Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Walter Haut affidavits signed in 1993 and 2002. Video made in 2000

Article does not mention that there were 2 affidavits. Article sounds like it is only discussing a later one. Does not mention the video at all.

News media articles still available that cover the Walter Haut affidavits released to the public in 2007 after his death in 2005. They were signed and witnessed in 1993 and 2002. Also a Walter Haut video made in 2000 that was released to the public in 2021.

17 Aug 2021: “My father saw the bodies”: chasing the truth about Roswell. By James Jennings. Archived here.

5 June 2022: Roswell officer's deathbed confession about theory of alien cover up. By Declan Carey. Archived here.

14 May 2021: Ex-Army officer ADMITS he saw ‘alien the size of a 10-year-old child’ after famous Roswell UFO crash in incredible video. By Emma Parry. Archived here. This article has a short excerpt of the video.

May 2021: Roswell Officer Speaks From the Grave: Video Released, Confesses that Alien was "the size of a 10 year old". By Anthony Bragalia. Archived here. From article (emphasis added): "This video clip is part of a memoir video / oral history over two hours in length that covers many personal and professional aspects of Haut's life. The video was taken at the Roswell Museum in 2000 with friends Dennis Balthaser and Wendy Connors."

September 2007. Haut's Daughter Tells How Affidavit Came to Be. By Julie Shuster (his daughter). MUFON UFO Journal. Issue 473. Page 15. Dec 2002 affidavit is on page 14.

30 June 2007: Roswell officer's amazing deathbed admission raises possibility that aliens DID visit. By Nick Pope. Same article also published here and here. Archived here and here.

2002 and 1993 affidavits. Archived here. Scroll down for the affidavits.

This version of the Walter Haut article is pretty good. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I added mention of the 1993 and Haut's prior interview statements, where he denied being an eyewitness. The video clip is interesting, in that, if genuine, it would confirm Haut privately saying things that he denied in public interviews during his life. But without better sourcing, we can't know the video is genuine, and even if we did, it's probably UNDUE for this article. Feoffer (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In his 1st affidavit in 1993 he did not deny he was an eyewitness. He just didn't say he was. The archive is more readable.

In his 2nd affidavit in 2002 he opened up more. He claimed there were 2 sites, and that he was a first hand witness of wreckage samples, a craft, and alien bodies.

His doctor at the time in 2002 said he was of sound mind. That info is in the first link below. Along with both affidavits and much more:

See: https://web.archive.org/web/20211028182152/http://www.roswellproof.com/haut.html

The 2002 affidavit is here, too.

September 2007. Haut's Daughter Tells How Affidavit Came to Be. By Julie Shuster (his daughter). MUFON UFO Journal. Issue 473. Page 15. Dec 2002 affidavit is on page 14. I recommend reading her whole article. From page 14 below the 2002 affidavit: "It was verified as the accurate text by Lt. Haut’s daughter, Julie Shuster, who is the Director of the International UFO Museum. See her comments on page 15". EXCERPTS: my father and I verbally discussed each and every sentence. ... My father died in December 2005. The statement was completed in December 2002. Three years difference makes a statement an affidavit of information, not a “deathbed confession.” END.

17 Aug 2021: “My father saw the bodies”: chasing the truth about Roswell. By James Jennings. Special Broadcasting Service. Haut's daughter, Julie Shuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence.

The 2002 affidavit, and much more, is here too:

See Google Books: Witness to Roswell, 75th Anniversary Edition. Unmasking the Government's Biggest Cover-up. By Thomas J. Carey, Donald R. Schmitt. 2022.

Google Books can search inside the book.

Search for Haut. And Haut affidavit. And 2002 Haut affidavit. The 2002 Haut affidavit is on page 240 according to that search. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What are the most reliable WP:FRIND (non-ufology) sources on the Haut affidavits? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRIND at the top says (emphasis added):

"Fringe theories in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear."

The Haut affidavits are in Roswell incident#Witness to Roswell (2007). References 139-144. It's a mixture of books and skeptics, and a couple of articles from media that cover a lot more than UFOs. Special Broadcasting Service. And The Sunday Telegraph.

So, I think it meets the WP:FRIND guideline of having a mix.

I only added one reference to that section; the article by Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). "Australian hybrid-funded public service broadcaster. About 80 percent of funding for the company is derived from the Australian Government."

