UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

The Roswell Fixation


The July 1947 “flying disc captured” episode in Roswell, New Mexico continues to absorb UFO mavens.


Kevin Randle, a Roswell investigator of note, has been fixated, for many years, on the so-called Roswell witnesses, especially Jesse Marcel who was the Intelligence Officer for the 509th Bomber Group at the Army/Air Force in Roswell.


Stanton Friedman is a Roswell groupie, and has been since the late 1970s. He believes that extraterrestrials crashed a flying saucer (maybe two flying saucers) in and around Roswell and Corunna, New Mexico.


He continues to flog the Roswell incident.

One interesting Roswell web-site can be found here:

The Roswell Files

And there are dozen, maybe hundreds more Roswell sites and blogs extant in the internet universe.

For UFO aficionados – the quasi-fanatic kind – Roswell is the Holy Grail of the belief in the alien (extraterrestrial) visitation hypothesis of “ufology” – ufos (flying saucers) contain explorers from outer space.

There is a mystery or two stemming from the 1947 incident in Roswell, but it can’t be deciphered by the fixation on contradictory witness testimony, Joseph Capp and other witness-defenders notwithstanding.

Kevin Randle is remiss by persisting in the illusion that the minutiae of Marcel’s testimonies over the years will provide a Roswell denouement.

But he has a batch of blog-followers who have assumed his obsession and debate the trivia of Marcel and a few others, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Roswell is interesting, we grant these people that. But it hasn’t been approached forensically by any ufologist, ever.

The overt details – the obvious “evidentiary” aspects – of Roswell have been mined and talked about for years now.




But those details haven’t been investigated with scientific or even journalistic rigor by anyone in the superficial discipline of ufology.

Dr. Randle – he likes to flaunt his Ph.D – should be an expert on Roswell but he has diminished that expertise by his obtuse fixation on the lies and/or truths of Jesse Marcel and others who’ve obtained Roswellian fame from the writings of Friedman and a few other Roswell quidnuncs.

Yes, something happened at Roswell in July 1947, and that something might be, could be clarified if persons like Nick Redfern, Paul Kimball, and our colleague Anthony Bragalia have their way.


But they have to sweep away the errant detritus that Randle and his ilk continue to strew in their path to the truth.


  • I am soooooooooo bored with Roswell. It was 62 years ago and there's nothing more to be learned. It's just the same old same old being rehashed to death. Move on, people!

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, February 04, 2009  

  • As an interesting legend and an undeniable cultural motif, I find it just fun. It's important to have a sense of humor and joy about such things, if they indeed be joyful to you. If they become some kind of dour, single-minded raison d'etre, devoid of all enjoyment, it's time to hand in the towel. If you're pinning your career on its threadbare, tattered remains... I agree: it's a sucked orange. And as the years pile up, the ability to unequivocally state ANYTHING about what truly happened becomes near-impossible. There are many more recent events that deserve such unmitigated scrutiny. But for me, it's not about solving anything or proving anything, per se. I enjoy the hunt. I realize that a great many mysteries will either be debunked or remain mysteries through some inherent recursive logic, like a paranormal Catch 22. So, I just sit back and enjoy what I can. That's not to say, I don't demand a more rigorous approach to any investigation. It's not all laissez faire, skip and twirl. I want thoughtful analyses and painstaking research.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Thursday, February 05, 2009  

  • For you and me, and a few others, Cullan, the Roswell episode is a fun thing....in a way.

    But for many in the UFO universe, it has become a serious cause celebre, or something more: the total purpose of their lives (Friedman, Randle, Capp, et al.).

    That's not fun or funny. It's rather sad.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 05, 2009  

  • Rich,

    I agree that Stan Friedman's career has pretty much been centered around Roswellism over the past couple of decades; Kevin is a different story, however. Sure, he still natters on about Roswell at his blog, and from time to time elsewhere, but it hasn't consumed him. He wrote a useful book about the 1952 Washington flap, and a solid analysis of the Mantell case, as just two examples. As Jerry Clark pointed out at Kevin's blog, there is nothing wrong with that kind of historical research. However, with Roswell, unless some new information pops up, it does seem like a bunch of old men in the park somewhere arguing about who was a better ball-player, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. Not much use to determining what UFOs might be, but still fun to watch, as a study of human behaviour and modern myth-making.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, February 05, 2009  

  • Yah, Paul,

    You have made your point at Randle's blog, and I (along with others) agree with your view(s).

    Randle is trying to slog through the mess that Roswell is, so we feel that's a good thing, but his and some of the commentators' concentration on the bits and pieces of truth or lies that have popped up over the years keep the story enmeshed in irrelevancy.

    There is, as you and Redfern note, something interesting in the Roswell incident(s). But no one can get at it because of the cloud of crap that keeps being debated, over and over again.

    I think I can say that Tony Bragalia is on to something, something significant actually, and should be making it public when the book Witness II is released later this year.

    This might bring the Roswell story back into focus, and dynamically so.

    Meanwhile, we are subject to the same old, same old debates, which Jerry Clark eschewed at Randles' blog a few postings back but now seems to have forgotten -- just to taunt you I think.

    And this -- you have history credentials. Clark doesn't, in the formal, educational sense, unless I missed something along the way.

    We'll see if Roswell is to be rightfully resurrected by Bragalia's research or if we'll continue to be harassed by the Roswell crowd still consumed by the idea that a flying saucer crew ended up in the desert and the Army covered it up nicely.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 05, 2009  

  • What is this - another Roswell book coming? Tony Bragalia's writings so far indicate a decided pro-ET take on the case. A new book you say? I hope it is not billed as another that will blow the lid off the case. That lid has been blown so far that it has probably arrived at Zeta Reticuli by now. To be fair, I suppose I ought to wait and see.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, February 07, 2009  

  • Christopher:

    From what I've seen so far, from Tony Bragalia -- and I'm a Roswell skeptic (sort of) -- is truly intriguing.

    Tony's research has provided unique clues that should warm the cockles of Stan Friedman's heart, as well as Randles. and other ET proponents.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 07, 2009  

  • To Paul Kimball.....

    Mickey Mantle.

    By Blogger UFO Pilgrim, at Tuesday, February 10, 2009  

  • Hi,
    You might enjoy this as your post as well as Paul's inspired it.

    Why Ufology Matters: Technological and Pixels of Perception.


    Best Wishes

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, February 10, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home