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

The Roswell Incident [1947]

Everyone forgets about the only other person to handle the crash material was his son who became a military doctor.

Jesse Marcel,Jr. claims he was more interested in the purple symbols on the beams as the symbols were highly light reflecting.

He also heard that people in the Army experimented with the UFO skin and it would not bend, fold, or scratch.

The doctor said the Roswell UFO crash was an unearthly situation.

I personally believed him before he died at age 76.

I am surprised that the UFO secret has gone on this long, because we are not alone.
 
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

The following is an important article, featuring comments from Major Jesse Marcel, William (Bill) Moore and Jamie Shandera, regarding the Ramey office photographs:

"Three Hours That Shook the Press, in 'Focus" magazine, Vol. 5, Nos. 7-9, September 30, 1990.

Despite vast endeavours, I can not find a copy of this magazine online anywhere, even to purchase.

If anyone does have, might it please be possible to provide a copy of the article?

My gratitude would be more than immense.

I have, however, finally located a copy of Bob Pratt's founding news story, published in the 'National Enquirer', on February 28, 1980, announcing that resultant from fresh evidence, an old UFO case had resurfaced.
 

Attachments

  • Compress_20231023_064418_8447.jpg
    Compress_20231023_064418_8447.jpg
    223 KB · Views: 20
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
Crross-posted and thoughts on same most welcome.

Resultant from recent research developments:

ROSWELL: WAS THE DEBRIS FIRST IDENTIFIED BACK AT BASE?

Who initially identified that the Roswell debris, was possibly from a meteorological device?

The first published news of same, seems to have originated on 8 July, courtesy of a news bulletin, transmitted by the Association Press (AP) from Roswell and according to one newspaper's take:

'Record-Searchlight' (Redding, California)
Tuesday July 8, 1947

ROSWELL, N. M., July 8.- (AP)-The army air force here today announced a "flying disk" had been found on a ranch near Roswell and is in army possession.

Warren Haught, public Information officer of the Roswell army air field, announced the find had been made "sometime last week," and had been turned over to the air field through co-operation of the sheriff's office

"It was inspected at the Roswell army air field and subsequently loaned" by Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th bomb group Intelligence office at Roswell, "to higher headquarters."

Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, Eighth air force commander, described the object as of "flimsy construction, almost like a box kite." It was badly battered and Ramey did not indicate its size.

Asked what the material seemed to be. A. A. F. officials here said Ramey described it as "apparently some sort of tin foil."

Ramey also said that, so far as could be determined, no one had seen the object in the air.

Haught's statement:

"The many rumors regarding the flying disk became a reality yesterday..."
(End of extract)

This would appear to correlate with our now documented AP timeline:

7:03 Another First Lead story, dated Washington.

The Washington story gave the first real hint that all wasn't solved. There were possibilities, it stated, that the object was only a meteorological device.
(End)

Presumably because of the late hour, I can only locate one other newspaper which, on 8 July, published this specific bulletin:

'Bellingham Herald' (Bellingham, Washington), 'FINAL' edition.

Our AP newswire, features the significant update:

"Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, Eighth air force commander, described the object as of "flimsy construction, almost like a box kite." It was badly battered and Ramey did not Indicate its size.

Asked what the material seemed to be. A. A. F. officials here said Ramey described it as "apparently some sort of tin foil"."

Seems confusing; if the AP newsfeed is from Roswell and "A. A. F. officials here...".

Does this imply that Ramey described it as "apparently some sort of tin foil" to A. A. F. officials at Roswell?

Perhaps the other way around?

A telling clue, might be evidenced in the following AP news bulletin, from Washington and also dated 8 July, although not published until next morning:

Greensboro Daily News (Greensboro, North Carolina) · Wednesday July 9, 1947

WASHINGTON, July 8. -(AP)-A "flying disk" was reported found today in New Mexico but Army Air Forces headquarters here isn't sure the mystery plaguing the nation has been solved after all.

The army said it might turn out to be only a weather instrument. Anyhow Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey reported that the battered, flimsy object is being sent by air to Wright Field, Ohio, the AAF research center, for examination.

The AAF at Roswell, N. M.. announced the discovery had been made on a ranch near Roswell, climaxing weeks of reports over the country of strange disks seen skimming at high speed.