The links in my posts above come from a mix. The bottom line is the existence of the 2002 notarized sworn affidavit is well established by both UFO media and mainstream media. That affidavit is the one that matters. The SBS article explains why Haut exposed so much more in the 2002 affidavit than in the 1993 affidavit: EXCERPT: “Walter [Haut] confirmed to Don and I that the reason he kept everything a secret is because he promised Colonel Blanchard that he would not divulge the secret while he lived,” confirms Carey. END. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the SBS article is mostly an interview with his daughter, who in her longer MUFON explanation says the affidavit was written by the book's author and approved and signed (but not drafted) by Haut. Are there independent reviews out there of the book? Or ideally something peer-reviewed? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about book reviews. I only have so much time, health, and energy nowadays. So for this article I have been focusing on the 2002 Haut affidavit. In the SBS article Haut's daughter, Julie Shuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence before he signed it with notarization. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I only have so much time, health, and energy nowadays. Take care of yourself; life can be much. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

2002 affidavit completely removed from article

Why was the Witness to Roswell (2007) section completely removed on Dec 17, 2023? See the article version before the removal. So the eyewitness testimony of Walter Haut (via the 2002 affidavit) has been completely removed from the article. Affidavit where he states that there were 2 crash sites, and that he had seen a craft, wreckage samples, and alien bodies. See that section:

Extended content

Witness to Roswell (2007) In 2007, Donald Schmitt and Tom Carey published the book Witness to Roswell, which prominently featured a 2002 document said to be a sworn, notarized affidavit by Walter Haut, who had written the first Army press release about the Roswell crash in 1947. In 1993, Haut had sworn an affidavit containing recollections of the Roswell incident; in that document, and in later interviews, Haut consistently denied being a firsthand witness. The 2002 affidavit, alleged to have been left by Haut and opened only after his death in 2005, contradicts Haut's prior statements by claiming that there were 2 sites, and that he had seen a craft, wreckage samples, and alien bodies. The claims, however, drew an unimpressed response from some ufologists: Dennis Balthaser said that the document was not written by Haut, and that by 2000 Haut's mental state was such he could not recall basic details about his past, making the detail contained in the affidavit seem dubious. Physicist and skeptic Dave Thomas commented: "Is Roswell still the 'best' UFO incident? If it is, UFO proponents should be very, very worried." Haut's daughter, Julie Shuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence. References Carey, Thomas J.; Schmitt, Donald (2007). Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the 60-Year Cover-Up. Franklin Lakes, N.J: New Page Books. ISBN 978-1564149435. Thomas, Dave (2009). "Roswell update: fading star?" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 33, no. 1. Alexander, John B. (2011). UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4299-9483-5.

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a FRINGE source, of course -- no one can verify Haut's supposed late-life statements; but it's not a source that seems to have influenced the mythology/folklore. You don't need to know about the 2007 book to know about the Roswell Incident. Feoffer (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple people verified the 2002 affidavit, including his daughter. And it was notarized while he was alive. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, since Donald Schmitt wrote the 2002 affidavit, I see 2 quite viable places to discuss Schmitt's book:

• I've made Donald R. Schmitt a redlink in this article, if you want to do a subarticle there going over his books and theories.[1] An even older, larger version of this article had a lot of Schmitt content that was cut.[2] I think he would likely pass WP:GNG, and it would be fairly straightforward to do a bio section and a section on his books.
• After I asked about sources, I gathered the print interview with Julie Shuster, an audio interview with Schmitt, a thorough book review, and the existing skeptical criticism. I've updated Walter Haut to try to make clear the nature of the document (based on interviews with Haut, composed by Schmitt, and signed by Haut).[3]
• I do not think Schmitt's 2007 book is due in this article. I don't see reliable sources about the Roswell Incident discussing Haut. If you think I'm in the wrong about WP:DUE, feel free to ask for an outside opinion (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Third opinion)

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes to the Walter Haut article. The 2002 affidavit was signed in front of a notary on Dec 26, 2002:

Page 240 of the 2022 edition of the Carey & Schmitt book has the affidavit too. Excerpt shows the date.

There needs to be a link to the 2002 affidavit that anybody can read without buying a book. See links above. The affidavit is not just in the Carey & Schmitt 2007 book. It is also in their 2022 edition.

4 main points of the affidavit need to be mentioned: Haut states that there were 2 crash sites, and that he had seen a craft, wreckage samples, and alien bodies.

