officials here were as flabbergasted as the rest of the world. But under the personal direction of Lieut. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, acting AAF chief, who dropped into the Washington AAF public information headquarters in the midst of the excitement, they burned up the wires to Texas and New Mexico. They got from Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, Eighth Air Force Commander, a description of the object. It was "of very flimsy construction -- almost like a box kite", made of wood and with a cover "like tinfoil"...Ramey said he hadn't actually seen it himself as yet. He went to take a look, and called back that it was about 25 feet in diameter.
Associated Press:
"The material had been described as of flimsy construction about 25 feet in diameter, covered with tinfoil-like substance and built on a framework of light wood. It was badly battered."
United Press stories:
"AAF spokesmen would say only that the 'saucer' was a flimsily-constructed, kite-like object measuring about 25 feet in diameter and covered with a material resembling tinfoil."
"Ramey informed his Washington superiors that the object was 'of very flimsy construction--almost like a box kite'. He said it had been smashed and apparently was made with a cover of some kind of material like tinfoil . Reports from Ramey, AAF spokesman in Washington, and Sheriff George Wilcox of Roswell indicated that the object, if reconstructed, would have a diameter of 25 feet."
Later’’ one of Ramey’s spokespeople, intelligence officer Kirton, told the FBI and Reuters, that it was the balloon that was 20 across. But these weren’t the original quotes from Ramey. It was yet another inconsistency in the official story. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

8.2 At the end of the paragraph "...balloon does speak specifically of "the 'disc'" and "the victims of the wreck" ...", with an external link - this is apparently fake. If you compare the curvature of the edge of the paper in the "Ramey message, high-resolution scan" with the actual photo, you can see that it doesn't match. There simply isn't enough detail in the photo to blow it up enough to read. Also, on the external link it is interesting to note that it is copyrighted by David Rudiak. That means that he is claiming that he wrote it. If the text was really from a government document, it would be in the public domain and he could not copyright it.

Maybe the dumbest and falsest things you've said yet. So now the message is a "fake", is it? (Not even Klass or Pflock said that—unlike you, they knew it was real.) The message as held in Ramey's hand is upside down. It's been turned right-side up in the enlargement. That's why the "curvature doesn't match." If you knew anything, you would know this. If anybody doubts this, they can order their own prints of the enlargement and full photo from the Univ. of Texas at Arlington. As for picture quality of the message, the Wiki version has been greatly reduced in size and quality to save space and to comply with Fair Use laws. Where did you get the idiotic idea that Rudiak claimed he wrote the message? What's copyrighted are the graphics, not the message within in. As to readability, people should go to the links and judge for themselves. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005
And now Bubba changed the caption to the photo to claim this is nothing but an "ALLEGED" enlargement. This photo is a reduced resolution version of a drum-scan direct off the original negative held at the U. Texas at Arlington Special Collections division. The full-resolution negative scan can be ordered from Stanton Friedman. First generation prints of the enlargement can be ordered from the U. Texas. This IS the message held by Gen. Ramey. The only thing disputed is what it might say, not that it is real. As far as I'm concerned, this should automatically disqualify Bubba from messing any further with this article. People this ignorant of the FACTS or who are deliberately lying should not be allowed to write encyclopedia articles. Dr. Fil 11 December 2005

Some other points:

9. Meteorologist Irving Newton was called to look at the debris, and he immediately identified it as a weather balloon with a Rawin radar reflector. (Korff, 126). General Ramey had been suspicious of Maj. Marcel's identification as a flying disc from the beginning and called in Newton (Peebles, 249, et al). General Ramey already suspected that it was from a balloon. Facts such as this are conveniently left out of the article.

So again, what exactly is the problem? “Conveniently left out of the article?” Maybe you should learn how to read because this is already in the article, such as the quote from United Press where Ramey said "It looks to me like the remnant of a weather balloon and a radar reflector." Newton is mentioned in newspaper articles as being brought in afterwards to make Ramey's identification official. That's the way the story was actually reported back in 1947 and that is how the article is written up. Marcel is also quoted from AP giving a balloon story. Exactly how many balloon quotes from 1947 would satisfy you? Space did not permit other quotes from Ramey and Dubose indicating that they thought it was a weather balloon/radar reflector. The points of contention are Marcel and Dubose later saying they were acting under orders when they gave weather balloon descriptions plus both saying that this was a cover story. This is again pointed out in the article. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

10. On September 23, 1947 (2-1/2 months after the alleged crash at Boswell) Lt. General Nathan Twining (commander of Air Material Command) issued a report stating "Due consideration must be given to the following ... (2) The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these objects." This was the report that lead to the establishment of Project Sign) to investigate reports of flying saucers - yet General Twining said that there has been no recovered crashed saucer. This report was made public years before the book entitled The Rowsell Incident by Berlitz and Moore (Peeples, 250) Again, such facts are left out of the article. (Incipiently, the book by Berlitz and Moore leaves out this inconvenient fact too.)

Twining's memo was classified at only a "Secret" level, not "Top-Secret", and had a long list of government agencies who were reciprients (whom Twining wanted to participate in a comprehensive investigation of UFOs). The point: a recovered UFO, if it existed and Twining knew of it, would be classified Top Secret and not mentioned in a lower classified document. Thus the Twining memo proves nothing one way or the other regarding a crash. (As for leaving out “inconvenient facts”, I notice you neglected to mention Twining’s memo also saying the flying saucers were real. Also just about every Roswell book you can name mentions that Twining’s memo also said there was no physical evidence and then debates the possible significance. “The Roswell Incident” was an exception, not the rule. Did Peebles mention that? Who’s leaving out the “inconvenient facts here?)
Like a lot of other documents, it's all in the interpretation. How about J. Edgar Hoover's memo a week after the Roswell incident where he grouses about the Army grabbing the "La." disk and not letting the FBI have a look at it? Is that proof of a Roswell UFO crash or is Hoover referring to another "disk" incident? Again, it's in the interpretation. Does "La." stand for "Louisiana" or something else, like "Los Alamos"?
There are other FBI documents from 1949 that specifically refer to recovery of crashed saucers and alien bodies. Again is this “proof,” or is it, as some have argued, a case of the FBI field agents repeating unsubstantiated rumors?
There are some other Army documents from January 31, 1949, referring to the huge green fireball sighting of January 30 near Roswell. The documents indicated they were treating it as a possible crashed UFO incident, and a huge search and investigation was launched. A great deal of this investigation was mentioned at the Los Alamos conference on the green fireballs 2 weeks later. (Remember, the article you inappropriately just flagged as inaccurate because one of your skeptical heroes, Peebles, badly misrepresented what really happened at the meeting?) If they were searching for possible crashed UFO a year and a half later, does this constitute "proof" of an earlier crash?
You can't cite just one document, selectively quote from it, parrot your usual one-sided Philip Klass, Karl Pflock, or Curtis Peebles spin, and have a fair and balanced article. How big an article do you want here, anyway--booksize? That's what it would take to go into all these various facets and properly debate them. There simply isn't space unless you want to write another, associated article. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

11. Several formerly secret documents prove that it was from a balloon. In particular, the "Combined History of the 509th bomb group... July 1947", said "The Office of Public Information was kept quite busy during the month answering inquires on the 'flying disc', which was reported to be in the possession of the 509th. The object turned out to be a radar tracking balloon." (Peeples, 249). (The FBI document is another one, and it is in the article.)

What nonsense! These no more constitute "proof" than the newspaper articles where Gen. Ramey was also saying it was a weather balloon/radar target. The FBI telegram merely repeated Ramey's new story that was told them by one of Ramey's intelligence officers (Major Kirton) acting under Ramey's orders. (AF intelligence was generally antagonistic toward the FBI knowing too much, and if you knew anything about UFO history you would know that Hoover became so furious with being cut out of the loop that he ceased cooperation with the AF on UFO investigations in October 1947 after becoming aware of a particularly insulting intelligence memo concerning the FBI's proposed role.)
There never was anything "secret" about 509th History. That’s another thing you dreamt up. You try to make it sound like it was some super-secret Pentagon document. It is a low-level, unclassified document, much like a base newspaper, and was obviously doing nothing more than repeating the official public party line, not disclosing state secrets. On the same page of the base history is other super "secret" stuff such as who visited the base, the intelligence office needing a new stenographer, or how they were busy preparing for Air Force Day. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

12. I don't think it is emphasized in the article, but it seems unlikely that an alien spaceship would have been made up of kite-like materials held together with "Scotch" tape.

Another inane, Klass-aped argument. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a debunker propaganda piece full of ridicule, which is apparently what you want. As pointed out in the article, one of the big disputes is over what was REALLY found out on the Brazel debris field, i.e., was the new story put out by Ramey true or was it a cover story and disinformation? This also goes to the question of whether other witnesses like Brazel and Wilcox were giving independent accounts or were being coerced into cooperating by the military. But with your usual illogic and extreme bias, you assume that Ramey's balloon/radar target story was necessarily true, and from this unproven premise dismiss in your mind every single bit of evidence that might contradict it. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

13. For some 30 years after the incident, it wasn't even considered a UFO event. Additionally, when UFO buffs were asked for lists of their best cases, Roswell wasn't even listed.

Which is totally irrelevant and proves nothing. (But if Klass or Pflock or a Peebles use the argument, you just have to parrot it as some sort of imaginary “showstopper”) Please tell us what does this has to do with the evidence and facts of the case as they NOW exist? Other conventional, embarrassing incidents have also gotten buried by governments, largely forgotten, and may only be uncovered decades later. So what? Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

I'm new to this site and process, so please don't get to angry if I step on a few toes by inserting this here. But the statement that the incident wasn't even considered a UFO event is incorrect. I first heard about this case as a 10 year old kid in a book by Frank Edwards called "Flying Saucers-Serious Business". On page 76 (of the hard back edition) is a fairly long paragraph on Roswell. Although it's full of some inacuracies, such as the Sheriff geting a phone call from a rancher saying that a flying saucer had flown over his house and crashed into a near by hillside. This book was published in 1966. I first read it in 1968.

This is NOT the only book to talk about Roswell before Stanton T. Friedman started to investigate. Frank Skully mentions it in hes book "Behind the Flying Saucers" published in 1950. I would have to do some more research into other books that predate the modern Roswell interest.

Here I must tell of my own involvment in UFO research. I am the Southwest Regional Director for The International Community for Alien Research. I have been studying the Roswell story since I first read about it in Frank Edwards book. I have talked with Stanton T. Friedman about this several times and find him a very credible, and thorough investigator. Who himself has been a victum of people like Phillip Klass. Thank you for letting me add to this discussion. I look forward to reading more on this debate in this forum. Mrs. A. Jan. 1, 2006

Well, those are a few points in section 1... Bubba73 (talk), 14:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Did the head of the Eighth Army Air Force in Fort Worth, Texas, Brigadier General Roger Ramey, change the story within an hour of the release? IF so ... mabey "retracted" or "transformed" or "switched" could be used. Why is this sinister if this is what occuered? JDR 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Why does the use of this word convey anything “sinister.” According to various newspaper stories such as the New York Times, San Francisco Examiner, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Fort-Worth Star-Telegram and others, Ramey did indeed begin to change the story to a weather balloon and radar target starting within an hour of when the Roswell press release first went out over the AP wire. Three hours after the press release, this became the official story after Ramey brought in his weather officer to confirm the identification he had already been putting out. I don’t understand what the big problem is with the word “change” here. The official story did indeed change from recovered “flying disk” to weather balloon/radar reflector. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005

The caption of the photo should be changed. Isn't that a weather balloon photo? Mabey state what the pohoto was. JDR 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (Caption changed) Made a link to the "controversial message" section. JDR 21:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What was he ordered to "cover up"? from his affidavit ... the "weather balloon explanation for the material was a _cover story_ to divert the attention of the press". Philip J. Klass doesn't seem too much of an impartial expert on this subject (but is an "expert" against) ... I don't know how "clear" the failing was (seems to be a character assassination" ... from the various material through a search I seen), but mentioning that this was said in the mid 1990s (years after the event) may be a _factual thing_ to say (time can cloud memories). JDR 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubose's testimony about as to what happened in Ramey's office dates back to 1979 (14 years before he died) and is in "The Roswell Incident." Quote:
"[Dubose] observed that there had been received 'orders from on high to ship the material from Roswell directly to Wright Field by special plane.' He added that the general (Ramey) was in complete charge and the rest of the officers and men involved 'just followed orders.' The general was most concerned that the large number of press reporters present be 'taken off his back in a hurry.' The weather balloon story was a fabrication designed to accomplish that task and 'put out the fire' at the same time."
Thus Dubose was describing a weather balloon cover-up from the time he was first interviewed and his testimony agreed with Marcel’s about this. It is also interesting that following Roswell, Dubose, along with Roswell C/O Col. Blanchard (who issued the “flying disk” press release) recommended Marcel for promotion to Lt.-Colonel in the Reserve. Furthermore, in Blanchard’s fitness evaluation of Marcel the following Spring (where Blanchard upped Marcel’s numerical rating to “Superior”), Dubose was the co-signer, and recommended that Marcel attend command officer training school. The point is, if Marcel had screwed up and misidentified balloon material as a “flying disk,” Dubose would have known about it. I seriously doubt that under those circumstances he would have recommended him for promotion or for command officer training. Dr. Fil 7 December 2005


Did the head of the Eighth Army Air Force in Fort Worth, Texas, Brigadier General Roger Ramey, change the story within an hour of the release? IF so ... mabey "retracted" or "transformed" or "switched" could be used. Why is this sinister if this is what occuered? JDR 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The caption of the photo should be changed. Isn't that a weather balloon photo? Mabey state what the pohoto was. JDR 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (Caption changed) Made a link to the "controversial message" section. JDR 21:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What was he ordered to "cover up"? from his affidavit ... the "weather balloon explanation for the material was a _cover story_ to divert the attention of the press". Philip J. Klass doesn't seem too much of an impartial expert on this subject (but is an "expert" against) ... I don't know how "clear" the failing was (seems to be a character assassination" ... from the various material through a search I seen), but mentioning that this was said in the mid 1990s (years after the event) may be a _factual thing_ to say (time can cloud memories). JDR 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Gen Ramey corrected the story. The "flying disc" report was issued before ramey even saw the debris. Ramey didn't "change his story", as the term is generally used. Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Bubba inventing things again. Where does it say that Ramey "changed HIS story"? By any definition of the word "change", Ramey did indeed change the original story from Roswell base that they had recovered a "flying disc." With Ramey it became a weather balloon and radar target.
As to semantics, "corrected" is automatically a POV or spin word, because it directly implies the original story was incorrect. In contrast, "change" is a completely neutral or NPOV word. Dr Fil, 11 December 2005


The strong bias toward alien explanations in this article is disappointing. If alien theory advocates have any real confidence in their opinions then they should welcome articulate descriptions of the opposing view so as to challenge them in legitimate debate. Durova 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


It has been stated that a possible edit war will shortly ensue. The point of the article is NOT to prove aliens had crashed on this planet, nor to prove that this did not happen either. Failure to observe this may result in a Edit war. Martial Law 01:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC) :)

The article reads too much like it was written by a believer in the alleged incidents. Additionally, the language is highly biased, misleading and loaded with implications that have no basis in fact. A number (if not most) of the assertions made by UFOlogists re Roswell have been ably debunked, by putting all of the facts on the table, not just the select few that give the appearance of supporting a highly romantic yet non-scientific story. This article needs to be rewritten, but as I haven't the time (working on other projects) perhaps someone else will buy several bottles of Tylenol and get started. Jim62sch 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See RE.:Witnesses. May explain what is going on. Been there myself. Martial Law 06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