AAF headquarters, after telephonic consultation with officers at Roswell who have seen the material, said this:

"There is a strong opinion by officers who saw the object, after consulting with weather experts, that it may be a meteorological device.

"There is some indication that the object might have been attached to a balloon, which squares with the description of meteorological equipment we have in use."

The material had been described as of flimsy construction, about 25 feet in diameter, covered with a tinfoil-like substance and built on a framework of light wood.

Warrant Officer Irving Newton, a forecaster at Ft. Worth, Tex., Army Airfield weather station said the object was a rawind (radar-wind) target used to determine the direction and velocity of winds at high altitudes.

Newton said there were some 80 weather stations in the United States using this type of balloon and that it could have come from any one of them.

Ramey, commander of the Eighth Air Force with headquarters at Ft. Worth, received the object from the Roswell Army Air Base".
(End of full copy)

Transmitted on the evening of 8 July, this now features Irving Newton and confirms that the Roswell debris had accordingly been tagged as a radar target.

Moreso, our, "flimsy construction, almost like a box kite", "some sort of tin foil" and 'badly battered' artefact, is further described:

"There is a strong opinion by officers who saw the object, after consulting with weather experts, that it may be a meteorological device.

"There is some indication that the object might have been attached to a balloon, which squares with the description of meteorological equipment we have in use."

All of which, however, must surely in fact relate to Roswell AAF base, e.g., "officers who saw the object..."?

Apparently, Col. Blanchard was scheduled to depart the base on 8 July and if so, might not have been present to take a phone call.

Then we have, from AP, Fort Worth, also dated 8 July, although not published until next day:

Daily Oklahoman
Wednesday July 9, 1947

FORT WORTH, Texas, Jul 8 - (AP) -

A "flying disc" which was reported found Tuesday...

(...)

"The weather device was flown to Fort Worth army, air field by an B-29 from Roswell army air field at 10 a. m, Tuesday at the command of General Ramey.

(...)

After Col. William H. Blanchard, 509th commanding officer, reported the incident to General Ramey, he was ordered to dispatch the object to Fort Worth army air field immediately. About that time, word broke from Romwell that a flying disk finally had been found.

_Washington Casts Doubts_

The AAF at Roswell first announced the discovery with a straight face, climaxing weeks of reports over the country of strange circular discs seen skimming at high speed.

But AAF headquarters in Washington after telephone consultation with officers in Roswell who have seen the material, said this:

"There is a strong opinion by officers who saw the object, after consulting with weather experts, that it be a meteorological device."

The material land been described as of flimsy construction, about 25 feet In diameter, covered with a tinfoil-like substance and built out framework of light wood. It was badly battered.

Nothing in the apparent construction "indicated any capacity for speed," and there was no evidence of a power plant, the AAF said.

"Construction seemed too flimsy to have enabled it to carry a man, it was added".
(End of extract)

A Universal Press (UP) report, from Chicago, dated 8 July and published next day by a number of newspapers, seems consistent:

"Ramey had informed his Washington superiors that the object was "of very flimsy construction...', etc

Consequently, we would seem to have Ramey acting as a go-between?

This aside, the revelation herein, if factually accurate, would be that in answer to the question, 'why did nobody at Roswell AAF base, recognise it was probably a 'weather balloon'...

They did and for whatever reason(s), the material described, is seemingly one and the same, which ended up being labelled in our infamous press release as a 'flying disk'.

Whilst not remotely any insinuations, supporting the somewhat fragile artefact had travelled from a distant planet...

Just... many years later, maybe made it sound like that.
 
I don’t have a clue what they found at Roswell or why they acted and said what they did but I don’t believe that officers in the airforce would not be able to recognise a balloon be it a weather balloon or project mogul or what ever
 
RaM said:
I don’t have a clue what they found at Roswell or why they acted and said what they did but I don’t believe that officers in the airforce would not be able to recognise a balloon be it a weather balloon or project mogul or what ever
Click to expand...
This is the very point which seems to be evidenced - they did.

If so, how to reconcile with the press release?

We have to keep in mind that, imperatively, there was no mention our 'flying disk', comprised of foil, sticks and rubber,.

Moreso, Major Jesse Marcel's conclusion that this must have come from another world was arbitrary and reached even before he had stopped off, excitedly, to first of all show some recovered fragments to his family.

