The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Sunday, September 12, 2010

THE WITNESSES TO ROSWELL: TESTIMONY AND TRUTH by Anthony Bragalia

Copyright 2010, InterAmerica, Inc.

witness12.jpg

Skeptics who consider the crash of an ET craft at Roswell often maintain that it is not credible because it is based on testimony. These scoffers believe that those who say that they saw ET or its debris are either intentionally or unintentionally not telling the truth. They further maintain that such testaments are not sufficient to believe that ET crashed to Earth.

Those with such doubting attitudes are wrong. They feel compelled to "shoot holes" in all such testimony. This is because if even one witness to Roswell is telling the truth, the critics must then acknowledge the fact that we are not alone - and that this fact has been kept from them.

Testimony often leads to truth. Its value in finding the answers to our questions about Roswell is unquestionable. Such testimony has been given without gain. It has been offered by those who are lucid and credible. It is told by those who would be in a position "to know" what had happened. The accounts include details which are internally consistent. What is said is often corroborated by many others. Such testimony has been combined with other evidence such as circumstantial evidence, elevating its value. We cannot ignore this testimony, we must evaluate it.

As contributor to sections of the revised edition of Witness to Roswell (2009) by Tom Carey and Don Schmitt, I am especially aware of the value of witnesses and of testimony. In fact the national firm that I lead in my professional life engages in conducting in-depth interviews, evaluations and verification. I have applied these skills in the personal interview of countless Roswell witnesses. "Testimony" is something of which I am very familiar.

WHY TESTIMONY FOR NOW SUFFICES

court12.jpg

Those critics of the crash who insist that without a bona fide piece of the Roswell debris - or a tissue sample of an alien corpse - reports of an ET Roswell crash are shams. But these cynics reveal their ignorance. Such physical evidence will never be officially forthcoming in our lifetimes. To demand such evidence is on the very face of it ridiculous. Though private individuals may perhaps have retained such evidence- we will never see an ET body on a gurney wheeled out into a White House Press Conference. The other types of evidence that then remain available to us are qualified testimony, circumstantial evidence and the paper trails of any relevant documents.

In any courtroom in the nation, under United States law, such evidence -even absent physical evidence- is often enough to convict and execute someone for a capital offense! Skeptics repeatedly gloss over this fact. And they should bear in mind too that historians often deem as truthful the communications of those who have come before us, even when absent physical evidence. Historians often confirm history without physical proofs.

TESTIMONY AND THE LAW

law12.jpg

A "credible witness" in a court of law is defined as someone who is "competent to give testimony, is worthy of belief and who is not speaking from hearsay." Many Roswell witnesses would be considered "credible" under this very definition of law. Some of these witnesses have even appeared in video or audio recorded deposition and have signed and dated notarized affidavits. Some testimony is so valued by the US Government that the witnesses who give such testimony are even placed in official "Witness Protection" programs!

TESTIMONY AND BEHAVIOR

alcoholic.jpg

As a US Governor in the 1800s once said, "A trembling in the bones carries more convincing testimony than dry utterance." In other words, if such disturbing or troubling testimony is accompanied by corroborating behavior (i.e. drinking, leaving, keeping the secret until you are old) then what is said becomes very convincing. And just such testimony and subsequent behavior came from many who left Roswell, or became alcoholic (see "The Roswell Alcoholics" archived on this site) or who waited until they were aged or dying to say anything about the event.

WHY ROSWELL TESTIMONY IS DEFINITIVE: IT WAS ALIEN

ai.jpg

In a criminal investigation, errors in observation often come into play. There is always the possibility for instance, of misidentifying a perpetrator in a police line-up of potential burglars. Mistakes can be honestly made relative to body size or height, eye and hair color and other such identifiers. But Roswell witnesses to alien bodies or debris are fundamentally different than witnesses to a crime. With these Roswell witnesses, there is no such possibility of "incorrect identification."

This is simply because witnesses to ET corpses either saw them or they did not. Similarly, either witnesses held debris (or saw a craft) that could not be made by man- or they did not. There is no "in-between" or margin for error. A human being knows if they are viewing something that is non-human. They would most certainly be certain if they held something in their own hands which represented a material so unique that it could not be of man or that came from that time.

If they indicate that they did witness such thing, they are either telling the truth or they are lying. There are no two ways about it. They either viewed small, hairless, earless creatures with large heads and eyes that were plainly not from this world- or they did not. They either held what was described as bizarre "memory metal" (something that did not even exist at that time) or they did not. Unlike witnessing a crime scene and its “perps,” viewing ET bodies or debris leaves no room for doubt or error. If the reports are true, the witnesses saw ET, period.

Critics are too cowardly to call such people out-and-out "liars." Instead, they resort to convoluted terms -and even psychiatric conditions- to describe these witnesses. Their testimony, they say, is "contaminated" by other stories that have been told; they are susceptible to suggestion; they give the answers that are desired by researchers; or that they suffer from faulty memories, a "syndrome" of some type- or even that they have the "liar's disease" called crypto-amnesia.

Another favored tool in the skeptics arsenal is to belittle the elderly as too old to remember clearly. Such talk is insulting and demeaning to everyone. We will all get old, including said skeptics. And we all hope that when we do, that we will be believed and trusted in what we say. These critics also have a penchant to question motive- though the only "motive" is most always to simply relate what they know about the event and nothing more.

The reason that the critics say these things is that they are unsure or unwilling to call out these witnesses as complete, no-good liars. They feel that they must couch what they say about these witnesses in the language of pseudo-psychology. And of course the larger reason is that if the cynics were to agree that such a witness is truthful in what they say about Roswell - they then must acknowledge the event as ET.

DISCERNING THE ROSWELL SPIRITS: WHICH WITNESSES ARE TELLING THE TRUTH?

spirit.jpg

The very nature of Roswell itself invites fraud. There is perhaps no other subject that holds fascination for so many as the possibility that ET has crashed to Earth. It then makes complete sense that this would always be a subject that would be ripe for scammers. It would invite liars. There would invariably be those who would bear false witness. There would of course be those that would want to insert themselves into history. But this is true of all human pursuits. There are such types in all walks of life, especially in areas that touch upon such "hot button" issues.

But by "discerning the spirits" as Ecclesiastes instructs, we can establish who is telling the truth -and who is not- when it comes to Roswell. And we have already done so. Rather than disparage researchers who have found and then later disposed of witnesses, these researchers deserve our respect. UFO researchers who are genuine in their pursuit have vetted out such frauds as Gerald Anderson, Frank Kauffman, Jim Ragsdale and Phil Corso.

What remains though is a very large core of credible Roswell witnesses who:

- were sought out rather than who had come forward
- divulged information sometimes only reluctantly
- received no recompense or reward
- were verifiably there at the time
- were of clear minds but waited until old age or their deathbed to tell
- told stories that were internally consistent
- related accounts that were corroborated by others (and often in fine detail)
- made statements that were supported by circumstantial evidence and documents

Such things help guide us in determining the veracity of witnesses and their Roswell accounts. It is only when we apply such discernment that we arrive at the answers. And it is then that we realize that the Witnesses to Roswell have offered us the Testimony of Truth.

