Talk:Roswell incident

Archives

How about adding this one simple word?

Since some people are (often rightly) concerned about the smallest of edits to this article, given some firm opinions on the subject, I'd like to get suggestions first before adding my edit: In the first section, second paragraph, the text reads:

"In the 1990s, the US military published two reports disclosing the true nature of the crashed object..."

I'd like to add the word "purportedly", so that the text would read:

"In the 1990s, the US militarry published two reports purportedly disclosing the true nature of the crashed object..."

...since, as at least one other editor here has noted, the Air Force's reports don't literally prove their contention that the crash was that of a Mogul balloon (or of just a Mogul balloon), and an objective knowledge of the Roswell incident shows that this is just one of several possibilities, which also includes other potential human causes, which may have been more secret than Mogul (such as advances in Goddard's rocket work that had taken place in Roswell, etc.).

John Sawyer (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not. There is no doubt (in rational sources) what happened, so we simply WP:ASSERT the facts of the matter. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

But there are rational sources who cite other possible human causes. From a purely rational standpoint, it can't be argued that just because the Air Force says the crash was of a Mogul balloon, that there is no doubt that it was.John Sawyer (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The source we cite is an academic book by historian: just the kind of source Wikipedia should be based on. What sources do you have in mind from the little-green men side? Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What's with the sass Alex? JS is arguing rationally and saying the wording should reflect other "potential human causes". I don't see where he is arguing for "little-green men". Danggoshdarn (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That being said I don't like the versions put forth from JS but do think the sentence itself is problematic for a few reasons. I'll take a stab at rewriting for clarity shortly. Danggoshdarn (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Here you go, "In 1994, the US Air Force published the first in a series of two Roswell related reports which identified the likely origin of the crashed object: a nuclear test surveillance balloon from Project Mogul. " Danggoshdarn (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Pure WP:OR that fails WP:V. Our source is not equivocal like that, but says "one of these balloons smashed into the sands of the New Mexico ranch". Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't think our article needs to hedge that the Mogul balloon is "one of several possibilities". We have high quality academic sources that indicate otherwise. And the US Air Force itself is a high quality source, despite popular views that anything to do with the government is suspect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to share the source of that quote? This is the quote from the footnotes of the wikipedia article, The official Air Force report (Weaver & McAndrew 1995) had concluded (p. 9) "[…] the material recovered near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device and most likely from one of the MOGUL balloons that had not been previously recovered." Notice it says "most likely".Danggoshdarn (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is from the article itself, "The first, released in 1994, concluded that the material recovered in 1947 was likely debris from Project Mogul, a military surveillance program employing high-altitude balloons." Notice it says "likely". I don't know how you guys think I'm doing OR when I'm just using sources readily available and already in the article. I think you guys need to assume good faith here. Danggoshdarn (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is Olmsted 2009; the USAF document (which we quote for completeness) is a primary source. We are prohibited from performing analysis of primary documents, but rely on expert reputably-published sources (i.e. Olmsted) instead. If the expert historian says it was a Mogul balloon, so does WP, no matter how much WP editors want their own personal take instead. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What personal take? I'm just trying to match the quotes already in the article. On a related note, would you assume good faith with other editors instead of being such an ass. You must be a very sad and lonely person, I'm sorry. Thanks. Danggoshdarn (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The debris described in the initial accounts is entirely consistent with a Mogul balloon train. I am curious to hear what other alternate interpretations there are to what this debris was. As I have pointed out in the past, the supposedly "super-tough" material still adds up to looking like... a bunch of balloon train debris. This "purportly" suggestion creates doubt on something which is only disputed by the fringe community. Do they expect us to believe that presumably mouse-size aliens travelled the inter-stellar medium in what looked to us like a balloon train (made with super-tough material), but lacking any obvious propulsion mechanism other than the rubber balloons and clumsily crashed in the dessert of New Mexico? Apparently, yes. But common sense and logic was never their forte. Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm bored, but there are two types of people. Type A are people who will appeal to authority and not realize it's a logical fallacy, who will use ad hominems constantly, and do not realize that from the same facts you can construct numerous different conclusions all which are valid logically... instead relying on various fallacies and appeal to majority to claim their viewpoint is the valid one. Type B is the type that isn't so arrogant as to claim their viewpoint is correct and sees merit in all viewpoints, and can decide on its own what to believe. No matter what you may imply, historians argue all the time about the facts we think we know to make inferences about how things came about, after all these so called "facts" are just what was transcribed and read later by future generations. The eternal problem is, and always has been, that capturing the zeitgeist of an era remains difficult, if not impossible. We prune our history so much, even wikipedia puts up airs of "notoriety" ignoring that the very things that shape our history are those so called "unnotable events". It is never the large events that matter, those events are the accumulation of smaller events such that they become inevitable. It is akin to saying that the presidential election is what matters, rather than the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, the change in culture and the people voting for the president they chose, or even in latter times the influences upon the election. The very notion that we simplify an event down to such primitive understandings such as the results and formulate inferences about it post facto, rather than taking record of the events leading up to it in their very detail. Wikipedia has never been a particularly valid source of historical information, and never will. Wikipedia still is run by type A people, who do not understand the relative nature of truth when all you have are "facts" that were written by the victors (it is "His STORY") and inferences that try to link those facts together. Many such people routinely violate WP:NOR because they don't understand what original research means. If I do research and come up with people stating different theories than what Wikipedia says, that is original research. If I find people agreeing with what wikipedia says, that ALSO is original research. Unless the article dictates ALL viewpoints that have been expressed, which it will NEVER because Type A people are part of our zeitgeist, and unfortunately we've become far too ignorant to recognize how little we really know, to recognize just how biased we've become... despite decades of psychological research showing our tendency to form strong conformity to a group or the majority.