Evidently, Marcel's perceived 'hieroglyphics', or 'symbols', which were most persuasive, plus we know, he was familiar with the 'flying disk or ,"flying saucer' reports which had pervaded locally, since Kenneth Arnold's misconstrued report, only a couple of weeks earlier.

Would our most likely explanation be, that as the Counter Intelligence officer, his opinion was decisive?

It does appear we have confirmation that it all comes down to Marcel's resolute belief, during that nascent period of media frenzy.

Then, of course, the fragments were identified, shortly afterwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
RaM said:
I don’t believe that officers in the airforce would not be able to recognise a balloon be it a weather balloon or project mogul or what ever
Click to expand...
Nevertheless it happened. Many times. 42 similar events in 1947 were misidentified as flying disks, in the US and elsewhere. Many of these are crashed weather balloons or other similar events.

1947 crashes

==========
6-20-47 Titusville, PA [and other locations]
6-21-47 Tacoma, Washington
6-25-47 Nyssa, Oregon Ob
6-27-47 Tularosa and Eagle, New Mexico
7-1-47 Circleville, Ohio (weather balloon)
7-4-47 Roswell, New Mexico (weather balloon)
7-6-47 Grafton Wisconsin
7-6-47 East St. Louis, Illinois
7-7-47 Oxford, Ohio (probably weather balloon)
7-7-47 New Hampshire
7-7-47 Jackson, Ohio (probably weather balloon)
7-7-47 Shreveport, Louisiana
7-7-47 Bozeman, Montana
7-7-47 Oelwein, Iowa
7-8-47 Ludlow, Kentucky
7-8-47 South Bloomfield, Ohio (probably weather balloon)
7-8-47 Windsor, Ontario Canada
7-9-47 Baker, Montana (probably weather balloon)
7-9-47 Midland, Michigan
7-9-47 North Hollywood, California
7-9-47 Thompsonville, Connecticut (weather balloon)
7-9-47 Rindge, New Hampshire
7-10-47 Greensburgh/West Chester, N. Y. (weather balloon)
7-10-47 Springfield, Massachusettes
7-10-47 Beulah Bay, Alabama
7-10-47 Niwot, Colorado (weather balloon)
7-11-47 Woodworth, North Dakota
7-11-47 Laurel, Maryland
7-11-47 Black River Falls, Wisconsin
7-11-47 Twin Falls, Idaho
7-12-47 Eugene, Oregon
7-12-47 Linden, New Jersey
7-12-47 Eastchester, New York
7-12-47 Nelsonville, Ohio
7-13-47 Amarillo, Texas
7-15-47 Clearwater, Florida
7-15-47 Seattle, Washington
7-17-47 Marysville, Kansas (probably weather balloon)
7-18-47 Chengtu, China (weather balloon)
7-23-47 Ragland, West Virginia (weather balloon)
8-8-47 Mullensville, West Virginia (weather balloon)

Some of the others may have been weather balloons too, but details are too vague.
 
Last edited:
I still find it hard to believe they really made such a mistake, you would
think the intelligence officer from the only nuclear equipped squadron
in likly the world at that time would get it so wrong, then again neither
would I expect them to talk to the press about it.
 
This seems to have been a short-lived trend, probably inspired by the mass media, and Kenneth Arnold's report in June 1947. Band-wagon jumpers.

Or maybe they really thought aliens were falling from the sky like sparrows with bird-flu.
 
RaM said:
I still find it hard to believe they really made such a mistake, you would
think the intelligence officer from the only nuclear equipped squadron
in likly the world at that time would get it so wrong, then again neither
would I expect them to talk to the press about it.
Click to expand...
You are touching on another, related aspect.

Having of his own volition, without any actual scientific analysis, concluded that the sticks, foil and rubber were of extraterrestrial origin, Marcel exposed his family to whatever alien germs, perhaps intentionally hostile, might be present.

In doing so, Dr Marcel, his son, recalls that some of the debris laid out on the family kitchen floor, was later swept out the door by Mrs Marcel.

Urgently delivering this potentially, profound evidence of a threat from those newfound 'flying saucers' to Roswell AAF base, was obviously not Marcel's priority.

To what extent was rational thinking involved?

What exactly determined, before he stopped off home, that it must be fragments from another planet?
 
eburacum said:
This seems to have been a short-lived trend, probably inspired by the mass media, and Kenneth Arnold's report in June 1947. Band-wagon jumpers.

