• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Roswell Incident [1947]

Bigfoot73 said:
The officer named here is Richard French, where does Robert Friend come into this ?

I supposed that there could have been a confusion, because if the name Richard French rang a bell with me, he was at best a very minor player in the UFO field, despite that he is described by the article as a long-time debunker. All I could find on him was dozens of links, all related to his recent Roswell claims. But I could find videos of his interview, and obviously he is a different character from Robert Friend.

I also found funny to see another man to come with out-of-character statements. Like James Oberg who turned himself recently into a conspiracy theorist.

Bigfoot73 said:
Many years ago FT mag published a letter of mine asking why nobody reported finding propulsion system, instruments or even the toilet. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Well, after all Frank Scully said that the retrieved saucers had no recognizable propulsion system.
 
. Like James Oberg who turned himself recently into a conspiracy theorist.

I have exchanged posts with Oberg elsewhere, a rather one way process since he doesn't like answering direct questions. Still essentially a NASA apologist.

Well, after all Frank Scully said that the retrieved saucers had no recognizable propulsion system.
Nothing in that wreckage has ever sounded incontrovertibly spaceship-ish.
I find Nick Redfern's " Body Snatchers In the Desert" the most plausible explanation :- that it was a gondolas slung under a balloon and containing sufferers of genetic disorders such as progeria, taken from a Japanese biological warfare lab and abused further by the USAF.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Pity they weren't smart enough to build a spaceship that didn't crash. Twice.
Yes, but your question on why there wasn't a recognizable loo or propulsion system presupposes they did crash, so my answer does as well.

"If they crashed, where's the instrument panel?"

"If they crashed, why would we necessarily recognize an instrument panel?"

The lack of recognizable functions for claimed recovered debris can't really be used as evidence one way or the other, because we don't know what these things would look like on something like a UFO.
 
Ther was nothing in the foil and I-beam debris suggestive of anything functional nor did anyone ever claim any such contents in the gondola. Indeed the experiments were alleged to involve exposure to altitude and cold and possibly radioactive material so nothing apart from seats and the radioactive material container would have been installed anyway.
There simply was nothing there to puzzle over.
Another point about this alleged incident - why is French prepared t odivulge this yet withhold anything specific about the pulse weapon, the pane or the actual incident ?
 
There are no reliable accounts of bodies at all; these seem to have been added to the story much later, part of the amazing amount of cruft that has accreted onto this story. So there's no need to invoke deformed midgets to explain them.
 
Nothing about the experiment theory has ever been verified. Nick Redfern had accounts from alleged insiders but with the magnitude of US government disinformation having become all the more apparent since he published they must be regarded as all the more dubious.
Wonder if he would write the same book now.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I find Nick Redfern's " Body Snatchers In the Desert" the most plausible explanation :- that it was a gondolas slung under a balloon and containing sufferers of genetic disorders such as progeria, taken from a Japanese biological warfare lab and abused further by the USAF.

The story in itself is plausible, tales of retrieved alien bodies were already circulating in 1949, almost identical to what we know today. But if he wants to be taken seriously, Redfern should stop to make mentions of Manchuria and Unit 731. Maybe he is just trying to save his face for having made such a preposterous claim, but it makes him look only like a dunce in history.

Bigfoot73 said:
Nick Redfern had accounts from alleged insiders but with the magnitude of US government disinformation having become all the more apparent since he published they must be regarded as all the more dubious.
Wonder if he would write the same book now.

Maybe not. When I read his book, it was apparent to me that he had been used.

Bigfoot73 said:
I have exchanged posts with Oberg elsewhere, a rather one way process since he doesn't like answering direct questions. Still essentially a NASA apologist.

I was refering to his recent claims that the US government was manipulating public beliefs on a wide scale (it seems that he refered to UFOs as one of the mythologies they used).
 
Analis said:
... tales of retrieved alien bodies were already circulating in 1949, almost identical to what we know today.
The Aztec Hoax was perpetrated in 1948/9; this story involved the recovery of sixteen bodies, but never really happened. There's no need to explain imaginary bodies with midgets or experiment victims or crash test dummies, or indeed with extraterrestrials; the Aztec crash just wasn't true.
 
