Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

POV

I have no opinion on what really happened in this incident, but this article suffers from a surprising lack of NPOV. For example, the intro's use of the loaded term 'conspiracy theories', and the phrase 'true nature' suggesting that it's known for certain what actually happened. The article seems to take the view that the latest official explanation is automatically true; whereas in fact the US government has published contradictory accounts of the incident over time, proving what is already obvious, that official accounts are often not true. For example the Hillsborough disaster - were the families and eye witnesses in that merely 'conspiracy theorists'?

Additionally the use of sources in the article is highly selective, such as the intro's quote 'the world's most famous, most exhaustively investigated, and most thoroughly debunked UFO claim' - of course there are numerous quotes from other sources that contradict this. What makes this the appropriate source to summarize the situation? I can tell you why that quote was included: because the editor that chose it believed the quote is true. But the editor's personal opinion should have no bearing on the matter. The sources are many and contradictory and there is no consensus. Suggesting that there is one misrepresents the situation. It is not clear what happened.

It seems to me that given the wide variety of accounts and explanations - official and unofficial - a NPOV version of this article would not state any as 'true' but merely distinguish the official account (or rather, varying official accounts over time) from the alternative ones. Those who are inclined to believe the latest official account - which many may well do - can do so themselves rather than be told by a particular subset of Wikipedia editors (rather than the consensus of sources) that it is 'true'. Ben Finn (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Re "because the editor that chose it believed the quote is true" -- which editor in particular are you referring to, and how can you assume to know their beliefs? Also, you may want to take into account the most recent discussion and consensus here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with LuckyLouie's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am referring naturally to whichever editor put it in. I surmise their beliefs by inference from the fact that they put this rather POV quote in. (Or did the editor add a quote (s)he believed was false?!) But in any case, that quote is just one of many POV aspects of the article.

Re the earlier discussion you reference, I note there was a total of just 3 votes, which is hardly a compelling consensus. If I have time I will propose a few edits to the intro to try and make it less POV. Ben Finn (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For example note this in WP:ASSERT: "When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion." as opposed to "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution". Since there is endless serious dispute about exactly what happened in this incident - surely we are in agreement on that point? - terms such as 'conspiracy theorist' (which is pretty much a name-calling term like 'idiot') used as statements of fact are not appropriate in this article, according to Wikipedia's rules.Ben Finn (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Serious dispute? I don't think so. If so, there'd be divergent positions in WP:RS. As it is, we've got one view (balloon crash) represented in high quality RS (which the article reflects), and the other side (aliens etc.) promoted by assorted conspiracy-thorists, ufologists and fruit-cakes (not RS/DUE). Per WP:PSCI we need to make sure we privilege reality. Alexbrn (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And who's to say which sources are reliable and high-quality in this case? As for 'privileging reality', of course the whole issue disputed by the sources is what the reality of the incident was. (Incidentally, name-calling does not strengthen your argument.) Ben Finn (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We have well-established guidance on WP:RS and a WP:NPOV policy to help decide weight. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't think it's clear which sources are reliable in this case or the weight to be given. Ben Finn (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What source(s) are you unsure of? Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not assuming any of the sources are particularly more or less reliable than any other; it isn't clear. Ben Finn (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So given on the one hand something like our Olmsted ref - an academic book written by a history professor and published by a university press, and on the other something like Roswell and the Reich: The Nazi Connection[1], you'd be unsure about which was more reliable? That's fine I suppose, so long as you understand that according to Wikipedia's WP:PAGs it is very apparent which is WP:RS for knowledge about this incident. Alexbrn (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a history professor makes for one reliable source, but not the last word on this topic. How do you feel for example about history professor David M. Jacobs as a reliable source about UFO history, or indeed the reality of alien abductions? Multiple reliable sources must be used, and there are many other serious, diligent researchers (e.g. Stanton Friedman) who are arguably reliable sources for the Roswell topic and take a contrary position to Olmsted. Ben Finn (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

David M. Jacobs is a person not a source; last time I checked Friedman hadn't been reliably published. In general, extraordinary claims would need exceptional sourcing. Are there any new sources on the table? Alexbrn (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

His books are a source. What counts as 'reliably' published? And are US Air Force press releases a reliable source? 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is very basic. See WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE for on-point WP:PAGs for this article. Military reports are reliable sources for their own content, but without secondary analysis including them could constitute WP:OR. This discussion is meandering. Are there specific source-backed proposals for changes to improve this article, or are we done here? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Day After Roswell

Are there any users who think that the text in the article about colonel corso's book is undue weight? It can be revised with Klass's words from csicop article as well; no problem to me. It seems that corso's book was discussed in the past also: [2] [3]. However, there seems no "books" section at the times those discussions were held. A brief mention would not be an undue weight imo. Logos (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The undue weight happened when this was added to the lead, which I reverted. But I suppose the Corso mention is OK where it is now, although it might need to be stated as past tense, with a little added context of the skeptical reception (e.g. Klass, Pflock) his claims recieved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Roswell slides

A recent notable event (among ufologists) in Mexico occurred concerning so-called "evidence" of the Roswell incident. May be worth a mention here, if not as a separate article. Google News recent -- œ^™ 04:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, certainly not. Obviously just another hoax.David J Johnson (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Its being a hoax is an encyclopedic info also. Additionally, there is another footage and the mention of $20 fare taken from the audience at the end of the news/article. It seems that there was a dedicated news/article about that footage in february: [4]. Logos (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Alien body-hoax http://news.discovery.com/history/roswell-alien-photo-revealed-as-mummified-boy-150514.htm Jcardazzi (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Intro

OK, as proposed above I have been bold and had a go at improving the intro to remove POV. I had thought to denote the balloon explanation as the 'official' one and the flying saucer one as the alternative one, until I realized that the flying saucer explanation was actually the first official one. Also the 1994 official mannequin explanation does not seem to be elsewhere in the article so I've added it there too. I've removed the quote mentioned above and terms such as conspiracy theory as POV. Ben Finn (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

While pop culture and ufology sources may promote Roswell as "unexplained", the highest quality academic sources (reflected in the article) don't, so we can't give equal weight to fringe and mainstream understandings. Observe that Collapse of the World Trade Center does not read: "The towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001. This gave rise to conflicting claims of an attack by terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda, or alternatively a controlled demolition." - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. It would have been more constructive to discuss (or edit further) rather than just making an instant complete reversion. Anyway: the 9/11 analogy does not hold as it is not clear which are the highest quality sources here - how are you forming an opinion of the quality of the sources? What for example makes B.D. Gildenberg objectively a higher-quality 'academic' source than, say, Stanton Friedman? And if you are assuming (as could well be argued) that the official reports ought to count as a high-quality source, note that the US Air Force was the first to claim the crash was of a "flying disc". Ben Finn (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not "flying saucer" which you specified in your intro. It's not odd that a very large deflated balloon collapsed flat on the ground would appear to be disc-shaped and would be described so. It's not odd that when it was identified by someone who could actually identify it, it was then described as being what it actually was -- a balloon. And incidentally, it was not the U.S. Air Force, but the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). Moriori (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

'Flying disc' was a standard term for flying saucer at the time (the Roswell Daily Record article uses the two interchangeably). I don't think there's much doubt that that's what the original press release meant. Ben Finn (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What you or I think was meant is irrelevant. We are an encyclopedia and are expected to accurately record events. The press release specified "flying disc", not "flying saucer" which subsequently became a widespread usage. That in turn was superseded by UFO, but we wouldn't claim the press release "initially reported that the crash was of a UFO". Moriori (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ben Finn, if you're arguing that Stanton Friedman, who claims a government conspiracy to conceal the presence of alien UFOs should somehow be given equal weight with scholarly sources published by Yale University Press, Oxford University Press, and Duke University Press, then I can't help you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you explicitly prefer the sources that support your personal opinion on the subject matter? That is POV. I have no opinion on the subject matter. Ben Finn (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You know what my personal opinions are? Have we met outside Wikipedia? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I know what you suggested just above, viz. that Friedman's theories are false [in your opinion] ergo [in your opinion] he should not be treated as a reliable source. Ben Finn (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ben, NPOV demands proportional treatment of sources, not equal. Moriori (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ben, Please accept the fact that your attempt to change the intro with highly questionable "theories" has not been successful. Other editors value the encyclopedia for its factual content and not fringe theories. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to be patronising. Thank you. 90.202.117.180 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no "patronising", just a statement of fact. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

-The intro needs to be changed. The way it is currently written gives no mention to the Roswell Daily Record as the reason for initial interest by Ufologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.212.54 (talk • contribs)

'Flying disc' was a standard term for flying saucer at the time (the Roswell Daily Record article uses the two interchangeably). I don't think there's much doubt that that's what the original press release meant. This is not quite true. The term "flying saucer" was coined about a week earlier, and the term lacked the "alien" connotation it now has. A pilot reported seeing a series of objects skipping along in a seemingly coordinated manner in the sky somewhat like saucers skipping over water. The press altered this to "flying saucer" - even though the objects were not described as looking like saucers or discs - and a brief craze was born the Summer of 1947 in search of these "flying saucers," whatever they were. The original Arnold sighting was clearly of a balloon train. Then, Brazel approached the authorities not because he saw an alien "disc" but because he heard there was a reward for the recovery of one and he recalled seeing some unusual junk in a field he managed. The Roswell base, in the spirit of the craze, dutifully reported it had recovered one of these so-called "flying discs" (even though it didn't resemble anything disc-like) and the rest is history.

Now, we have conspiracy authors breathlessly informing us that the original "flying disc/saucer" description came from the Army Air Force, which is trivially true, but highly misleading. The term was applied to unidentified junk, not to a disc-like flying vehicle. And, btw, "conspiracy theories" is an accurate description because we have here a claimed conspiracy whereby government agencies willfully hid information and material they had pointing to an alien visitation and concocted false stories and denials. That is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory." Perhaps the bad connotation comes from the fact that, on its face, material which some of the witnesses described as being tough tin foil and balsa wood with string, ringlets and baked-in-the-sun rubber would not reasonably transport alien creatures bigger than a mouse very far through the interstellar medium. Yet too many conspiracy theorists do exactly that, seizing on descriptions of "super-tough" tinfoil as evidence of aliens. Canada Jack (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how 'flying saucer' = a military term for junk. No super tough tin foil doesn't equal aliens but at neither does it mean flying saucer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.212.54 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roswell UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ufologie.net/rw/p/roswelldailyrecord9jul1947.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Comedic

I am not a UFO believer, but I must say that in order to promote the official or "sane" version of events the article has become comedic in writing. Read the header as of 3/30/2015. The weather balloon mention in sentence one and then sentence/paragraph two almost exactly the same. It's now written like by a paranoid government official who wants to stop Roswell theories. This is not the way to go if it is supposed to look professional. The further parts are no better. The "official explanation" repeated many times. Details about the event and reactions scarce. All in contrast to the media from the day and age also shown. Someone recently rewrote this in what he/she thought was a professional manner, but was anything but. A level of fighting all "paranormal theories" which means this kind of writing really makes a person more paranoid than the believers of those theories, cause why the obsession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.205.181.231 (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, sign your "contributions"

Secondly, try writing in plain English and try writing how you think the article should be, but subject to correction by registered and experienced editors.