Or maybe they really thought aliens were falling from the sky like sparrows with bird-flu.
Click to expand...
Precisely the situation.

Also, not only had Marcel been sent to investigate Brazel's statedly suspected debris from one of these new 'flying saucers', in the preceding two weeks from Kenneth Arnold's completely misunderstood sighing of nothing like saucer-shaped objects, Marcel was familiar with both this background and recent local newspaper/radio reports.

A cross-posting from my recent highlight re same, on the Facebook 'UFO Research List', forum:

BOB PRATT 1979 INTERVIEW WITH MAJOR JESSE MARCEL - UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL

From Pratt's full, original transcript, made available in a 2015 blog by Kevin Randle, this extract features some informative background, which never made Pratt's published article.

It's not absolutely clear, at least to myself, if the UFO incident Marcel describes, occurred prior to Roswell.

Looks like it, though?

In either event, Marcel was seemingly aware, that "there had been a lot of reports of flying saucers in that area".

Might this help explain why Marcel believed he had come across wreckage from one?

FB_IMG_1699131405995.jpg
 
If perhaps of related interest, I have only recently posted this to the Facebook 'UFO Research List', which I administer:

MOGUL: INSIGHTS FROM CHARLES MOORE

I have come across the following, long forgotten, correspondence with Bob Todd.

It was originally published, with permission, on the old 'UFO Research List' (UFORL) and I an uncertain how much of this content is in the public domain:

To: "UFORL"
From: "James Easton"
Date: 09/06/99
Re: 'Parchment parachutes' - Prof. Moore Explains

Following recent discussions concerning the 'parchment', or 'tough paper' described by some witnesses to the 'Roswell' debris, I am indebted to Bob Todd for the following.

Having mentioned the technical queries to Prof. Charles Moore, Bob has kindly taken the time to pass on, with permission of course, an unexpected response.

This contains significant details that I have personally never seen clarified and which may be explained here for the first time, definitively resolving the question of those parchment parachutes.

Prof. Moore writes:

"This is a belated response with a few comments on the "parchment" parachutes.

First. I still have one of the ML-132 parachutes (of the original Word War II design) used to lower radiosondes to Earth after the 350 gram, ML-131 sounding balloon burst at the end of its ascent.

This parachute is made with a rather tough, red, parchment-like paper, a wicker hoop that holds the parachute open for easy inflation and eight "risers" made of cotton twine. The paper canopy would be about 59 inches in diameter if it could be laid out flat; each of the 8 triangular gores is about 29 inches long.

The paper is unusual; it's stiff and has been treated to prevent absorption of water.

When stretched out as in the load line in an NYU flight train,the distance from the center of the canopy to the point beneath the wicker ring where the 8 risers came together is about 64 inches.

The 8 risers are strong enough to support a 3 pound radiosonde but are too weak to be withstand the 30 pound or so pull that would have been needed in one of the NYU flight trains used in1947. We reinforced these parachutes by tying a 60 inch long, 500 pound test nylon line between the top center of the parachute and the bottom of the risers (through the wicker hoop) so that, in flight, the risers were slack and carried none of the load.

If the parachute were to inflate on descent, the canopy would distend such that the distance from the center of the canopy and the load attachment point would be much less than 60 inches such that the 500 pound test nylon line would be slack and would not interfere with the parachute deployment. The parachute reinforcement consisted of no more than the tying of a strong nylon line between the apex of the uninflated, stretched-out parachute and the load attachment point at the bottom. It was no big deal.

The pre-war radiosonde parachutes developed by the Weather Bureau were made of silk; when the Signal Corps began procuring parachutes for the U.S. Army, they followed the Weather Bureau design but shifted to the water-resistant paper after silk was no longer available in 1942.

In 1947, the NYU group was furnished with both paper and some silk parachutes (and radar targets) from the Signal Corps supplies at Evans Signal Laboratories. As I remember, we preferred the scarcer silk parachutes because they were stronger and lighter. Since both types of parachute were adequate for our purpose which was to prevent free-fall of the instruments from high-altitude, there was no reason to record which type was used on a given flight and this sort of inconsequential detail was not recorded. I suspect that in drawing up the records for a given flight, our data analysts used the available information on the flight train including what had been planned earlier, back in New York, and not what had actually been available and used in Alamogordo. I have no idea as to which version of ML-132 parachute was used on NYU Flight 4 but the fact that a rather tough, parchment-like paper was found along with debris with pink-purple, flower-like figures suggests to me that the debris included part of a ML-132 paper parachute.