In fact, there was no 'Aztec hoax' in 1949. The name Aztec was put by Scully only later, and it was only one of the places mentioned. There were already a number of stories of crashes and retrievals of alien ships and bodies in 1949 end 1950, usually from the US South-west and Mexico, with details differing. In the 50s, the vicinity of White Sands was more often mentioned.
Sixteen bodies retrieved, this feature is from Scully's book and is not found anywhere else. Nobody else, to my knowledge, ever mentioned Aztec as a UFO crash site. Scully's description of the location is not even consistent with Aztec. Scully's book is often used as a convenient 'catch-all' explanation for early reports of what Jerome Clark calls 'Roswell-Like Events' (RLE), but it doesn't do the job.
 
That's true; there were no bodies found at Aztec. Neither were there any found at Roswell, or at any other of the numerous reported crash sites from that period; the reports of bodies were all hoaxes, or bad recollections of hoaxes. Some, many, or most of these reports were put about by Silas Newton and Leo Gebauer, who told Scully the tall tale that became the Aztec Hoax.

Basically the hoax explanation seems to cover all the bases quite well; no reliable witness ever reported bodies, it seems.
 
As a kid circa 1959 - 1963 I obtained and read as many 'forteana' books and articles as I could find, including a number of the early books on UFO's. Because the books I could access were old / used ones, my readings vaguely paralleled the chronology of the UFO events' reporting / publications.

I recall being stunned when reading one of those 'strange stories' collections (one of Frank Edwards' early books? ...), where I ran across a description of bodies having been found or recovered. The reason was that although I was already familiar with Roswell and other incidents this was the first time I'd seen any allegations of a crash with bodies. I don't recall whether that story ascribed the location to Corona, Aztec, or somewhere else in New Mexico. In any case, I was surprised that it hadn't been mentioned in any of the earlier books / articles I'd read.

When I last seriously revisited the Roswell stuff (1990's) my homework convinced me the recovered bodies aspect was a later add-in - occurring sometime during the 1950's, originating with a secondary author, and deriving from an entirely separate narrative.

This had the corollary effect of heightening my skepticism about testimonies and interpretations from the 1970's onward. If the basic story had become so mutated after only a decade, how much should I trust elements that didn't surface until three or more decades after the event(s)?
 
There were very few stories about Roswell available in 1959-1963. One came from Hughie Green.
----

The Flying Saucer Review of Spring 1955 has an article which mentions a 'Flying Saucer crash in New Mexico' in June 1947. This account, written seven or eight years after the event, was remembered by the 'baffled stage and radio star Hughie Green', who heard about it on the radio as he drove across America at that time.

Hughie Green's account, nothing more than a distant memory of overheard radio stories, was in fact one of the only times between 1947 and 1978 that a UFO event in New Mexico in 1947 was ever mentioned in print. The names Roswell or Corona do not appear in the article.

Shortly before he died, Hughie Green was asked about the incident; he misremembered it as 1957, and said that the crash was located at somewhere called Tucumcari; it is certain that he misremembered the date, and possible that he mistook the location too.

If so, this account by the famous (some might say infamous) Mr Green is very nearly the only account in print concerning Roswell between 1947 and 1978.

see
http://sjhstrangetales.wordpress.com/20 ... -incident/
'and I mean that most sincerely, folks'
 
kamalktk said:
Bigfoot73 said:
Pity they weren't smart enough to build a spaceship that didn't crash. Twice.
Yes, but your question on why there wasn't a recognizable loo or propulsion system presupposes they did crash, so my answer does as well.

"If they crashed, where's the instrument panel?"

"If they crashed, why would we necessarily recognize an instrument panel?"

The lack of recognizable functions for claimed recovered debris can't really be used as evidence one way or the other, because we don't know what these things would look like on something like a UFO.

