UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Roswell Myth? Yes, but….

rmyth.jpg
Joseph Campbell, Mercea Eliade, Robert Graves, Carl Jung, Sir James George Frazer, et al. forcefully insisted that at the core of mythical tales lie a truth; what that truth may be requires exegesis.

Roswell’s incident is the core from which the Myth evolved.

Christopher Allan [CDA] thinks that Stanton Friedman’s interaction with Jesse Marcel Sr. in 1978 is the core event.

CDA may be right.

After all, the original 1947 “event” involved a press release about a flying disk which, at the time, was the sobriquet for strange things seen in sky or found on the ground.

In Roswell, some strange balloon debris was found by farmer Mac Brazel and ended up being the focal point of the media/military hullabaloo.

That debris, and its import isn’t exactly clear from the record, but it has flummoxed UFO buffs and researchers right down to today.

And it may be the mythical core.

But the myth that has emerged has got to start with Friedman and his ilk who began a propaganda campaign of sorts, indicating that Roswell was an extraterrestrial event, supported by a crashed flying saucer with a disabled and dying crew.

There is no evidence for that.

Well, no evidence but for the latest incentive: slides from 1947, ostensibly showing an alien body (or two), and which has been the stimulus for the recent online brouhaha here and across the UFO spectrum on the web.

We, who are UFO mavens, know, and many of us believe, that something happened at or near Roswell in or about July 1947.

What that was is an open and interesting question to some – Kevin Randle’s Dream Team and other UFO-ET believers and UFO skeptics also, who want Roswell to just go away.

Aside from the latest “evidence” – those alleged alien body slides and a rediscovery of debris metal, found by the Dream Team – I think Roswell 1947 is mostly the germ for the 1978 Roswell of Friedman and others who want it to be the smoking gun for the extraterrestrial hypothesis/belief of the Friedman generation of UFO researchers.

Even if Roswell involved a disabled flying saucer and debilitated crew, what does that have to do with UFOs today, and in the far, far past?

RR 

32 Comments:

  • At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much testimony, how many statements, how many photos etc surface on Roswell, only one thing will nail the case to the wall: that's hard physical evidence, such as a body.

    It's rather like with the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot: there are (just as there are with Roswell) numerous witnesses and 100s of photos (maybe even slides!), but why is the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie still disputed? Simple: there is no corpse to be studied.

    And that's Roswell's biggest failing. It could indeed be THE case that breaks the whole UFO issue wide open.

    But, as intrigued as I am by the whole slides angle, will it (or even can it?) solve anything?

    If alien bodies and alien wreckage were found on the Foster Ranch, almost certainly that material evidence has been preserved.

    But, how to get that evidence? That's always been Roswell's big problem. Not the lack of people, statements and (now) possibly imagery.

    But all aspects of Forteana have had witnesses and photos for decades (Ufology, Cryptozoology, ghost-hunting, etc etc), with zero firm results.

    The sad fact is that no matter what surfaces on Roswell, unless it is physical proof of craft or corpse, the matter will not be resolved - period. And that means Roswell will continue to be the myth that many assume it to be.

    I don't have any idea at all how one might accept such corpses, if they exist - and that's the big problem for anyone and everyone engaged in Roswell research - accessing what is behind the locked door.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • I meant: how one might access such corpses, not how one might accept such corpses.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Phew...

    I was worried Nick, that we might have to "accept" corpses....a job for the mortuary, surely.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • This is a simple matter made overly complicated. Since the era of Hynek, Vallee and McDonald has passed, this ufology social movement has abdicated science, and has gone so far as to make science an straw enemy.

    Ufology is decades behind science as a result.

    There is a false dichotomy that there is ufology on one hand and science on the other.

    How many readers know that macro quantum states have been achieved?
    How many readers know that the stabilization of a quantum stste has been also achieved, making an object neither wholly material and neither pure energy?

    What we are left with as a result, is our own folklore as such reflecting the centuries past.

    This folklore growing like Topsy has had the result of pushing scientific investigation of this subject underground.