There is (and was) no metal used in a ML-132 parachute of the types that we used.

The ML-132 parachutes were used on the early neoprene-balloon flights because those balloons burst suddenly and Dr. Peoples was concerned about free-falling objects being a hazard when they came to Earth. Having demonstrated to Dr. Peoples that there was little danger of free-falling instruments from cluster flights, we used no parachutes on the HELIOS-configured Flight 7. The later polyethylene balloons such as used on NYU Flights 8, 10,11, 12 did not fail catastrophically and so, no parachutes were used on these flights. On the other hand, the General Mills people under Project SKYHOOK carried cosmic ray measuring instruments aloft suspended under standard, 24-foot diameter, nylon personnel parachutes. The payloads were recovered by cutting the suspension between the top of the parachutes and the balloons floating at high altitudes.

The General Mills people and SKYHOOK never employed the ML-132 radiosonde parachute; all of the payloads were far too heavy for such an insignificant parachute.

The reason that we made an effort to recover NYU Flight 5 and the absence from the Brazel debris of other portions of the NYU Flight 4 train are both discussed in some detail in my chapter in the 1997 by Saler et al".

Both Bob and Prof. Moore express they have no further interest whatsoever in 'Roswell' discussions and this is an exception.

James.
(End)

(End of UFORL post)
 
eburacum said:
Many of these are crashed weather balloons or other similar events.
Click to expand...
I have only recently emphasised elsewhere, the very same.

ROSWELL: CONTEMPORY FLYING OBJECTS

Otherwise known as CFOs...

If of related interest, simply some research material, I have kept a copy of, as a perspective, along the way.

Plus, we have one of each.

In order of posting:

Monday 7th July

'Flying Disc', from The Daily Reporter (Greenfield, Indiana)

Wednesday 9th July

'Flying Saucer', from the Palladium-Item (Richmond, Indiana)

'Flying Disk', from the Kansas City Times.

The latter seems to feature one component which has a notable resemblance to the piece of debris material, Marcel is photographed holding and maybe helps make sense of of same?
 

Attachments

  • Compress_20231105_040016_6865.jpg
    Compress_20231105_040016_6865.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 12
  • Compress_20231105_040017_7023.jpg
    Compress_20231105_040017_7023.jpg
    184.2 KB · Views: 10
  • Compress_20231105_040017_7125.jpg
    Compress_20231105_040017_7125.jpg
    39.2 KB · Views: 12
Note that none of these were disks. Even Kenneth Arnold's original sighting wasn't a disk. The communal delusion that labelled these events as 'flying saucers' was completely at odds with the evidence.
 
RaM said:
The quality of the ranchers moonshine?
Click to expand...
Should it all have a perfectly terrestrial explanation, nonetheless, the story has become extraordinarily complicated over many years.

I have previously highlighted the point - perhaps to @charliebrown - that one reason 'Roswell' has become convincing, as such, to many, is that we do have testimonials of numerous spaceship crash sites and accompanying alien bodies.

Indeed, not all, allegedly, were deceased...

Bottom line; it has become compelling for a reason and the genesis is, effectively, Marcel deciding on the spot, the sticks/beams, foil, rubber and especially our 'hieroglyphics', were "not from this earth".

On which... I have a copy of one newspaper article, in which Stanton Friedman proclaims there may be up to five separate crash sites!
 
eburacum said:
Note that none of these were disks. Even Kenneth Arnold's original sighting wasn't a disk. The communal delusion that labelled these events as 'flying saucers' was completely at odds with the evidence.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, it's all about those 'flying saucers'!

As you note, the one person who never observed any such thing and repeatedly made the point, was Kenneth Arnold himself.

Seemingly, to the very end - from June 1982, in apparently his last known interview (Arnold passed away on 16 January, 1984):

SEATTLE (AP) -Thirty-five years after he reported seeing the first modern-day "flying saucer...

Thursday in a telephone interview....

He added, "There is one thing I'd like to straighten out.

"I didn't create the word 'flying saucer.' This young reporter from Pendleton, Ore., asked me how they flew and I said they flew very erratically, they flipped and flashed, like if you took a saucer and threw it across the water.

