UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

"Roswell" noted in 1967

Copyright 2011, InterAmerica, Inc.

LOOK published this special edition, Flying Saucers, in 1967:


On Page 24 is this photo from the series taken in Roswell in 1947:


The blurb (enlarged here) refers to an alleged crash of balloon(s), mistaken for a flying saucer:


While Fort Worth, Texas is given as the site of the "mistaken" crash, rather than Roswell (or Corona) in New Mexico, the photo, shared with LOOK staffers, shows that someone knew about the Roswell incident in 1967, 10+ years earlier than the 1978 resurrection by Stanton Friedman.

Why the mistake in locale? Who provided the photo? Why a reference to the Navy?

Questions that Roswell researchers might follow up on...

RR

13 Comments:

  • Interesting.

    There were earlier references to Roswell, as far back as 1954 & 55. There was also Ted Bloecher's book, 1967 I think. Probably none of these had photos. All these referencess mention only the press reports, so I assume the Marcel photo was taken from the Ft Worth press (which accounts for the false story of the 'disc' landing at Ft. Worth).

    The point is that all pre-1979 Roswell stuff was merely reprinted from the '47 report. No investigation was done. So STF still gets credit for being the first INVESTIGATOR of the incident. That's what nuclear physics is all about, isn't it?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, October 12, 2011  

  • I think, Christopher, that we're a little too hard on Stan.

    After all, he had to earn a living after his nuclear work fizzled.

    What surprises me is that the photo was given to LOOK but no one gave it a journalistic vetting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 12, 2011  

  • I erred. That is Irving Newton not Marcel, in the photo. But then, unlike a certain nuclear physicist, I am not a professional ufologist.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, October 12, 2011  

  • Your "error" CDA was minor, a slip of recognition.

    Stanton's errors are a slip of gullibility.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 12, 2011  

  • It is generally accepted that the radar target displayed in the Fort Worth photos is a type ML­307. For a physical description of the type ML-307, see: http://www.tpub.com/content/meteorology/TM-750-5-3/TM-750-5-30107.htm

    The type ML-307 was designed to be small enough (about 100 g) that it could be lifted by a single 8 ft diameter balloon.

    The ML-307 is a specific example of the general category of “corner cube” reflectors. For a discussion of the general principle involved, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector

    Many different configurations can be and have been designed to utilize this general principle; the minimum requirement is to have at least three orthogonal planar reflectors intersecting at a common point. The photo of balloons in flight in the LOOK magazine article clearly shows a radar corner cube reflector configuration OTHER THAN the ML­307. It is visibly larger than the ML-307 presumably so it could be tracked by radar at longer ranges. It obviously requires 4 balloons to get it aloft, implying that it is heavier than the ML-307. Compare it to the images of the ML-307 and you can see the differences.

    Given all the sleuthing that has been done over the years to positively identify the material on Ramey’s office floor (and its origin) we know from our modern perspective that the two LOOK magazine photos are definitely depicting two unrelated objects. For some unknown reason, LOOK magazine erroneously associated the two images in their narrative. I don’t see a need to invoke any clandestine motivation on their part for this; simple ignorance and apathy (fairly common in the UFO world) will suffice.

    Because the two objects are unrelated, it does not really matter who launched the airborne system shown in the photo. It may well have been the US Navy, or the Weather Service, or the Girl Scouts. Whatever the case, it does not imply that any of those organizations has any important connection to UFOs in general or the Roswell Incident in particular. I think you are looking for signal here where there is only noise.

    By Blogger Larry, at Thursday, October 13, 2011  

  • Ah, Larry...

    You miss the signals:

    Someone knew about Roswell in 1967 (and earlier as CDA points out).

    That LOOK listed the incident in Fort Worth rather than Roswell denotes sloppy journalism, or...a need to divert readers from the 1947 episode.

    The NAVY was involved at Roswell in 1947. Why?

    And the balloons are the cover-up, as some see it.

    No noise....just some signal, almost imperceptible, except to a real researcher.

    Your Ramey's office observation and the clutter array is just an intellectual side-bar, a ufological red-herring, having nothing to do with what may be gleaned from the LOOK piece.

    Like many UFO mavens, you are too cavalierly dismissive, anxious to show us that you know somwthing(s) about the Roswell aftermath, but not seeing what clues lie face-up for those willing to see them.

    Nonetheless, thanks for your comments. They are appreciated and not without (some) merit.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 13, 2011  

  • I heard the Roswell UFO crash story between 1972 and 1975. I know this for certain because I heard about it while I lived in Waco Texas, and those are the dates I lived there (I was in early elementary school). So, when I heard about it several years later I was already interested and wondered if any new information had come out. It always irritated me when I heard some people claim that the story was completely unknown (after the original incident) until 1979, since I knew that wasn't the case at all.

    The kid who told me the story said he had heard it from someone in his family who had been involved (I don't remember who). He told it very "matter-of-factly" and I had no reason to suspect he was lying, even though the story was strange enough it stayed on my mind.

    By Blogger Kent McManigal, at Saturday, October 15, 2011  

  • Thanks, Kent...

    We'd sure like to get the name of your school chum.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, October 15, 2011  

  • That was so long ago I can't remember who he was, and I've lost track of everyone I knew there at that time. Even when I heard the story again in the late 70s or early 80s I couldn't remember who had originally told me- and I did try since I was still in touch with one friend from Waco at that time. I do believe he said he had moved to Waco from Fort Worth, but I could be mistaken about that. I wish I could remember more.

    By Blogger Kent McManigal, at Saturday, October 15, 2011  

  • No old school pictures, Kent?

    Us clutter rats kept and keep such stuff.

    You must be a normal guy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, October 15, 2011  

  • That is one of the few schools I went to that either didn't have annuals or I didn't buy any. At this point I doubt I'd remember who told me the tale even if I saw his picture and name.

    And, I've never been accused of being "normal". LOL

    By Blogger Kent McManigal, at Saturday, October 15, 2011  

  • Some of us have never been accused of being normal, Kent.

    Wear our epithet with pride.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, October 15, 2011  

  • The story made headlines the next day in 1947. So why is it so remarkable that Look mentioned it 20 years later? Yes, it had been largely forgotten, and would be again until Friedman dredged it up in '78, but it obviously wasn't completely unknown.

    Fort Worth? As cda pointed out, the photo was taken there. Shoddy journalism is the simpler explanation. It would have been a lousy choice were someone trying to create a "diversion", given that that's where the press had been invited to have a look some twenty years previously.

    The Navy? Well, maybe the photo on the left, shown as an example, was from the Navy and the rest of the facts became munged. Ask yourself what purpose it would serve to deliberately get this information wrong.

    Where'd the photo come from? Who knows? But the fact it's unattributed would seem to strengthen the argument that whoever put this article together didn't have the highest standards.

    This Look article is fine for someone's scrapbook, but obviously of no use to anyone trying to sort fact from fiction. Because, well, there are few demonstrable facts involved. The only interesting thing about it is that it represents a moment in recent history when the Roswell case was briefly aired in public before once again slipping between the cracks for another couple of decades.

    By Blogger brian ally, at Monday, October 17, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home