There's a Guy who was interviewed saying he had entered the downed ship at Roswell when it was still in the desert. I believe however that he's the only person to have claimed such. If this is news to everyone let me know and I can try to dig it up.a
 
Human_84 said:
kamalktk said:
Bigfoot73 said:
Pity they weren't smart enough to build a spaceship that didn't crash. Twice.
Yes, but your question on why there wasn't a recognizable loo or propulsion system presupposes they did crash, so my answer does as well.

"If they crashed, where's the instrument panel?"

"If they crashed, why would we necessarily recognize an instrument panel?"

The lack of recognizable functions for claimed recovered debris can't really be used as evidence one way or the other, because we don't know what these things would look like on something like a UFO.

There's a Guy who was interviewed saying he had entered the downed ship at Roswell when it was still in the desert. I believe however that he's the only person to have claimed such. If this is news to everyone let me know and I can try to dig it up.a

Self-correction.... this was Frank Kaufman, who was effectively debunked by his own wife shortly after his death; a conclusion announced by Randle and Schmidt. For what it's worth I'd have to agree with their evidences showing that Frank was faking it, not to mention his story was just a little too convenient when it came to putting all the Roswell pieces together.
 
garrick92 said:
All these fanciful stories about it being a 'weather balloon', when the real truth was staring us in the face all along.

At last, a totally satisfactory explanation.
How sad! Not an ET space-craft but an autogyro with rocket assistance.
"In all probability, the wing-blades speed, and so their lifting value, could also be increased by directing the adjustable horizontal jets slightly upwards to engage the blades, thus spinning them faster at the digression [sic] of the pilot."
Well, there have been many 'digressions' in the hunt for Roswell saucers. :roll: This is probably one of the least satisfactory. Increasing the 'lifting value' of the blades this way seems to me akin to pulling yourself up by your bootstraps! :twisted:
 
Not a chance. The Nazi Bell was never built, and wouldn't have flown if it had been. Nice fairy story, though.
 
Well, the Nazi Bell could never have flown but it would probably crash quite well, so maybe there is something in it after all...
 
Not a single military person involved mentioned this. In fact, 90% of those who broke their silence admitted that it was apparently alien, or along those lines at least. The truth is stranger than fiction, and these stories have no place when there's no correlation to the stories of people who were there at the time.
 
For those who want to have a better view at the current state of the 'Roswell slides' case :

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2015/02/roswell-slides-update.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2015/02/the-roswell-slides-video-interviews.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2015/02/roswell-slides-and-video-clips.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2015/02/roswell-slide-todays-february-9-update.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2015/02/roswell-slides-update-february-10-today.html

http://ufocon.blogspot.fr/2015/02/the-best-image-of-kodachrome-alien-so.html

Personally, I find that the photos are of such bad quality that I can't understand how some 'experts' have been able to ascertain that what they show is not a fake or something from Earth. Unless they have better pictures at their disposal. They should be more careful before claiming to rewrite the whole history of the world. It could as well be a mummy of a human being (deformed in the head region, but human nonetheless), they have usually an extremely dessicated and irregular shape similar to the humanoid we see on the slides. A cousin of Atta the mini-mummy ?

And the way the so-called owners of the slides manage the whole affair, it looks really like a swindle. One more.
 
My opinion of the Roswell
I think the U.S. government is covering up something but what exactly is anyone's guese.

I agree to some extent.

Why have so many people who where witness to the event revealed similar accounts of what really happened, to their families shortly before death. A crashed wreckage with small creatures which soon lead to mass military panic. (the second crashed UFO)

Why was the original "find" leaked to the newspapers? And then later its revealed to be a weather balloon - why risk looking stupid by admitting "we got it wrong" ( tin foil littering acres of land leading to part of a disc shaped craft)

The real reason (in my opinion) that the whole thing was covered up was because they found human body parts inside the second UFO - which was found later on. A more or less intact craft. It was a V shaped object

As for the Astec crash, again inside the craft where found vats that held various human organs and the common known grey type of workers scattered dead along the floor.

The main reason for the UFO cover-up in my opinion is because some of those who come here often treat us like cattle. Anybody here heard of cattle mutilations?
 
