UFO Conjectures

Thursday, June 21, 2012

The UFO Crash "Silence"

Raymond Fowler’s piece in the April 1976 Issue of Official UFO (pictured above), What About Crashed UFOs? [Page 24 ff.] tells of several UFO crashes in the early 1950s: Mattydale, N,Y; Kingman, Arizona; and one in Mexico,

While the Kingman tale is supported by a Fritz Werner affidavit, the alleged crash has been discounted by some (many?). The Mattydale crash is a witness-only event, and the Mexico crash ended up being just a rumor with loose ends, nothing substantial.

What strikes me about such incidents is why witnesses to the supposed crashes won’t discuss them: the witnesses were fearful that they’d loose their military pensions if they spoke about the incidents they either experienced first-hand or heard about from colleagues.

Kevin Randle offers that witness-excuse for silence in his accounts of UFO crashes.

And Anthony Bragalia has bumped into that excuse for UFO witnesses being mum time and time again.

(He’s recounted that reason for the wall of silence at his blog, The Bragalia Files, many times.)

My question, often proffered to Mr. Bragalia, has been why would a person who has experienced a profound, unique event, like a flying saucer crash – an assumed alien space ship – would adhere to silence, to prevent a loss of pension or retirement monies – even when they are on their death-bed?

Is there or was there any real indication that the government or government subsidized operation would cease pension payments if someone spilled the beans about an alleged flying saucer crash or other UFO incident?

Has anyone ever followed up on the possibility?

Where did the idea come from? What was the stimulus for persons thinking they’d lose their life-sustaining pensions if they talked about a UFO event?

Was there no witness or witnesses who had enough monies or enough patriotic duty to inform the American people about the intrusion of extraterrestrial spacecraft (and sometimes beings) into their airspace?

Early Christians spoke about their “reality” of Christ even at sword point.

Military men, everywhere and always, have defied enemy threats of torture and/or death to prevent their comrades from being discovered or found out.

So why would a person who saw, allegedly first-hand, space creatures or their craft, keep their mouths shut….out of fear of a lost pension?

It doesn’t make sense…..unless such persons were lying or delusional.

Does any of this pertain to Roswell or Aztec too?



  • Why would a person who has experienced a profound, unique event, like a flying saucer crash – an assumed alien space ship – would adhere to silence, to prevent a loss of pension or retirement monies – even when they are on their death-bed?

    This is the central question of the crashed saucer mythos, and the one that can never be answered in a satisfactory way. As you rightly suggest, Christians (and other religious types) who claimed a direct encounter with strange beings routinely proclaimed their gospel, often with the very real fear that it would cost them their lives. Similarly, early scientists like Galileo also proclaimed their truths, and ran a very real risk of punishment.

    I'm sorry, but the "veil of secrecy" has never washed where the UFO phenomenon is concerned.


    P.S. Hope you're feeling better.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Well, on the one hand, no one wants to end up like Private Bradley Manning. IMO, he did the right thing and is paying for it dearly.

    On the other hand, maybe there were no ufo crashes. Some people lie, just for the heck of it...the excitment...the manufactured drama of telling an exotic story secretly to an investigator or reporter.

    I do wish that sincere people who've witnessed a ufo and/or experienced a close encounter would all use their true, legal names. Most of us do. Yes, someone may 'out' you and try to embarass you to co-workers or townies, but to go by a nom deguerre while telling a ufo related account or making public attacks against ufo/abduction investigators should ideally be done with ones true legal identity, imo.

    ~ Susan Brown

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Given the lengthy list of purported crashes, I agree it's peculiar that witnesses are elusive, self-confounding and evasive.

    It's also disconcerting that so many saucers seem vulnerable to crashing around the same areas of Mexico and US states. Perhaps, this area is the alien equivalent to Berlitz' Bermuda Triangle?

    If some UFOs were technological craft, they'd be part of a system. There'd be organisation and motivation of movement. If one was to malfunction, it'd be reasonable to suspect the intelligence behind the secrecy would be keen to recover it.

    "Oh shit! Centuries of our stealthy secrecy and shady doings ruined! If only our technology was up to the task of removing the crashed evidence before the Earthlings notice! We should have invented an emergency Evac procedure..."

    They were fortunate indeed that so many of those involved turned out to be unreliable witnesses and shady characters.

    I'm not a black and white thinker, but in the case of crashed saucers, perhaps the lack of witnesses just means a lack of crashes.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Thank you Paul...

    The vicissitudes of old-age keep intruding, but I'm hanging in there.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Abductees are quite ready to tell their stories of abduction by ETs. Sometimes they even describe the craft the ETs came in.

    But if the craft had crashed, or even made a soft landing, and the military got there first, they would have been told to shut up about it, under various threats.

    So it seems that in order to tell the world, a witness can see an alien craft, speak to the occupant and even be abducted for a period, but if those guys in uniform get to the scene first, tough luck; you'll never be able to tell anybody. Never? Well, maybe after a 30+ year time lapse you can, e.g. the various Roswell 'witnesses'.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • CDA:

    We're talking about people who are fearful of losing a pension, a minor kerfuffle in the great scheme of things -- such as an intrusion by alien beings.

    Keeping one's mouth shut about such a observation or experience, to preserve a monthly stipend seems cowardly to me or unreal.