If the info is good enough for the Walter Haut article, then it is certainly good enough for the Roswell incident article. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If the info is good enough for the Walter Haut article, then it is certainly good enough for the Roswell incident article

Oh, if only it were so simple. I understand your pain at seeing info you care about removed and left to sub-articles: I've had a lot of my words chopped from the article recently -- on some level I want to say "hey, if it's good enough for the Gray Aliens article, it's good enough for here". But wiser minds caution us that we should stick to the CORE Roswell story, and that's something from the 1970s and 80s, not a story from the 60s about gray alien abduction and not a story from the 00s that never really gained traction. Feoffer (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. WP:ONEWAY is a consideration. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

While cleaning up the references, I noticed an edit summary from VdSV9 commenting on issues.[4] So I'm dropping a ping and also inviting broader input on any references that seem confusing or ill-formatted. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Also Bon courage, regarding the citation style, do you see any issues up to footnote [91] in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roswell_incident&oldid=1190401722 The remaining full citations in ref tags should be shorter works (but I may have missed some). This seems to me how the references were reorganized back in 2013.[5] Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, other than that we should be consistent. That old versions looks like a good basis ... Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think it's there now in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roswell_incident&diff=1192896898&oldid=1192886367 Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Alien autopsy hoax

This seems irrelevant here, and what we have is not in WP:SYNC with the main article. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Like the Aztec and Hangar 18 material, my text obviously didn't connect the dots very well; It does come off sounding irrelevant, but it's actually probably the most culturally influential component of the Roswell story after The Roswell Incident (1980) which undoubtedly holds the top spot. Rjj's excellent chart above seems to bear this out, albeit that's not currently reflected in the text. I'll tag it to remind us it needs work. Feoffer (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Took a shot at it. Feel free to trim, modify, and amend as needed. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear it has any relevance to Roswell (apart from both being about space aliens). Can we just cut it? Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It was explicitly claimed to be the Roswell autopsy, and it's a hoax -- why would we ever miss out on the opportunity to remind readers it's been debunked? Feoffer (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention that it is "the Roswell autopsy" at all. If the purported alien is meant to be a space alien crashed at Roswell we could say that in one sentence and link to the hoax article, everything else just seems irrelevant or off-topic (why is the X-files mentioned in this section?) Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, the text needs fixing. In past drafts, I tended to trust readers to connect the dots themselves, rather than directly quoting RSes to explicitly make the connection. We know better now. The text needs work, we'll work on it. But Rjj's chart makes it clear -- RSes routinely discuss the Santelli film as part of Roswell Incident lore; We can't just "cut" it and pretend the now-debunked film never existed! why is the X-files mentioned in this section? Because RSes discuss the X-Files as evidence of how influential the Santelli film was in Roswell mythology and popular culture. Feoffer (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be repeated in the Popular fiction section, where it doesn't have such a "huh?" factor. Bon courage (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

To my eyes, the satire and replication of visual style helps the reader to recognize the conclusions of RSes: the footage is a product of the 1990s, not the 1940s.

As a personal note, we have SUCH different visions for Wikipedia's role in fighting fringe... "Let's cut the debunk of the Roswell Alien Autopsy" is a shocking suggestion to me, but I'm sure some of my ideas are shocking to you. To indulge in hyperbole, I feel like your ideal article might be a tiny one-paragraph stub that simply declares the Roswell debris to be a MOGUL balloon, while my ideal article might be summations of the entire set of Snopes articles that debunk each and every element of the Roswell mythology. But hey, with RJ's help, things seem to be improving. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

For my own part this is nothing to do with "fighting fringe". I was just reading the text and completely baffled about why it was there. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'm the first to admit my text needs an editor, and thankfully we have one. Feoffer (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Took another swing at it. Made connection more explicit based on the discussion above. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, I left the admission and explicit "Roswell" in. I changed the ref from URL to short citation. I think that titling sections on works with the titles of those work is more clear. Bon courage, I hope this is more clear. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its relevance is now apparent. Bon courage (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage, somewhat related what do you think about cutting the UFO religions? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Feoffer mentioned it as a problem above. After I cut out un-sourced content it's only a paragraph. Reliable sources about Roswell don't really discuss it, and the sources cited here are about UFO Religions. Even Ricketts (2011) which goes into a lot of detail about how Roswell functions in a way similar to religion, doesn't mention Heaven's Gate, Raelism, or other new religious movements. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Edit: This is the most any source about Roswell connects the incident, myth, or place to UFO religions: "UFO enthusiasts held confer- ences in Roswell on UFOs and religion, arguing, among other things, that God is an alien and extraterrestrials seeded the Earth with life. The fact that Roswell had experienced an actual hierophany of sorts - given that a UFO had supposedly crashed, witnesses were still alive to testify, and the government acknowledged the incident - conspired to turn the city into nothing less than a tourist mecca for people searching for meaning from the heavens (Rickets 2011, p.251)." I think even that though is more about tourism. Feoffer, I'd be fine if you want to cut the section outright, 04:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, logic would dictate that Roswell would be a huge element of and contributor to UFO religions, but the sources just don't seem to bear that out. American UFO religions tend to descend from Theosophy, not UFO Conspiracy Theory. Feoffer (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