    How can one be ignorant of science and profess one way or the other?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Continued

    What most have missed as a result of this is that the evolution of science has demonstrated theoretically that this phenomenon is not so implausible as once thought.

    Yet it suggests we are not dealing with hard aeronautical craft.

    In this, Roswell is pushing us backward to a time in the Cold Wars as antiquarians, rather than as engaged with scientific developments.

    This is not a complex misdirection of attention to determine.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Hi Nick-

    I agree that some will only be satisfied by the public presentation of an alien on a gurney or by handling the debris themselves.

    Those kinds of things though are of course unreasonable and unfair to expect.

    And after all, there are many who still do not believe that we went to the Moon despite bringing back moon rocks.

    Point is, they will never be satisfied, perhaps even w/ presented physical evidence. They will claim it is a government creation/ a psy and tech op. They will say that without seeing a live entity and a saucer in flight, there are reasons to have doubt.

    All we can do is to continue to find and assemble relevant data and analyze it for accuracy.

    Just because we cannot offer preserved tissue or alien bone does not mean that we should simply "give up" on the Roswell quest.

    And Nick, you write about monsters and the paranormal- subjects that most certainly will continue to bring questions and not be resolved in our lifetimes.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Tony:

    Well, I think if physical evidence did surface, whether officially, or in an unforeseen fashion (such as where some of the Roswell materials hypothetically surfaced from a sympathetic insider), I think - if the evidence was handled carefully and samples were provided to the right people - then the public would eventually believe and the whole thing would blow wide open.

    I just feel that in any high profile case of an unexplained nature, nothing less than hard evidence will ever cut it, no matter how much supporting info/testimony/imagery is in hand.

    You say: "And Nick, you write about monsters and the paranormal- subjects that most certainly will continue to bring questions and not be resolved in our lifetimes."

    That's almost certainly true. But, I continue to investigate, because I believe there is a chance - even if it's remote - that I will get the answers I seek.

    I know one thing for sure: if I don't investigate them, then I'll definitely never get the answers.

    However, I braced myself years ago for the possibility that when I shuffle off, I specifically won't have the answers.

    Let's face it, every single dead ufologist who came before us utterly failed to prove what it was he or she was looking for. I suspect (but hope otherwise) that this will be exactly the same for everyone in Ufology today.

    And that's not being negative. It's being realistic. Roswell could indeed be the key. But, I suspect it will end up in territory like that inhabited by the questions like: "Who shot JFK?" and "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Nick is absolutely right - hardware, bodies or genuine documentation is the only evidence that is acceptable to science.

    Why don't we also ponder the huge amount of paperwork (now presumably stored on electronic media) that must exist if Roswell was indeed ET. Where is it? (Stashed away I suppose!)

    AJB says that whatever hard evidence is eventually produced
    there will be people who reject it. Possibly, but not for long. Think of meteorites, think of ball lightning, continental drift, and catastrophes such as extinction of the dinosaurs. There are others.

    Science will accept the hard evidence if it passes a few tests.

    Science will NOT accept the evidence AJB refers to (the alleged slides) and even ufologists appear not to, at least so far.

    There are scientists today who would give 5 years of their lives to view a genuine ET body or ET craft.

    As RR wrote, Stan Friedman, above all else, is responsible for promoting the early 'Roswell is ET' shambles. Who invented the term 'crash' anyway? The original reports describe the landing and recovery of a light instrument, not the "crash" of anything.

    See how people can twist things towards their own territory!

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Without hard evidence, Roswell is a prime example of antiquarian folklore that naturally resists a positivist approach. The only resort is to become an archivist of stories that require a arms length approach.
    The history of this archivist approach has ended up with a series of maybes rooted in folklore.
    This is not complicated inasmuch as one case studied in isolation from all the other cases is a basic error as any experienced researcher knows.
    This approach appeals to most as it assumes physical evidence that is material in nature and is simpler in it's assumptions, both as a explanation of the phenomenon as well as providing a theoretically coherent, linear narrative.
    This is what mythology does when there is reasonable doubt.
    It is not a complex matter to see why this folklore has appeal versus everyone agreeing that no one knows what we are dealing with.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • cda-

    You've proven the point. Scientists are often so bias they would reject the evidence even before it is presented! Put it this way:

    Anyone who has actually seen the evidence and supporting analysis believes it real. Those who have not are not expected to.