63 Comments:

  • The psychological aspect of UFOs is one of the most interesting things about it. Where'd you ever come up with the idea for this article? ;O)

    :O)

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Sunday, September 12, 2010  

  • AJB:
    It would take a lot of space to refute all or even some your points, so I shall not try here. You can address some of the points I raised in my comments on the previous "Roswell Mess" article.

    If some Roswell witnesses have, as you admit, been shown to be fraudulent, why is it that you are so confident the rest are necessarily truthful? How do you know that all the frauds have been unearthed and that the rest are OK?

    Also, what is the basis for your insistence that no actual hardware or bodies will ever officially be produced? How is an exciting new discovery in science to be verified and displayed to the world if the very hard evidence is forever to be shrouded in secrecy?

    This sounds very like an excuse for the lack of such evidence. The real evidence is not there, so instead of admitting the evidence is non-existent, and therefore the event was not ET, you cover yourself by saying it exists but cannot and will not ever be produced! An amazing 'get out clause' is how I would put it. The idea of 'death bed' confessions is likewise anathema to any scientific or rational analysis of the case. Someone makes an important discovery in science. Are you saying that the fact that he keeps it secret until approaching his death makes his story more credible than if he had revealed it at the time?

    I say that yes we do need the physical evidence, and if it existed it would indeed have turned up long long ago.

    Am I afraid to label anyone a liar? You quoted the case of Inez Wilcox and her story of the life of a sheriff's wife in the south-west in the late 1940s. All very ineteresting I am sure. She then inserts the bit about the crashed UFO, saying a man brought a (whole) flying saucer into the office then some military guy soon came in and took it away again. This clearly means what it says. She could truthfully (perhaps) have said that someone brought in a few bits and pieces of an unknown object, but she did not. Her story is just plain FALSE. It is false because no such story appears in the local press and no such tale has ever been told by ANY OTHER WITNESS. It is not corroborated. There is no consistency. It is a nonsensical story. I say without hesitation that Inez Wilcox has either grossly exaggerated what happened, imagined it or invented it entirely.

    Have I made myself clear? And if that aspect of her story is false, what does it say about the rest of her Roswell story? Should we trust it or not?

    If you are so positive about your 'Roswell is ET' conclusions, why not put them all together in a book? You will then be adding to the plethora of such literature. Maybe scientists will finally wake up and take note. Maybe.

    And I am still curious as to how these witnesses that you trust so much know what an ET looks like.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • CDA -

    Why am I so certain that the government will not openly acknowledge they have ET? Well, for starters, they have not done so for over six decades!

    To officially reveal ET would:

    - Shake to the very foundations all human institution, including religion and our prior understandings of history and the sciences

    - It would create hatred and distrust of our government in the extreme

    - The global dynamic would shift against the US for possessing such things -
    and other nations may feel it conflicts with their national security and interests

    - The inability of millions to psychologically "handle" ET reality is probably the driving factor. Many would become horrified at the sight and fearful of the implications - not knowing the alien's intentions. It could incite militia, survivalists and extremists to extreme actions.

    It would take a whole article to explain why there is no official ET acknowledgement...

    To your question about how such witnesses could be sure it is ET:

    Take a look at the depiction of ET in the article. Though of course it is only a fictional recreation, examine closely the enlarged cranium, lack of ears, slit-like mouth. See its bald foetus-like head and outsized eyes placed strangely. It is clearly not a monkey nor a Jap dropped from a gondola as in "Body Snatchers in the Desert." Though humanoid, it is clearly and without doubt not human.

    To Gilles -

    Are you insinuating that a forensic analysis of the ink of Inez' document should be done?

    Though not a bad idea, it would not matter. CDA has already questioned its very content. No matter what specific date is determined (though we can say with some certainty it was from or pre-dated the early 1970s as her family states) people like CDA will remain cynical.

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • AJB:
    Oh dear oh dear!

    So the US government can never reveal the truth. Of course not. They are quite happy for another crash, or several other crashes, to suddenly occur in, say, China, and for the Chinese to reveal it all to the world saying "Look: we are the first to have ETs land on our soil, here is the proof..."

    Then I suppose the poor old US would have to issue a special release telling the world that "No, we were the first really; it all happened in NM 63 years ago but we never told the world about it. Sorry".

    Come to think of it, didn't the UK beat the US to it with Rendlesham & Berwyn Mountain anyway? (Both proven ET crashes!)

    Is that the scenario you are painting? Or are you positive that only one such crash (i.e Roswell) has occurred and ever will occur?

    I put it to you that your thesis collapses like a pack of cards.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • "Are you insinuating that a forensic analysis of the ink of Inez' document should be done?

    Though not a bad idea, it would not matter."

    I agree with Anthony. Determining that the paper, ink, character-set together were commonly available between, say, 1956 and 1970, would only result in another subject for another decade or two of arguments about it on forums. It is also stuff taught in Forgery 101.

    What has to be established is provenance. In this instance I think we would have to know the library's acquisition and archiving process. There is no standard method and each library system's process will meet their scope and requirements, but the purpose is the same. There are also acquisitions that do not occur within the system's normal process, and sometimes acquisitions sit in boxes for years, undocumented. But normally, in the process a note on the donation's provenance is created.

    In this case a documented acquisition is stronger than forensic analysis, which should be done as well, just to dot the i's and cross the t's.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • Greetings,

    I like Anthony's rethoric concerning the letter... I take it as a "ufologist private joke".

    More seriously, I have only pointed in a previous reply, that a testimony is not a "time measure instrument" in academic aera(es) to date hard material.

    Excepting in ufology? Ha, well, I ignored the Gospels ufo-epistemological principles, very sorry:(

    "My" demand is ad hominem? I play the bad guy ?

    Anyway, in the current moment, this letter is not at ACADEMIC disposal. For a rare time, it is claimed an "hardware" in Roswell myth. Why not.

    What are you doing with? Its hardware is not extraterestrial! A simple sheet of paper is claimed...

    Dont panic, Sir, to reveal a simple letter and to make it available to academic aeraes will not destroy the fondations of the mankind! How eschatologic you are, seriously.

    My question is then very simple:

    Why this letter is not at disposal (currently) to academic area(es)?

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • "Critics are too cowardly to call such people out-and-out "liars.""


    Then, your experiences are far gentler than mine in debates. Heck, I was called a liar by a skeptic for claiming not to be a Roswell ET advocate.

    Some skeptics sit a very high horse. Some so high they can't dismount.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • "Critics are too cowardly to call such people out-and-out "liars."

    Greetings Anthony,

    Tsss... Again and again the same.

    It have been already pointed in several interventions here (or in Kevin's Blog previously) that what is presented about cognitive psychology or false memory experimental researches, point how UNCONSCIOUS or PRE-CONSCIOUS are the processes presented.
    When you will understand this point?

    In last article here, a quote:

    "They tend to incorporate, consciously or semi-consciously, elements from those related materials, forming a new “reality.”

    Yeah Sir, it is how memory works...
    So stop the "out-and-out liars" monologue. It is off the matter imho.

    ***

    Anyway, if "the letter" can be available to ACADEMIC aeraes, and not only to the self-proclamed ufology aera...

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • Not all psychologies accept the idea of an unconscious. Some even consider the idea a delusion or pseudoscience. They can do without it, at the very least.