I have actually been to Roswell,NM. myself. Anyone going there should not call the locals liars, worse. This area still has the atmosphere of the Old West, meaning that a dispute is solved by gunfire or a knife. A elderly gent, who may have been either one of the "Original Witnesses" or a 1st generation( kid @ the time this incident happened) person had told me what really happened when this happened. what he said would violate Wiki policies, incl. Wikipedia:Profanity, so, let me tell you that he was ill treated by the US Army, that nurse was murdered to shut her up, records altered, there was also profanity laced commentary towards the skeptics he feels are carrying out the Robertson Panel protocol. I was also in the International UFO Museum which was owned and run by Stanton Friedman @ the time. I did not have a chance to meet this guy face to face, but I did see the alleged derbis. What this place had is copper colored material, not the silvery derbis as was reported in this matter. I had also seen the other period artifacts as well, the funeral home in which the boss there had taken a phone call from the US Army concerning special children's sized, hermetically sealed caskets,I had also talked to the other locals about this matter. There was no USAF @ this time, so they are blameless in this matter. I've been travelling the US as, among other things, as a prospector. Cheers. Martial Law 06:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC) :)

Can any of this be used at all in this format ? Martial Law 06:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid it's another case of original research. Ask yourself this:
    • How trustworthy is this old man? His credentials as a witness seem poorly documented. Even if he wholeheartedly believes he is telling the truth, memory is unreliable.
    • How trustworthy are the "period artifacts"? For example, is the debris reliably certified? Furthermore, did you actually see tiny coffins, or at least a record of such an order?
    • If the government had to get rid of alien bodies, wouldn't agents simply cremate them? It's easier, cheaper, and less suspicious than ordering tiny coffins. (Preceding question nicked from Michael Shermer.) Deltabeignet 07:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • First question:Unknown, not looking to get shot or gutted.
  • 2nd question:The period artifacts are the sort seen in WWII movies, Korean War movies, US monster and UFO movies made just after WWII. The alleged derbis was silver. What I've seen was copper sheets of some kind, period newspapers, warnings to civilians if the incident was reported. Also discussed this with the locals. To avoid stating profanity, they believe that the skeptics are part of the campaign to make them look like idiots and liars. See Robertson Panel.
  • 3rd question:To prevent the slightest risk of a biological contamination, you seal it up, you don't burn it, unless you can have it vaporized at 10,000 degrees+ C or better to kill any alien pathogens. Mad Cow prions, for example can't be destroyed except by a nuclear explosion, since ordinary heat, say from a trash fire would only scatter the contagion, not destroy them.
Others have told me about the nurse as well. She was killed, as a Army Officer, witnesses have stated, allegedly said,"To shut her the (expletive) up", her records altered, to make it appear she was transferred, and a civilian was threatened with death if he disclosed what he had seen on the Army Airbase, a DJ was told that if he broadcasted what happened, he'd be out of a job. This goes on and on. Martial Law 07:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the assisstance. I had also met some "Roswell Witnesses" while I was in Silver City, New Mexico while prospecting for gold. Martial Law 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


I reverted the edits by as the comments were more appropriate for this Talk page rather than the article itself. James084 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

External links out of control here!

There are way too many external links on this article IMHO. Does everyone that reads this article get to link out to their personal web site on the subject?! Check out WP:EL. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

please start pruning. if you don't, i'll try to do it tonight. Kingturtle 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait a while too. This can be the notice to everyone to start getting your Roswell info into Wikipedia and we'll be more careful not to let anyone link out to the rest of the world. This is an encyclopedia, not a Yahoo-type launching point into the internet. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive?

This seems like a good candidate to me. What do you guys think?

Suspect Histories

In section 2.4 "Other Witnesses", a Brig. General Steven Lovekin is mentioned, and his claim to received a briefing at the White House on the Roswell debris and bodies. Kevin Randle, one of the most knowledgeable UFO investigators today, and author of several books on the Roswell case, did a little background check on Lovekin, and what he found is quite disturbing.

Randle, who is well known as a competent investiator, could not find any record of Lovekin's service orsss rank with the Army or the National Guard. Randle then turned to Lovekin's claimed stint with the Judge Advocate General's office with the North Carolina National Guard. Again no record of any officer named Lovekin.

Lovekin also claimed that he served in the Eisenhower White House- this is where he said he received his Roswell briefing. Again according to Randle, this claim seems highly suspect, as he was born in 1940. This would mean that he was no more than 18 when stationed there, a highly unlikely scenario. White House appointments are reserved for seasoned professionals, not teenagers.

Randle's account of his investiation can be found in his blog Unless someone else has some different, verifiable information regarding Lovekin, I would propose that Lovekin and his claims be edited out of the Article.

Mcferret 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It could either be edited out, or until Randle's claims can be double-checked, it could be noted that Lovekin's background and claims are now disputed, maybe put it in the "Skeptic's views" section along with comments on Frank Kaufmann.
For the sake of completeness, I added Randle's cautionary note about Lovekin to the "Skeptic's views" section, even though I think Randle's investigation was far from thorough (as I mention below). In the event that it is eventually proven that Lovekin's claimed background is fraudulent, then his comments on Roswell become spurious and I agree they should be edited out. Dr Fil 19 January 2006

Randle is far from perfect as a researcher, one example is him being Frank Kaufmann's biggest backer initially. The jury is still out on Lovekin. Maybe Lovekin has a simple explanation or could provide the needed service documents if he were contacted. Randle didn't bother to do that, at least not yet. To my knowledge, Randle also hasn't checked Eisenhower and Kennedy archives to see if Lovekin might have been in the White House Army Signal Corps, as Lovekin claims, from late 1959-61.
It is simply not true that only "seasoned professionals" serve in the White House. Ever hear of Monica Lewinksy? A better example might be George M. Elsey, who was a newly minted Naval ensign, only 23 or 24 years old, when he was assigned, with zero experience, to the Roosevelt White House and put in charge of the map room. He met with the likes of Roosevelt, Churchill, and other higher ups. Eventually he became an important White House aide, especially in the Truman administration, but he started out as a young, inexperienced nobody. Lovekin's story of serving in the White House Signal Corp would have placed him deep in the basement of the White House in the communications room instead of the West Wing like Elsey. It is not unusual for 19 or 20 year-olds to serve in such positions. I don't know if Lovekin's story has him saying he started out as a lieutenant. A 19-year lieutenant would indeed be highly unusual if not very suspect, but it is conceivable he could have left the White House in 1961 as a lieutenant when he was about 21.
Randle's argument that he couldn't find a service biography for Lovekin on the Net is pretty weak. Lots of generals and admirals don't have official service biographies, one notable example being Gen. Ramey. You can go to the Air Force web site and find about 2000 service biographies for various USAF generals, including many lesser generals (such as Brig. Generals Exon and Dubose, also of the Roswell case), but Ramey isn't among them, even though he retired a 3-star general. Sometimes people just fall through the cracks. At least the USAF website has a biographical section for their generals, and you will probably find most of their generals listed there. The Army and National Guard don't have comparable sites. Finding biographies on their generals is much more hit and miss. Dr Fil 15 January 2006
It is now pretty clear that Kevin Randle seriously screwed up his background investigation of Lovekin. Lovekin has recently provided various documents about his rank and service in the White House Signal Corp under Eisenhower and Kennedy. [6] It turns out Lovekin is a Brigadier General, but in the North Carolina State Guard, not National Guard. Whether this misunderstanding was the fault of Lovekin or backers like the Disclosure Project, who likely wouldn't have understood the difference, is currently unclear.
More serious is Randle labeling Lovekin a liar for saying he was in the White House Army Signal Corp between 1959 and 1961 (the period when Lovekin claimed to receive high-level briefings on UFOs and crash retrievals). Two documents provided by Lovekin prove Randle wrong. Again so much for the claim that teenagers would never be allowed to serve in the White House. Lovekin was at the White House exactly when he said he was.
Randle made a lot of other mistakes as well, such as claiming that Lovekin's law biography has him getting his law degree in 1964, leaving him inadequate time to be in the Army, get an undergraduate degree, then go to law school. Lovekin's website law biography instead says he got his undergraduate degree in 1964 and his law degree in 1967.
On the other hand, being a brigadier general in a state militia unit doesn't really make Lovekin a high-level military witness. This is misleading and the Wiki text will have to be amended to reflect this. Dr Fil 01:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Regarding the following paragraphs: Another theory is the craft was struck by lightning and partly exploded, creating the large debris field of small pieces found at Brazel's ranch. The rest of the crippled craft with crew came down at some other nearby location. Mack Brazel did tell his son Bill and Roswell intelligence officer Marcel that he first found the debris following a tremendous explosion he heard in the midst of a violent thunder and lightning storm. There are also other witnesses to this explosion, including some neighboring ranchers and a highly respected Roswell couple, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot, who reported to the local newspaper on July 8 seeing a glowing flying saucer pass overhead on the night of July 2. Marcel would later reveal in his last interview that Paul Wilmot had recently told him about his parents also seeing the craft explode in the distance after passing in the direction of Brazel's ranch to the northwest. Marcel added that Brazel came to Roswell a few days later to report the crashed flying saucer.

Regardless if this latter theory of the crash has merit, weather records do provide information on thunderstorm activity and can perhaps help pinpoint when Brazel found the debris field on his ranch. There were no thunderstorms in the region the first three weeks of June 1947, the period when the Project Mogul balloon allegedly responsible for the wreckage was launched (June 4) and when Brazel would later claim in a newspaper interview to have found the debris (June 14). However, there were thunderstorms in late June and early July, specificially July 2 and July 4. The latter dates are at least consistent with the initial Roswell base press release of July 8 that said the rancher had found the "flying disk" "sometime last week." Local ranchers have also told researchers Brazel would not leave such debris sitting in his fields for three weeks since it would have been hazardous to his livestock's health. This again suggests an early July discovery of the wreckage, alien or not.

Now I'm no aviation expert, but I'm pretty sure lightning doesn't cause human made airplanes to explode, they handle it quite well and usually make safe landings afterwards. Now a craft that was meant to travel in space and make it through the atmosphere would atleast have to be able to handle a bit more than a Boeing 747 wouldn't it? (Even if it wasn't one of Xenu's Boeings!)

Not that thats the worst part of the article (there are too many to go into here, its a chore just to read the thing.) This article could use some serious cleanup. --Brentt 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The lightning part is already noted as speculation or a theory, since the original story from Brazel (told through Marcel and Brazel Jr.) was of hearing the explosion and then finding the debris immediately afterwards. There are other witnesses to the explosion and/or of debris being in little pieces and scattered over a wide area (even Marcel in 1947 was quoted saying it was scattered over a square mile). I would agree that it seems unlikely that lightning strike would bring down an alien spaceship, which seemingly would be built to handle such a routine thing, but this too would be speculation. However, this isn't my theory, but a theory of some major Roswell researchers, so it is presented in the article. From the perspective of the "pro-UFO" camp, whether lightning caused the crash isn't even the main point--it's the evidence for an explosion and when thunderstorm activity was in the area which can perhaps help pinpoint the date and help rule out other theories, like Mogul. Our planes aren't totally invulnerable to lightning strikes--on rare occasion crashes are caused by them or flight electronics are damaged. Being more advanced in some ways does not necessarily equate to being less vulnerable. Modern solid state electronics is much more vulnerable to static discharges or EMF pulses than old vacuum tubes, and it is easier to bring down a modern jet fighter with a bullet than an old WWII fighter plane because of all the critical electronics needed to keep a modern fighter flying. --Dr Fil 3 February 2006

Fringe Theories?

Please, define "fringe" theories. When you think about that word, you will see that you have forgotten what we are talking about here. Why is the idea of German/Japanese saucers more fringe then Zeta-Reticulans crashing in the desert? I suggest you create three catagories:

Conventional Theories/Skeptics

Satellite imagery - Project Corona

It seems possible that the Roswell incident of July 1947 might have been a failed attempt to retrieve film from space. Possibly the Corona Project was named for Corona, New Mexico which is the site of the Roswell incident.

V-2 engineers at White Sands were working on taking photos from space and had perfected a technique for orienting the camera by 1948. Remember that the existence of German rocket scientists 100 miles away at White Sands was classified. Five flights in April and May 1947 included experiments in photography, but the next published photo flight was not made until December.

It was well known from Eugene Saenger's work that a rotating disk allowed for an even distribution of convective and radiant heat during reentry. What they did not know until around 1949 and the work of Hannes Alfven, was the large amount of re-entry heat due to ionization.

The first photographs from space were successfully returned to earth on July 26, 1948.


UFO/Extraterrestrial Theories

Alternative Theories

I would contend many skeptics view the alien argument as fringe as they would Nazi occultists. IdeArchos 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Fringe" was used (in external links) because occult and "Nazi flying saucer" theories are generally considered fringe even in UFO circles. However, I take your point that "fringe" carries a POV stigma. Perhaps "Nonconventional alternative viewpoints" could be substituted. The point was to distinguish these links from the previous ones, which advocated either the alien crash or the Mogul theory. BTW, "fringe" also implies that only a tiny minority may hold a particular POV. By that definition, an alien theory is not a fringe POV in either the UFO research community or among the general public either. Further, a number of notable people have also advocated it, including Gen. Exon, Edgar Mitchell, Barry Goldwater, Admiral Lord Hill-Norton, and the recent French COMETA UFO study group made up of French generals and aerospace experts. I doubt they could all be labeled "fringe" people or loonies. Dr Fil 15:23, 3 February 2006


After the derbis, bodies have been discovered, the military took over all operations, and coerced the locals into silence. When someone sticks a loaded gun to your head, are you going to say, "(expletive) no!" ? Didn't think so either. Martial Law 08:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Except there's no documentary evidence from 1947 to support the claim that anyone was 'coerced into silence' -- particularly not by 'sticking a loaded gun to their head' -- and no documentary evidence from 1947 of 'bodies being discovered'. As far as I'm aware, every single claim of coercion or alien bodies was made over thirty years later, after the publication of the original 'Roswell Incident' book. The same applies to every single claim of an alien spaceship crash.
Roswell was simply a non-story until 1981, and then suddenly dozens of people started claiming to have seen aliens crash there, the stories growing and growing until last time I looked there were about _six_ competing 'crash sites' in the area. Must have been a heck of ot a lot of aliens falling out of the sky that night. Mark Grant 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The telegram section...

There is a section titled "General Ramey's Roswell telegram". In that section there are two sentences about telegrams. It's not even clear that the two sentences are about the same telegram and one of them is just parenthetical anyway.

So why is the section title "General Ramey's Roswell telegram"? Phiwum 19:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree--it doesn't properly describe most of the section contents. I've changed the heading to "Stories of a 'disc' craft and alien bodies" which I think is more descriptive. Dr Fil 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Excessive use of bold

This article uses too much emphasis on too many minor phrases. b4hand 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Extra Alien Autopsy material

I cut out the rambling addition to the alien autopsy section because it is way too long, badly written, redundant, and speculative. However, I am preserving it here in case somebody wants to expand on some of the points, maybe in a new Alien Autopsy Wiki article. Dr Fil 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material

However, one must consider other factors that make this thing a hoax. Some of the reasons are:

1. The hoaxers located various articles from the time period that it is supposed to represent i.e. 1947, through the display of certain materials including the telephone.

2. If this was a first-ever alien autopsy, they more than likely wouldn't do this in such a manner as presented in the film.

3. If this was done in 1947, contamination would have been a severe issue. And more than likely would have happened.

4. There is probably more than likely no such autopsy-type facilities anywhere on the base in Fort Worth where this alledgedly took place.

5. It has been pointed out numerous times that the alleged surgeon behind the glass was masked to hide his identity. Whatever he was doing is also quite ridiculous.

6. The technology of the time in 1947 could not produce such conditions to have such an alien autopsy like that to take place. Which again buttresses the fact that the surgeon in simple mask and gown was absolutely pointless unless the technology at that time called for manipulation of the surgical environment and also had air scrubbers for handling possible major contaminants and/or possible biological ones as well.