    Why would such people, some being tough military types, be fearful of repercussions of a monetary kind is what baffles....unless, as Paul Kimball notes, the whole thing is bogus?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • I think there are worse effects than losing a pension in terms of paying for the consequences of having evangelical zeal, which I imagine would be the impetus for taking on a sort of sacrificial social role. Harassment by the unwashed,being a beacon for the mentally ill, being under a microscope, loss of social currency for family members, etc.
    The question is, we do not know what we don't know in terms of private experience being withheld, except by those who seek a sort of reflected glory in terms of the subject matter, which more often than not, is a case for the probing of a psychiatrist rather than an extraterrestrial. Another question is that if one knows that one experiential anecdote without proof will not "convert" anything in terms of a social movement ( which has provided nothing) then whats the point? The well is so tainted by it's context that evangelical zeal of witnessing the truth just muddies the chaotic waters further. Its a subject without an object.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • For me, Bruce, it's simple a matter of coming forward to present a truth that seems to be important.

    The cowardice of such persons, as I may have noted when Tony Bragalia addressed the issue, is appalling.

    Paul Kimball gets it. If the stories are true, then those not talking do not fall among the ranks of those who've stood against authority -- Galileo, Bruno, et al. but fall amongst those who stood by when Jews were being slaughtered during WWII or who stand by when an old lady on a bus is being taunted by brat-asses.

    Or the out is that the silent ones are just blowing smoke, and wasting our time and mankind's time by such silly human nonsense.

    Either way, we have a shameful set of examples in the esoteric field of alleged UFO crashes.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Re losing one's pension, of course the whole idea is bogus, as PK says. It is believed by some writers because these writers have already formed the conclusion that the military chiefs are determined to hold on to this 'great secret' that the public and the whole scientific community must be denied. Even after 65 years.

    The threats are of pension loss, a heavy fine, jail or even death. Even one's children are sometimes threatened (so it is claimed)! This threat may be part of an implied contract that I assume military personnel have to sign when they first join up. They have to abide by this contract. Such a contract is hardly likely to contain any reference to extraterrestrial life or any threats against one's offspring, but it is still a contract.

    There is a general reluctance of some personnel to say too much. But it also provides an easy 'get out' in that someone can then reveal a little, but then hint that there is a lot more that he cannot reveal, thus keeping the interviewer, and the public, on edge.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Is that cover image associated with this "crash"? I can't read the cover clearly. The UFO pic on the cover seems to be the multicolored Tulsa craft from the 60s that some 12 year old boy shot.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Some of the cases that I've been looking into tell a different story. Most, if not all, of the military participants went on to fulfill a successful career with a successful post-retirement career.

    In my reviewing of the 1967 Malmstrom AFB cases, none of the principles lost retirement benefits. Walter Figel retired as a full colonel, Robert Salas achieved a successful post-Air Force career in the aero-space industry. All this while serving in a paranoid command such as the Strategic Air Command. (As did I)

    It appears that the "notoriety" that they had achieved after going "public" has been the stumbling block. All this coming from public scrutiny, not from Air Force or DoD.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Yes, Cullan...

    The photo is the Tulsa photo, which is analyzed in the mag by Hayden Hewes.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Public opprobrium and taunting by the public caused these people anxiety and grief, Tim?

    What a bunch of weasels....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • CDA:

    The "excuse" (for keeping quiet) is as sleazy as making up the witness account in the first place.

    Why did these (mostly) men do that?

    It's pathological.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • I was answering in a generic way, not focused on the military mindset which is a subset with it's own striking contrast paved with the divided loyalties to one's personal family and that of the military family. The critical assumption is that a factoid exists that requires secrecy, and loyalty specifically as they or it relates also specifically to equally theoretical extraterrestrials, which is a double-bind in relation to their theoretical existence in our atmosphere, whereas you cannot safely assume on either side of yes or no in regard to anything.That would apply to those with no hard identification at hand of an unknown as an extraterrestrial craft, simply a guess based on appearances. Evidence is another matter, more specifically withholding evidence,but then who within what evaluates the effects of releasing it? Would it be just as careless to do so while acknowledging that the phenomenon still remains a mystery? Would that to paraphrase Freud, release the dark forces of occultism? Cults in place of reason? More suspicion rather than less? I can't think of anyone who trusts the government completely, so someone having evidence and presenting it, would this create implicit trust? I think that's naivety. It would send most "ufologists" off in a rampage of lunacy. The public would say, oh that's interesting, whats for dinner? after a 48 hour news cycle.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • Yes, Bruce, the public is cynical, blase, and has a generic attention deficit disorder.

    But I'm still trying to figure out why (mentally) stout military men (or scientists) would resort to a lame excuse (loss of pension) to keep from going forward with a story they either really knew about or concocted.

    It's bizarre either way...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • It's a submarine sandwich.
    Again, its a theoretical question based on a theoretical dilemma atop on a morality play that is atop a philosophic altruism rather than pragmatism. That and two cents wouldn't buy a hot dog.
    Firstly, it's going out of one's way on a a phenomenon that concerns very few in any real empirical way. Like revealing an asteroid is about to strike Earth. What are you going to do about that? It is what it is, and in this case there is no demonstrable threat to anyone.
    Secondly, it's the John Adams vs Jefferson debate. Do you trust "the people" to do the right thing or are you just like a Buddhist monk setting himself afire?
    Thirdly, doing the right thing depends on to whom the question is addressed. I don't think it's as simple a question to those holding a hot potato. It's easy to say go ahead when it is not you. I honestly think this is just more ufological rubric over a gossamer albatross.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 22, 2012  

  • The answer is easy. Many simply do not want to be brought into the limelight in any way. They wish to be private people living private, normal lives.

    Oftentimes people "keep to themselves" what they do not want to recall as it is too painful- or telling others may disrupt a now-peaceful life.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, June 23, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home