    I see no reason to accept such a notion as if it were a proven fact anymore than I do the notion that an ET craft crashed at Roswell.

    Maybe it is the analytical/continental divide, but not all of us Anglos accept the concept.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • My gosh, Don,

    Not all psychologies accept the idea of the unconscious?

    I'm stunned, and don't know where to go with that heterodox idea.

    The "concept" is as real as the idea of quarks in quantum mechanics, and has been experimentally verified time and time again.

    I'm just stunned...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • RR "I'm just stunned..."


    Begin here, and try not to hurt yourself.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind#Controversy



    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • Hmmmm..

    Don, it appears that the consensus from your link seems to lie with the unconscious.

    How anyone could come away from the Wikipedia article thinking that the unsconscious is anathema to psychologies general, as you put it, strikes me as a misreading of great proportion.

    But "chacun son gout."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • I wrote: "Not all psychologies accept the idea of an unconscious."

    RR replied: "How anyone could come away from the Wikipedia article thinking that the unsconscious is anathema to psychologies general..."

    Setting that aside, it may surprise you to learn that (in the US, at least) academic psychology was behavioral prior to the shift to cognitive. Next time the academic long knives are drawn some other model will replace the cognitive one, likely in your lifetime (if you are now too young to have witnessed the previous shift) They're models, is all. Some models are in fashion and some are not. There is no concrete object that is the "unconscious". It can be said to exist in the referential realm, which is to say 'language'.

    "It's just a doll, Ripley".


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • Don,

    I'm gonna be stubborn and adhere to my belief in the unconscious, while accepting that others -- a few -- are not so inclined.

    But you should know that I have a great affection for B.F. Skinner, and did a thesis on Walden Two.

    Thanks for the mini-comeuppance, and let's move forward to deal with Anthony Bragalia's thesis here.

    My views appear in a new post above and at the RRRGroup blog.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • RR: "...let's move forward to deal with Anthony Bragalia's thesis here."


    Anthony wrote he has interviewed "Countless Roswell witnesses". I have never even met one. All I have are texts. Interviewers may offer an insight into the person not evident in the short texts we have, especially the "signed affidavits". What I think of such insights depends a lot on my opinion of the interviewer.

    In the past, the evidentiary 'police procedural' style was common. Not much of the person sifts through that filter. So, I have no problems with Anthony presenting the humanity of the person interviewed as he knew them.

    "I'm gonna be stubborn and adhere to my belief in the unconscious, while accepting that others -- a few -- are not so inclined."

    Since we all agree that memory is a curious and iffy thing, yet real and true recollection exists, then simply listing all the ills memory is heir to is not proof in any specific case. I don't see any specific cases being presented, either.

    What the memory trap sounds like to me is a demand for scientific (falsifiable) proof demonstrated by "witnesses" memories. This proof they want submitted to practioners of a discipline that is based on unfalsifiable (unscientific) concepts -- the very definition of pseudoscience. And if that is the case, as it sounds like to me, then the result will be exactly what they want it to be, because that's the service that pseudoscience provides its adherents.



    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • Thanks, Donm,

    But I won't be joining you in a discussion where psychology (dealing with the unconscious) is premised as a pseudo-science.

    That's a bait I choose to ignore.

    However, if others wish to engage in a discussion or debate, that would be fun -- silly, but fun.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • "But I won't be joining you in a discussion where psychology (dealing with the unconscious) is premised as a pseudo-science."

    If anyone would like to present here falsifiable proof of the existence of the unconscious, I'd be pleased to read it.

    In the same way that UFO sightings describe phenomena in terms of the technology the sighters know, concepts such as the unconscious also change. Psychology seems particularly capable of presenting its concepts in terms of the regnant metaphors and analogies of the age. These days the unconscious is back. But then, times change.


    I do agree with Gilles that Roswell ET advocates need to make a case and present it for review. I think, if such a project could be funded, it would take years to accomplish, require the cooperation of 'ufologists' who may not want to participate. Writing the scope and requirements, gathering the documents together, creating an archiving procedure, copying them, creating the metadata of provenance, creating the database, reviewing the documents, creating the metadata of the content of each one. Interviewing the interviewers about their interviews, adding that data in.

    Then reading and analysis, document triage, writing the first draft, submission to internal review and discussion, etc, and repeat as necessary.

    I don't think psychology is in a major skillset required for the project, although I would want several involved in the internal reviews.

    Where to submit the work for external review? Damned if I know. Maybe the panel should include the best fiction authors alive at the time -- not because Roswell is fiction, but because I think the quality of the narratives has to be examined. I have other suggestions at least as peculiar, but nothing so mundane as rocket scientists and clinical psychologists.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • (just a little parenthesis)

    Don,

    It is not the same meaning between "Unconscious" for psychanalytic fields (Freud, Jung...) and in cognitive psychology.

    I'm not psychanalysist for my part, but cognitive psychologist (in spatial cognition and psychometry).

    When "I" speack about uncounscious-conscious processes here, for my part, I refer to the non-attentionnal/attentionnal mecanisms how we memorize the world, absolutly not related to psychanalysis field, meanings and views regarding conscious/unconscious.

    "I" refer about the cognitive representation of the world and information processings. It is evokated at the end of your wiki article BTW:

    "in the cognitive tradition, the processes that are not mediated by conscious awareness are sometimes referred to as "nonconscious"."

    In short words, cognitive psychology is devoted on how humans process informations. Some cognitive processings, in perception, in acquisition, etc. and then in fine concerning memory and representations of the world (cognition), things are processed non-attentionaly and we "engram" things non-attentionaly, implicitly, and sometimes we make for us representions we have not really experienced, but taken as our owns.

    In essence, "unconscious" have different meanings regarding the different fields in psychology. For my part, when I use unconscious-conscious processes, I mean the ones which are non-attentionnal versus attentionnal ones.

    And as pointed before, when human is victim of non-attentionnal processes, or different cognitive biases, in general, it have nothing to see here with the attentionnal desire to lie.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • "Are you insinuating that a forensic analysis of the ink of Inez' document should be done?
    Though not a bad idea, it would not matter."

    Nonono! I think it is a platinium material for skeptics, after reflexion.

    So, it could be interresting to determine precisaly the date of the writting. Why?

    Absolutly NOT because it will proove this is a platinium document for ET-proponents. I hope in fact it is a letter prior-1978, because it deserves the myth after reflexions...

    As CDA pointed, the content of the letter is innacurated. But MORE, it is "against" the myth. It is like the 3 chapters in different books which exists about Roswell prior-1978. Anecdotic, cause it is normal due to newspapers, some have mentionned Roswell prior 1978.

    The letter reflects what people means about Flying saucers after 1947. Or the Roswell non-event at it is realy: a non event where Inez herself have not mentionned what will added after 1978 regarding Roswell non event by mythmakers!

    There is no one mention of memory shape metal, extraordinary properties of materials, alien bodies, military pression against civilians, craft crash, or dunno what which have been implemented after 1978. Thus, as CDA pointed previously, the content is inaccurated.

    It will force Roswell mythmakers to revise their own chronology and "facts"!