My point is simple, the only way not to be violating original research, to make Wikipedia a VALID source of historical information is to present representation for all beliefs. Because, no matter what your belief may be, history is only a collection of beliefs; the facts have long been lost and all that remain is inferences. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because you do not know what inferences your authority figure that you respect made. What is actual fact? What can we say is fact? In terms of history, there is very little that cannot be left to contention, it is mostly oral records and some written records. Where the truth begins and the story ends no one can say for certain. Have fun with this you Type A's! 71.179.138.232 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You are more than right John Sawyer. The air force personnel who drew up the mogul theory are just as far removed from the actual event as everybody else, and what they say is just a proposal, which must be included in the article, but which cannot receive the prominence that it currently enjoys. Your humble "one simple word" request reveals to what extent the detractors have strong-armed and sharp-elbowed this article, imo. And I'm being generous to the air force study's methodology, assuming no bias, no intent, no selective information being available to them, etc. etc. Skepticism works both ways. JMK (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JMK.  I see this debate continues.  I think I was clear in my initial comment that the Roswell crash could have been something human-made other than a Mogul balloon, so I'm not sure how some people turn this into "you're claiming it was little green men, mouse-sized ones at that!" (which is a take on Roswell I've never heard).  There are no little green mouse-sized humans, at least that most people are aware of.

So again: there are other human-caused possibilities for what the crash was.  One of those possibilities is an experimental aircraft, which is not a fringe concept even for 1947.  Certainly the Air Force maintains that the crash was a Mogul balloon, and for all we know it might have been, but reputable researchers have found evidence that it might have been a top secret experimental craft.  Part of the study of UFOs (at least by a few researchers) includes the study of experimental human aircraft.  While it's not the business of Wikipedia editors to engage in speculation, it is the business of Wikipedia editors to not cite as proven fact any statements by interested parties, and to dismiss other evidence.  Though the Air Force is a primary source, statements by primary sources don't have to be proclaimed in Wikipedia articles as the only possible explanation for something. Primary sources can be cited without claiming that their take on a matter serves as proof.  There have been a number of instances in other Wikipedia articles in which a primary source's claims weren't accurate.  Again, I'm not calling for the article to engage in speculation, but that it should point out that there is valid speculation on the matter, and that this doesn't automatically impugn the primary source, secondary sources, historians, etc.

I'm sure some are asking "so cite those reputable researchers", but that's pointless due to the bias by those arguing here that any explanation other than what the Air Force maintains, amounts to suggestions of "little green men".  There's no getting past that kind of bias, and that's not consistent with Wikipedia's goals.