And thirdly place in correct position at end of Talk page.

Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the original post is 100% right.

Secondly, improve your own English so you can understand how other people write.

Thirdly, shut up stupid David Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.74.50.13 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

It was a craft so put that in this besides a balloon. There were witnesses that said the real crash was replaced with a balloon.

24.100.21.3 (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source. -Roxy the dog™ bark 23:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Page Protection

This article has been a regular target for vandalism and other forms of disruptive editing for at least the last ten years despite frequent periods of temporary page protection. (I didn't go back farther in my edit history check.) As a consequence I have indefinitely protected this article. Requests for edits from IPs can be made here on the talk page or alternatively you can register for a user account. I apologize for any inconvenience but this has gone on long enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with your comments above. Many thanks for the indefinite protection from disruptive "editing". David J Johnson (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Peter K Burian

Someone asked me today to explain my edits. THE QUESTION: This is a controversial website (to some). Please explain your edits so that the rest of us understand what you are doing.

MY REPLY:Certainly. I am very interested in all aspects of history.

I read the article as is, and some of it did not sound quite right. Not false, just not fully explained or with missing information. (From what I knew about the situation after reading one article a few days ago.) And the lede was very short; four paragraphs is the norm in the other articles I have edited.

So, I did a lot of research, only on highly rated sites such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and Psychology Today. AND on the site that shows the original news items from June 1947. The latter are critical since they quote the people who found the wreckage. NOT witness reports published many years later, from people trying to remember things that happened 20 or 30 years later.

Be sure to confirm that all the edits I made are fully sourced from one of those Web sites. And that the quotes are accurate.

As my User page should confirm, I have been editing on Wikipedia for years and have numerous contributions. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2017

Please provide edit a summary after each edit. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines on edit summaries here. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point; yes will do in more detail. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

www.roswellfiles.com is not a WP:RS. Please revert the material you have added and cited to that source, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The only content from www.roswellfiles.com are verbatim newspaper articles. They are relevant but I need to find better sources for those news articles. Will do today and will revised the citations. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Also note that "ufologie.patrickgross.org/rw/press.htm" is not a WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the following content which had been on the page for many months. (I wrote new, similar content in the previous section.) Were these sources considered WP:RS before my involvement?? Such as angelfire? and ufologie.net and www.roswellproof.com and unreliable source?

This content, with poor sources, was written long ago: On June 14, 1947, William Brazel, a foreman working on the Foster homestead, noticed clusters of debris approximately 30 miles (50 km) north of Roswell, New Mexico. This date—or "about three weeks" before July 8—appeared in later stories featuring Brazel, but the initial press release from the Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) said the find was "sometime last week", suggesting Brazel found the debris in early July. Brazel told the Roswell Daily Record that he and his son saw a "large area of bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks." He paid little attention to it but returned on July 4 with his son, wife and daughter to gather up the material. Some accounts have described Brazel as having gathered some of the material earlier, rolling it together and stashing it under some brush. The next day, Brazel heard reports about "flying discs" and wondered if that was what he had picked up. On July 7, Brazel saw Sheriff Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he may have found a flying disc. Another account quotes Wilcox as saying Brazel reported the object on July 6.

Wilcox called RAAF Major Jesse Marcel and a "man in plainclothes" accompanied Brazel back to the ranch where more pieces were picked up. "[We] spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon [July 7] looking for any more parts of the weather device", said Marcel. "We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber."

The full description of the debris in the July 9, 1947 edition of the Roswell Daily Record:

The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been 12 feet long, [Brazel] felt, measuring the distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter. When the debris was gathered up, the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds. There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine, and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil. There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument, although there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction. No strings or wires were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.

 See the citations used in the old content, below my signature. Many are from www.roswellproof.com Surely that one is not acceptable.  Peter K Burian (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@David J Johnson I had deleted my OWN content and you reverted them. I cannot object but the reason I had deleted my content (about news items) was because I had been told by LuckyLouie that the sources I had cited were not acceptable: WP:RS As my previous note above mentions however, I subsequently realized that there is a lot of old content in this article that cites sources not acceptable to Wikipedia.

I deleted a chunk of the old content, but because the new content I had added - with acceptable sources - covered the same issues. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

A brief reply, as I have significant real-life issues at the the moment. You appear to have totally ignored my main point - that you could have made most of your numerous edits into one or two edits, instead of the deluge of edits to be seen on the article history page. This type of editing is time wasting for other editors, who have to check every single change. Anyway this is a moot point, as I see that a admin has reverted most of your edits. Also, please do not state that you you have been on Wikipedia "for years" when your contributions appear to have started in 2015 and do not "shout" with the addition of caps. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you mean me, I'm not an admin. But the reversion restored the article to a good state. Any proposed changes should ideally now be discussed here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoever reverted, I support their reversion. The work done by Peter K Burian was, in general, not an improvement. It basically moved all the detail from the article body into the article lead. Although it's true the lead could have used expansion, this was a bit excessive, i.e. the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not be the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and erasing scholarly works from the lede and using (predominantly) a blog post instead, was not good. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of valid new material

David J Johnson... Please explain the reason for your deletion of the valid material I added to this section of the Roswell page. Your abrupt note in the Edit summary (with no explanation here on the Talk page) merely says: Revert per WP:UNDUE. Why are you keep quoting Dunning?) (sic) So why did you not follow WP:BRD, which says: Reversion should be a last choice in editing: the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors.? Per WP:BRD I am now going to TRY to achieve consensus:

I believe the material I added is valid. It does nor dispute the majority viewpoint, and is material not previously covered here, so what about this addition has "undue weight" per WP:UNDUE in your opinion?

For your reference I am adding here the entire text you deleted yesterday. For context, this followed an existing examination of the claims made by Glenn Dennis (which constitute a large part of the Roswell fable). The refernce provides a concise connect-the-dots explanation for Glenn Dennis' confabulation, and this was the summary:

In 2007 scientific skeptic author Brian Dunning evaluated the significance of Glenn Dennis to the Roswell mythos and concluded that "Virtually all popular details of the story of an alien crash at Roswell are based upon the personal recollections of Glenn Dennis. He hadn't thought about the subject for 42 years, until he saw the (September 20, 1989 "Roswell Crash" episode of Unsolved Mysteries) TV show. Suddenly he started putting two and two together, tying together bits and pieces of this and that from his memory, and with the help of Stanton Friedman, connected the dots and wove the fabric of modern Roswell mythology." RobP (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite simply it is only a rerun of most the material already contained in the article and I see no reason for the adding the Dunning quotation, an author whom you seem to have a fixation with. You are adding WP:UNDUE to one person's view - as you have with another article. I would also remind you that the "R" in WP:BRD is "revert" if it is not an improvement - and then discuss. However, I am happy to accept a consensus view, should other editors wish to comment. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see it as a "rerun", but maybe I'm wrong. So I would appreciate others input on this topic. RobP (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know the etiquette with reverts per undue, but I would like to say that considering Glenn Dennis's contribution through the autopsy story I think the quote was fine considering where it was placed (Recent evidence: Shoddy research) as it kind of puts a lid on it, and it's what a lot of people think of when they talk about Roswell. I don't see it as a rerun as Dennis (rightly!) doesn't appear in other parts of the article. Hope my comments are helpful. Mramoeba (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

David Johnson, thank you for encouraging more input. I am a colleague of RobP, so it won't be surprising that I agree with him. His addition was a significant expansion on the description of Glenn Dennis' role. Currently the page mentions Dennis mostly in that he was the source of the alien corpse story. The only duplication I see is that Dennis is relying solely on 42-year-old memories. I would like to see more on 1) the relationship between Dennis and Friedman, 2) an expert opinion on human memory, and 3) a calculation on the odds of the entire staff of an air base keeping a conspiracy secret for the remainder of their lives (with the possible exception of Dennis, who it seems had forgotten about this earth-shaking event. Is there any documentation that Glenn Dennis was even at the site at the time? As it stands the article does not provide any. That should also be noted in the article.

People are free to evaluate Dunning's expertise as a skeptical writer, as opposed to, for example, an expert on human memory (neurologist?) or a planetary biologist.

[Of course, much of the evidence cited in Wikipedia relies on human memory (e.g. a scientist remembering a series of experiments and reporting on them to a journalist), but when the memories are 1) 42 years old 2) documented to have at least one error (nurse) 3) from a person who willfully changes his memory (changing nurse's name) 4) not by an expert (even if Dennis saw what he thought were alien corpses, how does he know they weren't, for example, soldiers who were placed too close to a nuclear detonation) and; 5) have been subjected to un-evidenced suggestions for up to 42 years, and, if Dunning's implication is correct, direct influence by someone with a stake in the outcome, i.e. Friedman, ... then the memories are utterly suspect. I just watched a movie for a 2nd or 3rd time that I had seen maybe 7 years ago. I "remembered" whole scenes that were not in the movie, and I have not discussed the movie with anyone or, as far as I remember, read anything about it.] 66.162.18.194 (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to login. The text above, starting with "David Johnson, thank you for encouraging more input." is mine. ScienceExplains (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Originally, there was a fair bit on Dennis as the second Air Force report harshly criticized him for perpetuating a hoax - though it didn't explicitly accuse him of it, it pointed out that some of the details he "remembered" were in fact of other events, notably what clearly was Joseph Kittinger Jr.'s high-altitude record attempt in Nov 1959 which went wrong and caused a security scare at the Roswell base and a clamp-down. The presence of a black officer clearly meant this was not 1947 and the Report's author found it implausible that Dennis "innocently" had the dates wrong, conflating it with the events surrounding the July 1947 UFO incident. Bottom line is some choice quotes from the Report would underline the implausibility of his "recollections," as well as the fact he had a rather glaring conflict of interest in that he ran one of the museums promoting the aliens! Canada Jack (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How about now? Dunnings is worth a mention, without warranting at the same time a full-blown block quote citation, which kind of overwhelms the section. Other authors are quoted in-line, and the same could be done for Dunnings, in theory, but I don't see any particular reason not to summarize the text instead. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Deeday-UK: Just saw your edit and I'd say that fits the bill perfectly! Thanks so much. Are we all good now? RobP (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence here, or references to evidence, to support the Project Mogul explanation. The footnote referring to the military report says the material was concluded to be a Project Mogul balloon, without any detail (here) about how that conclusion was reached. I see a tendency in other places in the article to make conclusory statements without backing them up with evidence. For instance, the Problems with Eyewitness Accounts section says, "dubious deathbed" declarations. None of June Crain's declarations that I've encountered, for instance, were deathbed declarations. She had a secret clearance and worked for the military in Ohio. To automatically call her testimony, as collected I think by Clark, dubious, I think requires a POV that this stuff didn't happen and any possible evidence to the contrary can be dismissed out of hand. To waive a hand and dismiss an entire range of late-life assertions as "deathbed" is inaccurate on its face. In addition, there should be a "Strengths of Witnesses' Accounts" section to balance the Problems.