    In essence, yes, I'm interrested to see evidence as usual, and very interrested to date this letter cause, in fact, it deserves Roswell myth and show how it have been constructed after 1978, including extraordinary materials, bodies, crash etc...

    Strangely, the sensationnal and all of teh sensationnal is NOT mentionned in her letter. It is why it would be interresting to proove this letter which... deserve the ET proponent Roswell mythmakers in its content.

    This letter is platinium, but for skeptics imho.

    Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • There comes a point where witnesses (to Roswell or anything else) are interviewed too often. We then get confusion, confabulation and contradiction. Extras creep into the testimony that were not there before. Outside influences creep in and confuse the narrator. Timescales get mixed up, events combined. But we all know this, so I am saying nothing new.

    Tony Bragalia tends to ignore such things and sticks overmuch to witness testimony per se. This in itself can be overdone and twisted to suit his own perspective.

    Take the case of Inez Wilcox's notes on the life of a sheriff's wife. She brings in the crashed saucer. We do not know when the bulk of it was written, and whether she added the 'saucer' bits much later. If she wrote it all in, say, the 1950s, where are the bits about all the death threats to the Wilcox family that were allegedly made by the USAF in 1947 and caused such trauma in the family? No mention whatever. So Tony then tells us that obviously Inez left vital bits out and never wrote down the whole crashed saucer story. That is Tony's way out of a dilemma. He insists the threats were made (because family members told him or other researchers second-hand many decades afterwards). Yet in her early notes Inez makes no mention of them. Very strange.

    In order to provide a proper history, perhaps we can see the full unedited historical document she wrote. What about it, Tony?

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • "For my part, when I use unconscious-conscious processes, I mean the ones which are non-attentionnal versus attentionnal ones."

    Setting aside how one can falsifialbly prove the existence
    of 'unconscious' processes...



    To even situate the text in its context, wouldn't the psychologist have to have knowledge of the Roswell story? And wouldn't that knowledge have to have some depth to it? And wouldn't that mean their reading is already "contaminated"? Wouldn't they already have formed an opinion (unconsciously)?

    Why should anyone submit a text to a clinical psychologist of *any* persuasion?

    I'd prefer linguists or philosophers of language. I think John Searle is still alive. He'd be a good choice for a panel of experts, and if they were still with us, Paul Grice and perhaps Jacques Derrida.

    I'd want someone as well who has studied how we write, hear and read, as well as
    how we speak. As well, an ethnographer or ethnologist who might be able to recognize the idioms, the patois, of that part of the world then.

    We need to understand what they meant by their statements. I do not think the discipline you recommend has a methodolgy or process for determining meaning. Linguists do.

    For my personal illumination, I would like the July 8, 1947 Daily Record submitted to a panel of newspaper editors. I have some burning questions to ask them.


    "In order to provide a proper history, perhaps we can see the full unedited historical document she wrote. What about it, Tony?"

    Hasn't Anthony addressed that? Do what he did.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • "There comes a point where witnesses (to Roswell or anything else) are interviewed too often. We then get confusion, confabulation and contradiction. Extras creep into the testimony that were not there before. Outside influences creep in and confuse the narrator. Timescales get mixed up, events combined. But we all know this, so I am saying nothing new."

    Present a case, then. Write a paper on a witness and demonstrate how those things occur in his or her 'testimony'.

    We all agree memory is iffy. Now analyse a specific "witness'" story, proving the vectors of "contamination" you believe are there.

    I think it is important for skeptics to offer evidence rather than just pointing to the iffiness of memory as if that proved anything in specific instances.

    Of course, if you are convinced that no ET event could have occurred (and not that it didn't occur) in Roswell, then you are already predisposed to your conclusion, then don't bother. No matter the scientific credentials of the method you employ, your employment would be pseudoscientific.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • "Setting aside how one can falsifialbly prove the existence of 'unconscious' processes..."

    I think, Don, you must adress a paper to all academic aeraes which teach psychology or human sciences. Cause you are fightind against the consensus. And maybe you are a Galileo, Pasteur or Copernic which inore him? Who knows?

    Cause prooving there exists not non-attentional, nonconscious processes in human cognition will be a revolution in cognitive psychology!

    RRR wrotes:

    "That's a bait I choose to ignore."

    I think I will join you on it.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • Oui, Gilles,

    I think Don by accenting his pseudo-science mantra is just looking for debate.

    He makes good points -- yes, Don, you do -- but the area he wishes to go into is far afield of what is essentially being discussed here and that is the iffyness of memory or recollection(s) as they relate to Roswell.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • (Maybe double reply, sorry of this)

    Don wrote:
    "Present a case, then. Write a paper on a witness and demonstrate how those things occur in his or her 'testimony'."

    Carey and Schmitt, serious investigators:

    "Joyce told Randle and Schmitt that Brazel had related "everything" on the telephone, but, as in the Moore interview, then refused to say more or answer specific questions about what it was that Brazel had found. Now he added that when Brazel visited the radio station several days later, there were several military men waiting outside in the lobby. And in this retelling, Joyce added a new and extremely provocative detail. "As he was leaving, Brazel turned and said, 'You know How THEY TALK ABOUT ABOUT LITTLE GREEN MEN? Well, they weren't green."

    Little green man stereotype was not in talks in 1947.

    How, you Don, explains this mention?

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • "Little green man stereotype was not in talks in 1947.

    How, you Don, explains this mention?"

    That's not accurate at all, the expression goes back at least to the earliest part of the 20th Century. Gilles, you're just guessing with your critiques here. If you want to debate seriously, you should bring facts.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • Gilles:

    "Little green man stereotype was not in talks in 1947.

    How, you Don, explains this mention?"

    I'd begin by reading the Wikipedia article on Little Green Men, and if it became an important issue, research the citations.


    "In 1923, a serialized romance, "When Hearts Command" by Elizabeth York Miller, which appeared in newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post, has a former mental patient who still sees "little green men" and who simultaneously comments that a fellow patient "conversed with the inhabitants of Mars."

    There's lots more.

    As for trolling "pseudoscience" past the readers, I am not. Or is it a term that only skeptics can use without controversy from the moderator? Does memory falsification only occur to ET advocates and their "witnesses" and not to ET skeptics?

    That's a pretty damn high horse to sit.

    I'm not "looking for debate", I'm looking for the application of the psychology of memory to written texts. No one has provided one, and after days of asking, I will now stop. Obviously there is no badger down that hole that anyone here knows of or is willing to do themselves.

    Frank Joyce is an underrated "witness", imo, and I think there may be a trace in 1947 that suggests that he talked to Brazel or perhaps another rancher about the incident prior to the RAAF press release. I'm not convinced of it, and need to continue research on it.

    To Anthony: I recall reading a skeptic's comment that Joyce had been "committed to a mental instituion" sometime after 1947. You may want to check it out and if true, it may fit into your collection of lives damaged by the incident.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • Frank,

    Nonono, you get it wrong, totaly, my friend.

    Even if "friends" we are, what you writted as argument here is totaly fallacious and biased. Sorry.

    You are regarding and adressing the few mentions about "green man" existing, BEFORE the modern application as stereotype for aliens (in VEHICULAR langage).

    You are using the origins of the term to claim it was a "VEHICULAR" language term" in 1947 for Franck Joyce.

