Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 2

|- | | This is a candidate for the Wikipedia: Article Improvement Drive.
Please see this page's entry to support or comment on the nomination. |}

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

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.--198.93.113.49 13:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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., http://www.thecosmicfrontier.com/Cosmic/Sara%20Article117.htm .

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)

source?

"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)

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)

reverted

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

NPOV

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

List

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."

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

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)

discussion

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

discussion

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

RfC

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)

Note

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)

Witnesses

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)

Revert

I reverted the edits by 212.219.149.121 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?