    And CDA, I obviously seek physical evidence, and this one important opportunity is sabotaged and people like you denigrate us. Why?
    As a man who appreciates science- how can you support people who facilitate leaks about analysis before it is completed? How can you say nothing to some on this very forum who have not held their tongues in the name of helping the cause?

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • They denigrate you Tony, because to old time sceptics such as these lot, they seem to go by ''it cant be so it isnt'' scientists are now summizing that the galaxy is probably teeming with life (thanks to advances in nasa,s kepler etc ) but to the sceptics here since thers no proof it cant be so it isnt.

    Roswell alien landing/crashing to them definately cant be no matter what direct or indirect evidence is presented

    These people will soon come to pass an a more open minded younger generation of people without the grey dogmatic view of the sceptics will soon come to replace them.

    By Blogger Al12, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • "Anyone who has actually seen the evidence and supporting analysis believes it real".

    Anyone? Presumably only a very few persons have seen these slides, i.e. members of the Dream team. And we all know where their biases lie.

    The reason I have not said anything against those who have leaked the info in advance when they ought to have kept silent is that I have no faith whatever that these slides will amount to anything at all. Therefore it matters not a jot to me whether anyone leaks the story in advance. Experience has taught me to treat ALL alleged Roswell hard evidence as worthless. And I am confident this applies to the slides, just as it did with the Santilli films.

    Of course I may, just may, possibly, be wrong in this case. Boy, won't that make AJB a happy man - he & the team will go down in history and be recognised the world over.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Tony
    The bias against science is unfounded as any scientist will tell you that conclusive evidence would be a historic boon for the funding of aerospace projects.

    In terms of photographic evidence being verified as "real" it would require science.

    Tony you are a "leaker" as well while you point fingers at others which appears to be more than a little hypocritical. I would leave that broad brush at home.

    Very little of what you said makes any sense.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • CDA you actually said:

    "Experience has taught me to treat all alleged Roswell hard evidence as worthless."

    This nicely sums up the thinking of rabid skeptics such as CDA and Tim Printy. The reject even before it is presented! CDA is of course not a true critical thinker and he pretends to appreciate the way of science, but he does not. He really is a fearful man who could not handle the alien truth.

    And CDA, sometimes I really wonder where your "humanness" is.

    Are you saying that because you do not believe in Roswell it is OK to betray people who are researching it? What about the morality and ethics -the fairness- of making private things public without permission? Can you not see the value of trust? Is it not a concept that you appreciate?

    Bruce-

    I can only understand what your saying when you insult. Somehow you are able to articulate your thoughts coherently only when you want to condemn and judge. I did not leak and you make no sense in saying that I wanted to jeopardize our own investigation- think about it.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • Tony
    I cannot help you in understanding what I say, but one thing I can help you with is to pull the plug on any further comments as I agree it just fuels your urge to set your own hair afire with a religiosity that is something to behold.
    This is what you call self immolation.
    Best of luck to you as I suspect you will need some in the not too distant future.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • My problem with the balloon story is, how can trained military officials confuse a balloon for a craft? Had that story not been splashed across every newspaper in the country at the time, I would say you have something there. Another problem I have is the "test dummies" report that came out many years later. They didn't use test dummies in 1947.

    By Blogger Carroll Bryant, at Sunday, September 29, 2013  

  • AJB said: "Those kinds of things though are of course unreasonable and unfair to expect."

    Why is it unfair to expect that the crash of an alien spaceship would yield specimens of an alien crew and fragments of their ship?

    Are you really arguing that Roswell crash proponents should not have to produce these things?

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • @ Carroll

    Sorry for my English, but :

    In the June/August 1947 period, "Flying Saucers or Flying Discs" (FS/FD) were on "everyone" mind and was something new (around two weeks only after Arnold sighting). We must imho contextualize the terms Flying discs/ Saucers, as Historians do in their methodology. I mean how they mean it...

