Talk:Roswell incident

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Launchballer talk 16:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1947, space aliens landed in New Mexico?

• Source: I know this is pushing it, and this is clearly a false statement, but I think we can get away with it for a quirky hook in a dedicated Halloween set.

• ALT1: ... that the 1947 Roswell hoax has been said to have been part of a "Cosmic Watergate"? Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Enemies_Within/Z8e5YELGGFAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA189&printsec=frontcover
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Ohio Issue 1
• Comment: Please hold for special WT:DYK#Halloween set

Improved to Good Article status by Feoffer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 42 past nominations.

RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC).

• It has been pointed out to me that this has been on OTD (multiple times), so I'm withdrawing this nomination. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"thousands" of project Mogul balloons

The entry on Project Mogul indicates it was balloon NYU Flight 4 that crashed at Roswell, it is not clear that the "thousands" is a verifiable number. NYU was experimenting with new materials, so it is likely the number is not four either. ... the credibility of the entry overall can be diminished by unsubstantiated numbers. -- by opening with "conspiracy" ...there is an implicit judgement as well. If this page is about the Roswell Conspiracy, is there another page about the Roswell incident? If this page is going to the "front page" later this year, it would be good to review the text for maximum objectivity 2601:18C:8E7F:A2E0:ECE2:42EA:E89:183F (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

...it is not clear that the "thousands" is a verifiable number. There are two citations given in the article text. If you have a WP:RELIABLE source that states otherwise, feel free to add it. Also, don't confuse the number of NYU Mogul launches in SE New Mexico with the overall number of Mogul launches. The former number is much smaller than the latter. ...by opening with "conspiracy" ...there is an implicit judgement... While Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, it is also Wikipedia policy not to give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE sources. Wikipedia is not unbiased, rather it reflects the bias of WP:RELIABLE sources. If this page is about the Roswell Conspiracy, is there another page about the Roswell incident? It is almost impossible to disentangle the incident from the conspiracy theories because there are so many competing narratives about what happened, and the conspiracy theories are really what gives this incident its notability. Carguychris (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The source says, "In 1946 and 1947, the Army Air Force had launched thousands of these high-flying balloons, puffed full with helium to pull their loads of instruments into the stratosphere. The devices strained to hear the high-altitude sound waves of Soviet atomic detonations." As mentioned above, the project started in New York. There is also the fact that each individual launch would have been multiple balloons tethered together. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@ 65.18.126.106 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

First line

When this ran on the WP:Main page, an editor changed the lead to "subject of a conspiracy theory". There was some additional discussion at WP:ERRORS. The previous wording may have been awkward, but I don't know that "subject of" is more correct. Neither one is wrong, but I am wondering if something more clear can be done if we revise the lead away from using a "Subject is X" first sentence and begin with something like, "Balloon debris recovered in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico, later became the basis for long-lasting and increasingly complex and contradictory conspiracy theories." Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well. Perhaps @Goszei: has ideas since they changed it. Feoffer (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's a good idea. As I said, I don't think either version is wrong, so I will leave it as it is, and wait to see if others have feedback/ideas. Also, I was surprised in a good way by the edits when the article was up as TFA. I guess I expected vandalism, but it was mostly just folks doing some minor cleanup. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

From how I see it, a baloon crashing barely registers as an "incident". I guess everything is an incident. The keypresses of my typing this comment out are a series of incidents. The first real event which I would say can be described as an incident, as an event which is somewhat distinct, non-ordinary, and for which it is editorially justified to use the word incident is when on on July 8, 1947, RAAF public information officer Walter Haut issued a press release stating that the military had recovered a "flying disc" near Roswell. But that incident was a public relations incident, an incident that did not happen spatially "near Roswell". It happened in print and over the airwaves. So, for me the Roswell incident is not the balloon crash as a real event, it is the conception of the flying saucer crash, which is not a real event. I can not seriously call the balloon crash the "Roswell incident". The balloon crash is "that balloon crash near Roswell that led to all the other stuff" for me. And in relation to the balloon crash, there was a real incident, the communications incident, but that incident is not the Roswell incident, it is "the communications incident related to the Balloon crash near Roswell that led to all the other stuff". Therefore, I do not actually think that saying: "The Roswell incident is the subject of a conspiracy theory ..." is super accurate. —Alalch E. 13:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think all of us here on talk concur with that assessment. But multiple people have felt the earlier version was somehow ungrammatical or needed improvement? I be there's an even better verbiage we haven't seen yet, but I'd support going back to the earlier language in the interim. Feoffer (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, we should keep thinking about this... no opposition to going back to the earlier language. —Alalch E. 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Any thoughts on Special:Permalink/1279265851? —Alalch E. 14:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That feels, perhaps, too complicated. I did an example of the lead without any bold text in a sandbox. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead without bold looks good -- I forget sometimes we don't actually have to start articles that way. Feoffer (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty good. —Alalch E. 08:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved this to the live article, but am fine if someone comes up with a better idea. Ideally, the lead sentence should be enough to at least point a reader in the right direction; some folks are busy and won't read past the first sentence. I think this does that and something similar is done with the also complicated and shrouded in conspiracy topic Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I am realizing now that a recent edit mentioned the rancher in the lead, and am fine with adding the ranch/rancher into the lead. Thanks y'all, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Completely biased