To be fair in this, it can also be said that the real reason this was a deliberate hoax, was to show that an actual alien autopsy took place, but after 1947, and most definitely not in Fort Worth. This could very well be some dramatization footage that was created to show that an autopsy along these lines happened at Wright-Patterson possibly in the '50s and '60s and was made with only an inkling as to what really happened (hence the criticism about the non-knowing of actual military autopsy procedures).

Also, one must understand (or at least take into consideration) that we do not know the actual procedures and/or autopsy protocol for alien bodies. We cannot really say for certain that this didn't take place or what had happened. Is this clearly a hoax? Yes. Did Santilli do this? Maybe. But it cannot be said for certain whether this was done as a dramatic presentation of an actual autopsy or a deliberate hoax that netted Santilli money. Until either happens, we can never know.

There is much speculation about what "we know" and do not know, I agree. It would certainly be more appropriate to cite experts who have proven (?) the film a fake (e.g., not 1947), or to cite the reluctance of Santilli to provide for enough film material for proof, or things like this.

Why "rambling", "redundant", "badly written". All this only expresses a subjective, personal disgust. Maybe others feel otherwise. The only argument I see refers to "speculation".

-- Bwilcke 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The alien autopsy movie is a hoax. the authors have come clean [7] about it. Flabreque 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a big article

Does anyone have any thoughts about breaking this article into some smaller pieces? It's quite large right now. Just thinking out loud, but one way to do this would be to have an article on the history of the Roswell incident, containing most of the info now in Sections 1 & 2, and then perhaps an article on "theory and speculation", containing most of the info in Sections 3, 7, 8 & 10. I'd be happy to help with such a project if people were interested. Any thoughts? --Deville (Talk) 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes. It's gotten too long. Such things as the FBI teletype and the Brazel interview could be simply linked to instead of reproduced at the end of the article. I've considered breaking out the alien autopsy discussion into a separate article. (New documentaries are coming out and the subject is heating up again, believe it or not.) The Roswell cultural influence and trivia section which is rather long might be put into a separate article as well. That's some ideas for now to shorten it somewhat. I can't deal with it now, but maybe in a few weeks. Dr Fil 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Corona Project

Possibly the Corona Project was named for Corona, New Mexico which is the site of the Roswell incident.

V-2 engineers at White Sands were working on taking photos from space and had perfected a technique by 1948.

The first photographs were successfully returned to earth on July 26, 1948.

It seems possible that the Roswell incident of July 1947 might have been a failed attempt to retrieve film from space


Interesting idea, but the wreckage descriptions (e.g. balsa wood and scotch tape) are incompatible with a V2, and a good match to a Mogul balloon. Also, if Brazel had found a V2 on his ranch I can't see that he would have left it there for two weeks before reporting it. Mark Grant 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It is an interesting idea. I like to remember what Commander Spock said in an early Star Trek movie: "That would explain a great many things" A little more background on von Braun's attempt to solve the re-entry proble might help. The Peenemunde engineers discovered re-entry on their second or third flight. They had a lot of trouble just getting two tons of explosives to fall accurately enough to be effective bombing London or the port at Antwerp. It would have been silly to try to get the whole missile to fall back to earth without burning up. What I am talking about is a disk shaped payload designed to spin during re-entry. The Peenemunde people found that during reentry the front is hot, and the back is cold. The Space Shuttle has ice on the back when it lands. According to one person on the USENET WWII newsgroup the English found people with good ultra violet eyesight and tried to use them to warn of the V-2 coming in.
My father, who survived both V-1 and V-2 attacks while stationed in London told me the V-2 was more scary because they were silent. Frizb

Seen movie

I have seen a movie in which aliens did crash at Roswell, but the real aliens were human, the Greys were "Bio-robots". The aliens were sent to earth to take a primative A-Bomb, modify it, so that when it was "tested" it would destroy the planet by burning up the atmosphere. Later it is revealed that humanity came from a planet that was ruled by a military government who threw out the "undesirables" such as philosophers, intellectuals, artists, all who were heading to a prison planet when its navigation array malfunctioned, sending it into deep space, and towards Earth. When the military government finally located where the long lost prison ship had went to, they sent a detail to destroy this planet, hoping to exterminate the descendants of the undesirables that dissappeared. I cannot recall the title of this movie at this time. Martial Law 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Anyone else seen this, and what is the title ? Martial Law 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Counter-intelligence disinformation theory

This section is informal, biased, speculative, and is primarily original research. Anybody else think that it should be removed entirely from the article? dreddnott 21:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and if I was more experienced I would take it out. However you could say something like, "If there was a secret military project involved then the counter intelligence people would have invented a cover story for it. For example if the Roswell object was part of a project by Werner von Braun to retrieve film from space the counter intelligence people could be depended upon to make up some kind of story. The fact that von Braun was in the US was classified."
I have argued on this page and on the Project Corona page that that Roswell was probably an experiment by von Braun who was testing missiles in White Sands, just over the mountain from Roswell and the town of Corona. Frizb 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I added and fleshed out this section in response to another contributors remarks. As far as I know, the material about AFOSI deception about Roswell is all factual, but I agree there is a certain amount of speculation and the section isn't necessary. I'll remove it for now. Maybe a much shortened version of it could go over in UFO crash theories.Dr Fil 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Text moved from main article

The following text was added to the main article by an anonymous user. As it did not belong there I have moved it to this talk page.--SomeStranger (T | C) 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I still get e-mails asking "What is the significance of Roswell New Mexico?" SO... for the extremely uninitiated, before getting into the untold story, let's briefly cover the basics of the 1947 Roswell UFO Crash - fact and folklore.

Know the basics? Then scroll to parts 3 & 4 to see what sets this page apart from all else you've read...

The facts are:

  1. 1) In July 1947, an unusual craft crashed in the desert of New Mexico.
  2. 2) The Roswell Army Air base was involved in recovering the craft, possibly including 4-5 bodies
  3. 3) On July 8th, the Roswell newspaper published a Front Page Article - taken from the official press release written by Lt. Walter Haut of the RAAF 509th acting under orders of Col. William Blanchard - reading
   "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region"
  1. 4) Following orders from Col William Blanchard (and probably Gen Roger Ramey and Washington higher-ups), Haut recanted the flying disk press release hours later, claiming via the next day's paper that it was just a weather balloon recovered.

Souvenir reproductions of these Front Page articles are available from The Roswell Daily Record and/or read the RDR articles Here ~ London Times snippet, July 8, 1947 Here November 22, 2002 - TV Critic says "Roswell Dig on Sci-Fi Comes Up Empty" For updates on CURRENT & BREAKING UFO NEWS, go HERE

The Air Force maintains this story still today, adding the bit about the "crash test dummies" in 1997's official "Roswell : Case Closed" report, just two weeks before the 50th anniversary of the event was celebrated. At the time (July 1947), the media and the public "bought" the weather balloon story, but in the time since many witnesses have surfaced recounting their stories - including death threats - proving to many that the weather balloon story was indeed a cover-up.

Fact #5 is nearly indisputable to all investigation since - that for whatever reasons, the government has been lying for nearly 60 years about what crashed and was recovered from the Roswell region. The common belief today is that it was a spacecraft from another world. The general public is less aware of this, but many researchers note that the craft probably "skipped" near Roswell, leaving debris, but regaining altitude and finally crashing in Corona NM, appx 45 miles from its initial "crash," (See, or the possibility of 2 ships is also sometimes considered.

All remained quiet for almost 40 years. Then the 1980's-1990's saw a renewed interest among researchers and the public alike to discover "the truth." Books such as Stanton Friedman's Crash at Corona and Randle & Schmidt's The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell (1994; Originally "UFO Crash at Roswell" 1991) have sparked movies (including ShowTime's "Roswell," 1994), imaginations, and continued serious investigations.

Also, the International UFO Museum & Research Center opened in Roswell in 1991, founded by former Lt Walter Haut (above) and Glenn Dennis (below). Today the IUFOMRC receives over 200,000 visitors annually, offering A CERTAIN VERSION of the Roswell story, to great popular appeal and financial success. (While the Museum is non-profit, the adjoining gift shop - required to go through to exit - is not.) As it is basically factual, let's start with the popular version of the story. The one that sells T-shirts, books and movies...

Part 2) The Official Mythology

Note that this is barely an overview of the relevant historical facts. It is brief in order to get to parts 3 and 4. More details are available at the UFO Museum's "Roswell Incident" link, and other helpful links are cited as well. "My pick" for the most credible research is Dennis Balthaser's award-winning site, Truth Seeker at Roswell.

Many people witnessed the plummeting of the unusual craft on a stormy night in early July (given dates actually vary). According to MOST reports, the Roswell Incident "begins" when ranch hand Mac Brazel came into town, bringing pieces of debris to Roswell sheriff, George Wilcox. The metal was said to have had unusual properties, including the ability to revert to its original shape when bent, and was very strong. Sheriff Wilcox called the nearby 509th...

<<< The Roswell Army AirField, 509th Division was where our nation's then 15 nuclear bombs were stored, including the only planes equipped to fly them, the only pilots and bombers trained to release them, and at the time was the largest air landing strip in the world. In other words, these were not a bunch of dorks running around, manning the 509th. They were among the best and most highly trained technical specialized military our nation had to offer, adding MUCH credibility to any testimony that would later follow. >>>

Major Marcel "takes the fall," claiming only under orders that he - an officer trained in military equipment - misidentified the craft. (Pictured with a real weather balloon for the press conference.) As years passed, he insisted that he was not mistaken about the metal. He was later described as an outsider, and often despondent.

Wilcox called the nearby 509th to see if they had lost any planes (more common in this era than widely known), which they had not. The 509th then sent out Major Jesse Marcel AND (less reported) Sheridan Cavett, a Counter Intelligence officer, already assigned to the case (WHY? if they yet had no idea anything had happened or what they'd find) who accompanied Brazel to the debris field. Truckloads of debris were soon brought to the now-famous Hangar 84, along with the bodies, and the now-famous press release was issued. That first night, Lt Marcel kept some debris, and woke up his wife and young son to show it to them. They were certain that they had a piece of a flying saucer, but later young Jesse returned the debris to his father, ultimately surrendering to the cover-up.

As Roswell came to international attention overnight, the debris and bodies were flown to other military bases, including FT Worth TX and Dayton OH. All wreckage was eventually confiscated, and orders were given to all involved to remain forever silent. Brazel managed to slip away from his military "escorts" and record a radio interview, but the station's owner was contacted by Washington, and told he would lose his FCC license if he broadcast it. Despite the media's apparent compliance with the cover-up, the RDR does seem to get a final "zing," as the last words of July 9th's article were by Brazel, stating:

"Brazel said that he had previously found two weather observation balloons, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these. "I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said. "But if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it."

Brazel then disappeared for several days (alleged house arrest / brainwashing / threats) and never spoke again of the incident. But he is said to have been seen driving around town immediately afterwards with a brand new truck, which he certainly could not have afforded. Jesse Marcel Jr, and Elizabeth Wilcox (the sheriff's daughter) however, remain today among the most credible witnesses to the strange events of those few days.

Another Roswell resident, citizen Glenn Dennis, retains one of the highest places of prominence in reconstructing the incident. Dennis, whose story is widely told, but now also widely scrutinized, is also a co-founder of Roswell's UFO Museum. Dennis was the mortician who says he received a phone call from the 509th, asking for "child sized hermetically sealed caskets" and instructions on how to preserve the tissue of corpses for further study. This portion of his story remains likely, or at least possible, but he also makes other claims, which are no longer universally believed by UFO researchers. Among them: that he visited the base "to see if he could help," was approached by a nurse acquaintance, and got kicked off with death threats. Robert Shirkey, assigned to the 509th and personally involved in the retrieval - and then the cover-up (but today an advocate of full disclosure) - comments on Dennis' claims in a written work, Glenn Dennis And Me : "...Military secrets... called for the highest security. It is ludicrous to think that an unauthorized individual could just wander in and look around. Even an approach (by vehicle) would have been challenged and any assertive behavior would have resulted in arrest. To think that the 27 personnel that arrived with the convoy from the site would all disappear and leave the materials or the bodies unattended is simply imaginary and without substance."

The facts remain however. Something crashed. It was covered up. Having no paradigm for what follows here, all involved were and still are certain that July 1947 saw the crash of a ship and crew from another world.

But they DIDN'T know what ELSE our government was involved in during that era. And those who tell their versions of events didn't count on the 2 military witnesses - who actually participated in the recovery of the crash and bodies - ever talking.

Some still debunk the "conspiracy" idea entirely, maintaining that our government is simply too inept to keep a good secret. However, the Manhattan Project suggests otherwise. During WWII, we involved hundreds of scientists and military personnel in one of the best-kept "top secrets" of world history (some reports say that up to 10,000 people were involved on a "need-to-know" basis). We also thwarted the efforts of German spies - killing and being killed on U.S. soil - from discovering what was so secret in New Mexico during that time. Everything remained a secret until The Bombs were dropped.

But now that we've got this Ultra Top-Secret base going in New Mexico - complete with scientists, labs and everything - and a proven track record of impenetrable secrecy, what are you going to do next with it, now that the war is over? How now are we going to DEFEND our new title as undisputed World Champion Super Power?

What follows is the bomb the U.S. military never dropped.

Part 3) Operation Paperclip / Nazi UFOs (Thanks to Mike Heiser for putting me on the Paperclip Trail!)


Firstly, at the Roswell storefront, I always encourage people to do this research for themselves. Check out these Google (TM) search results for Operation Paperclip (5000+ matches) and Nazi UFOs (7000+ matches). This page is merely an introduction to the idea, more fully discussed in the book Full Disclosure. BUT DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF!

In VERY brief, it is today known that end the very end of WWII, the Germans were working on "flying discs," which probably were only radio (remote) controlled. German and American soldiers alike referred to them as "Foo-Fighters." In addition to the above search results, I actually have in my possession a photocopy of a January 1945 copy of Current Science and Aviation sent to HQ by a nice man who visited Roswell. It reads, "Latest Nazi aerial weapon is the "foo-fighter" ..." mysterious red and silver balls of fire which follow allied planes at speeds of 300 miles per hour. It is not yet known..." More research shows that German soldiers reported them as well, also unsure what they were. They may not even be the same phenomena as the "true" flying discs from other reports, such as these below.

"Some of the earliest stories about German flying saucers date back to an inventor named Victor Schauberger ... One of Schauberger's projects was to produce a flying machine, saucer shaped, that used a "liquid vortex propulsion" system. His theory was that "if water or air is rotated into a twisting form of oscillation, known as a 'colloidal,' a build-up of energy results, which, with immense power, can cause levitation." ... There are also reports that, according to a letter Victor Schauberger wrote to a friend, a full-sized prototype of one of his designs was constructed using prison labor at the Mauhausen concentration camp. This craft flew on February 19th of 1945 near Prague and obtained an altitude of 45,000 feet in only 3 minutes. The letter goes on to say the prototype was destroyed by the Nazis before it could be captured by the Allies." (from which also has cool pictures).

"WWII German Flying Disk Schematic Drawing Found" This complete article is posted on Michael Heiser's site Click on Mike’s Newsletter, Sample Issue, Nazi UFOs

"As Sir Roy Feddon, Chief of the Technical Mission to Germany for the Ministry of Aircraft Production stated in 1945... "I have seen enough of their designs and production plans to realize that if they (the Germans) had managed to prolong the war some months longer, we would have been confronted with a set of entirely new and deadly developments in air warfare." ... That these events occurred is also supported by former CIA agent Virgil Armstrong who commented "We know that in the early parts of the war there were certain factions of the Allied forces that did not believe he (Hitler) had a secret weapon and it wasn’t until the Americans made much emphasis of this that they began to look at it seriously and indeed did discover that Hitler not only had a secret weapon, he had what we would call today a UFO or spacecraft." secrets/secretspart1.htm (many cool pictures also)

So cutting to the chase, Operation Paperclip was a formerly classified (until 1973) Top Secret project in which the American government imported appx 126 German scientists after the war. The OSS (now the CIA) cleaned up their records because President Truman did not want to let "true" Nazis into the country, much less put them on our payroll. But we did, because we wanted this very technology - either we did it or the Russians would do it (and may have for that matter with other scientists). The "operation" is so old now, that at least some of it's secrets are no longer classified. It turns out however that THE the chief scientist on "our" NASA Apollo moon project - Dr. Wernher von Braun - was a former Nazi scientist. The "damage controllers" have always maintained that "they weren't really Nazis" but were simply men of science forced to work for the Nazis. Truth or Fiction? You decide. The following appears on many sites, listed as compiled by (ahem) 'Agent Orange...'