    Ted Bloecher in his famous study of the 1947 UFO Wave (I have not the exact number in my memories) shows us that, concerning his sample - more than 500 cases then -, a very very few little (3 or 4 cases, I dont remember the exact number) stated explicitly the possibility or mention of E.T. provenance attributed to their sightings by witnesses...

    You have too a GALLUP poll conduced in August 1947 "what do you think Flying Saucers are", and there are not E.T. in the answers or possibilities choosed by Gallup...
    There are many other arguments/elements to state ET was not the associated & direct meaning/meme concerning Flying Saucers/ Disks in this period.

    Just some "anecdotes" here or there refering to Mars, Buck Rogers, etc.. Anyway, E.T. was not the direct associative meme.

    You must wait the "jump" of Ray Palmer, Keyhoe, Scully for the implementation of such a direct meme/meanings. I documented it in my French book about Roswell.

    So, you examine perhaps the case with your contemporan "memes", aka Flying Saucers/Discs = ET crafts (to be short).

    But in July 1947, it didn't necessary mean alien spacecrafts. "All" could be FS or FD.

    Those militaries would have then maybe thought about domestic projects, soviets. Or they would have probably identified the Roswell debris were prosaïc at 80 %. Or they have wanted "publicity" for the RAAFB, or they have overeated and realized after a buzz for a "balloon". Etc.

    I mean there exists an "infinity" of conventionnal hypothesis to explain the press release, before to invoke ET or a sensationnal finding...

    Remember, for example, Walter Haut stated to Fred Whiting in a 1990 interview (where social contagion was fewer) :

    “we sure messed up on that one last week. As a matter of fact,” he said, “ that outfit that was sending those balloons up were here on our station. They were from White Sands, and they were checking the upper atmosphere winds from east to west." Plock, p.233.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Just to tag onto Gilles' post....

    The "why" of the press release is one of the good questions that people ask about Roswell. And it's something that skeptics have to address,

    As Gillles notes, you really have to understand the time period and mindset of the times. Flying discs were all over the news after the media sensation of Arnold's sighting. And the recovery of these flying discs was also all over the news.

    People weren't yet thinking exclusively with the idea that the disks were ships from another planet. It seems obvious from the newpaper reports that many folks thought the disks were some sort of contraption of unknown origin. And when I say unknown origin, I include things like a prank or amateur flying model (which was a very popular pastime. [Here is a odd model from 1947 www.britishpathe.com/video/model-jet-plane] ).

    On the very morning of the Roswell press release there was another story in the Roswell paper about the recovery by police in Texas of a disk, pieces of melted aluminum, etc (if I recall correctly). And there were quite a few other similar newpaper reports of recovered "disks" over the preceding weeks...most of them shapeless junk.

    So despite the way the Roswell defenders set up the equation, skeptics are not saying that Marcel was stupid or anything else but honest. He found the balloon debris and radar target (and possibly some other components) which seemed to be covered with tape that had odd designs on it and he thought that this could be one of the flying disks that were all over the news.

    One would be wise to remember that Marcel himself repeatedly told the saucer nuts that the stuff we see him with in the photos IS the stuff he picked up. They finally got him to change his story but a reasonable person should probably see the end of the story right there.

    Those who are less discerning however are stuck with figuring out how to keep their myth alive. They have to rationalize that the "real" debris still looked an AWFUL lot like foil paper and wooden sticks. So we end up with the ridiculous space foil and saucer sticks idea that the faithful somehow beleive in with a straight face.

    Another aspect of this that is not well understood or discussed is that honest people like Randle formed their beliefs and understanding of Roswell during a time when the apparent evidence was (in their eyes) much stronger.
    They had MANY supposed first hand witnesses of the crashed craft, bodies etc. Kevin, during this period, was on television saying that he had "no doubt" about the story.

    However, over the 1990's ALL of these witnesses imploded, every single one of them is now considered bogus. And, it should be understood, Kevin himself had to do much of the exposure of these charlatans,

    Additionally Kevin's partner ended up being the most vile of folks involved in the Roswell tale and Kevin had to repudiate him as well.