UFOs quickly became synonymous with alien spacecraft

This is another verification nightmare with twelve different pages cited in the Peebles source. Could somebody point to a single location (preferably in just one source) for this 'quickly became' thought? Again, what is this 'quick becoming' telling us about the Roswell incident? Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm at a little bit of a loss myself as to what this means. I'll take a peek through Peebles and see if we can pin that down a little bit. Certainly by the 1952 flap, UFOs are alien space in the popular mindset, but I suspect Peebles will actually place that shift earlier, maybe as earlier as 1948. Feoffer (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I rephrased this to try and make the relevance more clear and have cited a single page, with a quote in the edit summary.[6] Peebles places the shift in 1950-1951. The significance is in establishing that "flying saucer" or "flying disc" had changed significantly in meaning between the 1947 incident and the conspiracy theories and so on. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good solution. Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Fu-go balloons

Doing some more WP:V spot-checking and wondering again about the Fu-go balloons. The article says

In 1947, a few years removed from Japan's World War II (1944–45) Fu-Go balloon bomb attacks, many Americans had attributed the saucers to a foreign military.

And this is cited to two sources. But

• The second source (May) does not seem to verify the text at all.
• What are 'the saucers' ?
• How is this relevant to the Roswell incident?
• The first source (Ziegler et al) has four page locations given, which sets the WP:SYNTH klaxon sounding. Is there something in there which directly supports this text as WP:V requires? Bon courage (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, going by bullet points:

• I added a quote to make clear what in May was relevant.
• 1947 flying saucers
• The original press release claims possession of a flying disc which to a modern reader equals alien space ship. In 1947, that was not yet the case. Some of the actions make more sense in the context of a potentially soviet flying disc.
• I think Feoffer added the quote from page 7.

It honestly does not come up as big focus in most Roswell sources, but does come up frequently in sources about the 1947 flying disc craze. For example, From Airships to Flying Saucers: Oregon's Place in the Evolution of UFO Lore by Robert E. Bartholomew is about the 1947 larger event and says, "The "flying saucer" story also had greater effects, encouraging those who had observed mysterious aerial phenomena to report their sightings and heightening fears of a Soviet attack. A significant factor in the importance Bequette and others gave the story was the public's recent memory of the 93,000 Japanese Fugo balloon-carrying incendiary bombs that had been launched into the Jet Stream during 1944 and 1945." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why it's relevant to pre-Roswell 'flying saucers' in general, but not to the Roswell debris. It just seems off-topic. If however, it's the case that "the [Roswell] actions make more sense in the context of a potentially soviet flying disc" is there a source saying this? Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: When you say "pre-Roswell", I realize I may have been unclear. The 1947 flying disc craze/panic/hysteria includes the original Roswell debris recovery and announcement rather than preceding it. Reliable sources often contextualize the original 1947 events and press release as being not necessarily related to an alien spaceship at all. Korff (1997, p. 245) explains Haut's Roswell "flying disc" press release ending with, "It should also be understood that the term 'flying disc' was not at this time, in 1947, synonymous with 'space ship.' It denoted a disc-shaped flying object of unknown, or suspected Soviet, origin." May, Korff, Launius (discussed above), Ziegler, and others all offer this context about the 1947 craze and also about the 1947 Roswell debris events within that craze. Regarding the Fugo connection is the concern that it does not meet WP:V (and should not be in wikipedia) or that it does not meet WP:NPOV (and should be in the flying disc craze article only)? I think it meets WP:V but am ambivalent on NPOV as only some sources that I've checked place an emphasis. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see it meeting WP:V in a way which is NPOV, if you see what I mean. While I can see the Japanese balloons may have been a factor in the general take on UFOs of the time, I can't see anything that ties it to Roswell. But, since we now have a source about 'Soviet origin' that would seem more pertinent. Why are we mentioning old Japanese balloons and not the Soviet origin concern, when that seems less tenuously connected to Roswell in RS? My concern is that Wikipedia would end up being the only source in the Universe making an explicit connection between fugo balloons and Roswell - OR in other words. Bon courage (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

FuGo comes up regularly in the RSes -- as contributing to the belief that flying discs were foreign, as being suspected of having caused Roswell, and as serving as the impetus/inspiration for developing Mogul. It's discussed in Zeigler, Gulyas, Pflock, Keel, Smith (2000), and USAF reports. Feoffer (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

as being suspected of having caused Roswell ← then the article needs to say that, rather than the current text which looks like irrelevant WP:SYNTHESIS. If a source says the Roswell debris was suspected to be a Fugo balloon then it should be simple. What is that source? Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The article should not say the Fugo balloons were "suspected of having caused Roswell". Ziegler (1997) and Pflock (2001) both discount it as implausible and also portray 80s–90s ufologists as discounting it as boring. Gulyas (2014) talks about Keel and Redfern voicing this suspicion but frames it as a minority viewpoint in ufology and "at least as plausible as one involving aliens, which is probably damning it with the faintest of praise."