Sweeping generalizations and incautious use of words like best and most: Gildenberg's line that Roswell is the best debunked UFO case is an opinion against which a decent, if problematic, case could be marshalled. It hints of carelessness even in its wording because to know that Roswell is the best debunked requires detailed knowledge of Every Other Case that has ever been debunked. That's a bunch. No human could possess such knowledge. There isn't time in one lifetime to do it. Has Gildenberg looked at, say, 8,000 debunked cases in the detail required to compare how well debunked each one is compared to Roswell? Of course not. Someone called Acadia National Park the "loveliest island on Earth." These kind of statements are for the PR dept, not the encyclopedia. It presumes knowledge of every individual island's degree of loveliness. If there were only 1000 islands, or 1000 debunked UFO cases, that would be impossible, and there are many thousands of islands as well as UFO cases. Also, deciding an island's loveliness, like deciding how well debunked Roswell is, is not completely an exercise in objectivity. It involves weighing of elements and forming of opinions.

Next point: how do we conclude that, in and of itself, suspecting the government of conspiracy to cover something up makes someone a questionable source, i.e., Friedman? The government is Ever in the business of orchestrating the efforts of those who work for it to tell part of a story and not all of it, in 1000 subjects. Obama's drone program. NSA surveillance. Remote viewing experiments. No end to it.

There is no hard evidence out in public that nonEarth ships or materials have ever come to Earth, and this is true of Roswell. Yet what we can't prove is not the end of this story, but the beginning. Here we have,say, four dozen hints from apparently responsible persons with no connections to each other, that something genuinely out of the ordinary may have occurred at Corona. They don't add up to proof, but they add up to something. They don't add up to nothing. We can have massive disagreement about what they add up to, but it's not nothing. Case in point: Crain, who was never in Roswell, described a light, resistant material given her by a colleague, to see what she could make of it. Her description seems greatly similar to, say, that James Wood of Roswell gave of a piece of something given him for a birthday.

It would be nice if this article were written with the same skepticism and openness of Howard Blum's book, Out There, (1990) detailing the government's secret investigation looking for extraterrestrials. It refers on a few pages to Roswell, but not in detail. I haven't signed in. If I get more serious about contributing I'll relearn how to do that. Alan Rasmussen, Tucson, Az — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.245.3 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence here, or references to evidence, to support the Project Mogul explanation. There used to be a separate page describing the two reports, but for the purposes of the page, it suffices to state that that conclusion was reached.

For instance, the Problems with Eyewitness Accounts section says, "dubious deathbed" declarations. The section describes the issues critics have with many of the witness accounts, and the "dubious death bed" claim is cited to Korff. Obviously, those who think there is more to the case believe otherwise, but the section is clearly about the critics and their issues with the evidence and how they characterize that evidence.

To automatically call her testimony, as collected I think by Clark, dubious... That's a stretch. She is not mentioned and there is no generalized comment that ALL claims of aliens are death-bed confessions. Again, the section simply notes critics' issues with the evidence, death-bed confessions being one of them.

Sweeping generalizations and incautious use of words like best and most: Gildenberg's line that Roswell is the best debunked UFO case is an opinion against which a decent, if problematic, case could be marshalled. But this is clearly presented as an opinion, clearly identified as the view of the person making the statement, and it is cited: B. D. Gildenberg has called the Roswell incident "the world's most famous, most exhaustively investigated, and most thoroughly debunked UFO claim".[3] The "fact" is that he made the statement. Whether the statement is accurate is up for debate. But I've not personally seen anything close to the coverage - both pro and con - to the Roswell case, so the statement rings true and isn't clearly misleading or inaccurate.

Next point: how do we conclude that, in and of itself, suspecting the government of conspiracy to cover something up makes someone a questionable source, i.e., Friedman? I'm not sure what this refers to. Where is it stated that, "in and of itself," suspecting a government cover-up disqualifies one as a source? When it comes to claims of alien visitations, however, this is a fringe belief, as mainstream consensus is that we have not been visited by aliens. So, if the government is accused of covering up alien visitations, it is the claim of alien visitations which is the reason the source is questioned - NOT the claim that the government was engaged in a cover-up which, per se, doesn't make one "fringe."

Here we have,say, four dozen hints from apparently responsible persons with no connections to each other, that something genuinely out of the ordinary may have occurred at Corona. Well, now you are simply debating the plausibility of the claim aliens landed. But many "genuinely out of the ordinary" things happen all the time, so it neither here nor there. And in the end none of the debunkers can honestly say they can prove no aliens in fact were involved. The best that can be said (unless we have the exceedingly unlikely presentation, after 70 years, of compelling evidence) is that the evidence presented doesn't add up to what we'd expect to see if an alien craft in fact did crash at Roswell/Corona. Canada Jack (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Discs and saucers

@Alexbrn: your second lazy revert, apart from restoring a rather dodgy sentence structure, changed flying saucer back to flying disc because "Disc is correct". Well, saucer is certainly not incorrect, plus (reason No.1) it's exactly what the source quoted and reproduced right next to it in the infobox says, and (reason No.2) flying saucer is a meaningful link to a relevant article, while flying disc links to something unrelated. Have you got any compelling reasons to use disc instead? --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me just say here that in my opinion, "flying disc" should be used as the term "flying saucer" has a different connotation now to what it had in 1947. A "flying saucer" is pretty well universally understood now to indicate an alien craft (in contrast, the preferred modern term "UFO" is suggestive of possibly being alien, but may be something else). However, "flying disc(k)" is not so familiar and in my view more accurately connotes "mysterious object" without the alien implication, which is what the reader in 1947 was more likely to understand that to mean. The term "flying saucer" had only been coined, after all, mere days before this incident and the reports motivated Brazel to call the base about something he had seen a few days earlier. Canada Jack (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Disc" is in the source cited. Alexbrn (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper date

In the infobox the caption for the newspaper gives a date of "July 8, 1947."

However, when you 'click' on the newspaper pic and a window/frame opens, the caption there gives a date of "July 9, 1947."

I know a typo of one day -- "8" vs "9" -- is no big deal, but it's still an error.

Could some verify the date of the newspaper edition pictured and correct the appropriate caption?

Thank you. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You think? That looks like 8 to me. Moriori (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is so blurry I can't make it out. Perhaps the day should be removed from the caption as it is not certain. 24.186.54.68 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh! First you say the "newspaper gives a date of "July 8, 1947."" then you say "It is so blurry I can't make it out". Not really a rationale for changing anything. Moriori (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Um, the fact that it says "Tuesday" is a clue ... 109.145.3.97 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo analysis

I'm surprised "there was no consensus that anything was legible" on the photo of the telegram. Even to my inexpert eye, it seems clear enough, within the context, that the words third and fourth from the end of the penultimate line read "weather balloons". Are people disputing that? 109.145.3.97 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well then, get it published in RS and come back. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

What is "RS"? 109.145.3.97 (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:V. Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not looking to or intending to "publish" anything on this myself. As I mentioned, I am not an expert. I am merely questioning whether the article accurately reports the prevailing consensus. 109.145.3.97 (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It does. Unless you can produce additional WP:RS that calls that into question. Alexbrn (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Shoddy?

‎Canada Jack is repeatedly restoring the rather odd title "Shoddy research and unreliable witnesses" and the paragraph which says

The Air Force reports on the incident suggested that basic research that was claimed to have been carried out was not in fact carried out,[55] a fact verified in a 1995 Omni magazine article.[56]

This makes no sense.

• It is not clear who is making the "claim" or which research is "shoddy", and this first sentence looks like original research.
• It then seems odd that this "suggestion" morphs (in Wikipedia's voice) into a "fact" in the next sentence, and using an old magazine article hosted on roswellfiles.com as a "verification" of this "fact" seems rather fringe-povish (note also the link used is a copyvio).

Canada Jack - what content in the first source supports the wording "The Air Force reports on the incident suggested that basic research that was claimed to have been carried out was not in fact carried out"? Is there a WP:V issue here? Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I will retrieve the sources over the next few days. But the Air Force Reports made the claim of shoddy research, and the original reporting done by Omni as cited in the Report backed up this claim of shoddy research. Off the top of my head, Omni revealed that Kevin Randle had not interviewed who he said he had, that "missing" and "unknown" employees were easily located buy Omni, and his stated academic credentials were not accurate. The Report (the second one, I believe) cited the Omni reporting. The Report cites the articles (I believe there were several cited), but the links to the actual articles aren't embeded in the Air Force Report links (if memory serves), but exist elsewhere. Canada Jack (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That looks like it might make more sense. As it read, we seemed to be saying the Air Force was criticizing its own "shoddy" research. Alexbrn (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this text seems to have suffered from incremental edits over the years - I believe that a secondary source may have referred to the Air Force report's conclusion - which pulled its punches - as being corroborated by the Omni reports, the latter of which perhaps editorialized. So, the report "suggested" shoddy research while the Omni article flatly said it was shoddy research, if I recall correctly. The Skeptic Magazine article (referenced elsewhere on the Roswell page) may have been the main secondary source here and may have been the one who called it "shoddy." As I said, I will chase down the sources, and who characterizes the research by Randle etc as "shoddy," making that editorializing clearly from the ones who said it, etc. Bottom line, the text needs to be cleaned up and clarified, but there are primary and secondary sources for all of this, so it need not be excised as the underlying point is pretty important - that many claims made by some UFO researchers were found to be poorly researched, or not researched at all, despite claims to the contrary. Canada Jack (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I await with interest an unambiguous reference to justify us saying Omni verified that claimed basic research never happened. Without such a statement that claim should never appear in the article. Another point -- the sentence led off with "The Air Force reports...." (wikilinked) which gives the false impression we have an article called "Air Force reports". We don't. The link goes to "Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident" which is a redirect straight back to this article. Funny thing that. Moriori (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The link in fact used to link to an article on the two Air Force reports, that page has now been deleted. As for the Omni article, it probably should be rephrased along the lines of Omni found claimed research etc had not been done, which the second Air Force report cited as evidence of shoddy research. Unless it was Skeptic who said Omni "verified" what the Air Force said. Canada Jack (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think to readers unfamiliar with the matter the questions are: what research? what claims? made by whom? and when? The text as it stood was opaque. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the section used to spell out the particular research issues and claims made by Kevin Randle, and others. What I'll do is rewrite the section here, over the next few days, once I dig up the material. Canada Jack (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

An update here... Yes, the section in question was a drastically cut-down part of a section which had been in place since 2006. Given its place on the page currently (well, at least, as of a few days ago...), I think it best to reframe it as the Air Force reports - and the Omni articles - as having highlighted a lot of dubious research by the UFO authors (Don Schmitt, not Randle as I had said before, in particular was singled out), especially when it came to the claims of Glenn Dennis and the supposed alien autopsy. Both the reports and the Omni article (the one from 1995 which followed up on the Glenn Dennis claims and found that much basic research claimed to have been done had in fact not been done) make the point that claims were made that were either not researched despite suggesting otherwise, or were made in the belief the research wouldn't be checked. While the Air Force reports (the 1997 one in particular) detailed the Dennis claims and how they were either confused memories of specific events, mostly from years after 1947, or deliberate hoaxes (doubt is expressed on how there could have been honest mistakes here), the 1995 Omni article focusses on the research claimed to have been done by Schmitt in particular. The fallout was a split amongst various UFO proponents - Randle and Schmitt in particular - and, with the reports, a skeptical explanation which detailed where the initial Marcel-described debris came from and how the reports of aliens being recovered had earth-bound explanations.