    I suggest that the damage for some folks like Kevin was already done. He couldn't adjust his belief system to the new devastated landscape. The findings of Festinger were that, in the face of cognitive dissonance, some folks react with increased proselytizing...

    Now I think Kevin finds comfort only among the nuttier elements of the Roswell story: folks like the reprehensible Rudiak, whom even Kevin has had to admonish for just making stuff up and Bragalia (his limits are obvious and sad).

    The latest revelations show that Kevin made the following decision about Don Schmitt:

    1. I know you were a liar.
    2. I still think you are a liar because you are lying still.
    3. You'll do fine for our Roswell Dream Team as we search for the truth.

    Such a sad situation.

    Sorry Rich for the long post but I was hoping to unify the skeptical position.

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Lance:

    "I suggest that the damage for some folks like Kevin was already done. He couldn't adjust his belief system to the new devastated landscape. The findings of Festinger were that, in the face of cognitive dissonance, some folks react with increased proselytizing..."

    Agreed.

    And exactly the same can be said about Stan Friedman and MJ-12. He just cannot and will not "adjust his belief system", and in his case he is practically on his own as, possibly excepting the 'Disclosure Group', MJ-12 was flushed down the toilet for everyone else long ago.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • On the very morning of the Roswell press release there was another story in the Roswell paper about the recovery by police in Texas of a disk, pieces of melted aluminum, etc (if I recall correctly)

    Yep, exactly. Lance is surely pointing a Roswell Morning Dispatch release the same day. (Nota, it is taking place in Hillsboro, Texas, not Hillsboro in Oregon).

    An extract : "The second flying disks (sic) was reported found by Bob Scott, a farmer living two and a half miles east of Hillsboro. He said the disk fell on his place Friday, and that it resembled a saucer. He said it was so bright he could not look at it very long. He said he was afraid people might believe he was "going to extremes in imagining things" and he told no one but his family until yesterday.
    Then he notified O.F. Kissick and Joe Gerick, Hillsboro, who went to the field and investigated. Most of it had melted, they said. Gerick said one piece looked like tin foil, but when he picked it up, it appeared to be celluloid…


    Assuming or speculating some of the Roswell protagonists (I suppose Haut readed newpapers of his locality as PIO, or at least it is not absurb to speculate it, no?) readed this local newspaper the very same day, "tin-foil" componant were "coined" in their mind as part of a Flying Disk/Saucers (contextualized terms, and forget your E.T. meme, please).

    So, if they found materials with pieces looking like tin-foils (ie: radar-targets) and tin-foil component "coined" in their mind as part of a FS/FD, they acted not as drooling-idiots.

    A contrario, it maybe was a good candidat of a Flying Disk/Saucers (contextualized for the contemporans they were).

    There are many conventional pists/hypothesis/speculations to explain or to trie to explain/to rationalize the Press Release, as why the protagonists acted as they did.

    Sadly, some Ufologists retains only the extraordinary one: the press release concerned the crash of an Alien Spacecraft.

    As I wrote in my book, when ufologists claim something like :

    "how militaries of the RAAFB, only base in the world with nukes in this period, could have confounded prosaïc elements like balloon + radar-target with an alien spacecraft? They were not so idiot"... I think it is maybe these ufologists who could mesinterpretate.

    Mainly without taking into account the context and what meant FD/FS for the june/july 1947 contemporans and then only. They probably acted/thought, etc on FD/FS contextualized, not facing ET.

    For the rest, I'm agree with Lance post and this is not only a "Janis effect" between me and him ^^

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Okay, Lance, Gilles, and CDA...

    I love you guys, you know that, but because a newb or insensate person leaves a comment about Roswell or UFOs that has been buttressed and discussed superfluously and redundantly over the years, doesn't require or need a clarifying response here.

    You guys are casting pearls before swine, in my book.

    If a person doesn't know what has been going on in UFO circles and poses a comment that reeks of stasis or is stale as day old bread, I'm not going to add it from here on out.

    Some of use (PG, Bruce, and me) are sick of reading, over and over, that the Air Forces dummy scenario for Roswell sucks or that balloon debris at Roswell couldn't be Mogul (or could).