Regarding the original Fugo→Saucers→Roswell connection being discussed, I see 2 sources making that connection explicitly. Ziegler (1997, p. 7) makes it outright, and Smith (2000) includes an interview with Jack Williamson who makes it outright. The Fugo→Saucers and Saucers→Roswell connections are very common, but I get your concern about using those sources to bolster Ziegler. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. What we have now makes a lot more sense that before (especially if reading it as a naive reader!) I think this is however undue, as it is only speculation about (the causes of) the mindset of people in general at the time of the Roswell crash, and does not tell us anything about the incident itself. I remain unconvinced that any source makes the point Wikipedia is trying to imply. Bon courage (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

only speculation I get what you're saying, but its incorrect to characterize it as "speculation" -- 1947 sources explicitly connect the ongoing wave of sightings to the recent Japanese balloon attacks.

However we get there, readers need an ironclad understanding that on July 8, "flying disc" did NOT mean "alien spaceship" to anybody, least of all the folks at Roswell.

Another point that's not mentioned in our current version -- the USAF mentions as a serious possibility that Mogul balloons could have caused not just Roswell but the much of the flying disc craze itself. Feoffer (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources might well explicitly connect "the ongoing wave of sightings" to Fu-go balloons. But that is not the same as an explicit connection to the Roswell incident.

"flying disc" did NOT mean "alien spaceship" to anybody

Do we have a source for that? Bon courage (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

When you take out my hyperbole, we have lots. The Zeigler p7 quote satisfies my WP:V concerns, but you could certainly find others making identical points. Feoffer (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

break

Okay, so it seems the intent of this is to make a statement about the overall context of 1947, as something in which nobody was thinking of "aliens". But while I'm aware from 1947 flying disc craze (an article which has its own issues) that this is the Wikipedia POV, I'm not sure it's the NPOV. If we look for example at

• Keith Kloor (2019). "UFOs Won't Go Away". Issues in Science & Technology. 35 (3): 49–56. (which we cite for other things!)

The flood of flying saucer reports spooked the military. Were people hallucinating, or seeing something from Moscow or Mars? Experts grasped for answers. A scientist interviewed by the New York Times in July 1947 called it a “mild case of meteorological jitters” and “mass hypnosis”.

But the UFO sightings kept coming in waves over the next few years. Initially, Air Force investigators thought that the objects had been “domestically launched devices such as weather balloons, rockets, experimental flying wing aircraft, or celestial phenomenon.” Some investigators gave serious consideration to the possibility of extraterrestrials.

So from this, I think this exclusive focus on military explanations and fu-go balloons is odd. Bon courage (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well don't infer "intent" of Wikipedia OR RSes from anything I've said on talk, especially not when I'm speaking with intentionally over-the-top language. Obviously, crackpots were seeing "alien spaceships" even before 1947, but Flying Disc didn't mean "alien spaceship" in the way it does today -- Peebles makes that point for us.

I think this exclusive focus on military explanations and fu-go balloons is odd.

Why? It makes sense to me why RSes on Roswell devote more attention to the two top-secret high-altitude balloon programs than other explanations: Can celestial phenomenon or meteorological jitters be mistaken for debris from a military balloon? Feoffer (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Context:

• Bartholomew, Robert E. (2000). "From Airships to Flying Saucers: Oregon's Place in the Evolution of UFO Lore". Oregon Historical Quarterly. 101 (2): 192–213. ISSN 0030-4727.

Interestingly, virtually no one during the 1947 saucer wave believed that the mysterious objects were of extraterrestrial origin. Instead, the American obsession with the Cold War and possible atomic conflict were evident in the sighting explanations. On August 15, 1947, only a few weeks after Arnold's sighting, a Gallup Poll revealed that 90 percent of Americans surveyed were aware of flying saucers, and 16 percent believed they were U.S. or Russian secret weapons.49 "Nothing [in the poll] was said about 'alien visitors,"' one study reports, "not even a measurable 1% toyed with the concept."50 During the several weeks after Arnold reported his sighting, the FBI was seriously concerned that many reports were disinformation spread by Soviet agents who were attempting to promote fear and panic, and at least until late July, local Bureau offices conducted background checks on saucer witnesses.51

• May, Andrew (2017). Pseudoscience and science fiction. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-42604-4.