Just too fantastic to believe? Check out this NASA.GOV article and "class photo" of von Braun and 125 others, imported to the U.S. Be sure to click on the "next" and "next" links to read more about his celebrity status in the U.S.

OR This very detailed report from ARMY.MIL filed by Lt Col William L. Howard, quoting von Braun in the 1940's saying his team had reached outer space?!!

Very sad and damning is from George Washington University's National Securities Archive ( - a memo detailing human experimentation by Paperclip scientists in the U.S. - not Germany - after WWII mstreet/commeet/meet13/brief13/tab_f/br13f3.txt

"WERNHER VON BRAUN; From 1937 to 1945, von Braun was the technical director of the Peenemunde rocket research center, where the V-2 rocket --which devastated England--was developed. As noted previously, his dossier was rewritten so he didn't appear to have been an enthusiastic Nazi. Von Braun worked on guided missiles for the U.S. Army and was later director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. He became a celebrity in the 1950s and early 1960s, as one of Walt Disney's experts on the "World of Tomorrow." In 1970, he became NASA's associate administrator.

"KURT BLOME; A high-ranking Nazi scientist, Blome told U.S. military interrogators in 1945 that he had been ordered in 1943 to experiment with plague vaccines on concentration camp prisoners. He was tried at Nuremberg in 1947 on charges of practicing euthanasia (extermination of sick prisoners), and conducting experiments on humans. Although acquitted, his earlier admissions were well known, and it was generally accepted that he had indeed participated in the gruesome experiments. Two months after his Nuremberg acquittal, Blome was interviewed at Camp David, Maryland, about biological warfare. In 1951, he was hired by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to work on chemical warfare. His file neglected to mention Nuremberg."

Many more scientists and their "dossiers" by this Agent Orange person are at and For more on Operation Paperclip, try Secrets of the Third Reich from the online book Violations: Towards A New World History.

You can rest assured that at the time, this operation was as secret and discreet as the Manhattan Project itself. The general public would be outraged - especially in Post WWII America - that in a matter of months, we were bringing these scientists to the states. No amount of spin-doctoring could have made this situation acceptable to those who had lost sons fighting German soldiers.

But as the above search results indicate, their are thousands of sites detailing this history (one will have to sort through the fiction of course), and even several books. To say the least, I submit to you this quote:

"In retrospect, Americans should have correlated the WW II and post-war sightings of flying spheres, saucers, and cylinders to the wondrous technology of National Socialist Germany. It is an understatement to say that our government has deliberately misled us on the UFO question." - from Robert J Lee's "Fascinating Relics of the Third Reich" (

SO... Where does all this bring us so far?

1) In 1940-45 Nazi scientists were aggressively developing amazing flying machines... 2) In 1946-47 The U.S. moved them to Texas and White Sands Proving Grounds, New Mexico... 3) In 1947 an unidentified flying object crashes in the New Mexico desert, and the military enforces the greatest cover-up of any event ever discovered by the general public...

So tell me Virginia, all fantasy aside where do you think the craft recovered outside of Roswell really came from? New Mexico, or the Pleadian star system? And given the patriotic and political climate of the day, What would the military / government rather the American public believe? As I've grown quite fond of saying lately "UFOs are not being covered up; UFOs are the cover up." (TM)

In fact, as many as 3 other crashed ships are said to have been recovered in New Mexico between 1947 and the early 1950's. Here's the 1948 Aztec NM story, complete with 16 bodies. Today, Aztec has a budding UFO tourism industry - and even UFO Conference - that rivals Roswell's own. And hey here's a 3-day long series of mass daytime sightings as reported in Farmington NM's newspaper in 1950, not a stone's throw away. Gee, whelcome you never heard about these? With the "protocol" established in 1947, no such wrecks would ever make major headlines again. Okay, I know what you're thinking ... I did too - "But what about the bodies?"

Part 4) The Bodies, The Two Witnesses & The False Prophets All the popular books ever written about Roswell are by researchers - not eyewitnesses. As Robert Shirkey's pamphlet, "What Will Happen When We Are Gone?" states, "Someone is trying to confuse the public... In the not too distant future we "white-hairs" and "bald heads" are not going to be here... shortly the federal government and its generals will be able to say anything without fear of contradiction about UFOs and alien "people" flying strange crafts. No one will be alive to counter their falsehoods with the statement "BUT I WAS THERE!"

This is the only book written by an eyewitness ... "Researchers will come and go Eyewitnesses will just go..." (NOT a paid or affiliate link)

I guess that's why he called his 1999 book, I WAS THERE. And with Frank Kaufmann ("discharged" after the Roswell incident but covertly "re-assigned" to live as a civilian observer/spy, working for the Roswell Chamber of Commerce for 30 years), produced a video called WE WE THERE. These two men participated in the retrieval of the craft AND the cover-up. They saw the bodies. Their descriptions of them though, are different from all others'. They also knew Glen Dennis for decades (the mortician) before and after the incident. Both of their stories publicly refute his claims of interaction with "the nurse." (See Mr. Dennis' response to this site)

I guess that's why neither of these men have ever spoken at the Museum's monthly lectures. I guess that's why they don't promote the book, video or drawings. I guess that's why there's only one place in Roswell that even offers them all to our tourists.

Presented here - courtesy are the drawings of what BOTH Shirkey and Kaufman refer to only as "occupants of the craft of unknown origin." These were drawn July 1947 by Frank Kaufmann in Hangar 84, completed at home the next day. They "...didn't have any of these big eyes or horns or anything else or spiny fingers. They were very good-looking people, ash-colored faces and skin. About 5 feet 4, 5 feet 5. Eyes a little more pronounced, a little bit larger. Small ears, small nose. Fine features. Hairless." Kaufmann recounts his involvement for ABQ Journal

Kaufmann, by the way, studied at the Academy of Fine Arts in New York City before WWII, which accepted him "based on his portrait of a young lady." Heck, you might even say he could draw.

"Do The Greys Have Progeria?" Article printed in MUFON Journal & Flying Saucer Review

Progeria "Children with Progeria usually have these features: dwarf, bald head, pinched nose, large head with a small face, prominent eyes, and wrinkle skin. abe4513/webpageprog.html

"...results in rapid aging of children, beginning with growth failure during the first year of life that results in disproportionately small bodies given the size of their heads. The children are thin with baldness, wizened narrow faces, and old-appearing skin. Children with progeria develop early atherosclerosis. The average lifespan is the early teens..." Source:MEDLINE plus Medical Encyclopedia article/001657.htm

"Among the first symptoms to develop are: hair loss, disappearance of cheek fat with sharpening of facial features, and diminished growth. "As the children turn old within a remarkably short time, their change in appearance can be shocking. The head is disproportionally large and bald and the facial appearance is one of hollow cheeks with a tight skin, scanty eyebrows and eyelashes, a pointed nose and, frequently either crowded or missing teeth...

"Progeria is extremely rare*. In Europe, only about ten children are known to have the disease and world-wide this number is approximately thirty. Following the first description of the disease in 1886, approximately one hundred cases have been registered... Children with progeria bear a remarkable resemblance to each other both regarding their outward appearance and their symptoms. Their mental development and intelligence is entirely normal and appropriate for their calendar age... However, due to their unusual appearance, they are frequently stared at by strangers and must therefore learn to cope with this from an early age. Excerpted from: Progeria - A Fight Against Time

I simply don't have the unmitigated gaul to post them, but more photos of children with progeria that will make you cry - and probably make damn sure you will never, ever wear OR SELL another "alien" T-shirt again - are at

As I write this, I've never hoped I was wrong more in my entire life. Paperclip's clandestine history of human experimentation is well documented. For now, I will let the unspeakable remain unspoken. But you can do the math... Society's "undesirable" kids living in hospitals and institutions, not expected to live past age 12-15. Nazis on U.S. soil. Testing craft of never-before achieved speeds, which to date had previously been only remote controlled. You can just imagine the phone calls - "I'm sorry Mrs Johnson, but I'm calling about Jimmy..."

"For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." Ecclesiastes 12:14

      * Aside - comment from Nicolas Redfern, author of Cosmic Crashes and contributor to

"I would agree with you that the possibility that the Roswell bodies were human is a very real one and is one that regrettably very few researchers are looking into. There was a book being planned on this by 2 authors that was to be titled 'Iceman Down' but I think this was shelved. But I would definitely say that more research should be done in this area, particularly re paperclip etc. The only problem I have with the progeria hypothesis is that progeria is extremely rare. Would the nazis or us have been able to acquire 5 people with progeria of similar appearance and similar height and all in 1947?"

     (Kudos also to Mike Fisher of Roswell for being the first to say this to me.)

Redfern continues: "However, Tim Cooper (a researcher now retired) did interview several years ago a former US military nurse who told him that small and unusual bodies were being flown to Los Alamos from 1945 to 1947 by the military and the rumor was that they had been used in biowarfare and nuclear experimentation in Japan during the War and had been found by US forces after Japan was defeated."

  The point is that there ARE other explanations for the bodies, which other researchers should consider. Progeria is simply one possibilty that fits the physical description of the credible testimonies. 

Of course our two witnesses knew NONE of this in 1947. In their accounts, both believed the "people" (their words) were truly aliens. They had no knowledge of Operation Paperclip, nor of the atrocities governments are capable of. But I'll say it again: What would the government rather the American public believe? That Germans were experimenting on humans, and getting paid from the Federal budget to do it? And I'll say it again: UFOs - in the sense of space aliens visiting us in flying saucers - are not being covered up. UFOs are the cover up.

Other pictures from the article at Click on Mike’s Newsletter, Sample Issue, Nazi UFOs

OPERATIONAL HO-229 Drawing of a German aircraft design war historians now know as the Ho Parabel (Horten Parabola), a twin-jet which achieved speeds of 600 MPH

Flying The Ho-IX In Late 1944

Hi-Tech Composite Radar-Absorbing Wings

Obviously, Kaufmann's drawings look nothing like the typical grey or green aliens popular among modern Roswell mythos. But their importance cannot be understated. They are the only drawings ever released by someone "who was there."

But they just don't sell T-shirts. They don't attract tourism. They don't spark the imagination or feed the fantasy. But in my opinion, they speak volumes of truth. In fact, the introduction to Shirkey's book states his frustration with all the wild stories that had been going around! Other authors who interviewed them and publish their testimonies usually won't even name them, because what the author eventually publishes diverges from what Shirkey or Kaufmann told them. They are referred to only as "first-hand witnesses," or even "Mr X" while the author makes their story "fit" their version of "what really happened!" But they weren't there.

In fact, the previously mentioned "Truth About the Roswell UFO Crash" even publishes a redrawn sketch of Kaufmann's image here, saying " was not a 'flying saucer.' "

Look closely at the very bottom right of this drawing - crumpled up against the rocks. (More drawings are in the book.) I have full-sized copies. It looks like a manta, not a disc. Kind of like these >>> when you think about it.

Only in 1947, American soldiers weren't supposed to know about these. They are the GERMAN pre-cursors to our Stealth Bombers, which the UFO community usually believes were back-engineered from the Roswell crash!

More B2 images at

Note: Not knowing of Operation Paperclip, Kaufmann (like Corso) also asserts on the WE WERE THERE video that the Stealth Bomber was "an offshoot" of the Roswell crash.

I WAS THERE continues to diverge from the standard mythology in many more ways. As said, the Roswell story generally begins with ranch-hand Mac Brazel entering town with a small amount of the debris, after which Sheriff Wilcox calls in the military - who are presumably perplexed and soon "left scrambling" to invent a cover story.

But according to Shirkey, he was called out to Alamogordo days earlier, along with other radar specialists to scrutinize amazing blips on their radar. He reports that they "watched the screen light up" (the lightning strike which downed at least one craft) then return to normal. He asserts that they knew right then one had crashed, and were "on the scene" the next day to pick it up - days before Brazel would come into town! The recovery occurred just as normally described, bodies and all, however he adds that they set up a "diversionary crash site" as well to satisfy onlookers. They first scattered airplane parts over an area near the highway (which the city of Roswell generally designates as "the" crash site) and then picked them up for the crowds! Once everything had been cleared, they drove all the wreckage, under tarps, straight through town in broad daylight directly to the 509th. Onlookers assumed it was just a plane crash.

Given the above Operation Paperclip and human test subject paradigm, this is now where these stories take their most diabolical turns.

(For what it's worth, the below information came to me after my understanding of the above, the same as it has been presented to you here in fact, but I still had a few unresolved questions. No more.)

Shirkey rests in his telling here, saying of the open air, normal drive into town, with just another downed airplane, "It worked, just like hiding in plain sight always works! ... "Friday was the Fourth of July ... "Everyone stayed home to celebrate. All was quiet! The misinformation cover story was well established." pp 42-43

Sunday July 6, Mac Brazel entered town with his findings, presumably from where the craft first hit the ground and "skipped" near Roswell, before really crashing in Corona NM. Upon Wilcox's call to Jesse Marcel, they knew the "secret" was now in the hands of civilians, and would continue to leak. Major Marcel accompanied Brazel to the debris field, along with Cavett, the Counter Intelligence agent who manages to elude mention in many tellings.

The newspaper story broke on Tuesday July 8. But in the WE WERE THERE video Kaufmann asserts that they remained "in communication with higher hq" the entire time, including the days leading up to the trip to the ranch. They did not merely contact Washington after returning from the ranch, but well before.

Quoting Kaufmann's exact words... "That gave us from the 4th to the 8th, enough time to..." (hand gestures and trails off, beginning again with how they planned) " address the media." ~ later ~ "All this was cooked up. One day the story came out that the base captured a flying saucer. The next Ramey issues a release stating it was a weather balloon." Questioner James Matheney: "Was this a scenario? The release and denial?" Kaufmann continues nodding. "That was all planned. Everything was planned out."

This cannot be understated, or ignored. The usual story is that "a real flying saucer" crashed, the local military at first told the truth, but then the "true story" was denied and suppressed by higher intelligence. Right?

But now we learn that with DAYS to plan their strategy, while receiving regular orders from Washington, someone upstairs let the local military believe the crash was from space. Then they let the whole world believe it as well.

For about 4 hours.

The first written press release was carefully timed to be evening news - enough time to enjoy limited circulation, but before supplying the second written release for the next day's media onslaught. According to both Shirkey and Kaufmann, they at first TOLD the media (what they believed was) the truth the MORNING of the 8th. Their spokesman walked out into the eager press and said they had "captured an interstellar spaceship with little beings flying it" (IWT p68) - and were laughed at by the press! They walked out on that story and nobody ran it. So then they released an "official memo," retracted it with a subsequent one, and the rest is history. (In sales techniques, it's called a "takeaway" - "Well Mr. Jones, I don't think you're right (man enough) for a car with that kind of power (that expensive). Let me show you..." "Hey wait just a cotton-pickin' minute pal!") As strategists have known for centuries, practically everyone believes a contrived cover-up. If it's a secret, it must be true.

This page has already suggested a version of the Roswell crash that challenges the "alien saucer" theory. If the craft and the bodies can be reasoned - individually or especially in tandem - as both natural, although fantastic, phenomena, then there is little left to argue for an E.T. explanation of the Roswell Incident. However, the "terrestrial theory" of Nazi UFOs only gets stronger as more researchers continue to bring forth more data.