Be patient here... I will make a short section which spells this out, keeping in mind the current structure of the page and the neighbouring sections which partly cover this, and keeping in mind that the Omni article more properly highlighted bad or non-existent research, and further research in the 1997 Air Force report made those initial claims even more suspect. Canada Jack (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roswell UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510200615/http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/Roswell/RoswellDailyRecord.jpg to http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/Roswell/RoswellDailyRecord.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of paranormal banner from this and other UFO articles

@David J Johnson: On my talk page you wrote:

• Please do not add "paranormal" banner to pages such as Majestic 12 and other articles, when the explanation for these events are either a hoax, or has been explained in ways that have nothing to do with any paranormal activities. If you disagree, please take your reasons to the article(s) Talk page. Thank you and regards.

To me, your take that this and other UFO-related articles should not connected with the word "paranormal" is extremely odd. What do you make of the fact that the paranormal side banner (which you deleted) actually includes UFOs in its list, and that most all UFO topics have the WikiProject Paranormal banner on their talk pages? Also note that in the category listed below for this article, "paranormal" is included numerous times. As I understand it, your objection to this is because UFO's are not "real"? Well (likely) neither is Bigfoot or ghosts or energy healing, so are you going to claim those - or anything else that is wrong or a hoax - is not a valid paranormal topic either? If that were true, then nothing at all would be classified that way, and the word would lose all meaning! RobP (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I see absolutely no need to use bold in any discussion/replies you might make, it is as bad as using caps to shout part of your reply. Both Roswell and Majestic 12 conspiracy theories have been disproved multiple times - there is absolutely nothing paranormal about them. You have tried before to further way-out theories and have been unsuccessful. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia dealing in facts from reliable sources and not so-called government cover-ups. David J Johnson (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Majestic and Roswell have been disproved does not address the issue of my point and the observations above which you conveniently left unanswered. There are who still believe these things. Hence all the "paranormal" classifications of these topics already present as I detailed. The banner I added just calls a spade a spade one more time. It in no way implies either is "real". No more than putting the same banner on ghosts or Bigfoot or Reiki implies those things are real or work. And for the record - your claim that I have "tried before to further way-out theories" is bazaar, and as with this time, you have apparently misinterpreted my actions at some time in the past or confused me with someone else. In fact, I am a member of several skeptical teams that work to promote science and dispute pseudoscience on Wikipedia. People who know me personally (or just on Facebook) - after I argue with them about their unfounded beliefs in all sorts of nonsense - often say "Rob, why you don't believe in anything?" They would all find your assertion that I am pushing some sort of way out nonsense here laughable. RobP (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary "paranormal" is "lying outside the range of normal scientific investigations etc", I hardly think that the hoax Majestic 12 and the long disproved UFO theory of Roswell falls into this category? Also I fail to see what "bazaar" - "a market in oriental countries" has to do with anything? Regarding your previous comments on this subject, you have only to read above this current discussion. But, as always, I am prepared to accept consensus on this matter. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Again... not answering the question about how this is different from articles on ghosts, etc, being labeled as paranormal. And you are going to sink to the level of picking on a typo (bazaar vs bizarre)? Or was that a joke? And the only thing "above this current discussion" is my attempt to add a Skeptoid article further debunking this as a real event - which you (but not everyone) took exception to. How you considered that me trying to"further way-out theories" is amazing. Please refrain from future statements disparaging my character or actions without proper citation. RobP (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Its not uncommon for particular projects to adopt various articles and incorporate them into their sphere without backing this up with reliable references. If scientific and reliable references demonstrating that such articles are a major focus of paranormal research (aka quackery) then perhaps in a fee instances we could mention this.--MONGO 15:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Still seeking opinions regarding whether or not the Wikipedia banner highlighting this article as "Part of a series of articles on the paranormal" and meant to go under the infobox is applicable to this and other UFO related articles - or not (as Johnson maintains). In summary, I added this banner to this as well as several other UFO articles, and that action was reverted everywhere by Johnson, stating that UFO articles do not belong in the paranormal category. My point is that this banner actually includes "UFO, UFO sightings, and Ufology" in its list. Also, this page (Roswell UFO Incident) is part of WikiProject Paranormal, as can be seen in the banner at the top of the page. I have added the banner in question below for reference with a sample photo that can be used to make it clear that the banner's inclusion does NOT endorse the paranormal viewpoint: RobP (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The Paranormal banner is appropriate RobP has asked some valid questions of David J Johnson which he has not answered. The definition of paranormal provided by David J Johnson absolutely includes UFOs (lying outside the range of normal scientific investigations etc), and UFOs are colloquially known as being paranormal. Insults and drawing attention to grammar, spelling and formatting, do not further the argument. @David J Johnson: please convince me that RobP is wrong. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You say David J Johnson's definition of paranormal "absolutely includes UFOs (lying outside the range of normal scientific investigations etc), and UFOs are colloquially known as being paranormal." Fine. But why should the paranormal banner go on articles which make it clear UFOs were never involved, like Majestic and Roswell? Moriori (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

All I can do is agree with Moriori comments above. Both Majestic 12 and Roswell have been proved to be nothing to do with UFOs and in the case of Majestic a deliberate hoax. RobP has already stated that the proposed banner does not endorse a paranormal viewpoint. Why then insert a banner on articles which have nothing to do with UFO's, or the paranormal? David J Johnson (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Right...I have never seen anything about this that relates to the paranormal. Conspiracy theories yes, but not Paranormal.--MONGO 11:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: You ask "Why then insert a banner on articles which have nothing to do with UFO's" Really? An article named "Roswell_UFO_incident" has nothing to do with UFOs? And for the record some of the other pages you removed the banner from were Black triangle (UFO)‎ and Rendlesham Forest incident. I guess these have "nothing to do with UFO's" either? As mentioned, all of these pages have the WikiProjects Paranormal banner on their Talk pages. Clearly folks into the paranormal think they are UFO/Paranormal related. As for the reason why, it is simply to call as spade a spade. UFO's are paranormal topics in the same way articles about ghosts, astrology, energy healing and Bigfoot are. All of these are bogus but believed to be true by the paranormal contingent. I am flabbergasted at the illogic of this argument.RobP (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"An article named "Roswell_UFO_incident" has nothing to do with UFOs?"Pardon me while I raise your flabbergasted to astonished. I am astonished that you probably don't realise that with that statement you unwittingly made the case for renaming "Roswell UFO incident" to something like "Roswell balloon incident" or similar. Any article which is not about UFOs should not contain UFO in the title, nor should it have the paranormal banner over it. Commonsense 101. Moriori (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me for being obtuse, but I am unclear as to who (whom) the "you" is in "...you probably don't realise..." Is that directed at me? Or at Johnson who made that statement to begin with? And do you really believe there is a case for renaming the page to "Roswell balloon incident" that I somehow gave credence to? Are we now saying WP should pretend that this is not a big UFO story deeply embedded in American culture and believed to be all about UFOs and aliens by those who will not listen to reason, and so dilute the article's name? I hope that's not your real point, because there will be thousands of articles needing renaming by that standard, starting with the other articles I placed the now deleted banner on such as Black triangle (UFO)‎ and Belgian UFO wave. I also want to point this out to those who dislike the inclusion of the Paranormal banner thinking it somehow promotes nonsense: if you look at the banner it included links to many pages countering the pseudoscience viewpoint! My hope was that including the banner might get people who are true believers to say - "hey, what's this about?" - and get them to possibly read up on the alternate POVs to their sloppy thinking. RobP (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Including the paranormal links banner on UFO related articles may feel counter-intuitive because in popular culture "paranormal" is overwhelmingly associated with psychics, ghosts, ESP, forteana, etc. So, many people have 'never seen anything' that relates UFOs to the paranormal. However scholars do rightly classify UFOs among paranormal belief systems and there are a surprising number of sources that back this up, for example, [5] and [6]. Does that mean that the banner must be included on all UFO articles? No, it just means we have high quality sources to guide us rather than individual editors definitions of "paranormal". Note that I don't care either way if the banner stays out or goes in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There also seems to be a greater question lurking in this discussion; something like "should all UFO articles be included into the paranormal category?". The answer could be "it depends on the article", but I wonder if there isn't a better forum to get wider input for such a sweeping issue. WP:FTN? WP:VILLAGEPUMP? I dunno. Unfortunately there's no "should this thing be in that category notice board". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Debunked or not it is absolutely about UFOs. If there was no mention of a UFO this would not have been a story and this page would not exist. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You all may find this of interest: Search Roswell or "UFO" here, on the WikiProject Paranormal/Popular pages list. RobP (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So where are we on this? Again... This article is in currently 23rd (of 500) on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Popular pages article. How can it - and other UFO related articles - not have the paranormal banner? RobP (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: WP:SILENCE. -- œ^™ 10:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: UFO subjects are commonly classed under the paranormal (my other reply here). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no evidence for anything paranormal. Just as we don't feed trolls here, we should not feed believers in non-scientific nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

New material based on alleged Roswell debris (Art Bell)

Hi, during some experimentation I did make a small sample of a material remarkably similar to the Art Bell samples, but with the notable exception that it was based on bulk elements and seemed "crystalline" with a very interesting thermal profile.

I also later refined the technique to make a material with a very sharp resistance change of 10:1 at a narrow temperature variance apprximately 280.23K based on Bi S In Sn Zn It is not clear if this is a superconducting transition but the equipment here suggests so, which would not only be unprecedented but a considerable discovery in its own right. As yet it appears to be complicated to make in bulk but for small samples it is a simple matter of sequential melting via RF and electrical proximity discharge in a strong steady state magnetic field of around 0.05-0.2T from a neodymium magnet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.19 (talk • contribs)

Whatever the point of this contribution is, it is quintessentially original research and thus has no place here. --  Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Very much agree with JackofOz's comments above referring to the unsigned and WP:OR comments. Certainly this "contribution" has no place in Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I had to look up what the OP was referring to. It's utter nonsense. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL?

OK to identify the opinions of ufologists and conspiracy theorists in the lead, but I don't think it should give equal validity to fringe conspiracy theories by a ufologist, especially since the article body contains a majority of WP:RS that clearly identify it as a fringe, and therefore marginalized, viewpoint. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If the article quotes someone, it doesn't yet support that person's argument. The article goes further than quoting, when stating the air force report's conclusion as fact. Reading this article you may think that we are talking about a shredded balloon, while the causes for the continuing controversy are kept altogether out of sight. The mentioned ufologist consulted 60 persons who each had some close connection with the time, place or personalities involved, and he arrived at a scenario which is deemed coherent by many. The basis of the whole controversy lies the claim of deception, and motives for deception (which are partially admitted in the article), concerning important parameters such as date and place. Diverging sets of presented facts are consequently not disputed, but one of these cannot occupy the whole article. The "mid-1947" date at the outset fools nobody, but illustrates how ridiculously wide the net is cast to rake in any possible prosaic explanation. And contrived as such to diverge from the actual date-specific event as early as possible, to arrive at a shredded balloon, Scotch tape, balsa wood sticks, and similar drivel. A neat top-secret nuclear test monitoring device it must have been, held together by flower-patterned Scotch tape. JMK (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What "continuing controversy"? Everybody except UFO cranks agrees this was a balloon. And more to the point, we have RS saying so, which we duly reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How about adding this one simple word?

