UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Frankenstein's Monster and Roswell

frank20.jpg

Christopher Allen [CDA], a Roswell skeptic and the story’s most intellectual debunker, often points out that Roswell was dead almost immediately after it came to light in 1947.

And he’s right, of course.

The headline(s), touting a captured flying disk, moved from the front pages of newspapers to those newspapers’ morgues, within hours of the original outing.

Roswell’s flying saucer incident remained moribund for thirty years, until it was resurrected by a few opportunistic writers and UFO “researchers” – including Stanton Friedman, Charles Berlitz, William Moore, Kevin Randle, and a few others.

The story was dead until those mad men raised it from the grave in the late 1970s.

And ever since, the original story has been accreted or enhanced by a slew of UFO mavens, among them David Rudiak, a full-blown Roswell extraterrestrial supporter/believer.

Christopher Allen’s scenario of a dead story brought to life by men with an agenda to “prove” extraterrestrial visitors crashed near Roswell reminds this writer of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s gothic tale Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus.

front20.jpg

In the Shelley story, as you know, a body is created by Dr. Frankenstein putting together a creature from dead body parts, some human, some not.

Frankenstein comes to loathe his creation, just as some UFO investigators [Kevin Randle?] have come to loathe their initial Roswell ET support.

But the creature – Roswell – lives on imbued with a life that isn’t easily snuffed out, no matter how hard intelligent people like CDA try to kill it.

The Roswell creature is composed of all kinds of mouldering additions, each with a history and one-time life, but none salient as a living, true experience, only alive now because of their creative addition to a form that was dead but is now alive by alchemical-like machinations.

Killing Roswell is as daunting as it is in the original story and every film or story that has followed Ms. Shelley’s 1818 tale.

9 Comments:

  • Per the the last piece on alien symbols and contactees, I posted Carol Rainey's latest video on Bud Hopkins as a comment. Respectfully, You cannot "kill" or prove folklore, it is neither dead or alive per your metaphor, just as mythology lives in the liminal shadows of truth as a metaphor. Putting this another way, in a deeper sense, it no longer matters whether it happened or not for the common folk, it is a living symbol of our times.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, April 20, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    While I'd like to present the symbols in Rainey's clip, we don't want to get embroiled in that maelstrom, so I didn't post your comment or the link.

    Yes, symbols can be -- can be -- living, in a sense, but those symbols have to come from the unconscious or semi-conscious and can't come from a contrived effort, in order to meet your "living symbol" archetype.

    Roswell is not a living symbol but a modern mythology, as Gilles Fernandez and CDA would have it, if they even give the tale that much credibility.

    The Roswell story is, in its present form, a fabrication.

    At first it was an interesting incident. Then it morphed into the thing that it is now, which is why I suggested the Frankenstein metaphor.

    The truths of Roswell may be lost forever as Nick Redfern says.

    And I agree; whatever truths were present in 1947 have been muddled by the likes of the guys mentioned in my post, and the rabble who assume the Roswell event as the foundation of their belief in alien or extraterrestrial life.

    Folklore can't be killed, perhaps, but it can surely be compromised by false additions to its core truth.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 21, 2011  

  • Where we disagree is that I think the living symbol of Roswell is contrived, and is a pastiche of cultural themes whereas you sense the momentum is unconscious. The middle ground is that it is both. These are not unconscious hypothetical frameworks in my view unless all the speculative fuel was written in the throes of sleep. Yet, I think what drives it is the "greatest story never told" which is a deep desire. As far as Rainey's video. It built on what we discussed on the alien symbol post you did, where Bud as an artist ( the connection between art and hoaxing) was demonstrated, as well as the psychiatric issues which were left swinging in the breeze aka the "Emily" debacle. As you so much as said, the tragicomedy is that the real enigmas of this are paved over.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, April 21, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    No, we do not disagree. I accept your view entirely.

    The momentum is contrived, by a need for fame, by "witnesses," by pretend authors, by UFO mavens who want a legacy, and the military that has a muntitude of axes to grind.

    We have a post, early on here and elsewhere, that shows various UFO symbols, which I think, in some instances, are important and revelatory, such as at Socorro (where we have no clear idea of what Lonnie Zamora drew, as there are two, different accounts about his symbol).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 21, 2011  

  • Looking back, "The Roswell Incident", whilst being the first book to start the ball rolling, the 'Frankenstein's Monster' did not really develop until Randle and Schmitt gave the whole story an almighty kick in 1990 (aided by CUFOS and IUR), a sort of big revival. Without this revival, it is likely the story would have fizzled out (it already had in the public mind).

    So the Frankenstein Monster effect took place around 1990-91 and spread very rapidly after that. All hell then broke loose.

    It is worth pondering: Supposing the original event had occurred in any country other than the US, would the 'monster' have ever got started? I like to think that in the UK at least, it would have not, but seeing the way Rendlesham has gone and is going, I may be very wrong.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, April 21, 2011  

  • On the issue of Roswell as modern myth, I would point folks to my interview with Dr. Benson Saler from 2001:

    http://www.redstarfilmtv.com/bensonsaler.php

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, April 22, 2011  

  • Blogger seems to have dropped a couple of letters off the send somehow when you approved that last comment, Rich.

    The link ends: "/bensonsaler.php"

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, April 22, 2011  

  • Mr. Kimball,

    The comment reads correctly on our computers.

    But I added your correction anyway.

    Max (for the RRRGroup)

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 22, 2011  

  • Thanks Max.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, April 22, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home