Of course the question of life on other planets is still open, but a credible alternate explanation of Roswell takes much of the fuel out of the debate. Essentially the crashed ship and bodies from Roswell are - to the belief in UFOs visiting earth - what Jesus is to Christianity. Well maybe that's a little steep. Paul for sure though. Let's at least agree that they are what the PC and Windows have been for computers. Computers would still exist without them of course, just as some today would still propose that aliens are visiting earth, but take Paul, Microsoft(TM) and Roswell out of the examples, and what are you left with really?

Now look at how this single incident has shaped mankind's worldview. Look at how our society has been irrevocably changed as a result. Was this the intent of those who invented the spacecraft story? Or merely the causative effect of the original lie, setting the stage for 55 years of high-budget, high-secrecy... Hell, high-crime projects by people you and I never voted for - or against - and who's names we will never know?

Either way, it's been a smashing success. You and I have been enslaved. We believe a lie that we pay exorbitant taxes to perpetuate. Many good people spend YEARS investigating, believing, proving or debunking aspects of this lie, when they could be doing something useful. The very destinies of perhaps millions have been stolen.

But as Carl Sagan said, "Fantastic claims require fantastic proof." For the ET hypothesis, there is none, as the events of July 1947 can be understood without leaving this planet. There is speculation involved in "my" hypothesis yes, but nowhere near the "faith" needed to believe the popular explanation. A wrong notion about an advanced craft and some odd bodies has alone fueled the ET view of Roswell - and turned the global population to accepting, even expecting, alien contact for literally generations now.

And that, my friend, is specifically what someone, somewhere, needs us to believe in order for them to cover up, and to accomplish, something else entirely. 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


A knowing participant in the cover up at the time, Shirkey now bemoans that there is simply NO (legal, constitutional) military record anywhere of the events that changed his life, and the entire world for that matter. Shirkey and Kaufmann acted as good soldiers, believing in the decency of their so-called superiors to do the right thing. No longer puppets, both deny the obviously false "official word," that ALL RECORDS for THE NATION'S MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY BASE simply disappeared. Kaufmann is now deceased, very few remain from the 509th, and no more have come forward since the 1999 release of the book and video. Shirkey's concern is that whoever really knows the truth, can soon bury, destroy and/or twist it into anything they desire, after he's gone.

That is the position of this presentation. That is exactly what is being done. Shirkey and Kaufman, and certainly the vast majority of people with a television set, believe the Roswell crash was alien. The evidence suggests otherwise. The facts suggest that some apparently sinister forces are hell-bent on maintaining this deception, and that they're in power behind closed doors. The truth behind The Roswell Incident is not "enlightening" after all. It does not fill us with awe and wonder at the universe, or inspire belief in the limitlessness of God's creation. These are still true, but the truth of this incident only points to the utter depravity of man, when we live without regard of others' lives, and without regard to the just and sure judgment of God. Nobody who served God could do what was done to the children in that craft. Or the one from Aztec New Mexico. Or the one...

I would be remiss in many respects to not mention that at the end of their presentations (Shirkey in IWT, Kaufmann in WWT), both men go out of their way to express their belief in God and in the Bible - a faith they say grounded them while facing truths that drove many of their peers to depression, mental illness and suicide.

The images of the craft's occupants have been exaggerated over time by popular media and culture, perhaps only to ensure that the trail back to the truth can only grow dimmer and dimmer. Kaufmann and Shirkey's efforts to set the matter straight on even this have been met with cold reception. Especially in their own hometown, Roswell New Mexico, where their personal characters are/were known to be sterling, these proud faithful men now die without honor because of their stance. The more popularized image attracts untold thousands of tourists and millions of dollars - and their message goes unheard, or scoffed at, by the masses.

I'm in good company.

My name is unimportant. We know intuitively life is everywhere and though discussion is always good, we need only imagine the extremes of all creation to believe in other life, and the extent of it`s development in any dimension. Example; imagine the explainations of Bob Lazar regarding propulsion, or the experience of one who entered inside a craft, and his distortion of time experienced.

The disasterous effects of the Philidelphia experiment, shows the uninitiated that governments DO CONTROL MUCH as we face the evil one who will control the world, until the thousand years peace. Globalization is the direction to this final outcome. There are only four elements, or a combination thereof that determine human actions. Profit, protection, pride, pleasure. Remember, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

For those who will continue their search for truth,keep in mind, that the arena of power shifted from the political to the financial about the time Kennedy was assinated.

Reference section is very bad and needs editing

The reference section is useless. There is no way of knowing which reference is being cited. This is going to need a clean up. If people here can not match the references properly then the whole article might have to come down.

The way to do this is as follows.

(1)Click edit page above and see what the text source for the next quote looks like.

"Dr. xxxxx and the editors of the Oxford & Harper Collins translations, contend that the number of Roman Emperor Nero is 92. [1], a view that is also supported by Elvis [2]."

This way the reference will automatically be given a number and entered into the notes section at the end of the article also automatically. I have prepared that notes section already. Whatever gets into that notes section stays in the article and whatever doesn't needs to be cited in the above manner or will eventually go. (Simonapro 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

You might want to see how these changes look on Unidentified flying object (Simonapro 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC))


The article doesn't link to or explain what the RAAF is as mentioned in the first headline on the page. I assume it's not the Royal Australian Air Force (the usual abbreviation), but some kind of explanation of the headline near the top might be helpful :-) --BadWolf42 10:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated the link to Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF)/Walker Air Force Base --User:bwmoll3 13:34, 8 July 2006

Can We Leave This Entry Alone Now Please?

Having read this entry several times and considered the above passionate, if somewhat overheated discussion, it is my humble opinion that this entry is currently very accomplished, and does not require further editing as yet. It is both balanced and informative, and I do not perceive one POV as being "promoted" over another. Credit is due to the contributors from all sides of the subject, but further tit-for-tat editing wars are only going to damage what is a very well written and pertinent Wiki entry. Saintjohnny 23:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Saintjohnny


I know i am probably going to get nagged at for this but it happened. All of it. i have nothing else to say. Come by my page some time or go to the tatooine page, that is where i answer questions.


What a Mess

I personally believe the entire page should be torn down and rebuilt.

It is, as currently configured, an account which basically presents the Roswell incident as a given with a few asides to skeptics, while presenting evidence in response to skeptics rather than in building a case for the veracity of the incident.

The reality here is that there is a huge cleavage between those who see this as little more than a modern urban legend, getting better and more fantastic with each retelling, and those who see this as a genuine alien crash and recovery, with subsequent government cover-ups which continue to the present day.

I personally believe that it is entirely possibly to recreate this page stripping away the back and forth and more fairly presenting both sides of the story. I believe that because there are consistent timelines which can account for both viewpoints.

I've had debates on this very subject at over the years and I know both sides of the story, so I believe I could create the basis for a new page, though I am also aware of how strong the views are on both sides.

--Johnny Canuck 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Johnny Canuck" tries to set himself up as an impartial, reasonable guy here. But go read the Roswell debates. Johnny Canuck ALWAYS takes the debunker's side. I have never once seen him consider the pro-UFO crash POV. No, he argues the Mogul party line only and either deliberately ignores or rationalizes away the contrary evidence. In spite of what he says, he is not very familiar with nor particularly cares about the other side of the argument. He is very biased on the skeptical side and I can well imagine what sort of article he would write. It will be unthinking Mogul balloon all the way with maybe a few snide remarks thrown in about the pro side of the argument, just like how he argues on You will not see anything remotely close to a balanced presentation, that's for sure. Leave the article alone. It's currently very factual. Dr Fil 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem Dr Fil, is that this is in no way a "balanced" or "factual" presentation. If it was, it wouldn't be labelled the way it is now! "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" doesn't suggest to me that the arguments are presented fairly or accurately.

For example, "Soon after this, Brazel showed up in Roswell at the local newspaper for an interview. Two reporters at the scene later related he was accompanied by military officers. The base provost marshal, Col. Edwin Easley, likewise later confirmed that they were holding Brazel at the base. (A number of other witnesses also testified to seeing Brazel in military hands or hearing him complain bitterly afterwards about his treatment by the military.)"

This is straight out of the "ufo" line, and makes no mention or reference to the time line which the "debunkers" say suggest NO "intimidation" from military officers or the like, if it happened, was possible BEFORE the press conference.

"Straight out of the "ufo" line. Well that tells a lot about "Johnny Canuck's" (or "Canada Jack" as he now calls himself) obvious biases.
No, it's not the "ufo line". It's what actual eyewitnesses tell us, about a dozen of them, friends, neighbors, and relatives of Mack Brazel, newspaper and radio reporters, and even the base provost marshall, Edwin Easley. Easley admitted they held Brazel at the base for several days.

Like, how reporter Walt Whitmore accompanied Brazel within hours of the story breaking, even accompanying him to this very press conference. This entire claim of the military "programming" Brazel is easily debunked - or at least, there is a very strong argument against ANY person other that Whitmore being in contact with him for this period - yet do we even get a hint of that from the page here?


The Roswell Daily Record story reported Brazel being brought to the Daily Record by Whitemore "late in the day."
Does "Johnny Canuck" ask the obvious and important question why Whitmore would do that? Nope. Whitmore was owner of KGFL radio in Roswell. The likely reason Brazel was even back in Roswell, according to Whitmore's son and KGFL co-owner Judd Roberts, was because Whitmore had heard of Brazel's strange story from one of his employees, newscaster Frank Joyce (another witness who has told a very different story from the one Johnny Canuck wants to present). Whitmore had gone out to fetch Brazel the previous night at his ranch (after Marcel left) and brought him back to Roswell for an exclusive KGFL interview.
This begs the question why Whitmore would take Brazel to a NEWS RIVAL and allow himself to get scooped on his own story? Does Johnny Canuck delve into that? Nope.
This also begs the question why Whitmore didn't already report what Brazel had said if he beat the Daily Record to Brazel by some 24 hours. According to Whitmore Jr. and Roberts, by the time Whitmore Sr. and Brazel got back to Roswell, it was too late to record an interview. Instead Brazel slept overnight at the Whitmore house, and a wire recording of the interview was made early the next morning. Then Brazel left. Then, according to Roberts, before they could air the recording, KGFL started receiving calls from Washington threatening to pull their license if the interview was aired. (More of those threat stories from witnesses that Johnny Canuck or Canada Jack pretends are worthless.)

If you very carefully read the account, you realize that the news broke early on the 8th,

If by "early" you mean mid-afternoon, around 2:30 p.m. Roswell time to be more exact.

and that Brazel gave his "programmed" account LATER THE SAME DAY.

Indeed. Which brings us back to the fact that he could only do this if he was back in Roswell. How did he get back to Roswell and why would he be there? Witnesses Whitmore Jr. and Roberts provide us with the necessary back story. In fact, according to Brazel's own story, after Major Marcel had left his ranch the previous evening, that was the last he had heard of it until the story broke. How could he hear the "flying disk" story breaking back at his ranch when he had no electricity, no phone, no radio, and lived out in the middle of nowhere?

Yet he was accompanied to the press briefing by a REPORTER,

The one who picked him up at his ranch the previous night for an exclusive interview. Then he never airs the exclusive interview and instead takes him to a news rival so he can be scooped on his own story. What REPORTER would voluntarily do that?

not several military personnel. Why is this not mentioned?

Why don't you mention the rest of the story?

Because the article is biased, and fails to properly incorporate the alternate, verifiable accounts.

And your rewritten version, deleting contradictory evidence, isn't? About a dozen witness statements and affidavits indicating that Brazel was coerced can also be "verified" as being made, yet you have omitted any mention of it. Witness testimony is considered perfectly valid evidence in a court of law, even second-hand testimony many years after the fact.

And it seeks to dismiss any contrary evidence as being the result of lies or coercion,

Only because because there are large numbers of witnesses stating that there was coercion involved, Brazel and Sheriff Wilcox being two notable examples. Other witnesses, have said the public was lied to, that the balloon story was nothing but a cover-up. Examples are Marcel, Gen. Dubose, Gen. Exon.

even when it can quite easily be demonstrated that in many cases there was none, or no opportunity for such to happen.

That's absolute NONSENSE. First of all, how can you conclusively demonstrate a negative (that there was no coercion)? Maybe you've got a time machine.
Second, if you actually knew the details, there would have been PLENTY of opportunity for coercion. Again, according to Roberts and Whitmore Jr., Brazel was back in Roswell for about 24 hours BEFORE he made his press conference statements. After Brazel left the Whitmore house that morning, the military soon got to him. That leaves more than enough time (half a day) for Brazel to be coerced and coached by the military. Need I mention again, that even the base provost marshall admitted that Brazel was in military custody. He was the guy in charge of this, so you would think he would know!
As for Sheriff Wilcox, the military knew exactly where he was the entire time (his office in Roswell) for at least 24 if not 48 hours since Brazel arrived at his office. That's plenty of "opportunity" to get to him too. Further, Wilcox made a statement to the AP that he was "working with those fellows at the base." That too is "contemporary" and "verifiable" and indicates, at the very least, his press statements were not necessarily independent of what the military wanted put out. Family members would later fill in the details that he had indeed been coerced.
But Johnny Canuck decided to censor that out of the article too. Why if he claims he is trying to present both sides?

I take the debunker's side because that is the side that makes the most sense.

At last a clear admission that you do indeed side with the debunkers.

But I also know the other side,

You don't know it very well, and also don't present it, just the debunking side, as in your latest butcher job on the article. They you claim you can present the case neutrally.

it is just that to me it was clear when debating folks like skyeagle over at that to believe the "alien" story, you'd have to often embrace contradictory evidence,

It is just as accurate to state to believe the debunkery line you also have to "embrace" contradictory evidence. Your obvious biases are again showing.

and completely ignore the rather glaring evidence which suggests this may not have been anything other than a mundane balloon experiment misidentified.

There is also "rather glaring evidence" that it wasn't a misidentified balloon. For one thing, it requires a suspension of belief that so many witnesses, including very experienced military ones, couldn't identify simple balloon debris and INDEPENDENTLY attributed highly anomalous physical properties to the recovered debris. E.g., read the original Roswell incident, and Bill Brazel Jr. and Marcel both tell virtually identical stories about anomalous debris, a violent explosion during a violent thunderstorm (according to weather records, there were none in mid-June when Brazel claimed to find the debris), and a huge linear debris field. Neither men knew one another. But the way you rewrote the article, this was nothing but Marcel's story back around 1980.
You also cut out Gen. Dubose's statments, also dating from around 1980, that this wasn't a balloon, and the weather balloon was Ramey's cover story.
Hell, even Brazel flatly denied he'd found any sort of balloon at the end of his interview after telling an obvious balloon story (such as the debris being held up by a balloon).

(BTW, because there was another "johnny Canuck" here at wiki and I was accused of being a sockpuppet, I was forced to change my name.)

As for this "Mogul line," I have consistently argued that the particular flight COULD account for the debris reported in the intitial news stories. This "party line" accusation is simply an attempt at dismissing any argument I might make by an associative ad hominem attack.