Since some people are (often rightly) concerned about the smallest of edits to this article, given some firm opinions on the subject, I'd like to get suggestions first before adding my edit: In the first section, second paragraph, the text reads:

"In the 1990s, the US military published two reports disclosing the true nature of the crashed object..."

I'd like to add the word "purportedly", so that the text would read:

"In the 1990s, the US military published two reports purportedly disclosing the true nature of the crashed object..."

...since, as at least one other editor here has noted, the Air Force's reports don't literally prove their contention that the crash was that of a Mogul balloon (or of just a Mogul balloon), and an objective knowledge of the Roswell incident shows that this is just one of several possibilities, which also includes other potential human causes, which may have been more secret than Mogul (such as advances in Goddard's rocket work that had taken place in Roswell, etc.).

John Sawyer (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not. There is no doubt (in rational sources) what happened, so we simply WP:ASSERT the facts of the matter. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

But there are rational sources who cite other possible human causes. From a purely rational standpoint, it can't be argued that just because the Air Force says the crash was of a Mogul balloon, that there is no doubt that it was.John Sawyer (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The source we cite is an academic book by historian: just the kind of source Wikipedia should be based on. What sources do you have in mind from the little-green men side? Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What's with the sass Alex? JS is arguing rationally and saying the wording should reflect other "potential human causes". I don't see where he is arguing for "little-green men". Danggoshdarn (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That being said I don't like the versions put forth from JS but do think the sentence itself is problematic for a few reasons. I'll take a stab at rewriting for clarity shortly. Danggoshdarn (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Here you go, "In 1994, the US Air Force published the first in a series of two Roswell related reports which identified the likely origin of the crashed object: a nuclear test surveillance balloon from Project Mogul. " Danggoshdarn (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Pure WP:OR that fails WP:V. Our source is not equivocal like that, but says "one of these balloons smashed into the sands of the New Mexico ranch". Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't think our article needs to hedge that the Mogul balloon is "one of several possibilities". We have high quality academic sources that indicate otherwise. And the US Air Force itself is a high quality source, despite popular views that anything to do with the government is suspect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to share the source of that quote? This is the quote from the footnotes of the wikipedia article, The official Air Force report (Weaver & McAndrew 1995) had concluded (p. 9) "[…] the material recovered near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device and most likely from one of the MOGUL balloons that had not been previously recovered." Notice it says "most likely".Danggoshdarn (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is from the article itself, "The first, released in 1994, concluded that the material recovered in 1947 was likely debris from Project Mogul, a military surveillance program employing high-altitude balloons." Notice it says "likely". I don't know how you guys think I'm doing OR when I'm just using sources readily available and already in the article. I think you guys need to assume good faith here. Danggoshdarn (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is Olmsted 2009; the USAF document (which we quote for completeness) is a primary source. We are prohibited from performing analysis of primary documents, but rely on expert reputably-published sources (i.e. Olmsted) instead. If the expert historian says it was a Mogul balloon, so does WP, no matter how much WP editors want their own personal take instead. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What personal take? I'm just trying to match the quotes already in the article. On a related note, would you assume good faith with other editors instead of being such an ass. You must be a very sad and lonely person, I'm sorry. Thanks. Danggoshdarn (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The debris described in the initial accounts is entirely consistent with a Mogul balloon train. I am curious to hear what other alternate interpretations there are to what this debris was. As I have pointed out in the past, the supposedly "super-tough" material still adds up to looking like... a bunch of balloon train debris. This "purportly" suggestion creates doubt on something which is only disputed by the fringe community. Do they expect us to believe that presumably mouse-size aliens travelled the inter-stellar medium in what looked to us like a balloon train (made with super-tough material), but lacking any obvious propulsion mechanism other than the rubber balloons and clumsily crashed in the dessert of New Mexico? Apparently, yes. But common sense and logic was never their forte. Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm bored, but there are two types of people. Type A are people who will appeal to authority and not realize it's a logical fallacy, who will use ad hominems constantly, and do not realize that from the same facts you can construct numerous different conclusions all which are valid logically... instead relying on various fallacies and appeal to majority to claim their viewpoint is the valid one. Type B is the type that isn't so arrogant as to claim their viewpoint is correct and sees merit in all viewpoints, and can decide on its own what to believe. No matter what you may imply, historians argue all the time about the facts we think we know to make inferences about how things came about, after all these so called "facts" are just what was transcribed and read later by future generations. The eternal problem is, and always has been, that capturing the zeitgeist of an era remains difficult, if not impossible. We prune our history so much, even wikipedia puts up airs of "notoriety" ignoring that the very things that shape our history are those so called "unnotable events". It is never the large events that matter, those events are the accumulation of smaller events such that they become inevitable. It is akin to saying that the presidential election is what matters, rather than the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, the change in culture and the people voting for the president they chose, or even in latter times the influences upon the election. The very notion that we simplify an event down to such primitive understandings such as the results and formulate inferences about it post facto, rather than taking record of the events leading up to it in their very detail. Wikipedia has never been a particularly valid source of historical information, and never will. Wikipedia still is run by type A people, who do not understand the relative nature of truth when all you have are "facts" that were written by the victors (it is "His STORY") and inferences that try to link those facts together. Many such people routinely violate WP:NOR because they don't understand what original research means. If I do research and come up with people stating different theories than what Wikipedia says, that is original research. If I find people agreeing with what wikipedia says, that ALSO is original research. Unless the article dictates ALL viewpoints that have been expressed, which it will NEVER because Type A people are part of our zeitgeist, and unfortunately we've become far too ignorant to recognize how little we really know, to recognize just how biased we've become... despite decades of psychological research showing our tendency to form strong conformity to a group or the majority.

My point is simple, the only way not to be violating original research, to make Wikipedia a VALID source of historical information is to present representation for all beliefs. Because, no matter what your belief may be, history is only a collection of beliefs; the facts have long been lost and all that remain is inferences. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because you do not know what inferences your authority figure that you respect made. What is actual fact? What can we say is fact? In terms of history, there is very little that cannot be left to contention, it is mostly oral records and some written records. Where the truth begins and the story ends no one can say for certain. Have fun with this you Type A's! 71.179.138.232 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing opening paragraph

I'm curious as to who has the authority to change the opening paragraph of this entry. I'm sure there are many people who are 90% sure this was a UFO crash (as I am). Are there any people who were involved in the investigation who are able to change it? JustinJ108 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Anybody can change it. But if the changes are bad, they will be reverted.

I guess by "UFO crash" you mean "alien spacecraft crash". Because you are one of those people who, from "I cannot identify this", wrongly conclude "it must be aliens!" and who therefore use "UFO" and "alien spacecraft" interchangeably. In that case, your edits, if you make them, will very probably be reverted since they will be heavily colored with your misconceptions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

An interesting aside is that the lede identifies the object but the article heading says it is unidentified. The heading should say "Roswell Balloon Incident" or "Roswell Conspiracy Theories".Moriori (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose for many years it was unidentified, so the title could be okay. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Human guinea pigs

Haha, I agree that it would be ridiculous in WP's voice. It's really her belief though and seemed attributed to her but perhaps not clearly enough... —PaleoNeonate – 09:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: my comment was about this edit. I was not the author but remember learning of it in a TV series interview. Quotes from the current sources: "According to Jacobsen, one such aircraft crashed near Roswell in 1947, and “responders . . . found not only a crashed craft, but also . . . bodies alongside [it]. These were not aliens. Nor were they consenting airmen. They were human guinea pigs. Unusually petite for pilots, they appeared to be children.", "Miss Jacobsen writes: “They found bodies alongside the crashed craft. These were not aliens. Nor were they consenting airmen. They were human guinea pigs. Unusually petite for pilots, they appeared to be children. Each was under five feet tall.”" I resored it but attributed as her claim. —PaleoNeonate – 02:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Josef Mengele produced grotesque, child-sized aviators for Joseph Stalin and they crashed at Roswell? Jacobsen's, um, extraordinary claims might better be relegated to the UFO conspiracy theories article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, I have no objection for its removal as this seems like a good suggestion. Also, I realized that we should probably be careful not to attribute it as Jacobsen's belief, just that she reported about claims from a dubious source (we can't know what she believes)... —PaleoNeonate – 21:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses saw a UFO on 7.4.47

I've read that there were eyewitnesses in Roswell who saw a UFO on July 4th, 1947. I don't have the source/link - I should find it. 2601:580:103:7C2C:D1AA:15C1:F18C:38FB (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources for any claim such as this. I very much doubt that this will be forthcoming, as it would have been used many years ago. David J Johnson (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the user is referring to this?: "Similarly, it has also been alleged that General Hoyt Vandenberg, Deputy Chief of Staff at the time, had been involved directing activity regarding events at Roswell. Activity reports (Atch 15), located in General Vandenberg's personal papers stored in the Library of Congress, did indicate that on July 7, he was busy with a "flying disc" incident; however this particular incident involved Ellington Field, Texas and the Spokane (Washington) Depot. After much discussion and information gathering on this incident, it was learned to be a hoax. There is no similar mention of his personal interest or involvement in Roswell events except in the newspapers." --RRskaReb (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Intro shows bias, and is misleading

The Intro to this should not be unequivocally stating or implying as fact that the events were some kind of balloon or US military device. In my reading, even the military gave 4 different explanations for what it was: 1) What the Roswell newspaper first reported as from the military ("flying saucer"); 2) What the military said the following day, which contradicted what was said the day before; 3) A later report by the military (I forget the details); and 4) And even later report by the military. That is 4 distinct and contradictory statements attributed to the military alone. Even if one included only that, it would NOT include all the numerous reports made by individuals of what they saw. The ending of the Intro again implies that the "UFO" claim has been thoroughly debunked, which is probably not the case at all. The Intro reflects a bias against the interpretation of this being a bone fide Unidentified Flying Object which no RECORD to date (as far as I know) has proved otherwise; and so this article should read, as an unbiased source.

As it stands now:

"In mid-1947, a United States Army Air Forces balloon crashed at a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico.[1] Following wide initial interest in the crashed "flying disc", the US military stated that it was merely a conventional weather balloon.[2] Interest subsequently waned until the late 1970s, when ufologists began promoting a variety of increasingly elaborate conspiracy theories, claiming that one or more alien spacecraft had crash-landed and that the extraterrestrial occupants had been recovered by the military, which then engaged in a cover-up.

In the 1990s, the US military published two reports disclosing the true nature of the crashed object: a nuclear test surveillance balloon from Project Mogul. Nevertheless, the Roswell incident continues to be of interest in popular media, and conspiracy theories surrounding the event persist. Roswell has been described as "the world's most famous, most exhaustively investigated, and most thoroughly debunked UFO claim"."

This article needs to be changed to a completely unbiased tone, which it at present does not have at all.