    You guys have got to restrain yourselves. You don't to enlighten every dope who shows up in the UFO arena with ideas that stink for being rancid with age.

    Let's try to deal with new or obtuse ideas, or a fresh slant on old profferings, please.

    (And I'm going to jettison comments like this: That is unmitigated bullsh*t.

    What does that bring to the table, but invective that isn't even unique or creative.

    (A slew of those appeared under Mr. Bragalia's post. While one may diagree with Tony's ideas and stance, they have to disagrees intellectually, not like a barbarian Hun.)

    That's it....please accommodate me.

    I don't want this blog to end up like Kevin's, or Unexplained Mysteries, or Above Top Secret.

    Those sites are the landfills of ufology.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Gilles,CDA and Lance

    Common sense does not apply to contrary to ordinary, spiced with religiosity.
    With just a little imagination, a bicycle can be a motorcycle, maybe a sixteen wheel tractor trailer..
    Maybe the whole world would change based on an old slide, just like the naive dreams of kids, but that's a impenetrable sort of membrane..that is..naivety.
    Stuck between the ground and the stratosphere, a maybe is leveraged.
    A nice place if you could find it sort of like the Lost Dutchman Mine..meets Sherlock Holmes..
    Stay tuned for the next episode.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • RR:

    Yes indeed, why should we doubters have to repeat our favorite negative offerings so much? Why no new offerings? However, I will point out one query and how to deal with it.

    Carroll Bryant wrote:

    "Another problem I have is the 'test dummies' report that came out many years later. They didn't use test dummies in 1947."

    Quite right, they didn't. ETHers love this sort of thing; it 'proves', or at least bolsters, their anti-USAF crusade, and helps their pro-ET case.

    But of course it does no such thing. It can just as easily be an example of how various witnesses get their timescales wrong after a lapse of 35 to 45 years, and how some of them are in fact recalling different events from different periods. There is nothing the least unusual in this, it is a known human failing, so why does Mr Bryant bring it up?

    As an aside, I do NOT accept the dummy parachute drops as a solution to the Roswell 'bodies', but you cannot possibly expect these ageing witnesses (who made absolutely no notes or diaries) to recall dates on this and that to any accuracy after a lapse of 4 decades.

    But you CAN expect that the ETHers will, and did, try to force these memories into the Roswell timeframe. This is an absolute must if they are to stand any chance of proving their ET scenario.

    Enough said.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • RRRGroup -

    ...one little fact to remember (and marvel over) is that ALL of what has been written/discussed/argued/confabulated over the decades about this whole Roswell hot mess can be traced back to one single, initiating trigger: PIO Lt. Haut putting out that press release.

    ...to really research this circus one must go back to what I think of as the Big Bang of Roswell, and simply demonstrate WHY the only atomic bomb base on Terra would call attention to itself in this way... I have pondered for decades and still cannot arrive at a satisfactory answer

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • CDA...

    You still manage to keep the Roswell detritus alive, with your comment here.

    You can't help yourself. You need to correct the record, even if it means correcting the record for stupid people.

    You are kind.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • KP:

    That damn press release begs to be answered, yes.

    But I think the sobriquet "flying disk" -- in the time frame -- was used for anything landing on the ground from above (balloon debris or Fortean artifacts) or flying above but unknown to the viewer.

    Yet, it could have meant a craft of unknown origin, and no one has clarified the press release matter to anyone's satisfaction.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Sorry Rich, allow me a last word concerning the "dummies" and ordinary extraordinary explanations.

    Michael Shermer was part of a documentary about Roswell (I can give the link if you need) - History Channel or something like it dunno exactly what TV channel of your conutry it was -. His intervention was too short (as it generaly is for skeptics in this kind of TV show), but he pointed how prosaic event(s) could be add to (UFO) narratives and memories in sociopsychologic processes.

    What I meant? Of course, it seems dummies can not explain bodies IF bodies it was in the Roswell 1947.

