UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

The New York Times' misinformation about Roswell, July 9th, 1947


Haught for Haut? W.W. Brazel for Mac Brazel?

What about the mention of forty-three [43] other states in the Union (and worldwide) that reported flying saucers in the time-frame?

Some of those other sightings do show up in newspaper accounts, which are reproduced in the book, cited here before, Flying Saucers Over Los Angeles: The UFO Craze of the 50's by DeWayne B. Johnson and Kenn Thomas.

It seems that the summer of 1947 was, indeed, a fecund UFO period.

And Roswell was just one of many strange accounts that newspapers took notice of.

What's interesting is how The NYT dismissed Roswell by lauding a weather guy as the discoverer of the balloon truth. This was journalism of a shabby kind, certainly, and goes to explain why Roswell never made it as a major news item or sensational story. It was suppressed by journalistic indifference more than the skeptical suggestion that there was nothing to the story in the first place.

Context (and accuracy), in history and everything else, is supremely important.



  • Yes, one of the things that Tim Printy and Gilles turned me onto was how the newspapers were full of other recovered "disks". Most of them were obviously just junk (bits of foil, etc) but they were all taken somewhat seriously (by authorities as well) as possibly being related to the flying saucers that were all over the news.

    This sort of down to earth popular understanding of what saucers might have been has been obliterated by the current mythology but it takes special kind of dumb to read the 1947 papers and not see it.

    Any one of those cases could have been spun into a Roswell-like mythology (the evidence is EXACTLY the same: none) but Friedman happened upon Marcel…

    Rich, have you seen Kevin's latest piece (actually by Brad Sparks)? It takes a look at a quip that had been published by Allan Hendry quoting air traffic controllers about how many times they had cleared Venus for landing. Obviously it was just a joke but a joke is completely alien to someone with no sense of humor.

    "What is this thing? What can it mean?"

    Hilariously the conclusion (you have to see the fantastically inappropriate process of deconstructing a joke as though it was the DaVinci code) is that a cabal of skeptics created the story to belittle pious believers.

    As though believers needed help doing that.

    I poked a mild bit of fun at the piece and Kevin bravely deleted my comment immediately.


    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • I'm not getting what Kevin is doing lately.

    Is he still depressed about giving up his Roswell dream?

    The "alien attack" piece and now the Venus shoot-down story at Metropolitan Airport in Wayne. Michigan (Detroit)?

    My ex was executive secretary to Metropolitan's manager, at the time, and I told her about Sparks' exegesis of the alleged tale.

    She asked why I was still fooling around with UFOs -- the people who pay attention to UFOs being somewhat nutty.

    The Sparks' deconstruction making her point.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • Imho, as I commented in our French forum, Sparks is only making a "salad" about a simple anecdot Hendry is reporting (maybe after himself investigating the Detroit UFO mini-flap of Feb-March 1978 touching Detroit and his airport?). I mean only a possible "stylistic figure" done by a guy of the FAA to illustrate sometimes there is Venus mistaken. Nothing more, and then something which must not be taken stricto sensu, litteraly, as Sparks have done...

    It is hillarious to read it as a debunking or rebuttal -sic- of Hendry's excellent book and to demonstrate -sic- how UFO-Skepticd are hoaxers, liars à la Adamsky, etc... That's ufology!


    Hihi Rich, good point made by your ex-Wife ;)



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • Lance wrote:

    "...Any one of those cases could have been spun into a Roswell-like mythology..."

    Do you consider that a falsifiable hypothesis? If so, perhaps you can explain how you attempted to falsify it (i.e., test the null hypothesis) and failed?

    By Blogger Larry, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • Larry,

    I appreciate your attempt to get a Roswellian clarification from Lance, but I'm not going down the Kevin Randle road to lengthy discussions about Roswell here.

    The posting is an alert to the missteps by The New York TIMES and the indication, by the authors cited, that there were a slew of flying saucer sightings and attendant, mundane debris from same in the 1947 time-frame.

    Those specifics can be discussed here...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • This post is a wonderful example of a mixed metaphor in the sense that metaphors are used to explain unfamiliar concepts in familiar terms like using the example of flowing water to explain electricity and correct or incorrect factoids in relation to strange phenomenon is like trying to hammer a nail onto the sky, and the more persistent one becomes in making music into an automobile, the more lunatic the effort becomes over time.

    This is the conundrum of the subject, that this strange subject is simply a metaphor, a mask in a play and the more we try to domesticate it in familiar terms the more of a mismatch it becomes.

    Then again, it was Alan Watts who suggested that “Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun.” or “Problems that remain persistently insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way.”

    This is the upside down sort of schizophrenic universe of the nuts and bolts mind of most ufology. We seldom realize, for example that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society and the misapplied architecture of the approach to these anomalies are like a mirror that reveals a sort of odd flat earth society in the face of a transcendence of prosaic knowledge.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, October 30, 2013  

  • Rich wrote: "She asked why I was still fooling around with UFOs -- the people who pay attention to UFOs being somewhat nutty. " - - -

    I wonder what she thinks of debunkers obsessed with ufology?

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Wednesday, October 30, 2013  

  • Susan..

    I don't think I want to rile her further.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 30, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home