It is by no means proven that the Roswell Incident was caused by a MOGUL balloon. I should know because I was a US Air Force historian. If you are one of those science nerds who have taken it upon themselves to go through every Wikipedia page to remove anomalous hypothesis, you can kiss my a-- 2601:647:6700:6BC0:2CFC:CBA1:ECE6:72C0 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's biased, but I think maybe you're imagining that the article says something more than it actually does. I agree with you: it's not "proven" that it was MOGUL. But the article never claims that it's proven! The text says things like "United States Air Force published multiple reports which established that the incident was related to Project Mogul" and similar language to always attribute it. The article never says anything's proven, it actually cites comments from two US presidents suggesting that they might know more than the general public.Feoffer (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

by no means proven Right. But what exactly is your point? The elements of the Scientific method are such that testable hypotheses can never be proven. The results of the attendant investigations/experiments can either support the hypothesis, or dis-prove it. The overwhelming amount of reliably sourced (see the Wikipedia policy WP:RS) evidence supports the hypothesis that the MOGUL project was directly related to the "Roswell Incident." That you, me, Feoffer, science nerds, or anyone else dislikes that evidence is irrelevant. As of today, Wikipedia is a site wherein unreliable, fringe, unsupported ideas (which might be what you mean by the term anomalous hypothesis), or editors' personal desires are not presented as proven facts. That disappoints many people new to the project, but fortunately for them there is Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and many, many websites and magazines and books that are not held to the same stringent standards. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Guys it’s been quite 2 years since the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community confirmed that the statements sworn under oath to the US Congress were “urgent and credible”.

The evidence is truly overwhelming. I’m sorry that you were taught differently but I beg the Admins of Wikipedia to look at the evidence. It’s irrefutable. 31.94.26.2 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Feoffer. You wrote: I agree with you: it's not "proven" that it was MOGUL. But the article never claims that it's proven!

Currently, the article's first 2 sentences are not neutral as required by WP:NPOV. Those sentences say: Military balloon debris recovered in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico, later became the basis for conspiracy theories alleging that the United States military recovered a crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft. Operated from the nearby Alamogordo Army Air Field and part of the top secret Project Mogul, the balloon program was intended to detect Soviet nuclear tests.

So the original poster is correct in saying that the article is biased. The article's first sentence, or nearby, should say that the military now alleges that the debris recovered in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico is from Project Mogul. Saying it is from Project Mogul in Wikipedia's narrative voice is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

They don't allege that it was a Mogul balloon - they present good evidence that it was. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It does need to be rephrased because the incident was not the balloon - it was the recovery of debris that turned out to be a balloon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Timeshifter, Roswell_incident#cite_note-Mogul-1. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If you'll dig into the talk page archives, you'll find I made a similar suggestion for the lede to directly attribute the identification to the sources, but the suggestion failed to achieve consensus or get any traction and was exceptionally controversial. I'm content with the existing text, as it truly is a fair summary of the multiple cited RSes which are quoted to support the sentence. Feoffer (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There are so many eyewitnesses to the crafts, materials, and bodies

Beyond Top Secret: Eyewitness Accounts to the Roswell Incident. By Warren Gray. April 8, 2022. Ancient Origins.

• www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/roswell-0016619

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Another source:

• https://redshelf.com/app/ecom/book/1662198/roswell-1662198-9781684561810-thomas-j-carey

It is a review of the 2020 book

• Roswell: The Chronological Pictorial. By Thomas J. Carey and Donald R. Schmitt (listed on book cover as one of the authors).

A snip from the review:

What the Generals Said about Roswell: - "It was a cover story, the balloon part of it ... That was the story we were told to give to the public and the news people, and that was it." Brigadier General Thomas J. DuBose, USAF - "The [Roswell] craft was extraterrestrial, and at one time may have been at Wright-Patterson in an off-limits area." Brigadier General Harry N. Cordes, USAF - "I am almost completely convinced that the object that crashed near Roswell was composed of materials not common on earth." Major General Kenner F. Hertford, USA - "The stuff I saw, I've never seen anyplace else in my life … It was the strangest thing I ever saw." General William H. Blanchard, USAF - "They [the Air Force] knew that they had something new in their hands … The metal and material was unknown to anyone I talked to … A couple of guys thought it might be Russian, but the final consensus was that the pieces were from space." [i.e., extraterrestrial] Brigadier General Arthur E. Exon, USAF - "Stealth technology comes from the Roswell crash … I have been informed by higher officers at the Pentagon that there still exists a Top Secret UFO Project … That's where your Roswell file is."

There are many books that have uncovered many witnesses.

There are many witnesses to the memory foil that did not exist in 1947. The foil that could be crumpled and would uncrumple without creases. At room temperature. I linked to many references. Some of the references are already being used in the Wikipedia article. It is currently not mentioned once in the article. See:

• Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 9#37 witnesses to the Roswell shape memory foil

And of course there is Walter Haut's 2002 affidavit discussing 2 crash sites, and how he had seen a craft and the bodies. Some of the references are already being used in the Wikipedia article. It is currently not mentioned once in the article. See:

• Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 9#Possible request for comment on 2002 Walter Haut affidavit

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Not to say the same thing over and over, but if you dig into the archive, you'll see that letting go of covering the Haut affidavit was a hard call, but one we reluctantly made. If we could matrix-style upload article contents into people's heads, I'd want them to know about Haut's affidavit, but articles can only be so long and we can't get into ALL the details of EVERY source. If we mentioned it, then for balance we'd have to mention all the objections to that, its provenance, was it staged/forged,etc etc yada yada. But wikipedia is not censored, readers can learn all about the affidavit over at Haut's bio. Feoffer (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

New witnesses

Watch the Skies, by Curtis Peeples has a good history of flying saucers. On page 271 he says that in the 1980s some 300 witnesses came forward to claim that they had seen or heard something about the discovery. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Added along with appropriate context from Peebles. Feoffer (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Feoffer, there's no closing quotation mark ("), and I'm not sure where it should go. Carguychris (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I added it, where it should go. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)