The Mogul story is also filled with contradictions (which you embrace without questioning). E.g., check out the latest UFO Updates commentary. The supposed Mogul (Flight #4) has no documentation in Mogul records. It was never recorded, just like Flight #9 the following month. Flight #9 was a CANCELLED FLIGHT, was stripped of all tracking gear and other reusable gear, and only the balloons were released, but never tracked. That is why Flight #9 is not recorded. The only written statement about Flight #4 (from a diary) likewise says the flight was CANCELLED on account of clouds, with the balloons released (but with a microphone attached -- they were setting off explosive charges to test the reception.)
If Flight #4 had not been stripped, like Flight #9, of tracking gear, they would have tracked it. (In fact, the principle witness who claims it was Flight #4, Mogul engineer Charles Moore in witness testimony decades later, likewise claims they DID track it.) Had they done that, Flight #4 would definitely have been recorded, along with the other tracked and recorded Mogul flights. But it was not. There is nothing but a gap in Mogul records between Flight #3 and Flight #5, just like for Flight #9.
That's an absolutely HUGE contradiction. The Roswell debunkers want it both ways with Flight #4. On the one hand, they want it to be a fully configured flight to try to make some of the debris descriptions correspond with Mogul material. But if that were true, it would have been tracked. But on the other hand, it also has to be a nothing flight with no gear that WASN'T tracked to try to explain why there is no record of it in Mogul records.
It's an absolute historical, verifiable fact from Mogul records that ALL tracked Moguls were recorded, because the tracking data was an absolutely vital part of the program to test the balloons flight performance and constant altitude control. So why isn't "Flight #4" also in Mogul records?
If you insist on "verifiability," please verify for us that this alleged Roswell incident Mogul even existed. Everything that this Mogul supposedly was has ZERO documentation to support it. It is based 100% on the alleged memories of Charles Moore, the Mogul engineer, who's also been caught red-handed altering Mogul data and even hoaxing a trajectory of Flight #4 to try to force-fit it as the Roswell crash object.
Why are the decades-later accounts of a questionable witness like Moore treated as sancrosanct by debunkers like you, whereas the contradictory testimony of witnesses decades later, like Marcel, Dubose, Brazel Jr., Rickett, Gen. Exon, etc., considered to be unreliable, "unverifiable", and of no consequence? This is again an example of debunkers being inconsistent and wanting it both ways.

Contrary to your beliefs, Dr Fil, I personally think that this can be presented in a fairly neutral fashion,

That's what you keep saying, but the way you've rewritten it STRONGLY reflects your usual debunking bias, as previously presented at You are not being "neutral" when you deliberately throw out contradictory evidence, such as I mentioned above and was previously in the article.

splitting this into a "skeptical" presentation and a "aliens" presentation. Perhaps we'd need two pages for this, one for each side.

The way that this is presented, with reports of crashes etc before the discovery of the debris suggesting that this was signifigant, supposes that there was more to this incident than there really was.

Your statement is practically incoherent as written, but I think is taking the standing debunking argument by assertion that trained military people at Roswell could not identify common balloon debris because they were caught up in the flying saucer hysteria of the time.
I agree historical context is important, which includes the many flying saucer reports surrounding the Roswell incident. You again try to dismiss this as nothing but hysteria. You assert without evidence that people were ONLY seeing such things as balloons. That is another of your statements of opinion, not fact.

A recreation of the events from each viewpoint would make this event FAR more understandable and cohesive.

You keep saying this, but instead you have heavily slanted the article to the debunking viewpoint while censoring the opposing viewpoint.

I just did a long article elsewhere and I know it would take a while, but I think it would be worth the effort to do this as what we have now is an almost incoherent account of events.

Canada Jack 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What Canada Jack replaced the rewritten parts with is HIS practically incoherent, badly written, and highly slanted version to the debunking side. This is not "neutrality," far from it.
NOW we do indeed have one gawdawful MESS of an article. Dr Fil 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I propose a move to Roswell incident, rather than Roswell UFO incident, as the current name has POV implication. Jefffire 12:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any comments, any at all? Page moves are big changes. Jefffire 12:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, to follow with what I said above to Dr Fil, that we have TWO pages here, one called something like "The Roswell Incident: The Case for a UFO Cover-up" AND "The Roswell Incident: The Case for an Urban Myth" or what have you.

I think that even the strongest partisans on each side can agree that there is no consensus here, and that to be truly objective, both cases much be spelled out in relatively unencumbered fashion.

The problem with a single page is that there are wildly different views on what evidence is valid or even relevant, and when you try to fit it all together, it becomes an incoherent mess, or one side seems to be favoured. Currently, we see largely what I'd call "the case for a UFO cover-up" line of reasoning, with asides to skeptics' objections or explanations. But this approach is faulty for the simple reason that the case for the skeptical viewpoint is never actually laid out. Creating two pages I believe would solve this problem.

It could be structured much as it is here already, with the current page more honestly labelled as the case for the UFO cover-up, with points of contention noted. Then, a new page which would start out by describing how various balloon train experiments were being carried out throughout the US in context of the Cold War, and how numerous UFO sightings were made at the same time, then focussing on the Mogul launches and why that is, for the skeptics, such a strong candidate for what Marcel and company recovered. The objections to Mogul would be duly noted - I know most of them, but I also know that folk like Dr Fil will helpfully supply more detailed objections.

Tracing the history of the emergence of Roswell as a big UFO story in the late 70s and early 80s, how early witnesses changed important details and new witnesses came forward, creating an Urban Myth which got better with each telling. Again, objections from the other sides will be noted, such as accusations of disinformation, threats etc which forced some to change their stories, etc.

Then, the effects of memory contamination and time compression as an explanation for the reports of alien recoveries, etc.

Why not equally the effects of "memory contamination" and "time compression" as an explanation for the reports of balloon debris recovery? Again you are being totally inconsistent in your application of your rules of evidence. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The FACT that the earliest reports of aliens associated with this incident came in 1989, 42 years after the fact, means that events remembered are prone to the effects of time compression.

Really? How do you conclusively demonstrate that literally ALL such reports are due to this alleged psychological phenomenon of "time compression." How does that work? I think most experts in human memory would find such a pat, catch-all explanation highly implausible. This is just a typical argument by assertion, first used by the Air Force counter-intelligence debunkers in 1994, then expanded into their "crash dummies" report of 1997.
Again I also find it extremely odd that "time compression" distortion never affects witnesses on the other side of the debate. Isn't that a tad inconsistent if not hypocritical?
Also stories of crashed saucers and small alien bodies being recovered in New Mexico date back to documents from at least 1949 (though not specifically about Roswell and thought by many UFO researchers to be rumors). Frank Scully's "Behind the Flying Saucers" of 1950 was all about this. When Canadian engineer Wilbert Smith inquired about the veracity of Scully's book throught the Canadian embassy in Washington in 1950, he and the military attache there were briefed by Dr. Robert Sarbacher, that the Scully book was essentially true, flying saucers (including crashed ones) existed, were classifed higher than the H-bomb, and that a secret group headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush within the DOD Research and Development Board (operating out of Wright-Patterson) was looking into the modus operandi of the saucers. (These genuine, verifiable Canadian government documents can be viewed here [8]) Sarbacher, when reinterviewed in the early 1980s, verified the 1950 interview had taken place, and again repeated he had been told about anomalous, high-strength, lightweight debris and small alien bodies at the time by colleagues.
For at least one Roswell witness, Oliver Henderson, a senior pilot at Roswell, he started telling his story to multiple people around 1980 of flying crashed saucer debris to Wright Field and seeing small alien bodies. This included his wife and daughter, a friend and business associate, and his old WWII flight crew. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There are other stories like this. The former Roswell police chief said Glenn Dennis, the controversial Roswell mortician, was telling him clear back at the time of the Roswell incident that he had received a call from the base about small caskets. Several members of a B-29 crew at Roswell told the same story of hearing rumors about a crashed flying saucer and then flying a mysterious crate to Fort Worth from Roswell on July 9, 1947, met at Fort Worth by a mortician. Because of space limitations, none of these stories were even mentioned in the article. But they are out there.Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If one looks currently at the page, these explanations are noted but dismissed out of hand as if time compression is some sort of ad hoc excuse, when it is in fact an established effect recognized in psychology. An example as to how explanations would be handled differently is in how anthropomorphic dummies account for the alien descriptions in almost every detail, and memory contamination explains other details.

This is total nonsense. Anthropomorphic dummies are nothing like what was described. Look at the pictures of the dummies, for heaven's sake! They look like -- human dummies in flight suits. IMHO, it requires real gullibility and magical thinking to buy these debunkery explanations put out by the Air Force counterintelligence people. (Even the skeptical press laughed at the explanation when the AF announced it in 1997, precisely on the 50th anniversy of the Kenneth Arnold sighting.) Further, the anthropomorphic dummy drops didn't start until 1953 (note, 3 years AFTER Wilbert Smith was briefed by Sarbacher, or the other documents talking about small alien bodies, even if just rumors). None of these dummy drops occurred anywhere near the Brazel Ranch or where witnesses claimed to be. Would Gen. Exon's military friends who told him they handled the alien bodies of the Roswell crash be confused by "anthromorphic dummies"? Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Note would be made of the objection to most descriptions of aliens being shorter that the dummies, but note would also be made of how these same dummies were also misidentifed as 7-foot tall aliens in storage.

Where has anybody ever said that, particularly in connection with Roswell? Sounds like you read that in a debunkery article somewhere. I've looked through the various so-called Roswell alien descriptions in the 1997 AF crash dummy report, and nowhere do I see anyone claiming to see "7-foot tall aliens in storage." Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is not to argue the minitua here, it is that in the structure currently presented, we have no coherent account available for those who want to know what the "non-ufo" explanation is.

Quite, the contrary, under the Project Mogul section presenting conventional explanations, both the Mogul and crash dummy theories are clearly summarized. Also, when discussing how the story was actually reported back in 1947, much of the debunkery balloon comments coming from Gen. Ramey were also presented.
However, much to your obvious chagrine, it is also pointed out that the contemporary stories are full of serious contradictions, and, further, key witnesses would later state that there was a cover-up in effect. Vital historical context has been removed, such as the multitude of witnesses stating that Brazel was in military custody when he told his balloon story at the Roswell Daily Record. You have totally eliminated all this.Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In the end, much of the points of contention are irresovlable. We can't now determine which witness was right, wrong, exageratting or lying. But we can create coherent accounts for both viewpoints, with the strongest points of dissent noted, and we can present them in a fashion that allows those who browse this encyclopedia an opportunity to judge for themselves what scenario is most likely.

Canada Jack 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well again, Canada Jack, you try to sound reasonable. The problem is, when you write it up, you only end up writing the debunkery side that you personally believe in and delete most of the opposing arguments. I freely admit that I'm strongly on the other side, but when I wrote my contributions, I definitely tried to do some point/counterpoint arguments to present the skeptical side juxtaposed against the "pro" counterarugments. I have never seen you do the equivalent, either at or here. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One more point on why this deserves two pages instead of one (the JFK assassination, also an event with widely divergent interpretations, merits only one page) is that not only are the interpretations of Roswell so diametrically opposed, the sequence of events themselves are not even agreed upon!

With JFK, all agree on the time, the place, that Kennedy died, etc., and that there was at least one marksman there in the TSBD and he likely was Oswald. After that, the debates start. Here, there isn't agreement on WHAT crashed, WHEN it crashed, WHO recovered the material etc etc. And, depending on the scenario one lays out, all those things are fairly specific to one side or the other. For example, WHEN did the object crash? If you go on the UFO side, it is somewhere around July 4th, coinciding with some other reported lighting etc disturbances which suggest vehicle crashes. If you go on the myth side, it's more towards earlier June, coinciding with a Mogul launch and some reports that the rancher found the material mid-June. To put this on one page quickly becomes clumsy and incoherent.

Canada Jack 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree here. There is definitely a problem trying to present both sides of the story in a concise fashion, which is why the article is already too long. (The cultural trivia section alone is worthy of a separate article.) I too would like to break it into two articles, each with a quick summary of key opposing arguments and referencing the other article for details. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be a clear content and POV fork, which is strictly discouraged in the guidelines Wikipedia:Content_forking. Wikipedia isn't about setting up opposing camps. A single page is far preferable. Incidently, thanks for actualy taking the time to talk about this. Jefffire 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that the presentation of Roswell as it stands is already POV. It has a timeline and sequence of events which are straight out of the camp which assert that this is a UFO cover-up.

Additionally, since unlike say the JFK assassination, where opposing viewpoints can be brought in at various times on particular points, with Roswell such an attempt merely makes the event incoherent to those who try to make head or tail of it as outsiders unfamiliar with the event.

I think the main purpose of avoiding the POV fork is to forge consensus, but on this subject that is nearly impossible as it is hard to even agree on who was present let alone when specific events occurred.

Well, maybe I could try to do this.

Dr Fil already dismisses my "expertise" on the subject for the simple reason that he doesn't agree with my evidence, rejecting for example even the possibilty that the Mogul flight skeptics point to could even have landed on the ranch in question, but it seems logical to me to start with what we know and what we can establish - secret balloon experiments, the effects of long-term memory distortions, multiple and changing witness accounts, images not of aliens but of balloon remants - as those are verifiable events.

The problem here is that "Canada Jack" is asserting things that likewise can't be backed up. It's already begging the question to merely assume that because Project Mogul existed then it must explain the Roswell crash. There isn't a single document that places any Mogul at or remotely near the Foster ranch crash site. Why not, if that's what the military recovered and then allegedly flew to Wright Field for definitiveID? Why wasn't Mogul informed so they could enter this into their records? Why not argue that V-2 flights were also occurring then and were nearby? Well, perhaps because none can be likewise documented as ending up anywhere near there. Same with plane crashes. The entire Mogul case is built of assertions of what allegedly happened to one Mogul flight from only one witness (Charles Moore), with nothing else to back it up.
Canada Jack is also being inconsistent in his application of "memory distortion" only to "pro-UFO" Roswell witnesses. "Memory distortion" can apply equally to everybody. Why is it that "pro-Mogul" witnesses never suffer from this and their stories are accepted without question?
Take Mogul engineer Charles Moore. He claimed he has a clear memory of his "lost" Mogul Flight #4 being tracked near the N.M. locations of Capitan Peak, Arabela, and Bluewater, N.M., before they lost contact with it. He claims he has a clear memory of Flight #4 passing there because he had never heard these "exotic" locales before nor associated with any other Mogul. The problem is this clearly wasn't true. Flight #17 3 months later, passed right over these same locations (the only documented flight to pass anywhere near the Brazel ranch, and it eventually ended up in Kansas).

A LOT of the evidence presented is that of witness accounts which support one point of view, with witnesses supporting the other point of view routinely dismissed as being part of a disinformation campaign or cover-up.

Where does it say that? The only part that suggests a witness being part of a cover-up is Sheridan Cavitt, the Roswell COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE agent who went out with Marcel. If he was adhering to a security oath, he might have every reason in the world to lie and cover up. His story was full of huge, obvious lies, huge inconsistencies, and was not backed up by anybody or anything. Everybody contradicted him, including Brazel back in 1947, his own assistent, Lewis Rickett, and even his own wife when he was being interviewed.
There have been some military witnesses who have admitted they were still operating under a security oath, such as Roswell provost marshall Col. Edwin Easley. He said he couldn't talk about what happened because he had sworn an oath not to. He did admit to some things, such as the military holding Brazel at the base. Since he was in charge of such things, you would think he would know. Yet you claim there is no credible evidence that Brazel was coerced in any way. Brazel would never have been held in custody, even if he had found a Mogul. None of the equipment was classified and there was no way he could discern the top secret purpose of the balloon flights from the debris.Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it is nearly impossible to determine who is actually telling the truth and who isn't, it seems to me to be more logical to establish what IS known instead of basing scenarios on what MIGHT be there.

In Cavitt's case, it's blindly obvious he was lying. Charles Moore has also clearly lied about some things to bolster his Mogul case. His motivations are unknown.
It is also possible to establish whether witnesses have corroboration for their stories, i.e., whether the stories are at least consistent. E.g., Cavitt has nobody backing him up, while Marcel has a ton of witnesses in his corner backing up various parts of his story, people like Gen. Exon, Gen. Dubose, Edgar Mitchell, Steven Lovekin, Marcel Jr., Lewis Rickett, Walter Haut (the PIO who issued Blanchard's press release), and many others. Yet you have rewritten the article to make it sound like the only source describing such things was Marcel back when the story first came out publicly in 1980. That is just one of your many inaccurate debunking slants that you've inserted into the article. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The biggest unknown, of course, is that aliens have not been shown to exist, so the premise that this was an alien recovery bears a very high burden of proof.