    Huuuu ?!

    It wasn't Sir.

    "Little Green man" was a VERNACULAR language lexicon or item in 1947.

    In 1947, the VEHICULAR langage have NOT implemented the "little green man" VERNACULAR item.


    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • @ Don,

    I discover your last reply. Well,

    Dont mixt vehicular and vernacular use of a term (little green man), if you are asking to liguists...

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • The 'little green men' phrase is a false memory recalled by Frank Joyce decades later, nothing else.

    Had such a phrase really been used by Brazel in 1947 it would imply humanoid bodies had been seen at that time. In which case the newspapers would have been full of it for days thereafter, and both would have talked profusely about it at the time.

    Joyce either invented or imagined this conversation with Brazel.

    Case closed.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • Ah, those damnable, false memories.

    They've surely caused a lot of trouble for UFO researchers, pro-ET and otherwise.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • Gilles wrote:

    "Dont mixt vehicular and vernacular use of a term (little green man)"

    I replied to your comment:

    "Little green man stereotype was not in talks in 1947."

    So, now you want evidence that Little Green Men was in use to refer to occupants of an alien vehicle. If I were to produce that evidence would you then insist that the vehicle must be a crashed one?

    Little Green Men (or Man) is used consistently to refer to non-human, including imaginary, beings for decades, if not centuries, before 1947. And that is the only known way it was ever used, then logic indicates that it would begin to be used to refer to space aliens in flying saucers in that time frame. And maybe this is a 'de novo' instance of that.

    How about you? When did the term come to refer to space aliens? Just how commonplace was it? Were any other kinds of beings referred to as little green men, thereafter, or only space aliens? Do you know?

    And there is no mention in the quotation you offer of any vehicle or aliens, so you are not presenting a case. You have not brought together all of Joyce's statements, and want me to accept the authority of the book's authors for what was said. I don't do that sort of thing.

    I'd like to know where it came from, too -- well, "too", if you are actually interested. Assuming the report is accurate, Brazel might be throwing back a term used by Joyce. So, maybe Brazel heard it from Joyce. If so, where did Joyce get it and why did he apply it to what he said Brazel said? Joyce was a generation younger than Brazel, better educated, and on a career path where literacy and a wide-ranging knowledge is important. Circumstantially, it is much more likely that Joyce said it and Brazel referenced Joyce's usage.

    The argument cannot be proven that Joyce grandfathered in the term from sometime afterwards, although it is certainly possible. It is just as possible, though, that he used it to refer to non-human beings, including imaginary ones, and Joyce did state that he didn't believe Brazel's story.

    If Joyce did introject a catch-phrase that Brazel simply could not have used, that only proves Brazel did not say that. Nothing else.

    My opinion is there is no where to go with it evidence-wise. I keep it in mind, though, in case something is learned that can determine the facts.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • This on-going debate about what did (or did not) happen at Roswell is becoming a huge waste of time. Yes, we use the testimony of eyewitnesses in criminal trials and innocent people have been convicted based on mistaken testimony.
    And it's not because people intentionally tell lies (not always) often they are quite HONESTLY mistaken.
    Let me give you an example of what I mean that we can all relate to. I am talking about the mysterious "Thunderbird Photo" that everyone seems to remember seeing but that no one can find today (although photoshopped versions have appeared on the web the REAL photo has not been found).
    Nor can reproductions of the photo be found in ANY of the publications---from the Tombstone Epitaph to Fate Magazine that people "remember" having seen it in. You can read all about this at http://www.prairieghosts.com/tbirdaz.html

    The truth is that with time memories become unreliable and ny the time these witnesses from Roswell were being interviewed enough time had passed for any ACTUAL memories of what happened to get mixed up with dreams, speculations, movies people had seen and/or stories they may have read. So, while they are telling what they honestly BELIEVE to be the truth---it may not BE the truth of what happened there.

    Or it might be that literal truth---but there is reasonable cause for doubt and reasonable cause for caution in drawing conclusions ONLY from eyewitness testimony.

    That's fair, surely?

    By OpenID shadowcass, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • "Even if "friends" we are, what you writted as argument here is totaly fallacious and biased. Sorry."

    With all due respect Gilles, sometimes I see some modernist bias in your responses. ;O) The Western US of the 1940s was different than today, but they had a mass media then and a pop culture too. It was not the Wild West of the cowboy and Indian days where news traveled by smoke signal and Pony Express any more. The LGM expression was already in popular and common use and had been for years.

    http://caubeck.tripod.com/littlegreenmen/id1.html

    http://ufopop.org/

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • "They either viewed small, hairless, earless creatures with large heads and eyes that were plainly not from this world- or they did not."

    Anthony,

    I thought the descriptions of the size of the eyes varied and at least one was they were "small". I'm sorry I can't offer cites to the witnesses. My study doesn't include the dead alien stories, but I come across them while searching. So, correct me if I've got this wrong.

    Other descriptions are that their eyes were widely spaced and "odd". I wonder about that, if the oddness is due to having an eye-index and other ratios and symmetries obviously different from the range of human features.

    If their size of their eyes were described differently by various witnesses, it might be possible from their stories to determine the angle of view they had and the angle and intensity of the light on the bodies. If the data exists, some discrepancies in description might be resolved.

    Just a thought while re-reading your article.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • LGM is a ideal example of Richard Dawkin's "meme", or more precisely, the expression of a meme (see The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype. He discusses it in both).

    He wrote that the meme can exist, but not attain memetic potency until conditions are right for it. He wrote as well that they can have multiple and more or less simultaneous, yet independent, expression in a culture.

    LGM existed long before 1947, but didn't attain full memetic potency until flying saucers, the stories of which were an ideal vector for its propagation.

    Perhaps Frank Joyce's usage, if the story is accurate, is one of the first appearances of it. It isn't necessary for LGM to be in circulation re: vehicles, before he said it, if he said it.

    He may have been one of several (or many) original, more or less simultaneous expressions of it.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 14, 2010  

  • Waooo: memetic now! Don was adressing and accusating consensual psychological concepts as pseudo-scientific, and now is making an appeal to memetic. It is a funny paradoxe.

    The fact itselt that an occupied alien spaceship crashes on Earth is already something extraordinary and unlikely. But you guys and friends, have no one hesitation to add more and more unlikely elements to this unlikely premise.

    To continue to believe in this unlikely, you are still and always adding more improbable and multiplying rhetorical acrobatics: all is allowed! Recuperations in multiple sites with an implausible MP's manpower, multiplication of sites to accommodate this unlikely scenario, threats to civilians by the military police which multiplies its manpower again and again, raking the houses of the villages of Corona or Roswell or ranchers, Franck Joyce quoting Brazel with an unlikely 1947 term, Brazel in jail, 63 years of research in a super top secret hangar without academic scientists, a change in a Monday for Sunday about the coming of Brazel in Roswell, military's cordon(s) around the sites under non standard and unlikely military procedures, unlikely debunking campaign launched in July 1947, unlikely post-event silence over three decades, but an unlikely epic failure because Moore and Friedman were not monitored despite the unlikely enormous resources put in place to protect the big secret you have claimed, etc. etc.