    BUT, it is possible MEMORIES post-1978 concerning alien bodies but in reality concerning dummies-monkeys pictures, plans or cars incidents/accidents, V2 recoveries, or dunno what in this sens, have been added in a retrospective falsification processing of the Roswell myth, by witnesses or storymythmakers, or by the UFO-myth itself.

    Impossible to summerize this "complex" pist in a blog reply or in English for me, but I suppose you understand what I mean.

    To Bruce:

    A person I respect, Spanish investigator Manuel Borraz wrote this:

    when something is strange, very strange, we may resort without much fear to the improbable explanations and another one I respect, Kentaro Mori to add :

    And by “improbable explanations” Borraz was not referring to alien spaceships or giant insects. But simply to prosaic things in extraordinarily improbable situations.
    This doesn’t mean, of course, that we should be resorting to all sorts of bizarre coincidences to explain away everything, but we have to have in mind that before resorting to seemingly simple hypothesis that involve unproven assumptions, we must consider first the more complex ones, even though they may look improbable at first.


    Take a look, please, of the post I quote a little, I think it is a "good critic thinking lesson" :

    http://forgetomori.com/2008/ufos/extraordinary-explanations/

    Regards,

    Gilles



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Why limit this critique to Roswell? The entire field or UFO study has the exact same problem... no hard evidence. Of course that has not stopped anyone, including Mr. Redfern, from making a living off of it.

    By Blogger Arcturus, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • The film The Flying Saucer released in 1950 but shot the previous year begins with the words 'We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of those in authority who made the release of the "Flying Saucer" film possible at this time.'

    To me at least this suggests 1) a mere two years after Roswell flying saucers were so popular associating pretty crappy films with them was thought to be good for business 2) it'd been firmly established in the popular consciousness you tended to need permission from the authorities to release material about them and 3) given the film's theme CIA and Soviet spies race to crack the saucer secret spooks and flying saucers went hand in hand.

    Non of that surely was due to Stan Friedman?

    On the other hand I've long been convinced the mystery of why Jesse Marcel rushed the story through's a key to Roswell.

    If all he found was a bunch of rubbery tinfoiled crap why put his name to a non-story?

    If it really was a flying saucer why the rush to unleash events which'd see a cosmic piñata filled with creatures from another world snatched from his quivering little fingers?

    Then again why did a newspaper supplying news to a region whose financial wellbeing was underwritten by the presence of the military and which must've been subject to many requests to drop soldierly indiscretion stories never mind embarrassing technical disaster accounts rush to issue either i) a huge untrue headline it had to know it'd get reprimanded for if not lose business and reputation over or if true ii) not at least check with further up the chain of command or seek permission from whichever branch of spooks'd made it their local eyes and ears from the Wartime/Atom Bomb Development period onwards?

    There's a story alongside the Daily Record's RAAF Flying Saucer headline which to me at least's suggestive.

    Security Council Paves Way to Talks on Arms Reductions.

    Is it just possible the rush to get the story out was due to Marcel and the editor attempting to counter worldwide talk of scaling down the military by implying 'Okay even if world peace does break out everywhere we still need a big military presence round here in case the Martians invade'?

    By Blogger alanborky, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • What extraordinary comments from Alan Borky.

    Nobody needed official permission to get a UFO film made, any more than they did to get a UFO book published (and there were three of these, even in 1950).

    And why equate the Roswell saucer story in the Roswell Daily Record with talk about arms reductions on the same page?

    Amazing!

    And is Borky really saying that the RDR and the town's "financial wellbeing" was due to the nearby existence of Roswell Air Force Base and the atomic bombs stored there? Nobody was supposed to know about the latter anyway.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, October 01, 2013  

  • Arcturus:

    If you want to talk about my income, you sure as hell had better get your facts straight first.

    I am not "making a living off of it," - it being the UFO subject, as you suggest.

    I work full-time as a writer. A solid 70-75 percent of my income, however, is derived from regular journalism, such as magazines, newspapers and also ghost-writing for other authors (chiefly on subjects that have zero to do with anything even remotely weird).

    I write books on UFOs and other Fortean issues because I enjoy the research and writing process. But earning my living from it? There's no way.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, October 01, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home