Misty MH (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

We have an excellent source. We follow excellent sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As Alexbrn states we already have excellent sources and are not likely to change for yet another attempt to introduce "conspiracy theories" about government cover-up of a extraterrestrial crash. The sources quoted are quite clear and those who have attempted otherwise have been comprehensively debunked. Also, please do not shout by using caps. No, the intro should stay as is, as the subject has been discussed in depth by editors before. David J Johnson (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As David Johnson and Alexbrn say, there is no policy-based reasons to change it, and it is excellently sourced. Wikipedia is not "neutral" when it comes to WP:FRINGE claims. And a government coverup of an extraterrestrial spacecraft crash is certainly a fringe claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Flaw in the second line of article

"US military stated it was a conventional weather balloon." Why not: "US military stated it was a conventional weather balloon, though a later report admitted this was improbable." The ranchers would never have reacted the way they did to a common weather balloon, because they were familiar with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moabalan (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say and (no surprise!) we have RS saying it was a balloon. Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Flaws in opening line

The opening line goes too far in saying a balloon crashed. It should say an unknown object did. We only have circumstantial evidence about this event. Why is the opening line worded as if the evidence was stronger than that? The 1990s Air Force reports emphasize that there is no certainty nearly 40 years after the event, no sure way to know, but that the most likely explanation was a Mogul balloon. Why not start with words that report this fact? "In July 1947 an unknown object crashed on the Brazel ranch northwest of Roswell. The inconclusive available evidence makes it most likely that it was a nuclear test surveillance balloon, from a program named Mogul. There were numerous reports from locals that something otherworldly was seen, but these cannot be confirmed." Why is Wikipedia going beyond the evidence given in the Air Force report to state the conclusion the majority is comfortable with in spite of inconclusive proof?Moabalan (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It was a balloon. Respected sources say so. We do too. The only sources doubting that are junk. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gen Ramey Roswell memo 1947.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresentations by classing

It seems that certain editor(s) camping here have a large bias toward sources they prefer, and discount other sources. One source preferred is one that should be viewed with EXTREME SUSPICION due to it giving something like 4 DIFFERENT explanations of these events: The military. Therefore, with conflicting explanations, they were mistaken and/or lied; and yet the editors here STILL prefer their versions of the story, and virtually refuse to let other reports of the events – which are even commonly known to casual readers on the subject – to be part of the article Intro, giving readers here a false impression that what happened is actually known, accepting only the PROSAIC explanations that lead the article.

The latest of these is the revision of my simple EDIT which helped to indicate the presence of multiple, conflicting reports of what the Roswell UFO was, and of how many of them there might have been. But this was unnecessarily reverted.

Numerous books have been written to these effects, yet the editor(s) writing these things and reverting things are have an apparent agenda to protect the military's viewpoint, guess, or report on this, an explanation that changed multiple times, starting with a report that it WAS a "flying saucer" which the Roswell newspaper reported, to it then being a simple weather balloon (with photos) – which even this their later reports change, and then yet another report changes that later on.

What was this FOUR (4) conflicting explanations by the military, at least three of which must be false?

And yet THESE are being given #1 preference to the exclusion of all the others – and of their original – and to the exclusion of all of the witnesses that came forward that spoke to the contrary.

An actual operative trying to keep the truth obscured or misbelieved couldn't do a better job.

In fact, if the military or government WANTS these sorts of things to be kept obscured, wouldn't they have more editors in favor of their position(s) CAMPING on these articles? Probably.

What a disaster this is for Wikipedia, its editors, and the public.

And this isn't the only UFO event article where this has been done, either.

The article on the Phoenix Lights (last I looked a few years back) flew right in the face of some of the best investigators' conclusions published.

As obnoxious as it sounds, why not just call all the witnesses liars, and be done with it? because this is in fact the EFFECT that this and UFO article(s) here are having.

This kind of bias and bias-promotion has to stop. But if such are organized, and we are not, how will that ever happen?

Misty MH (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This is frankly, nonsense. Please re-read editors comments above, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for conspiracy theories, but our sources come from reliable, secondary, sources. None of the other contributors to this subject are "organized". Also stop using caps - it is considered shouting and will not forward your argument. There are plenty of sites on the internet for fringe theories. Also please read WP:FRINGE. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@MistyMH: Your accusations of conspiracy are misplaced. We are just editors following Wikipedia editorial policies, nothing more. If you are convinced editors on this Talk page are suppressing "the truth" or are somehow in league with some secret government agenda, go to WP:RSN or WP:PUMP where you can get wider input from the WP community. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is rather a large hurdle to leap if one wants to conclude that because the United States military changed their story about an event several times, that this is "evidence" for aliens landing near Roswell in 1947. More like it's evidence that the United States military a) kept secrets routinely and b) lied routinely. What secret were they keeping in Roswell? Well, some 50 years after the fact we finally found out: balloon train research was done to discover whether Soviet nuclear tests were detectable in the upper atmosphere. So, what was the first story? From the Roswell base, a breathless news release proclaimed that a "flying disc" had been recovered. What was a "flying disc"? No one knew, as the term had been coined several weeks earlier. But the original description from a pilot who saw something odd in the skies did not describe vessels shaped like saucers or discs, but rather a series of objects skipping across the sky like a disc skipping on water. Then, as the sensational news of the actual recovery of one of these "flying discs" spread (there had been rewards offered for the recovery of one by media outlets, perhaps explaining why nothing resembling a "disc" was presented... "Close enough. Where's my reward?"), the debris and the officer who recovered it were flown to another base where someone who had a clue instantly identified it: It was debris associated with a weather balloon. Nonetheless, Jesse Marcel, the source of the initial release, claimed that what he posed with in those photos was "not of this earth" and actual debris he personally gathered, even though that stuff was clearly exactly what others said it was - weather balloon debris. So the "second story" was released, correcting the original one and saying it was a weather balloon. Thus ended the "flying disc" hoopla, for the time being.

Much later it emerged that a "weather balloon" was not accurate either. It indeed was debris associated with a standard weather balloon, but with an important omission - devices and reflectors were included to carry out high-altitude experiments to detect Soviet tests. And it was all identified with a program called Mogul. Which, not incidentally, accounted for the initial descriptions of the "flying disc/saucer" sightings in the sky that sparked the frenzy to find one of these "discs" in the first place - the pilot saw a balloon train! A very unusual sight for anyone who had never seen one before, especially at dusk when the sighting occurred.

So, sure, the military lied about the true nature of the debris, but 1947 was the start of the Cold War and they were not about to discuss what efforts they were doing to monitor the Soviets. But the salient point remains, whatever the military did or did not say: the debris was described by many and confirmed by those who recovered it to be what appeared in those photos from 1947 - and that material was clearly weather balloon debris (even if the balloon debris wasn't doing meteorological research). Yet the conspiracy crowd tries to obfuscate this blindingly obvious reality as if a lying military equals hidden aliens. What's so glaringly silly is the insistence that this debris, clearly from a weather balloon and the equipment described used by the Mogul team, is somehow "alien," with "super strong" foil, "unbreakable" sticks, "hieroglyphic" symbols (the team used kid's foil with geometric patterns) and burnt rubber... One wonders how aliens could possible use a craft made up of this junk and how any alien larger than a mouse - which is all that could even fit on this junk - could possibly travel through the interstellar cosmos on something made of what sure looked like balsa wood, tin foil and rubber. Maybe there was an alien Martha Stewart who could do the space vehicle equivalent of taking a paper clip and making a chandelier?

THAT'S where the alien claims started. One wonders why to the conspiracy crowd the understandable reluctance of the military to truthfully discuss what they recovered and their changing stories is of crucial importance, yet the hugely evolving story of what "really" happened in Roswell somehow is perfectly reasonable and expected!

In 1947, there were no claims of aliens, no claims of debris which remotely sounding like being from a craft which someone could expect human-sized or even dog-sized aliens to travel in though space. Even in 1978, when the first book was published, none of the people there described anything other that pile of junk. But there were other stories which people claimed to have seen alien humanoid bodies being recovered, though it was not clear if it was then or even in the same area. Certainly not from anyone on the military bases who nonetheless otherwise spoke to these authors. Indeed, later research looked at these claims and many witnesses noted that the "aliens" sure looked like dummies, while tests were being done using dummies in that very area. And we ended up with numerous "crash sites," eight or ten or so, if memory serves, all claiming to be somehow part of what now surely must have been an entire division of aliens somehow simultaneously clumsily running out of gas over the skies of New Mexico.

Then, out of the blue, stories of autopsies being held on the Roswell base emerged in the late 1980s, followed by other fantastic claims which seemed to be fed by the realization by Roswell locals that there was a buck to be made here, as museums, shops and events all tried to cash in on the "Roswell alien" craze.

There is perhaps no other claim of aliens so famous as Roswell, yet also none so thoroughly debunked as Roswell. Nor any based on such flimsy evidence as Roswell. Yet some editors here want "equal time"? Maybe we should grant equal time to the notion that maybe the Earth is flat, and that the moon landings never happened. And why not? They are alternate theories and explanations, are they not? Canada Jack (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"And why not?" Because, of course, of Wikipedia's policy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"In 1947 there were no claims of aliens," says Canada Jack. This is not true C Jack, and I'd invite you to read more widely before writing incautious lines. In early July 1947, later-to-be New Mexico Senator Joseph Montoya, then Lt Governor, was on the Roswell Army Base for reasons not related to crashes when he called two of his Roswell supporters, Pete and Ruben Anaya. "Get me the hell out of here!" They picked him up at the Army Air base, drove him to Pete's house, where Montoya proceeded to drink himself into oblivion because, he told the brothers, he saw a spaceship and little bodies with big heads and he wasn't supposed to. This is from the research of Tom Carey. How plausible is the whole story? It seems a whole lot more likely these people are lying or deceiving themselves than that we were visited by crashing aliens. But the claims do exist. There is a cluster of them.

     . . . "In 1947 there were no . . .no claims of debris" which sounded like it didn't come from Earth. --Canada Jack. Just because these claims didn't surface publicly in 1947 doesn't mean they weren't made.  Here are three: Intelligence officer Marcel showed his family debris that led his son, a military doctor, to insist the rest of his life the debris was not from Earth.  
      Sue Farnsworth of Roswell was seven in 1947 when she heard rumors and asked her dad Arthur what was wrong.  He took her, the two of them on one horse, out to a spot where no one was around.  "Your father was threatened by the military a few days ago."  It's the kind of short declaration an impressionable child might recall word-for-word for the rest of her life.  He went on to say that a flying saucer crashed on another ranch and he and other ranchers went out and saw it.  Sue's dad told her never to talk.  She waited until 2008--61 years--to come forward.  I conclude the alleged threat worked.  Again Tom Carey     
          Frankie Dwyer was 12 years old in 1947 and her dad was in the Roswell fire department.  She recalls going to the dentist and then coming to the fire station to wait for her dad.  Before he arrived, a cop named Robert Scroggins came in and showed what looked like a thin piece of tin foil.  He crumpled it and dropped it on a table, where it landed without a sound.  Then it magically spread out like quicksilver into a perfectly smooth piece of paper-thin material.  All present handled it including Frankie.  It couldn't be cut with a knife, scratched, burned with a cigarette lighter.   