This is logically flawed reasoning. First of all it presumes there is no evidence to support that aliens are here. That's your personal opinion, not an incontestable fact. Second, even if we accept that, it does NOT logically follow that this demonstrates a Mogul explains Roswell. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if people claim to have seen aliens or alien spacecraft, these reports have to be able to stand a high level of scrutiny.

Since there are alternate explanations for these reports and these alternate explanations involve known phenomena, they, logically, should be given at least equal preference if not more to the reports which are accepted more or less uncritically on the page in question.

The same is equally true of so-called skeptical conventional explanations for cases. They should at least fit the known facts of a case and not require magical thinking or impossible "science," as is often the case. Take the Kenneth Arnold sighting, e.g. There have been numerous alleged "explanations" for what Arnold saw (water drops on his windshield, mirages, reflections, snow drifts, meteors, geese, pelicans, jet planes--that's 8 right there.) How can all of them be correct? None of them when analyzed stand up to scrutiny. E.g., the objects flew faster than Arnold's plane, which was on a parallel course. That rules out geese and pelicans right there. He had his window open while viewing them. That rules out water drops and reflections. They flew in front of Mt. Rainier, less than 25 miles away, and far lower than meteor speeds. There goes meteors. They lacked any tail structures and the military could not place any squadron of jet planes in the area. There goes jet planes. Etc., etc. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, accounts which relate to prosiac, known phenomena - lost balloon trains, mistanken identity, memory conflation etc - should take precedence over the assumption that more fantastic reports must have a grain of truth to them.

Canada Jack 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should they take precedence? This again flawed circular reasoning. You start with your personal bias that it couldn't be something remarkable, and then use that to argue that therefore it wasn't remarkable but something conventional.
When the first A-bomb was tested at Alamogordo, there was a cover story that an ammunition dump had exploded. By your logic, the conventional cover story necessarily "should take precedence," whereas a superweapon explanation would surely be "fantastic," without a "grain of truth" to it. Surely prosaic, known phenomena such as conventional explosives, witness lying and exaggeration about the brightness and size of the blast, memory conflation, etc. are much more plausible. The problem is, no matter how reasonable you might think such a position might be, in this case you would be definitely wrong, as you would be in other historical events that might seem "fantastic."
Nobody wanted to believe our government did illegal human radiation experimentson fellow, uninformed citizens (many of them poor, old, sick, or helpless wards of the state like orphans). The rumors and stories from witnesses were denied by our government for decades, until finally the Clinton administration admitted it was all true. But you could have tried to rationalize it all away, again arguing it was too "fantastic" to be true, or the usual witness exaggeration, lying, conflation, memory compression, witness contamination, etc., etc. It can be very hard establishing what really happened, particularly when the government or some other agency is actively denying or concealing evidence. This isn't a science experiment. Nature doesn't consciously try to hide secrets. But governments do, even for very conventional things. Dr Fil 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree to a certain extent, and I think your new intro is something of an improvement already. There was no real claim of 'alien spaceships' until 1981, so the only documentary evidence we have from the period of the 'crash' are the newspaper reports and a couple of internal documents from 1947... which are consistent with a crashed Mogul balloon during the 1947 UFO fad, and an ensuing coverup. Much of the article is taken up with claims from people who claim to have been witnesses many decades later, but if there was no alien spaceship it doesn't matter how many 'witnesses' come forward to claim that there was. I mean, heck, there are around half a dozen claimed crash sites these days: exactly how many alien spaceships are supposed to have crashed at Roswell that night? Even the serious UFO researchers I'm aware of seem to have given up on Roswell long ago for precisely these reasons: it's impossible to seperate reality from fantasy in the 'witness' reports. Mark Grant 18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New Introduction Added; Proposal for Rewrite

I've just added an introduction to the article, something which was sorely needed.

I am in the process of assembling material to more coherently present the incident.

Here is what I propose:

1. a new introduction (done)

2. The context of the find: the Cold War era, secret military programs, 100s of UFO reports and the coining of term "flying saucer", balloon experiments in New Mexico, reports of a mysterious crash early July

3. The incident as reported and recorded in 1947, with information from the primary 1947 sources. This would describe the incident and debris AS IT WAS DESCRIBED IN 1947 from the teletypes, stories and photographs from the days in question in July 1947.

4. The emergence of Jesse Marcel and the accounts of the PRIMARY WITNESSES starting in 1978, ie. those who actually saw or handled the "flying disc" material, with descriptions of the debris, the sequence of events from discovery to the news conferences, and how they differ from the intitial accounts.

5. The emergence of SECONDARY witnesses (who had no first-hand contact with the material but heard stories etc.) who claimed a) cover-ups, b) multiple crash sites and recoveries, c) aliens and alien autopsies

6. Skeptical reports in the 1990s, specifically the two Air Force reports linking the crash to Mogul and aliens to faulty memories, and the Mogul flight 4 reconstruction.

Each section would note the major dissents from the evidence supplied.

Additionally, a lot of the POV stuff should be removed, such as the references in the skeptical sections to some reports as being "frauds" or their authors being experts in disinformation, etc.

Canada Jack 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me: I think the context and historical sequence of events is very important to understanding what may or may not have happened at Roswell. Mark Grant 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just added section #2, on the cold war context, etc. (And renumbered the sections I had above as I had two section 2s.)

The page is getting rather long, but my next sections will redo the existing sections. So far no complaints? So far evenhanded? Any comments?

Canada Jack 19:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A Dose Of Reality

I noticed that the article failed to mention that no UFO event or anything of importance has actually ever happened in Roswell. It also failed to mention that the mythology surrounding this event exists as nothing more than a refuge for those who are too dysfunctional for normal society to distract themselves from their current pariah state. A few pieces of scrap metal and plastic in the desert does not make an alien invasion or military conspiracy. Triumph's Hour 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I am in the midst of doing a substantial rewrite to address various concerns, not the least of which the article as it presently stands is POV pro-ufo. I believe I can do a NOPV version of this, but so far I've only got the intros done. As for failing to mention this is "nothing more than a refuge for those who are too dysfunctional" etc., that would fall into the POV realm and I will strive to write this in a manner where one can draw their own conclusions instead of having it spelled out for them.

Canada Jack 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New Section added, replacing old section

I've added Section 3 from my list above which replaces the somewhat incoherent (and POV) account of the intitial discovery which was there before.

I've presented the incident AS IT WAS INITIALLY REPORTED. The old account chose to provide a sequence of events which focussed on what some saw as a pattern of cover-up and subterfuge suggesting something far more sinister than what may in fact have happened. That version of events WILL BE PRESENTED but it was decidedly POV.

The next sections will be: New details from the primary witnesses; New details from secondary witnesses, etc. (see above).

For those of you who choose to dispute the sequence of events laid out above, remember they are the sequence of events AS REPORTED.

Canada Jack 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

When it occurred "AS IT WAS INITIALLY REPORTED" was "sometime last week" in the initial press release. This is then dismissed by "Canada Jack" in a POV editorial comment as inconsequential because it was "fourth-hand". Oh really? How did he determine that?

"Sometime last week" was then changed in Fort Worth by a quoted Major Marcel as about 3 weeks before. Deleted is Major Marcel's and Gen. Dubose's statements when interviewed that a coverup was in effect and both of them were making statements under Gen. Ramey's orders. (Dubose said he himself received the order by phone from Washington to initiate the coverup.) This is important historical contextual information, but "Canada Jack," as I predicted, is only presenting the debunking side of it.

Sure, Brazel several hours after that also makes the June 14 claim in a press conference. But "Canada Jack" likewise censors the previously mentioned testimony of about a dozen witnesses that Brazel was in military custody at the time. This comes from rancher neighbors who knew Brazel well and saw him accompanied by military officers, several reporters at the scene, and even the base provost marshall, who admitted they held Brazel at the base. That Brazel complained bitterly afterwards about his treatment by the military likewise comes from neighbors and family members.

"Canada Jack" likewise censors the fact previously mentioned in the article that Sheriff Wilcox was putting out contradictory accounts of what happened. He mentions Wilcox's UP account placing the finding of the debris about 3 weeks before, while disingenuously deleting his AP statment of "2 or 3 days ago." He likewise eliminates Wilcox admitting in one AP account that he "was working with those fellows at the base."

In fact, "Canada Jack" totally ignores that the entire Roswell story "AS IT WAS INITIALLY REPORTED" was reported IN COMPLETELY CONFLICTING WAYS. Previously the contradictions were pointed out in detail. But "Canada Jack" pretends most of the contradictions don't exist. E.g., he also eliminates the point that Sheriff Wilcox totally contradicted Brazel on what Brazel reported when he first came to Roswell. Brazel said he told Wilcox he thought he had found a "flying disk" and absolutely denied he had found any sort of weather device. But Wilcox in a UP account claimed Brazel came in thinking he'd found a "weather meter."

Which "contemporary account" is correct?

Similarly, Brazel, after claiming he found the debris on June 14, claimed he didn't start cleaning it up until July 4 with his family, saying he was too busy with other errands to bother.

But Marcel claimed Brazel immediately picked it up when he found it mid-June, tossed it under some brush, then retrieved it on July 6, only after first hearing about the flying disks on July 5. (In both accounts, if you believe Wilcox's contemporary statments, after making a point of just picking up or retrieving the debris, Brazel neglects to bring even a shred with him when he reports his "flying disk" to Roswell.)

Which "contemporary account" is correct?

And when did Brazel report his find to Wilcox? Well according Wilcox's AP account, it was Monday, July 7. But according to Wilcox's UP statements, it was "the day before yesterday," or Sunday, July 6.

Which "contemporary account" is correct?

"Canada Jack" is using the usual debunking ploy of cherry-picking certain contemporary quotes as being the established contemporary facts while censoring other equally contemporary quotes that directly contradict these.

Another standard debunking ploy he uses is the claim that ONLY contemporary reporting counts (and only the side he presents, not the contradictory contemporary accounts), and contradictions by witnesses who were there but recounting what happened decades later don't matter. This is pure intellectual dishonesty. There is no law that says contemporary accounts are necessarily right (as is, they are already full of contradictions) or that later eyewitness recall is invalid.

No decent historian would approach history this way in trying to reconstruct a historical event. For one thing, historians realize that only a tiny fraction of any historical event is written down at the time, and much more information and insight can be gleaned by interviewing actual witnesses, even decades later. For another, the contemporary information is not necessarily correct and can also be manipulated. Newspapers rarely do investigative reporting, have daily deadlines, and generally report only what they are told. If they are lied to, they generally report the lies. Lies don't become truthful just because they are "contemporary."

There are many instances in history where governments deliberately LIED about what happened, and the newspapers reported the lies as facts. E.g., the press was initially told that the U-2 spy plane shot down by the Russians in 1960 was an errant NASA weather plane that crashed because the pilot passed out from oxygen deprivation. NASA took part in this initial coverup, even manufacturing phony transcripts of the pilot's last radio conversations.

In the early 1950s, before the U-2 spy planes, the Soviets were raising howls of protest that the U.S. was likewise violating their airspace with spy balloons (a derivative of Project Mogul). You won't find one coveted contemporary news story that has our government admitting the Russians were right. Instead, the U.S. government simply issued denials that there were any such spy balloons and that's exactly what the "contempory" press stories reported. Unlike the U-2 incident, the Russians couldn't prove otherwise with a crashed plane and captured pilot, and that is where matters stood with the spy balloons for several decades, until the program (Project Moby Dick) was finally acknowledged.

There are many other similar examples of where the "contemporary" press was lied to or deliberately misled (Watergate, e.g., or the first A-bomb at Alamagordo) and the "contemporary" newspaper stories do not provide the truth. Getting at the truth can often take decades. Often it takes so-called unreliable eyewitness testimony after-the-fact to break the story. (That was initially the case with Watergate, e.g. The White House, of course, kept trying to cover it up and issued denial after denial.)

"Canada Jack" has taken a very detailed and accurate writeup of the actual contradictions in the contemporary accounts, eliminated what important witnesses said happened, which puts these contradictions into necessary context, and has totally rewritten it to put a clear debunking slant on the Roswell incident.

A reader should definitely know that many, many witnesses placed Brazel in military custody at the time he made his press statements and complained bitterly about it afterwards. This is vitally important context which strongly suggests that Brazel's statements were coerced. The same is true with Sheriff Wilcox's quoted (and contradictory statements). Family members have told researchers that his "working with the fellows at the base" (contemporary quote) was anything but cordial, that he had been threatened if he did otherwise. At the very least, Wilcox himself admitted his statements weren't independent of the military. That should be in the article.

And a reader should definitely know that both eyewitnesses Major Marcel and Gen. Dubose said the weather balloon photographed in Fort Worth was part of Gen. Ramey's weather balloon coverup to get rid of the press and not what Marcel brought from Roswell. As presently written, the reader is left with the impression that what Ramey presented was definitely the Roswell debris. "Canada Jack" has made certain of that.

This is exactly what I said he would do. He is a debunker. Debunking and presenting one side is all he ever did in the debates when he was calling himself "Johnny Canuck." That is exactly what he is doing here under the guise of being even-handed.

I might add that his writeup is also full of factual mistakes. What he has created is a one-sided debunking mess that is going to take a lot of time to clean up. Dr Fil 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr Fil, perhaps you should take a deep breath and stop pretending the POV that was there before was NPOV.

The REASON this page had been calling for someone to clean it up was because it was an incoherent mess.

I am attempting to clear it up. How? By first describing the incident as it was reported, trying to stick to what are the most direct sources. When a contradiction is apparant - as you noted there are several between the sherrif and Brazel - then the rule of thumb is to go as close to the primary source as possible. Brazel would be the one closest to the event.

"When it occurred "AS IT WAS INITIALLY REPORTED" was "sometime last week" in the initial press release. This is then dismissed by "Canada Jack" in a POV editorial comment as inconsequential because it was "fourth-hand". Oh really? How did he determine that?"

We know that the person who wrote the news release wasn't Brazel, it was someone else. That made it second-hand, minimum. Whithout dragging the narrative down here, I omitted what later writers believe was the chain of how the account came about.

ANY historian would stick with the intitial sources. The insistence on sticking with the other date is part of an argument that will be discussed later. AS it stands, June 14th is the closest we have to the source.

BTW, I noted the controversy, but I didn't declare it was "inconsequentail," just that the June date was LIKELY closer to the source than the other. Since we can't be certain, I noted the discrepancy.

""Sometime last week" was then changed in Fort Worth by a quoted Major Marcel as about 3 weeks before. Deleted is Major Marcel's and Gen. Dubose's statements when interviewed that a coverup was in effect and both of them were making statements under Gen. Ramey's orders."

AS I said, the intial section notes what was reported. Those claims as to a cover-up come later. Those comments are deleted because they came 30+ years after the intitial story. Which is all the section was doing - repeating what was reported.

When I include the further sections, then those claims will be noted.

As it stood, the article was POV, and there was a call to get someone to redo it. It's being redone.

"(Dubose said he himself received the order by phone from Washington to initiate the coverup.) This is important historical contextual information, but "Canada Jack," as I predicted, is only presenting the debunking side of it."

How is this "debunking"? This is intended to be a reconstruction of the event AS REPORTED.

"Sure, Brazel several hours after that also makes the June 14 claim in a press conference. But "Canada Jack" likewise censors the previously mentioned testimony of about a dozen witnesses that Brazel was in military custody at the time. This comes from rancher neighbors who knew Brazel well and saw him accompanied by military officers, several reporters at the scene, and even the base provost marshall, who admitted they held Brazel at the base. That Brazel complained bitterly afterwards about his treatment by the military likewise comes from neighbors and family members."