    What acrobatics and what multiplications of small probabilities and over again in order to keep your unlikely scenario viable. And this without ONE hard evidence et without hesitation to inverse the burden of proof.

    The "I want to believe" syndrom is awesome. It is realy sad.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • My earlier comment related to Brazel & Joyce talking about 'little green men'. The chief point was this: we know that the crash was widely reported in the press and in radio news bulletins at the time.

    But all the reports talk about is debris, i.e. fragments of an 'object' or 'objects' that presumably descended from the sky. There are no reports of humanoid creatures and certainly no references to LGM or any other humanoids (earthly or unearthly) being seen. Why do such claims date from post-1978 interviews only? There can be no doubt that some NM residents recalled the Scully book of 1950, which had lots of publicity. There were a few other 'entity' reports during the 1950s as well. There were Stringfield's 'entity' stories. There was the 1970s film 'Star Wars'. Were portions of these being unconciously recalled as well?

    We can reject totally any claims about 'entities' at Roswell unless and until some definitive documentary evidence is produced dating FROM THAT TIME. It is simply too much to believe that genuine humanoid reports (if there were any) at Roswell would have gone unreported contemporaneously.

    In fact if you look at the first book (by Berlitz & Moore) notice how Moore links up the bodies allegedly found at Aztec with the Roswell affair. (This despite Moore later telling us in a 1985 paper that the two cases were entirely separate). He gently guides the reader towards the idea of bodies at Roswell. This of course would be likely to affect any new, or old, witnesses interviewed after the Berlitz-Moore book appeared.

    So, Mr Bragalia, where are those 1947 Roswell humanoid reports? Can you locate them? You would create a massive boost to your ET thesis if you could.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • When I mentioned 'Star Wars' I should have added "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (the film with Hynek as consultant who featured in the film at the end).

    Perhaps I should also have added that Scully's yarn was precipitated by a 'mystery man' giving a lecture at The University of Denver on March 8, 1950, where humanoid bodies were mentioned. Can anyone find an earlier mention, with documentation, of humanoids in connection with UFOs? There may have been some slightly earlier references.

    But notice how (as at Roswell) there were no humanoids mentioned in the press at the time of the alleged Aztec 'crash' in early 1948. Despite this, Aztec has had a recent revival, supported by no less an authority than Stan Friedman.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • "Don was adressing and accusating consensual psychological concepts as pseudo-scientific, and now is making an appeal to memetic. It is a funny paradoxe."

    I made no appeal of anything.

    "The fact itselt that an occupied alien spaceship crashes on Earth is already something extraordinary and unlikely." blah blah blah blah and etc.

    So what? What does that have to do with me?

    Gilles, you sure sound like an American to me. Congratulations. You have been assimilated.

    I'll tell you what I find "extraordinary and unlikely", that some people can waste so much time on something they have no curiosity about, who appear to be like little birdies in their nest waiting for the advocates to feed them.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Bloecher in his study (1967) about the 1947 wave have found 3 mentions of "humanoids" in the newspapers he analyzed. I suppose there exist other anecdotical mentions of humanoids in newspapers.

    "little people" mention - July 7 - Tacoma, Washington; "a little man, two feet tall, and with a head the size of a basket ball" - July 8 - Houston, Texas; "strange little men" - July 9 - Nashville, Tennessee.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • I forgetted.

    One British fictional book is rarely mentionned as "source" of the Roswell myth or maybe Scully book: "The Flying Saucer", by Bernard Newman, published in 1948, with bodies, hieroglyphic marks, autopsy, saucers crah(es) - and one in New Mexico, etc.

    It is realy curious to find these coincidences and this book is partialy ignored I think.

    You have an article here from Magonia:

    http://magonia.haaan.com/1997/the-mystic-and-the-spy-two-early-british-ufo-writers/

    As there is a thread in Reality Unocovered forum title "Roswellian Soothsayer?"

    Another in french I wrote for our forum, but nothing new in.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • CDA wrote:

    "The chief point was this: we know that the crash was widely reported in the press and in radio news bulletins at the time."

    Is this evidence of your false memories?

    "Why do such claims date from post-1978 interviews only?"

    Who in 1947 on July 8 and July 9, inteviewed anyone except for Kellahin's interview of Mac Brazel?

    Except for the photographer Adair, there appears to have been no one from outside media in Roswell then. Kellahin came down from Albuquerque, but he was a Roswell native who knew people involved, including Wilcox.

    Who from outside would have called any ranchers (assuming they had phones)? And who in the media reported that they didn't believe Ramey and so were going to dig further? None I'm aware of.

    The weather balloon story was greeted with a sigh of relief.

    "Maybe the thing is still a hoax, as has been the belief of most folks from the start."

    Reads the RDR July 9 editorial. So rather than interview people, they'd poke fun at them, I guess. Joyce said he didn't believe Brazel's story.

    Ever live in a small town?

    And against this wall of opinion, you think a Brazel or a Proctor would have "come forward" before 1978? "Come forward" to whom? Adamski? Layne?


    If the outside world had forgotten the Roswell story, some local people would not have, but none of them cashed in on the contactee wave, nor the abduction wave. I think there are good reasons why there are no pre-1978 interviews.

    "There can be no doubt that some NM residents recalled the Scully book of 1950, which had lots of publicity."

    No doubt? Seriously?

    Maybe some NM residents did, but what about the subjects of your post? How can you assert "no doubt"? Have you researched whether the Roswell library had copies of it? Did you browse through the checkout records? Who among the post-1978 witnesses had library cards?

    Were there copies in the HS library?

    Continued next post.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Continuing from the previous:


    Isn't the only reason you are tagging Scully here is that he's the earliest known reference to crashes, and you have no other reason? Refresh my memory, but he doesn't mention Roswell, right?

    When was Scully debunked? And why Scully? Why not Edwards? He wasn't a nobody, being a celebrity in national media. He outlines with fair accuracy the Roswell story.

    Here's Edwards on April 28, 1956 (from a photocopy of the transcript)

    Q- Is there any evidence that these objects have crashed?

    A- I'm not too sure some of them haven't. Way back in 1947, at Roswell, New Mexico, a farmer reported he saw something strike a mountainside and crash. According to what I was told, they threw troops in a circle all around that place, and would let nobody in for five days. Finally, they came up with a picture of a man holding a little crumpled kite with aluminum foil on it -- a radar target -- and they said this was it -- believe it or not. There have been many other rumors since then about saucers that crashed. I don't know whether there is any truth to them."

    I've written an analysis of this statement attempting to determine the provenance. Have you? If so, what was your methodology?

    And if you haven't, you are not really interested in Roswell. And so, why do you bother to waste time and energy posting about it? The entertainment value?



    "We can reject totally any claims about 'entities' at Roswell unless and until some definitive documentary evidence is produced dating FROM THAT TIME."

    There's where I differ with skeptics. They aren't interested in the Roswell story. I am.


    I'm not looking for "definitive documentary evidence" about spaceships and aliens. You can debate that with the advocates -- for eternity if you like. I want "definitive documentary evidence" of the "rumors" that the press release says is the reason it exists. Therefore, I do not "totally reject" anything simply because it is not proof of what skeptics and advocates want proof of. I'm looking for proof of something else. Pre-1978? Not good enough for me. The proof I'll accept has to come from either 3 weeks before or the week previous to 7/8/1947.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • I've been thinking on this for a while, and maybe I'm passed the optimal time for discussion... however...