John Sawyer (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We cite an independent historian published in a first-rate scholarly source, asserting it was a balloon. Job done. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no base to your claim that the historian is "independent", at least in the common sense of the word. Even if it was, how would it mean the "job" is "done"? This has nothing to do with the arguments above. Other independent sources have stated otherwise, but your argument was that they didn't matter because the US Air Force is a primary and high quality source. The mentioned historian is not primary.

New material based on alleged Roswell debris (Art Bell)

Hi, during some experimentation I did make a small sample of a material remarkably similar to the Art Bell samples, but with the notable exception that it was based on bulk elements and seemed "crystalline" with a very interesting thermal profile.

I also later refined the technique to make a material with a very sharp resistance change of 10:1 at a narrow temperature variance apprximately 280.23K based on Bi S In Sn Zn It is not clear if this is a superconducting transition but the equipment here suggests so, which would not only be unprecedented but a considerable discovery in its own right. As yet it appears to be complicated to make in bulk but for small samples it is a simple matter of sequential melting via RF and electrical proximity discharge in a strong steady state magnetic field of around 0.05-0.2T from a neodymium magnet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.19 (talk • contribs)

Whatever the point of this contribution is, it is quintessentially original research and thus has no place here. --  Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Very much agree with JackofOz's comments above referring to the unsigned and WP:OR comments. Certainly this "contribution" has no place in Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I had to look up what the OP was referring to. It's utter nonsense. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL?

OK to identify the opinions of ufologists and conspiracy theorists in the lead, but I don't think it should give equal validity to fringe conspiracy theories by a ufologist, especially since the article body contains a majority of WP:RS that clearly identify it as a fringe, and therefore marginalized, viewpoint. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If the article quotes someone, it doesn't yet support that person's argument. The article goes further than quoting, when stating the air force report's conclusion as fact. Reading this article you may think that we are talking about a shredded balloon, while the causes for the continuing controversy are kept altogether out of sight. The mentioned ufologist consulted 60 persons who each had some close connection with the time, place or personalities involved, and he arrived at a scenario which is deemed coherent by many. The basis of the whole controversy lies the claim of deception, and motives for deception (which are partially admitted in the article), concerning important parameters such as date and place. Diverging sets of presented facts are consequently not disputed, but one of these cannot occupy the whole article. The "mid-1947" date at the outset fools nobody, but illustrates how ridiculously wide the net is cast to rake in any possible prosaic explanation. And contrived as such to diverge from the actual date-specific event as early as possible, to arrive at a shredded balloon, Scotch tape, balsa wood sticks, and similar drivel. A neat top-secret nuclear test monitoring device it must have been, held together by flower-patterned Scotch tape. JMK (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What "continuing controversy"? Everybody except UFO cranks agrees this was a balloon. And more to the point, we have RS saying so, which we duly reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing opening paragraph

I'm curious as to who has the authority to change the opening paragraph of this entry. I'm sure there are many people who are 90% sure this was a UFO crash (as I am). Are there any people who were involved in the investigation who are able to change it? JustinJ108 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Anybody can change it. But if the changes are bad, they will be reverted.

I guess by "UFO crash" you mean "alien spacecraft crash". Because you are one of those people who, from "I cannot identify this", wrongly conclude "it must be aliens!" and who therefore use "UFO" and "alien spacecraft" interchangeably. In that case, your edits, if you make them, will very probably be reverted since they will be heavily colored with your misconceptions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

An interesting aside is that the lede identifies the object but the article heading says it is unidentified. The heading should say "Roswell Balloon Incident" or "Roswell Conspiracy Theories".Moriori (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose for many years it was unidentified, so the title could be okay. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses saw a UFO on 7.4.47

I've read that there were eyewitnesses in Roswell who saw a UFO on July 4th, 1947. I don't have the source/link - I should find it. 2601:580:103:7C2C:D1AA:15C1:F18C:38FB (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources for any claim such as this. I very much doubt that this will be forthcoming, as it would have been used many years ago. David J Johnson (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Human guinea pigs

Haha, I agree that it would be ridiculous in WP's voice. It's really her belief though and seemed attributed to her but perhaps not clearly enough... —PaleoNeonate – 09:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)