Source Tom Carey's research I'm not saying we jump up and swallow these claims. I'm saying to allege they didn't exist in 1947 is not so.Moabalan (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not true C Jack, and I'd invite you to read more widely before writing incautious lines. I've read a thing or two about Roswell, Moab, and thus far what you've posted backs up what I said: claims of aliens on the Roswell base itself did not emerge until 40+ years after the events in question; debris that is plainly from a weather balloon device is what was recovered and photographed in 1947 and Jesse Marcel confirmed the debris was what was recovered. Until that is, it was pointed out that that stuff, uh, was balloon debris.

Your examples confirm what I said above. First, senator Joseph Montoya. When did he make this claim? Never. In fact, the claim first emerged in 1992, years after his death, from Ruben Anaya, 45 years after the events in question. And the claim came from Stanton Friedman who was approached by Anaya. When researchers started to check out the details, no one knew anything about the supposed special event on the base that Montoya was said to have attended, and the local media was completely silent on anything resembling this going on. Indeed, nothing at all for that several week period where, surely, a ceremony such as he described would have been mentioned. His widow was contacted and she knew nothing of this story, and certainly nothing about a phone call in hysterics from him that Anaya claimed he made. Indeed, close family friends who had known the family for 50 years had never heard the story until contacted by a researcher - Karl Pflock - who extensively interviewed Anaya in 1993.

Sue Farnsworth. Another non eye-witness who said nothing for 61 years? You are relying a bit too much on Tom Carey, Moab. I remember how in 2007 he published "Witness to Roswell" with Don Schmitt, a book which had the alien crash in yet another new location, the TWELFTH, I believe, with talk of cover-ups and shenanigans which had remained unreported for 60 years... Do I really need to tell you about Schmitt and his falling out with Kevin Randle and why Schmitt has exactly zero credibility?

As I said in the previous post NO stories of aliens on the Roswell base emerged until the late 1980s, yet over the next decade or so, a rash of stories, many contradicting each other, started to emerge, with holes the size of Mack trucks you could drive through, like Glenn Dennis' claims of being threatened by a black sergeant, an impossibility in 1947 in the segregated Army Air Force. It was later realized Dennis had conflated - likely deliberately - one of Joseph Kittinger's high-altitude jumps in the late 1950s which went horribly wrong.

Me- "In 1947 there were no . . .no claims of debris" which sounded like it didn't come from Earth. Moab - Just because these claims didn't surface publicly in 1947 doesn't mean they weren't made. You should re-read what I said. Those initial claims from Jesse Marcel etc describe debris which are entirely consistent with balloon train debris and NOT consistent with material one would expect aliens to be transported in through space. Yet we keep getting the "not of this earth" claims, from a guy who didn't even know what a rawin device was and repeatedly confirmed that what he posed with in the photos was what he recovered, and that is balloon debris.

You have yet to explain how aliens by some cosmic coincidence constructed their spacecraft out of what appeared to the human eyes to be foil, burnt rubber, eyelets and heavy parchment paper with balsa wood, but was in fact high-tech foil, super-balsa wood etc. So a faster-than-light interstellar weather balloon made of super-strong material transported mouse-sized aliens to Earth? The real question is how the hell could this junk be assembled to create any sort of craft capable of carrying any creature bigger than a mouse? Because that is the claim!

Frank Dwyer/Rowe. I don't believe that Carey was on this when the claim emerged in 1991 - this was mostly the Schmitt/Randle team and Pflock, etc., though he did work with Schmitt/Randle. Again, a claim which emerged 40+ years after the fact, and another "not of this earth" claim. Putting aside the scenario as painted by her which didn't fit the timing or scenarios of the other claims, NONE of the fireman who worked with her father when interviewed knew anything about this. Further, why does her claim - of a quicksilver-type material - bear no resemblance to the other claims, one of which you posted? And why would a trooper casually show a bunch of firemen this in the first place, especially if he claimed to be threatened? And the usual lack of common sense at play - why would he allow the guys present to attempt to destroy his precious alien souvenir? I notice that you conveniently omit her other claim that her father's fire brigade was supposedly called to the scene of the crash where they saw several alien corpses. The glaringly obvious question is why would the military call in civilian help on this supposed super-secret detail? And why did none of the firefighters recall such an event? And why didn't the fire brigade have their own souvenirs? And NONE would talk after the fact? If her clearly dubious claim about the aliens doesn't raise red flags, I don't know what else to say. As Pflock once said, the modus operandi of too many in the UFO field is to tout any and all claims, no matter how dubious on their face, how implausible, and no matter how contradictory compared to other claims, and hope that some stick to the wall.

This is why the Roswell incident has been the most discredited UFO claim ever. An over-excited officer recovers some debris and couldn't admit he didn't know it was a weather balloon. Then we have numerous claims - like the several listed above - which defy common sense and contradict each other, and, when it comes to more sensational, emerge 40, 50 even 60 years after the fact. Canada Jack (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gen Ramey Roswell memo 1947.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

You are more than right John Sawyer. The air force personnel who drew up the mogul theory are just as far removed from the actual event as everybody else, and what they say is just a proposal, which must be included in the article, but which cannot receive the prominence that it currently enjoys. Your humble "one simple word" request reveals to what extent the detractors have strong-armed and sharp-elbowed this article, imo. And I'm being generous to the air force study's methodology, assuming no bias, no intent, no selective information being available to them, etc. etc. Skepticism works both ways. JMK (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JMK.  I see this debate continues.  I think I was clear in my initial comment that the Roswell crash could have been something human-made other than a Mogul balloon, so I'm not sure how some people turn this into "you're claiming it was little green men, mouse-sized ones at that!" (which is a take on Roswell I've never heard).  There are no little green mouse-sized humans, at least that most people are aware of.

So again: there are other human-caused possibilities for what the crash was.  One of those possibilities is an experimental aircraft, which is not a fringe concept even for 1947.  Certainly the Air Force maintains that the crash was a Mogul balloon, and for all we know it might have been, but reputable researchers have found evidence that it might have been a top secret experimental craft.  Part of the study of UFOs (at least by a few researchers) includes the study of experimental human aircraft.  While it's not the business of Wikipedia editors to engage in speculation, it is the business of Wikipedia editors to not cite as proven fact any statements by interested parties, and to dismiss other evidence.  Though the Air Force is a primary source, statements by primary sources don't have to be proclaimed in Wikipedia articles as the only possible explanation for something. Primary sources can be cited without claiming that their take on a matter serves as proof.  There have been a number of instances in other Wikipedia articles in which a primary source's claims weren't accurate.  Again, I'm not calling for the article to engage in speculation, but that it should point out that there is valid speculation on the matter, and that this doesn't automatically impugn the primary source, secondary sources, historians, etc.

I'm sure some are asking "so cite those reputable researchers", but that's pointless due to the bias by those arguing here that any explanation other than what the Air Force maintains, amounts to suggestions of "little green men".  There's no getting past that kind of bias, and that's not consistent with Wikipedia's goals.

John Sawyer (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We cite an independent historian published in a first-rate scholarly source, asserting it was a balloon. Job done. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no base to your claim that the historian is "independent", at least in the common sense of the word. Even if it was, how would it mean the "job" is "done"? This has nothing to do with the arguments above. Other independent sources have stated otherwise, but your argument was that they didn't matter because the US Air Force is a primary and high quality source. The mentioned historian is not primary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocryptowiki (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works differently than popular culture sources. We don't automatically assume governments/military sources are lying and covering up, and we don't give equal validity to fringe and mainstream views in order to tease interest in the subject. The fringe view is that aliens (or some rumored super top secret experimental aircraft) crashed on earth and the government has denied and covered it up. WP requires high quality sources that are independent of that fringe view, and the two academic sources cited fulfill that requirement. I think the article does a decent job detailing the UFOlogists beliefs (where they have been covered in independent sources), however we can't portray those beliefs as legitimate or credible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about all that. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein weren't academic sources yet conventional wisdom holds that they were right on the money concerning Watergate. If it can be said that Woodstein indeed exposed a U.S. government cover-up, does that not indeed impugn the reliability of said government concerning the information they give us? If they were right that also means that independent researchers have a place in uncovering the truth. But it would seem that on certain subjects only the government is to be trusted and only those civilian researchers that adhere to a particular story are to be trusted, but not others with whom someone disagrees? That isn't right.

I learned years ago to go immediately to the Talk section of any entry as here is where one is likely to find alternative theories and data that are suppressed by others in the main article. One can also pick out the inherent bias in the self-appointed Gatekeepers in their responses to people that post things they don't agree with.

Was a bit astonished to see a whole section questioning the veracity of purported witnesses. OK, fair enough as it points out issues that seem to be valid on this topic, but why don't I see that elsewhere? I looked up the Wiki article on John Demjanjuk to see if there were any sections that questioned the validity of the witnesses because they were so old and it happened so long ago so their memories were suspect (the time frame between the Roswell Incident/Holocaust and the 1990s/2000, is roughly the same time range as the "minimum of 31 years after the events in question, and in many cases were recounted more than 40 years after the fact."). All I saw (surprisingly) was the refutation of two witnesses' testimony against him, but no ageism was implied.

Not included in the "Problems With Witness Accounts" section was any mention of Jesse Marcel Jr. who was purportedly a witness who actually handled the material his father brought home himself. Marcel Jr. was a former Navy commander, Army colonel, Vietnam veteran and a trained physician. Now, why wasn't his reliability questioned in that section? Could it be that it can't be and that the author had no information with which he/she could use against him to degrade his credibility? The term "problems" right there shows bias. How about "veracity of" and include Marcel Jr.'s account as being credible? Or does that simply go against the author(s) personal agenda?

Look, I have no idea what happened that day. I wasn't there. I can't help but to wonder how such a supposedly superior spacecraft, fashioned out of some kind of indestructible memory metal can be taken out by a bolt of lightning, and crash breaking up into a million pieces. On the other hand, I concede that if there are such things, we may not understand the Achilles Heels' of that technology involving physics which would indeed allow that to happen. But, on the other other hand, the idea that USAAF officers can't tell the difference between a weather balloon (or any kind of balloon) and something else is preposterous. Could've been some fly boys stuck in the middle of a desert just having some fun, or some kind of deflection story to mislead the Russkies. Who knows.

What I'm saying is, it would be nice if Wikipedia allow any and all sources to be published as long as they're backed up by what a reasonable person could consider a reliable source...and yes, that could be a book written by someone who believes that X did happen even if the mainstream media and government officials say it didn't. Furthermore, without cleverly inserted bias and weaselly terminology on the part of those who don't hold that viewpoint, one way or the other.

Let the reader decide for themselves.--RRskaReb (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Let the reader decide for themselves? No, that's WP:NOT what an encyclopedia is. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You (and others) know darn well that this isn't a mundane article like the ones about Clydesdale horses, supernovae, or aluminum recycling. Some subjects are controversial and lend themselves to more than one possible explanation. Yes, I know, quite a revolutionary concept letting the Proles read and try to formulate complex thoughts on their own. For controversial subjects, all major sourced viewpoints must be presented, and without bias. Just the way I see it. But, of course, I won't monkey with the main article and go against the status quo.