We should be pretty clear that most UFO researchers - even the ones who believe strongly in the ET hypothesis - believe that the Aztec 'crash' was a hoax. Unfortunately it has got mixed up with Roswell in people's memories.
 
This might be neither here nor there, but I thought I'd offer it up just in case -

Back in the 90's, one of our neighbors was a retired navy man, probably in his mid-70's by then. After some years I was shocked to discover that he was a firm believer in UFOs (because he had never spoken about it, for one thing, and he just seemed to be the practical type who'd think it was nonsense, for another). He explained why he was such a firm believer. It was a very intriguing story - I took a few notes at the time; unfortunately they are sketchy but here they are:

"When Mr. H was in Navy Strategic Command in [Missouri? I just have MO written in the notes], they were called by Florida (I'm assuming a naval base in Florida) to track an object that was flying at 5000 MPH. The pilots sent to scout it said it was too fast to really see, but was HUGE. When there was no response from the object after repeated attempts, they were ordered to attack. The object simply disappeared. Of the 5 planes sent out after the object, only 2 returned. The other three were lost. There was no wreckage found.

Later, when Mr H. was posted to New Mexico, the exact same thing happened over the desert. Again, 5 planes sent after the object, only 2 planes returned, no wreckage ever found despite exhaustive search."

This is all I have, but the reference to the New Mexico desert made me wonder. Also, I recall him saying that he was convinced the object was not of any military origin, as it was simply technologically impossible.

I don't have an exact location or any dates for these happenings, but...it did make me wonder.
 
Any indication of the year? Or decade, even?
 
Way back in the mid 90s my next door nieghbour spotted something odd in the sky one early morning. He described seeing a rectangular object that shone like the sun. It wasnt moving and it gradually began to frighten him. After around 5 minutes it did begin to move - began swaying before shooting upwards out of sight.
 
Wow - it would seem that Kevin Randle (who has written several books on the subject) is seemingly ready to give up on Roswell:

https://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-decline-of-roswell.html

Personally, I think this is long overdue. Roswell was a non-event until Berlitz and Moore resurrected it in the late 1970s. The evidence was never very compelling and has only become less so in the 40 years since.
 
I always was on the fence about Roswell but for me what stood out was the fact that Marcel claimed that the debris he saw was not from us...that it looked alien. One would think that an officer at his level even if he didn't have top secret clearance on those special balloons would have been able to distinguish human balloon debris from alien ship parts.
That has always been a bit strange , at least to me.
 
I agree about it being overdue ...

In the mid-1990's I did a lot of reading / re-reading leading up to the 50th anniversary of the event. By the time I had gone through the past and then-current literature (some for the 2nd or 3rd time during my lifetime) I concluded:

- The bulk of the Roswell mystique, and the mythos supporting it, accrued long after the fact.

- Some alleged aspects of the Roswell event actually traced back to other incidents (e.g., Corona / Aztec) and were getting blended into the Roswell mix as early as the 1950's.

- The storyline on how the Roswell mythos expanded and mutated over the decades was as, if not more, interesting as the Roswell story itself.

Long story short ...

I ended up accepting the Project Mogul (super-secret barometric sensor balloon array) explanation, based on not only the revelations surfacing at the time but also certain documentation and conversations with second-generation* informants above and beyond what was reported in the daily and UFO press of the time.

* By 'second-generation', I mean discussions with colleagues at a key site mentioned in the mythos who'd received their info from folks who'd been on-site (and positioned to need to know) in 1947.

Much of the authorities' confusing statements and behavior Randle cites is (IMHO) entirely understandable in light of:

- The security / classification level at which Project Mogul had operated;

- The fact the USAF had no substantial involvement save for providing a launch facility for the balloon arrays, because ...

- It was a CIA, rather than DOD, project - a fact to which more folks should pay attention.

IMHO the main thing getting covered up in 1947 was the left hand / right hand disconnects between the military and intelligence organizations involved, and the embarrassing situation in which the military ones had been left by virtue of having been the ones who'd publicly spoken first, without really knowing what they were showing.
 
Back
Top