    No matter how great the testimony, how accurate and how true, testimony alone is not enough either in law or science. And to pretend that it is, well, is just silly.

    So you have solid, consistent, widespread and solid testimony... but you don't have a body. That's tough in a court of law, where you just have to sway opinion, but is worthless in Science, where it is all about the physical, repeatable evidence.

    You may be able to show that there are witnesses who saw something strange and difficult to understand. You may be able to argue that the ETH explains the strangeness and makes things simple. But you can not say that an alien aircraft landed at Roswell, unless you have that craft.

    By Blogger Michael Malone, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • I think the reason Gilles resorts to ridicule is that Dawkins hypothesis messes with a banal 18th century idea he has regarding causality in which one thing follows upon another in a linear cause/effect way, and the mere mention of another concept troubles him, so he whistles past the graveyard with ridicule.

    In consideration of your less than robust reactions to such things, I won't even mention the issues of directionality regarding the crash stories, not wanting to cause you a stroke or anything.

    Get better soon.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • CDA -

    You are misinformed or disingenuous - or both.

    Read "Roswell Crash Talk Before All of the Hoopla" and explain to me why Lydia Sleppy was discussing the event in some detail in the early 1970s, years before any interview of Marcel even!. I uncovered her story in an early SAGA magazine. Her son said she had been telling the story "many years before" before SAGA reporter Peter Gutilla found the Sleppy family in 1973.

    And for all of you talking about Frank Joyce- Joyce held on to "physical evidence" for decades!!! He retained the original UP telexes from that day in July of '47 for 50+ years. He told people that he knew that they would try to "bury the story" and he wanted to keep something of it- and he did.

    These telexes that he retained were shown to researchers and -like the Inez Wilcox memoir- will be part of a forthcoming article related to this subject.

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Anthony: "These telexes that he retained were shown to researchers and -like the Inez Wilcox memoir- will be part of a forthcoming article related to this subject."

    The telexes are available here for those interested. After much thought, I have some questions about them, and maybe an answer to one question about them.

    http://www.roswellproof.com/United_Press_Telexes.html


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Concerning Lydia Sleppy, some vilain skeptics ask them how FBI can stop a teletype at distance (from Dallas if I well remember?) during it is writting and abble to write a line in the middle of her own text, as she allegued.

    Korff claims that the kind of teletype in use required her to go on "receiver" mode to receive something or there is no possibility to stop her.

    But well, in Roswell, there are extraordinary mysteries!

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • AJB:
    It is you who are misinformed about Lydia Sleppy, not me. Her story, as it first appeared in 1974, is substantially different from the version which appears in later books. The embellishment may be due to her or it may be due to Stan Friedman. We cannot say.

    In the original version there is no mention of any FBI interference, but in later accounts she, or some interviewer, has the FBI interrupting her teletype message. Other embellishments followed.

    I first pointed this out years ago. Which version do you accept?

    Also, notice there is no mention of humanoid beings associated with the 'crash', is there? And McBoyle, her boss, refused to discuss the event, to anyone ever. Where does that leave Lydia's story?

    As for Lydia Sleppy relating the tale to others pre-1974, this is similar to Marcel supposedly relating his side of the tale to others before Friedman got at him in '78. The problem is that we have nothing in writing about it, no transcripts, have we? Thus we do not know what either of them really said, or when. And neither Sleppy nor Marcel knew the date of the event.

    Sourcerer:

    I do not really follow your reasoning or what side, if any, of the fence you sit on. No I shall not be going through Roswell library records to see what books were borrowed! Nor will anyone else. Edwards's story is obvious garbage. Why introduce it anyway? Yes the people of NM were well acquainted with Scully's Aztec tale, even if it had been debunked. Roswell has been debunked often enough, yet we are still arguing about it, and getting nowhere fast!

    You own angle is, to me, unfathomable.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Don,

    Concerning Edwards, we have already discussed it in Kevin Randle Blog and/or here, and CDA was in the discussion about your "accusation"["And if you haven't, you are not really interested in Roswell."]

    The very short mention about Roswell in his book is the following (Tony "cutted" and eliminated some aspect of the exact quote of the book in his article BTW):

    "There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altitiide and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of the house. The Sheriff called the military; the military came on the double quick. Newsmen were not permitted in the area. A week later, however, the government released a photograph of a service man holding up a box kite with an aluminum disc about the size of a large pie pan dangling from the bottom of the kite. This, the official report explained, was a device borne aloft on the kite and used to test radar gear by bouncing the signals off the pie pan. And this, we were told, was the sort of thing that had so excited the rancher. We were NOT told, however, how the alleged kite caught fire—nor why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage of a burned-out box kite with a non-inflammable pie pan tied to it."

    No offense, but it is hillarious. Probably an author whom have newspapers and added his fantasy.

    Regards,

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Well said Gilles.

    Frank Edwards was a past-master in embellishing UFO tales. He was a top radio broadcaster, and good friend of Keyhoe. Edwards claimed he was once 'muzzled' by the USAF over revealing too much in his broadcasts!

    Thereafter he was somewhat less outspoken. Perhaps it was then that he decided to write his UFO books.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • I retrieved Tony's article (in fact it is here^^ http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2010/02/roswell-crash-talk-before-all-hoopla-by.html.

    The extract in his article was:

    "In his 1966 "Flying Saucers: Serious Business" book on page 76 he writes: "There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altititude and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of his house. We were not told, however, why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage."

    Tony didn't quote exactly the p.76 regarding the original (see above). A large part wasn't quoted and switched magicaly.

    Anyway, this mention of Roswell case before 1978 is very anecdotical.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • CDA wrote:

    "I do not really follow your reasoning or what side, if any, of the fence you sit on."

    That's because I am not sitting on any fence. My interest in Roswell has nothing to do with ET or the two sides debating ET.

    I know it is nearly impossible for either a "believer" or a "debunker" to credit that. Of course, I would be interested if either side is proved, but that is not the task I've set for myself.

    If the advocates are right and it was ET and I was a "believer", there is nothing I could do personally to prove it, anyway. So, I wouldn't waste my time attempting to. And for the same reason, if I were convinced it was not ET, what would be the point in wasting time on forums arguing? No one is paying me to set the record straight on ET.

    Just accept I am interested in the Roswell story from the angle I've said.

    Look. The witnesses had stories to tell, the interviewers wanted to record their stories, in 1947, the newspapers wrote news stories about Roswell's flying disc. Even the press release told a story, and Ramey told a story, too.

    I am interested in the Roswell story as a narrative, a cultural and historical event.

    Why is that so difficult to understand?

    "You own angle is, to me, unfathomable."

    Why? The press release says it is in response to rumors about a flying disk that landed on a ranch in the vicinity of Roswell the previous week. The fact there was a press release at all is unique, I think. So, I'd like to know who spread the rumors, for example, and when and where. Why? Well, they must have contained something or suggested something to the army that got their attention. I don't know what it was. I'd like to find out.