Certainly trollish nonsense should not be allowed to stand, but I just think sometimes we have to grit our teeth and be more open-minded when some users want to present information that without deep thought we might consider to be nonsensical or trivial. I think we should be careful about indirectly and subconsciously imposing biases by censoring information that could, just maybe, be valid. RRskaReb talk 03:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You might enjoy Lonnie Zamora incident. Still in circa 2008 pro-UFOlogy condition. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting article. It presented the story as being an actual event, unmolested by negative POV, and then contained two sections at the end which presented alternative theories suggesting the story was a hoax, and also the Project Blue Book analysis. This is what I'm talking about. Present both sides for controversial topics. If there were no questions about the veracity of an event, then it would not be controversial, would it now. This Roswell Incident article here is sprinkled with negative POV throughout.RRskaReb talk 03:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Policy is clear. We don't give nonsense (e.g.: aliens landed! white people are superior! the Holocaust was faked!) any credence, although all of these things have the adherents and WP:PROFRINGE efforts are made to push such stuff here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lonnie Zamora incident was offered as an example of a bad article, where the POV is “we have to be fair to doubters and nonbelievers...but the only possible explanation is aliens”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Greys: A possible explanation?

Hi, I have found something intriguing.

Imagine for a moment that Flores Man did *not* in fact die out 12,600 years ago and some of these proto-humans made it off the island presumably on a raft. They were certainly capable based on fossil evidence of advanced technology comparable to Homo erectus and possibly up to Neanderthal level.

Some of them might have made it to a nearby island or other land mass and when the climate began to shift, moved underground. We know that this happened in the last Ice Age and even before. Over time they might have adapted to low light and oxygen becoming speciated and unable to return to the surface except for brief periods, adapting fully over the next 20,000 years with large eyes, grey skin devoid of pigmentation and developing advanced technology along the way. This could account for many anecdotal reports of "Little People" in historical text and other strange anomalies.

If they sent out an exploratory craft based on primitive rockets using liquid fuels then it could account for the reports in 1897, as well as later incidents. This might be speculative science fiction but its sufficiently interesting to justify some more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us know when you've published the results of your research. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the Grey's are commonly speculated to come to earth from the future. Dan Burisch talks about beings he met that confirm this story JustinJ108 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is all WP:FRINGE and not worthy of comment, unless reliable, secondary, sources are quoted. David J Johnson (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly wrong: The sequence of events was triggered by the crash of a Project Mogul balloon near Roswell.

The statement "The sequence of events was triggered by the crash of a Project Mogul balloon near Roswell" is just one of several potential explanations. And in fact, even the military gave (I think) three (3) or four (4) different explanations for it over the years. So to state this as if it were known fact is just wrong to do, and bad for an encyclopedia to do.

The rest of us Wikipedia editors need to watch out for those who not only put in conspiracy theories but who are here from some organization or government that doesn't want people to know the correct interpretation of secretive topics.

Misty MH (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It was a balloon. Respected sources say so. We do too. The only sources doubting that are junk. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur wholeheartedly. That statement was jarringly out-of-place in the 1947 section, since that explanation dates to the 90s. Mogul is already discussed both in lede and in its own section. I've fixed it. Statement also implied an unwarranted level of certainty -- non-MOGUL balloons have not been fully eliminated as a explanation, for example. Feoffer (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump comments June 2020

So the sitting President of the United States mentioned that he knows 'very interesting things' about the Roswell incident during an interview in June 2020 (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWZWVEkqVS8). Propose this is added to the page somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.229.110 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The coverage so far [7] only reports he made an ambiguous statement. A catchy "Roswell" headline followed by zero substance is typical of WP:SENSATIONAL treatment, rather than in depth reporting. We need not include isolated non sequiturs uttered during presidential interviews, unless there is analysis and commentary from WP:RS secondary sources showing such utterances to be significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump's comment wasn't a non sequitur though? I'd say it fits fine under 'Recent US interest' alongside Obama's similarly vague comments from when he was POTUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.229.110 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Every president since Reagan has been asked about ufos/roswell/aliens in a non-serious light-hearted way (much like their picks for March Madness, the Thanksgiving turkey pardon, etc.) and has responded in kind with ambiguous non-substantive remarks. FWIW, the Obama statement adds nothing and probably should be removed, as any similar WP:NOTNEWS content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I take your point - perhaps a short note in the recent interest section to the effect of your comment above - that Presidents have been asked about the incident several times and always responded vaguely/tongue-in-cheek? I do think some nod towards these Presidential statements is warranted, even if we don't log each individual comment (which I agree, risks elevating a lot of triviality). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.229.110 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Except the process of finding and compiling all the various presidential comments, analyzing them as a group, and writing a commentary that summarizes them as good, bad, or indifferent, in Wikipedia's voice — is original research. The encyclopedia's editorial policies require us to attribute such compilation, analysis, and commentary to an independent reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this particular quotation by President Trump is that he wasn't asked by a journalist. He was asked by his son and the underlying purpose of the interview was to promote the son's new book, Liberal Privilege. The two of them knew a question about UFOs would result in the news media being "triggered" (the title of the son's last book), so it is reasonable to consider that it was a staged question and answer. If President Trump is ever asked by a mainstream journalist about Roswell and gives a noteworthy answer, then it could be included, in my opinion. 5Q5|^✉ 12:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. The “political interest” section, aside from the bit about Richardson, is entirely peripheral remarks, e.g. Podesta advocating more transparency about ufo files in general, and Obama commenting on top secret files in general. I can’t think of any other article where offhand presidential remarks are considered essential content. Our bowling article doesn’t include offhand mentions of bowling by JFK, etc. If this section is to be useful and encyclopedic, it should be limited to actual, genuine instances of legislative and executive “interest”. The senators and representatives who asked for the 1990s Air Force report, for example [8]. -LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is because the ET believers do not have anything better. So they need to use the scraps. Scrap the scraps, they aren't needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is trivia. It doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with others -- Trump's statement might help us understand the mind of the President or public discourse by politicians across time, but it doesn't help us understand anything about the Roswell incident. Feoffer (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Identification as MOGUL is NOT a fact

The article currently reports the crash of a MOGUL balloon. This not a verifiable fact, nor does that claim exist in the cited source. RSes report that MOGUL is the best guess, but there do exist other non-FRINGE possibilities, such as a conventional balloon:

"the material recovered near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device and most likely from one of the MOGUL balloons" (emphasis added)

I attempted to remove the text, but it was restored. Feoffer (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

We relay what RS says, and have a relevant RS of the top tier: a book by a history professor discussing this specific topic, as published by Oxford University Press. It says the thing that crashed was a such a balloon. Your personal view is not a source. Alexbrn (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The current text does not convey that it was "most likely" a USAAF balloon, we misrepresent the source to suggest it absolutely was. I concur about the importance of keeping FRINGE off the article, but we've overcorrected when we imply we know the exact type of balloon. Feoffer (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You're interpreting the upshot of the primary source yourself. That is prohibited. We prefer experts (such as a historian specializing in the field) published in high-quality WP:SECONDARY sources. According to such a source (Olmsted) the events are not in doubt. There is other, lesser, RS saying exactly the same thing - such as the Skeptics Dictionary listed below - but given we have super-strength RS there is no need to cite more. Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources cited do not support the conclusion that a USAAF/MOGUL balloon is a fact. A more prosaic weather balloon + radar reflector cannot be eliminated, we should not suggest it has been. The conspiracy theorists will rip us to shreds if we overstate the evidence. Feoffer (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In fact the sources do explicitly say that. We know the exact balloon, and where and when it was launched. This is described as an "established fact". We're not going to introduce uncertainty because of your contrary interpretation of an old primary document (which is only included in the Olmsted citation for completeness, we are not allowed to interpret it and are not "citing" it). This has all been discussed ad nauseam before. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we referring to the same source? The one I'm seeing has the phrase "most likely". If there are sources suggesting more certainty, I'm certainly open to them. But we can't use a "most likely" source to suggest total certainty. Does Olmsted have a smoking gun to make it clear it was MOGUL and not a weather balloon as RAAF claimed??? Feoffer (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That is wording from the old primary source (which as I say is just included for completeness). We are citing Olmsted (2009) who explicitly writes it was a Project Mogul balloon. We must reflect what such high quality secondary sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we can really know what crashed at Roswell.

• Roswell myth lives on despite the established facts
• What Really Happened at Roswell
• The Roswell Incident at 70: Facts, Not Myths
• The Roswell Legacy
• The UFO Invasion: The Roswell Incident, Alien Abductions, and Government Coverups
• The Skeptic's Dictionary: Roswell

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that it was something FRINGE. The argument is that it might be a non-MOGUL weather balloon as was reported way back in 47. These sources do an excellent job of debunking FRINGE, but none suggest MOGUL id is conclusive over, say, weather balloon + reflector.

If we over state the case for MOGUL (vs prosaic weather balloon) beyond what is justified, it only serves to feed FRINGE that needs debunking. Feoffer (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

According to our source it was a Mogul balloon and the "weather balloon" stuff was a cover story invented at the time. Even according to the USAF source, there was only one balloon group operating in the area at the time and its chief scientist (Moore) said "there was some type of umbrella cover story to protect our work with MOGUL". Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding a couple more urls to Guy's list: [9], [10]. We have more than enough RS to state it was a MOGUL balloon. @Feoffer, nothing on Wikipedia will satisfy fringe and conspiracy theorists, since most are convinced that Wikipedia is part of a plot by the CIA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, from your own source:

"An Air Force Declassification and Review Team concluded that the Army Air Forces (as the Air Force was known at that time) did indeed recover material near Roswell in 1947. However, this material was debris from a secret experiment launched in the early days of the Cold War" (emphasis added)

Obviously, I think we can all know it WAS a MOGUL balloon, but it's important to get this right and not overstate it. It not like the Manhattan Project, where people who were part of the incident could 'come clean' and admit it was a cover for MOGUL -- it's a historian's conclusion made in the 90s. It's a good conclusion, but our text needs to parallel that of the RSes, not overstate. Feoffer (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources (and Olmsted is 2009, not 90s; Frazier is 2017) say a Project Mogul balloon crashed at Roswell. We should say it plain like they do. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Lifelong exposure to certain journalistic traditions, such as teasing a narrative out in order to keep people reading past the first sentence, can make blunt, expository encyclopedic writing feel wrong or clumsy. However that doesn't mean we should abandon encyclopedic writing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Exon should be discussed

Articles on contemporary folklore present us with the issue of how much detail to go into the mythology. When the article omits mention of Exon, we are probably not conveying enough of the mythology to be truly encyclopedic. (Obviously, inclusion should be worded so as to not promote FRINGE conclusions ) Feoffer (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Who/what is "Exon"? An alien leader? Alexbrn (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This prompted me to google "Exon Roswell", and found this. Are there WP:FRIND sources discussing this person's beliefs? If not, inclusion isn't warranted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

semi cuzonado requeste porra

2804:14D:5C58:80A7:5020:E8C1:7498:E9A5 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

no bundoinfda

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Roswell crash

Article says rumours were spread that it was a disc. That is nonsense and a twist of reality. It was col. Blanchard himself who said that a disc was found. He gave the orders to the telegraphist to send it to the base. That is not a rumour that is fact! Remsey290774 (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the article, it includes the sentences The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday... and ...a press release stating that personnel from the field's 509th Operations Group had recovered a "flying disc", which had crashed on a ranch near Roswell. No one is twisting reality, so relax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)