Please find a contemporary account of this event. You can't as there was none. AGAIN, this is not an attempt to lay out all the competing theories - it is an attempt to create a scenario as was reported. THEN, we move onto the claims which emerged from first-hand witnesses. Then, second-hand witnesses. That is when we move on to the claims of cover-ups etc. There were no such claims made in 1947.

This is called a NPOV attempt. To simply note every objection that came later on completely confuses the issue and does NOT allow for anyone not already familiar with the event to make heads or tails of it.

Once we discuss accusations of cover-ups, we discuss what was claimed to have been done, and why. To do that now would complete confuse the issue and that is why the call to redo this was made.

Your argument will be noted fully, but it will come via the structure I have laid out, which in my mind is a far more coherent way to approach the subject.

"In fact, "Canada Jack" totally ignores that the entire Roswell story "AS IT WAS INITIALLY REPORTED" was reported IN COMPLETELY CONFLICTING WAYS. Previously the contradictions were pointed out in detail. But "Canada Jack" pretends most of the contradictions don't exist. E.g., he also eliminates the point that Sheriff Wilcox totally contradicted Brazel on what Brazel reported when he first came to Roswell. Brazel said he told Wilcox he thought he had found a "flying disk" and absolutely denied he had found any sort of weather device. But Wilcox in a UP account claimed Brazel came in thinking he'd found a "weather meter."

"Which "contemporary account" is correct?"

Again, we stick with the account closest to the source.

Since I quote Brazel saying this was no weather balloon, it would seem that the UP account probably was wrong. Whether he said that or didn't is irrelevant at this point, it seems quite clear that he believed this was no weather balloon. To make some argument now about the reason for this apparent contradiction would be to bring forward arguments made decades later on points which were not germane in 1947 - like theories that accounts were being fabricated. That is not the point here. At least not until we discuss those issues.

"But Marcel claimed Brazel immediately picked it up when he found it mid-June, tossed it under some brush, then retrieved it on July 6, only after first hearing about the flying disks on July 5. (In both accounts, if you believe Wilcox's contemporary statments, after making a point of just picking up or retrieving the debris, Brazel neglects to bring even a shred with him when he reports his "flying disk" to Roswell.)"

I noted that. "He was too busy to pay much attention to it, but returned on July 4th with his son, his wife and his daughter to gather up the material,[16] though he was also described as having gathered some of the material earlier, rolling it together and stashing it under some brush. [17]"

In this case, it is not clear what the exact sequence is, or if there as unmentioned visit to the debris before July 4. Since it is not certain, I mentioned both here.

"And when did Brazel report his find to Wilcox? Well according Wilcox's AP account, it was Monday, July 7. But according to Wilcox's UP statements, it was "the day before yesterday," or Sunday, July 6.

"Which "contemporary account" is correct?"

In this case, since Brazel and Wilcox are both present as witnesses to this, the differing dates should be noted. So I'll make the change once I get the reference - or you could do this?

"I might add that his writeup is also full of factual mistakes. What he has created is a one-sided debunking mess that is going to take a lot of time to clean up. Dr Fil 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)"

Since there is nothing "debunked" here - unless reconstructing what happened according to contemporary accounts is "debunking" - your objections have been noted and dismissed (save for the date or reporting to Wilcox).

Alas, the page had already BEEN labeled as a mess, which is why a call was made to clean it up.

If you care to actually engage in serious debate over the best way to present the material, I submit you should wait until I have presented the material instead of simply dismissing out of hand my attempt to create a NPOV accoumnt to replace the POV which had been there before.

Canada Jack 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Section 4 added: Primary witness testimony from 1978 on

I've just added the next section from the list I posted above.

Remembering that this is an NPOV attempt to address the Roswell UFO incident, I have presented the testimony of the various first-hand witnesses - those who are known to or likely encountered the debris - and have avoiding the usual POV "clarifications" of some of these reports.

As I stressed above, those arguments will be addressed later.

The next section will bring in the secondary witnesses from where many of the reports of "cover-up" emerge, reports of aliens and what have you, and what UFO researchers interpret the true chain of events (as opposed to what had been presented to the public back in 1947).

Then, I propose to spell out the skeptical Air Force response to these allegations, with asides to the critiques.

Remember folks, if we are to be NPOV, we have to present the accounts and witness statements, at least initially, at face value. Because NONE of us are in position to know with certainty who is right and who is wrong. When the arguments after the secondary witnesses are given, then we will see why certain scenarios - and certain witnesses - are believed or not believed.

In that way, all sides are satisfied, as best can be, as evidence is presented fairly and opportunty is offered for the various interpretations, unlike before where the article was written in a clearlp POV style as if the "facts" of "cover up" and aliens was a given.

Canada Jack 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated above....

As stated above, I've been to Roswell, New Mexico. It is not a good idea to call the locals liars at all. I've even seen the Funeral home that was indicated by many sources as being the place that the boss there had taken a call from the US Army concerning hermetically SEALED caskets, children's size, The International UFO Museum, the UFO Museum (Roswell has two UFO museums), talked to the locals, of which a elderly gent stated that the alien incident happened, the people were coerced into compliance, (When someone places a LOADED gun to your head, and tells YOU to "Shut the hell up about what happened here !", are YOU going to tell the soldier, "Hell NO!" ? I did'nt think so either, unless you wanted your brains blown out.). I've also seen this matter come up on Unsolved Mysteries, Sightings, the PAX TV Network called The Unexplained, on the 'net, heard about it on Coast To Coast AM, Jeff Rense's radio show, seen it on his site as well, other places. Another native told ME flat out that, "IF there is alien contact, the entire planet will revolt, some will, due to religious reasons, some will revolt as revenge for being made a fool of (as persuant to certain govt. protocol, such as the Robertson Panel), revolt as a reaction to said contact, rebel, to cause trouble." Too bad I can't incl. that in Wikipedia, due to certain Wiki-protocol, and I'm NOT going to violate it. Martial Law 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is the coercion that went on, incl. that a radio DJ was threatened, a civilian taking a injured Army airman to the base hospital was threatened with death, a nurse was allegedly killed to shut her up because she had seen "the creatures", "the things", a woman was threatened by a US Army MP, who told her that "No one will find you in this damn desert.". This goes on and on. Martial Law 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a section in the article discribing the alleged coercion in the article ? Martial Law 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the response to the "loaded gun" statement, just stating what has been and is still said all over the place. I do apologise if I had upset anyone. Martial Law 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Martial: It seems to me that you are referring to the Glenn Dennis testimony which emerged after a 1989 episode of "Unsolved Mysteries" asked for viewers to call in if they had any more information.

What he said and what others said is part of the stuff I plan to include in the forthcoming section called "secondary witnesses," those not known to have directly encountered the debris etc.

Canada Jack 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have been referring to this testimonial. I've seen what was recreated on Unsolved Mysteries, incl. several witness testimonials, incl. the one about a woman claiming that a US Army MP had threatened her, had stated that NO ONE will find her in the desert. This matter has also been brought up on Coast To Coast AM many times as well. Martial Law 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Intimidation of witnesses

Are you going to indicate that witnesses were intimidated ? The intimidation was mentioned on Unsolved Mysteries, Sightings, on the radio shows Coast To Coast AM and on Jeff Rense's radio show, the 'net, other places, and I've talked to the town's citizenry about this matter. The radio DJ was threatened w/ his job being lost, jail time, a civilian taking a soldier to the Base Hospital was also threatened with death (the civilian told the officer, a Captain, to "Go to hell, I'm a civilian!" in retaliation), a nurse was killed, records altered, a woman was cussed at and threatened by a Army MP. This goes on and on. I've also been to the two museums myself, and this kind of thing is there as well. Martial Law 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Certain people claimed to have been intimidated, several decades after the event. That's a big difference to saying that 'witnesses were intimidated'. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a shred of evidence from 1947 that anyone was intimidated, though Brazel seemed a bit upset at his interrogation by the Air Force in one of the newspaper articles. That's not to say that their claims shouldn't be included, but they are just claims made many years later. (P.S. Changed your header above to a wiki header so it will show up in the table of contents). Mark Grant 21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In the next section "secondary witnesses" I will introduce the accounts of: recovery of aliens and alien spacecraft; claims of a cover-up; reports of witness intimidation.

I will then lay out the scenario claimed by those who believe those claims to be accurate.

I will then lay out the skeptical critique to those claims, followed by the Air Force reports.

Canada Jack 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be patient folks. My intention is to make this as NPOV as possible. I have a personal opinion on what the "truth" is, but I am attempting to lay out the case here for both cases as fairly and even-handedly as possible. So when I use quotes which some strongly dissagree with, I will avoid the kind of caveats and objections which was typical in earlier versions. Once the evidence is laid out, I will explain the major interpretations of what all this means.

The goal here is to let the uninitiated see what happened, clearly and objectively laying out the major evidence, let the sides have their say, and let the reader draw their own conclusion or explore more on their own.

It is not for us to decide who is "right" here, it is our job to fairly present the cases. This was not what was happening before. Canada Jack 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it was the US Army who was intimidating people, not the USAF, since they was not in existence @ that time, it was part of the Army @ that time as the US Army Air Corps.Martial Law 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Fil's critique

Perhaps your silence the past few days indicates you are at least willing to see what I am coming up with, since my presentation of the primary witness' statements avoided the sort of "debunkery" you were probably expecting.

But though I believe the skeptical line here, this article, whoever wrote it, was so one-sided and so incoherently laid out, that it was flagged for a rewrite.

What I am trying to avoid here is POV - the goal is NPOV. Bloody hard in this case, but I think it is doable. Please bear with me here, it's not easy to do.

Look at some of the POV statements in the article. Rememeber the goal here is not to parrot one line, but to introduce an unbiased account. Instead we have lines like: "Impressive testimony about the Roswell Incident..." In the "1994/95 Air Force Roswell report" section, one would expect an explanation of their rationale for linking this to Mogul. Instead, we have precisely ONE paragraph describing the Air Force's lengthy report followed by FIVE paragraphs countering it. Then the next section on the 1997 report does the same - ONE paragraph outlining the AIr Force case, NINE on critisms.

Then, below that, we FAR more space dedicated to the alien autopsy film, which is an admitted fraud!

Then, in the reference section, we have the pejorative "debunker" title for the skeptical resources, and more than a few POV comments attached to these references: "Weaver and McAndrew are both officers in the Air Force counterintelligence branch, Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Weaver is known to have taught courses on propaganda and disinformation."

"Note: Pflock has a CIA background and was once involved in a cattle mutilation hoax."

"chapter by former Mogul engineer Charles Moore on Mogul balloon trajectory calculation to Mack Brazel ranch is contended to be a hoax..."

Nowhere do we see, for example, any caveat about the fraudulent research carried out by Donald Schmidtt, who has now been disowned even by his long-time coauthor Kevin Randle.

This is NPOV? This is better than what I have done so far?

The goal of any article here, let's remember, is not to ensure your POV triumphs over any other competing POV: the goal is to in as best a manner possible produce a NPOV presentation of what we know and what we don't know, and present the various arguments as that - different viewpoints.

We all know many here take their arguments VERY seriously. But those views, however passionately held are their OPINIONS based on what they embrace as facts. Widely divergent views are also passionately held but they are also OPINIONS based on what others see as the "real" facts.

The way it stood, the premise that this WAS a cover-up, there WERE aliens recovered, a few nods were given to skeptical arguments with, more often than not, an avalanche of rejoinders to those nods.

We are not here to parrot one side's point of view or the other: We are here to present, as best we can, a balanced view of the events. The way the article was written, it procedes as if the idea there was a "cover-up" of alien recovery is a given. It most certainly is NOT a "given" - it is the view strongly and passionately held by some - like yourself - but it is a POV argument.

I will be soon introducing the witnesses who claim that there had been cover-ups and alien recoveries and witness intimidation.

If you look at what I have done so far, you will note a distinct absence of the sort of "clarifying" comments so common in the previous version. And I think we can form a basis for a NPOV presentation of the events.

Canada Jack 05:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Section 5 Secondary Witnesses added

I have just added a section describing accounts of aliens, military recoveries and intimidation.

I've included these accounts without comment, save for the notes about evidence even hard-core ufo believers have trouble with, and the Ramey photo since that is a piece of evidence readily open to interpretation (unlike someone saying "I saw an alien"). In many cases the accounts I have listed HAVE been challenged for various reasons, but that will be noted later.

The next section, of which I have only included a short line, is slightly different from the line-up I had above. Also, please note that I have discarded my original idea of including rebuttals for each piece of evidence as presented. Makes more sense, I believe, to do that afterwards, to essentially lay out the cases as they evolved. In that way, we will have: a). the account as originally reported (done); b) the account according to the alien/coverup scenario; c) the account according to the skeptics; d) the Air Force and Mogul accounts; e) the critique to the Air Force/Mogul accounts; f) the skeptic's view of the Air Force critique

My next sections will be:

6. The emergence of an "alien" timeline and coverup scenario by the early 1990s

7. The skeptical response

8. The first Air Force report and Mogul explanation

9. The second Air Force report, acconting for alien corpses

10. The response to the Air Force reports

11. The rebuttal to the responses Canada Jack 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I'm going to suggest again that we drop the UFO from the title for neutrality reasons. I propose a vote on the subject if there's enough interest. Jefffire 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. I'm hard-pressed to think of something else as a title which people will instantly connect to this incident. The phrase "UFO" though suggesting alien involvement also still connotes "unidentified" for many people.
To me, calling this the "Roswell alien incident" or "Roswell cover-up" or some such thing is POV. "UFO" isn't perfect, but unless you have a better suggestion which people will instantly recognize as referring to the 1947 incident, I say we stick with the title as is.
Canada Jack 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest Roswell incident, or Roswell (1947). Jefffire 08:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing non-neutral about UFO. It was an UFO back then, independently of what one now thinks to be true. It would be something else if the title were "Roswell alien spaceship crash incident". --Hob Gadling 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
UFO implies there even was an unidentified flying object, when it was a crash that was found. The flying wasn't important, it was the crash that made headlines. So it's factualy inaccurate. Jefffire 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
When we report on a recovery of a downed airplane, we don't avoid language which suggests the craft in question once flew. No one, ufo believer or skeptic, disputes that this object, whatever it was, once flew.
I personally believe the object in question was a prosaic object from earth, yet I have no problem with the page title as it is. Your pedantic point misses the obvious - there is really no better "neutral" term to describe this in a few words. "Roswell incident" really doesn't say anything, nor does "Roswell 1947".
I recognize that "UFO" conjours up aliens in many peoples' minds, but for others it suggests objects of UNIDENTIFED origin - which could be your neighbour's backyard or the planet Venus.
Besides, as the opening line states, the "incident" is the ALLEGED recovery of an alien craft and aliens.
Canada Jack 15:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New section added: Alien recovery and government cover-up

I've just added the text to the new section describing the scenario that had emerged by the early 1990s which suggested alien recoveries and government cover-ups.

I forgot to sign-in, so my location was noted, not my "canada jack" id.

Since this is largely drawn from two accounts there are few references.

Next: The skeptical response.

The skeptical response will NOT include the Air Force report. That will be the section afterwards, as a lot emerged from there, in particular the identification of Mogul as a source of the debris at Roswell (though it had been previously suggested).

Canada Jack 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Next section added: Skeptical response

I've just added the next section, highlighting the main skeptical responses to Roswell which existed BEFORE the Air Force reports and Moore's reconstruction of the Mogul flights.

The next section will be something like "The Air Force Reports on Roswell and Mogul" (Moore's reconstruction of the 1947 balloon train flights)

Remember, folks, this is designed to be NPOV so though there are those ready to pounce with their own counter-arguments to the skepical response, our purpose here should be to present the arguments and let them stand, as long as we agree that the side we favour has been presented fairly and without the POV addenda which plaqued earlier versions.

Canada Jack 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ D.R. Hillers, “coffee time”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 170 (1963) 204.
  2. ^ Blue shows. Ed. Raymond E. Brown. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990. 678