    I don't know if the army was even interested in the flying disk part of the rumors. Maybe it was the location. Maybe those who thought they saw a saucer, could have, might have seen something else the army did not want seen. Maybe those who thought they saw a saucer didn't see that something else, but they might have, and the army couldn't take any chances and wrote a debunking script.

    I don't know, but I'd like to.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Don, as usual, makes some good points.

    Now let's not get nasty here fellows.

    We don't want to be like UFO UpDates where venom and vile debate is the norm.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Sourcerer:

    Sorry Don, but I think you have misconstrued the press release. My interpretation of it is that the "rumors" refer to the flying disc stories that were in the press for two weeks, i.e. the overall 'flying disc' reports.

    The word "rumor" is being misused here (by Haut). What he is saying is that among all the 'rumored reports' the USAF have finally got hold of a real 'flying disc', and thus the 'rumors' have become a reality.

    You appear to regard Haut's release as talking about 'the rumor of a landed, or crashed, saucer' in the vicinity. There was no such rumor. Nobody ever circulated a rumor to this effect.

    Thus you are attacking this press release from the wrong angle.

    However, I do agree that the whole release is badly worded and is factually wrong or misleading in at least two places. Was the carelessness due to Haut or Blanchard?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • CDA,

    My reasons for thinking the rumors were local is

    (1) "The many rumors regarding the flying disk". It does not read 'The many rumors regarding flying disks'

    This is a language issue. The singular of some nouns in English are also the plural, but that is not the case with 'disk' (or, for that matter, 'saucer'). A sheep. The sheep. Never the sheeps. 'How many disks did it take', not 'how many disk...'.

    I have not seen it used that way in any source.

    2) "Rumors" is such a bad fit for weeks of front page national news stories about them, including opinions from senior army and navy officers, scientists, university academics, and (what were then called) public intellectuals.

    'Rumor' can be used in a way that would fit the national story explanation, but I think it is unlikely for such usages to occur outside of textbooks and universities.

    I have not found a comparable example from that timeframe.

    3) If you agree the press release was serious and not a joke, or hoax, or the result of an hysterical interlude, then what reason would Blanchard have for commenting in writing for the general public on a national and international news story and one that the higher-ups were interested in unless he was ordered to? Stepping out of one's domain is a proven bad idea from MacArthur to McChrystal.

    "The word "rumor" is being misused here (by Haut)."

    I think that part was written by Haut.

    I'm not closed to other interpretations, but

    "There was no such rumor. Nobody ever circulated a rumor to this effect."

    is an assertion without evidence.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • The later and longer Edwards quotation would take me more time than I'd want to spend on a forum post, especially one with a 4096 character limit per post.

    The earlier one from 1956, though can be summarized here.

    There are several parts.

    First Edwards relates "Way back in 1947, at Roswell, New Mexico, a farmer reported he saw something strike a mountainside and crash."

    This might be Edward's recollection of the 1947 news stories, including 'crash' used in the way I wrote about earlier. He was a newsman with an interest in flying saucers, so he might recall something from the short period of time of Roswell Flying Disk news cycle.

    Then he says "According to what I was told..."

    Here he tells a story, not from the news cycle "they threw troops in a circle all around that place, and would let nobody in for five days."

    Then back to what appears in the news cycle: "Finally, they came up with a picture of a man holding a little crumpled kite with aluminum foil on it -- a radar target -- and they said this was it..."

    Then he says "There have been many other rumors since then about saucers that crashed. I don't know whether there is any truth to them."

    This might refer to Scully's stories. Scully was debunked in 1952, which is a reason why Edwards would say he doesn't "know whether there is any truth to them".

    The two interesting things I'd like to know more about are the origins of the the encirclement story, and why Edwards separated Roswell from the other crash stories in such a way that it is not included in his "truth" comment. Possible reason is it wasn't in the debunked Scully book.

    Again, I'm open to other readings, but not assertions of proof.

    I, of course, cannot help but notice the reference to "the many...rumors" about "saucers that crashed" 8-)


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • "However, I do agree that the whole release is badly worded and is factually wrong or misleading in at least two places. Was the carelessness due to Haut or Blanchard?"

    I think everything from "The many rumors..." to "who in turn notified Major Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group intelligence office.". could have been written by Haut or someone similar. And the concluding paragraph by someone who was familiar with reading and writing army reports, such as Blanchard, or any other career officer or career NCO in administration.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • Sorry to post separately to various things. It was and still is a busy day for me.

    CDA, regarding carelessness, and what you had written in another article about whether it seemed hurried or not.

    I have no evidence for this (it should exist in the testimony, but haven't found it, or in an interviewer's unpublished files, or at least I hope so) -- call it a suspicion. There may have been an unauthorized leak. Whenever it occurred whoever it was introduced a 'black swan', something unexpected by the army, if they, as I suspect intended both the press release and a revelation of the "reality" which might not originally have been a weather balloon.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • A post I thought I made in response to CDA has not appeared. I probably screwed up. It's that sort of day.

    In reply to: "However, I do agree that the whole release is badly worded and is factually wrong or misleading in at least two places. Was the carelessness due to Haut or Blanchard?"

    It depends which two places you are referring to. What are they?

    We both exclude the transcription error of 'loaned' for 'flown', I think.

    There is evidence for two authors. Let's call them the 'Blanchard' and the 'Haut' because I don't know who, but those two are the types that fit.

    The styles are so distinct that if only one person wrote it they worked at simulating two hands.

    The 'Blanchard' wrote the last paragraph. The rest was written by the 'Haut'. It is possible that the 'Haut' didn't see the 'Blanchard' part until he picked up the copies from whoever typed them.

    The story is told in chronological order. Everything is in the past tense throughout. The last paragraph is the place were the army takes it out of the hands of the civilians. The last paragraph is typical army report style, the earlier part something a kind English teacher would grade B- and offer helpful advice in the margins.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 15, 2010  

  • This is Don -- Sourcerer

    This discussion appears to be over, but I'd like to add that the AP story is the version best (in fact the only one) sourced in the 1947 stories. But I am not wedded to it being the actual press release. The two "authors" could just as easily be two "sources", one of which is the actual press release.


    Don

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, September 27, 2010  

  • col blanchards news wire release in early july 1947 is what it is men. we have in our possion a flying disk. ok? who done what for what purpose to release such nonsence when its only a weather balloon. the first nuclear bomber air wing 2 years after all is still on all post war fronts. men stand firm the release was not nonsence. god give us a spine to begine to take steps toward confronting these idiots in there blind cubicals dictating to more of the same blind stupid boys to wana be men in the blink of an eye.iamnot sarry for you me or all of us in general wake up and grabe hold of yourselfs boys to men holding on to there moms aprin strings. its all good with me and i can see so very clearly iam not good with the fools in positions of so called athority i dont care if you disown a none simpathetic such as me. youll be the fool if you doubt me and continue hiding running from the aliens sute yourselfs spinless cowards. if you cant beatem joinem and i have so solong ive joined the alien incampment and just like col blanchard its not a joke its not a lie no its just what you seem to not want to belive it is simply a fact an on going fact a truth in our real time worldly reality thank you amd solang boys to men in the blink of an eye presto another cubical blind fool coward running head long into oblivion dont ask me anything about the alien presence iam only made in gods image yea an earthing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha not funny ?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 14, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home