So from that, everybody wrongly assumed they were round instead of crescent shaped."
(End)

Thiat acknowledged, each UFO case has to, of course, be considered on its own merits.

However, our archetypal 'flying saucer' genesis could not be more factually specious and this simply has to be accepted.
 
The pictures look like light weight radar targets to me from a balloon
I have seen them a weather balloons and much more substantial ones
on boats, you don't see them as often now.
1699216031687.png

This is a marine radar reflector but modern ones are electronic rather
than passive.
 
Last edited:
Comfortably Numb said:
Ultimately, it's all about those 'flying saucers'!

As you note, the one person who never observed any such thing and repeatedly made the point, was Kenneth Arnold himself.

Seemingly, to the very end - from June 1982, in apparently his last known interview (Arnold passed away on 16 January, 1984):

SEATTLE (AP) -Thirty-five years after he reported seeing the first modern-day "flying saucer...

Thursday in a telephone interview....

He added, "There is one thing I'd like to straighten out.

"I didn't create the word 'flying saucer.' This young reporter from Pendleton, Ore., asked me how they flew and I said they flew very erratically, they flipped and flashed, like if you took a saucer and threw it across the water.

So from that, everybody wrongly assumed they were round instead of crescent shaped."
(End)

Thiat acknowledged, each UFO case has to, of course, be considered on its own merits.

However, our archetypal 'flying saucer' genesis could not be more factually specious and this simply has to be accepted.
Click to expand...

My own feeling on this is that the idea of 'saucers' connected with something deep in the collective unconscious. The discs were simply waiting to come out: Bequette's misreporting of the Arnold sighting unleashed them, after which people started seeing discs everywhere, whatever the underlying stimuli.

The whole process was repeated again post 1990 with triangles.
 
The mysterious nurse X who helped the doctors who worked on the Roswell UFO alien crash bodies that July 5, 1947.

Nurse X told the 22 year old Glenn Dennis, mortician and ambulance driver, about the alien bodies and drew pictures of the aliens on a restaurant napkin for Dennis to see.

If Dennis knew or did not know nurse X, Dennis never said to anyone and took that information to the grave.

Supposedly, ufologist, Kevin Randle, spent a tremendous amount of time looking for nurse X.

Kevin Randle never found nurse X and even came across a rumor that nurse X went through several transfers, and even a rumor she died in a small plane crash.

Did nurse X exist ?

Most doctors usually have nurse helpers, so nurse X probably did exist.
 
Last edited:
There were no crash bodies, so Nurse X didn't exist.
Glenn Dennis fabricated the story in 1994, 47 years after the event.
 
RaM said:
The pictures look like light weight radar targets to me from a balloon
I have seen them a weather balloons and much more substantial ones
on boats, you don't see them as often now.View attachment 71108
This is a marine radar reflector but modern ones are electronic rather
than passive.
Click to expand...

Yup, a reflector. I have one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
Kevin Randle spent years looking for nurse X thinking she did existed, but nothing.
 
Well, for the few who might believe that the Roswell Crash could have happened, I found it odd that the alien’s picture that Glenn Dennis redrew from nurse-X’s description looked more human than the big oval head and the dark haunting eyes.

Obviously, the Roswell aliens were not the standard alien.
 
This is probably because Dennis' drawings (whether they were actually copies from memory of those drawn by his nurse contact, or simply drawn from his own recollection) more likely represented the (human) victims of an actual air crash, probably the crash of a KC-79G refuelling tanker outside Walker AFB in June 1956. Dennis likely had some involvement with this incident, as did Colonel Lee Farrell, the Walker AFB hospital commander and a close match for the physical description of the colonel who features in Dennis's story.

The question is whether Dennis was simply misremembering and misinterpreting his partial knowledge of incidents 40 years earlier and more, or more cynically borrowing details of real events to give his yarn the gloss of reality.

McAndrew the author of the 1990s Air Force report into Roswell took a rather dim view of it all:

Other descriptions, particularly those believed to be thinly veiled references to deceased or injured Air Force members, are difficult to view as naive misunderstandings. Any attempt to misrepresent or capitalize on tragic incidents in which Air Force members died or were injured in service to their country significantly alters what would otherwise be viewed as simple misinterpretations or honest mistakes
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top