When Kenneth Arnold first saw his “flying saucers”, he imagined they were secret military aircraft. The general public, too, did not initially make a connection between UFO reports and the notion of extraterrestrial spacecraft. During that first 1947 wave, only two witnesses expressed the opinion that the objects they saw might have been spaceships. In a Gallup poll held in August that year “outer-space explanations were so negligibly held that they were not even listed in the results” [8].

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Different sources say different things. But why when one source says "16 percent believed they were U.S. or Russian secret weapons" are we mentioning Japanese balloons and attributing only this 'military' context thought to "many Americans" and not mentioning the weather/hypnosis/Mars speculation. More to the point, why are we trying to make a highly leveraged statement about the 1947 UFO mindset here at all? Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why... are we mentioning Japanese balloons... and not mentioning the weather/hypnosis/Mars speculation

Because we're taking our cues from reliable sources on Roswell like Zeigler and USAF who discuss the two high-altitude balloon programs but do not seriously consider weather/hypnosis/Martians.

why are we trying to make a... statement about the 1947 UFO mindset here at all Because RSes make a point of contrasting how "flying disc" is modernly understood vs what the term meant in 1947. Feoffer (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But the article is pointedly ignoring "cues" from sources saying the military was seriously inclined to consider extraterrestrial origin. Like Kloor above, or https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34398-8_2 which says

However, the US Air Force, established in 1947 from the United States Army with the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947, seemed to react ambivalently, depending on the persons involved. While Nathan Farragut Twining, third chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and later chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as William Madison Garland, chief of the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, seemed to have leaned towards the extraterrestrial hypothesis, Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg, second chief of Staff of the United States Air Force remained unconvinced.

Also ignored are "cues" about homegrown USA programs, mass hysteria and weather phenomenon. By limiting sources to teasing out one narrow strand, NPOV is lost. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

saying the military was seriously inclined to consider extraterrestrial origin. You want to include that?!?! It's not wrong, but it could amount to pouring fuel on a very fringy fire.

If we do mention that, then obviously, yes, we should mention all the "less-fringe" options you list, like rockets, weather and hypnosis . I thought we might limit the realistic possibilities to "balloon debris". But you're not wrong, there's no doubt within a few months or years, some important people in the military had fallen for the interplanetary hypothesis for UFOs (but not Roswell so far as we/I know). Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hah. I don't think the US military believing weird shit is really news! I don't think we should be including just one part of the context (suspicions of hostile military), let alone one part of the context of the context (fu-go ballons). I think the chief problem is that Wikipedia is trying to imply what people must've had in their minds as they learned about Roswell at the time, but no source lays it out like that. Bon courage (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

lol well put!!

Anyway, I'd be happy to write up something to round out the text with the other mundane explanations like weather, celestial objects, and especially US tech. Extraterrestrial, that's gonna take some convincing, lol. Feoffer (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hang on! Looking at the Peebles source it says on July 6 the NYT had run a story suggesting that the saucers were 'visitants from another planet'. Why is this not 'context'? Bon courage (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I really do apologize for speaking hyperbolically, I think it really got us off track.

It's not that people weren't speculating about the interplanetary hypothesis -- they were. It's that "flying disc" and "flying saucer" did not automatically imply "alien spaceship", as would be the case just a few years later. Feoffer (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Regarding Different sources say different things., reliable sources that analyze or explore the question of what was a flying saucer in 1947, conclude that the modern idea (flying saucer = alien spaceship) was uncommon during the 1947 craze. By 1948 it was already gaining traction, and by 1951 it was a part of the culture. Many sources take the modern meaning for granted, but that's not disproving the scholarship that other reliable sources have provided:

• Kottmeyer, Martin S. (2017). "Why Have UFOs Changed Speed Over the Years?". In Grossman, Wendy M.; French, Christopher C. (eds.). Why Statues Weep: The Best of the "Skeptic". Oxfordshire, England: Routledge. ISBN 978-1134962525.

Despite a considerable variety in the reports, the form of the objects was consistent with a type of aircraft. Propellers were often seen, one witness even claiming it was larger than the rest of the plane. Jet pipes, pilot's cockpits, glass domes, fins, legs, and antennae featured on some of the objects. Smoke, vapour trails, and rocket flames repeatedly marker their flights. A wide range of aerobatic stunts turn up among the reports: loop-the-loops, roll manoeuvres, banking, weaving, climbing, diving,, tipping, circling, and swooping. Some 'UFOs' buzzed cars, but unlike decades later, the car engines never died. It has been thought significant that animals sometimes reacted to the objects, yet a close reading suggests it wasn't because of their spooky alienness; the saucers were doing barnstorming manoeuvres.

Notable by its absence is any indication of extraterrestrial technology: no lasers, heat rays, paralysis rays or gases, mind control rays, power rings, levitation of people or objects, denaturalization, matter interpenetration, space-suited entities, robots, remote eyes, or even simple observation ports. Nobody was looking for aliens, and nothing was seen to suggest any were there.

• Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009). "Chapter 6: Trust No One: Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories from the 1970s to the 1990s". Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199753956.

At the beginning of the summer of 1947, the first summer of the cold war, hundreds of Americans began calling newspapers, radio stations, and government agencies to report mysterious, unidentified objects hovering in the night sky. By early July, a wave of “flying disk” sightings had rippled across the American West. Many of these early witnesses assumed that they were seeing secret U.S. or Soviet military vehicles, not ghostly ships from another planet.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The Olmsted source seems on point then: "Many of these early witnesses assumed that they were seeing secret U.S. or Soviet military vehicles". But I'd suggest people thinking of extraterrestrials were probably more common than those thinking of Fu-go balloons. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed the sentence to remove Japanese and Soviet possibilities.[7] Flying disc craze is linked where broader context can be provided. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

footnote

The relevant text of that 1947 NYT piece Peebles mentions is:

We have no disposition, however, to laugh this phenomenon off. A lot of people have seen the disks, and one and all dismiss the thought that they were sun-spots-not the whirling spots on the sun itself but the after-images of light on the human eye. The flying saucers could be real. They may be pieplates for that "pie in the sky by-and-by" once immortalized in song by the IWW. They may be visitants from another planet launched from spaceships anchored above the stratosphere. Maybe they are atoms escaping from an overwrought bomb. They could even be something as prosaic as an Army experiment in anti-radar devices. During the war we managed to gun up the German radar with silvery streamers d'opped from our planes. The flying saucers are silvery, too. Who knows? No Republican Congressman has yet come forward to claim that high-riding Government officials have been scattering quarters and half-dol-lars around, not in a sincere effort to reduce the overhead but just to see if anybody noticed.

Bon courage (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The Hills

For

By the time Roswell returned to media attention, Scully's spindly grey aliens had become a part of American culture through the Barney and Betty Hill incident and the 1977 film Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

neither of the cited sources seem to be discussing Roswell? Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

When RJ wrote this, I knew it might be controversial with you. :)

Between 1947 and 1980, the myth of the grey alien emerges in Aztec, is popularized by Barney Hill, hits the big time with Close Encounters, and is ultimately incorporated into the Roswell.

There's no shortage of sourcing about the origins of the "grey", it's only a question of how in-depth we should go. Rj has a very barebones approach, while I would prefer to see a whole section about the evolution of the "grey" in the 70s. Nothing is 100%, but it really seems to have come from an episode of The Outer Limits. But again, I get that's a little far afield from Roswell, so Rj's version works for me. But there's no shortage of sources about what we could say in regards the grey alien myths. Feoffer (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to get to WP:GA, then text needs to be verified (well, in any case it does). This came up[8] a few years ago too. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage and Feoffer: I've added the most reliable source I could find that clearly makes the connection. The Toby Smith book also makes it in a similar way. The most reliable source I could find that also connected Close Encounters were online news articles (spooky column) and an episode of PBS's Monstum (a history of monster folklore documentary show for a YA audience). Those seem too low-quality so I removed Close Encounters. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks for your hard work. Feoffer (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that sews it up nice. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

'Other debunked theories' should be 'Other debunked or fringe theories' Here's why:

The existing sub header implies that everything by the authors in this section is debunked, It also implies everything in the 'Roswell in UFO conspiracy theories (1978–present)'section is debunked by the use of the word 'other' and yes a lot is debunked, the important stuff. For the same reason we have not labeled the section 'Roswell in debunked UFO conspiracy theories (1978–present)' it should not just state 'other debunked theories'; adding 'or fringe theories' is inclusive to that since a lot of this is done for entertainment value, not academic research. Drocj (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Improving cohesion of the 'Modern views' Section

The readability & flow of the 3 quotes by B. D. Gildenberg, Karl Pflock & Kal Korff at the top of this section felt isolated from the following sub sections including 'Roswell as modern myth and folklore' & 'Statements by US Presidents'. I attempted to mesh things together and add context + cohesion in a minimal way but would appreciate feedback because this is challenging to get right and there is still not a clear connection to the 'Roswell as modern myth and folklore' section. Drocj (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if we still need the "Roswell as modern myth and folklore" section anymore. It used to hold material about Aztec, Hangar 18, and the different versions of the myth -- all that material has now been integrated into the main body of the article. Feoffer (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am on the fence myself. I think its a good section to have but should be refined, it adds context for all the conspiracy theories. Maybe we condense it & refine it? Such as:

The mythology of Roswell has been analyzed and documented by anthropologists and skeptics. Anthropologists Susan Harding and Kathleen Stewart highlight the Roswell Story as a paradigm of fringe narratives transitioning to the mainstream, aligning with the 1980s zeitgeist of public fascination with "conspiracy, cover-up, and repression." Skeptics Joe Nickell and James McGaha labeled the myth making process the "Roswellian syndrome," where the myth cycles through five stages of development & anticipates recurring stages in UFO and conspiracy-theory stories. Anthropologists Benson Saler, Charles Ziegler and Charles Moore identify the Roswell story's resemblance to traditional folk narratives, pointing to multiple distinct storylines shaped by a transmission process involving storytellers within the UFO community, where additional "witnesses" are sought to expand the narrative, while dissenting accounts are discredited or excluded by designated "gatekeepers." Drocj (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if we could cut the term "Roswell Syndrome" -- it seems 'hokey' to create a 'syndrome' and name it after the subject under study. It's not as if Roswell was the first myth scholars ever saw. "Roswell Syndrome" suggests something sui generis about Roswell at one extreme and tautological on the other. IF we had other examples of "Roswell Syndrome", and the name had caught on, that'd be one thing. But it seems silly for us to say "The solution to Roswell is something called Roswell Syndrome", ya know? I don't think that phrase gets us much.

The rest looks good. Feoffer (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, its the first time I heard of it, it doesn't belong. Drocj (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we include a mention of the Documentary film Mirage Men (2013) some place?

I think the film Mirage Men adds a lot of context. Let me know if you have seen it and your thoughts. Drocj (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but very very carefully. The film seems to uncritically accept that Doty was Air Force -- I think this is a mistake. The entire subject certainly seems FRINGE, but I don't think it is -- the Pilkington book is published by Little Brown!

I worry about "losing the narrative" and I would love to sort of "yada yada yada" over the whole thing, but we can't -- Bill Moore came out as a liar, we can't not tell readers that. I don't know how much of the rest of it we should get into, but it's definitely on topic. Feoffer (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drocj I may be mistaken, but is the film not largely an arrangement of interviews? If we're not citing Doty/Moore for their dubious statements then why can we cite them for their plausible statements? It would be substituting plausibility for verifiability.

Check out the sources currently cited in the article, especially Goldberg. Gulyas, Ziegler, and Peebles all have a lot of content also. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC) misunderstanding struck, 09:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

We def shouldn't be citing Doty or Moore, but the book and film feature interviews with a variety of folks who appear to be sober, reliable sources: Pilkington, Valdez. Doty's voice is present, but thoroughly rebutted as he is unmasked as being part of ongoing deception. Feoffer (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why 'Air Force response (1994–1997) and aftermath' is not its own section

It makes zero sense to me that it is buried in the conspiracies section, its hard to find. I think it should be pulled out into its own section. Appreciate your feedback. Drocj (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe it makes more sense in the 'Modern views' section. Drocj (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The first 2 subsections in the modern views section roughly correspond to the 2 reports' main focuses. I don't think we should attribute these views to the USAF more than we have to though. They're now the mainstream position in reliable sources. Additionally the 1978-present section would likely be easier to parse if some of those lowest level subsections are condensed out of the table of contents. What was the reason the USAF reports ended up in two places initially (Modern views & the chronology)? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Originally, we just have a chronology, and then someone suggested a "conclusions" or "modern views" section, so it got split over two places. I don't know how problematic that it -- the USAF reports are explicitly in response to conspiracy theories, after all. I agree condensing the TOC will help per your suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the media using a documentary with the thumbnail showing both books for the part within the chronology on the "Air Force response" section, and using a photo of Project Mogul from the reports for the "Project Mogul" section. I'll think more about the "Air Force response" section because if this is the turning point where Randle, Friedman, etc. drop the body claims, then that is notable and also something that doesn't belong in a "conclusions" section. I need to check back over the sources. For a bit, I'll pause on using the sandbox to edit. There are a few sections past Marcel that are kind of messy and still using some odd sources.

Before I start reading and taking notes, are there any key points for each work/section that you're thinking the article needs to touch on? And at the risk of going completely off-topic do we know who faked the MJ-12 memo and/or why they faked it? The way it's written now implies that Bill Moore faked it for a government disinformation program. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

do we know who faked the MJ-12 memo and/or why they faked it?

Bill Moore claims it was a overseen by a man named Rick Doty who was allegedly a "disinfo" agent for the Air Force. Doty has appeared on camera and claimed this is true, but that doesn't mean it's true. Doty claims that it was done to protect top secret programs. Also targeted were Paul Bennewitz and Bill Cooper. Meanwhile, alleged CIA UFO "whistleblower" John Lear was linked to Doty, and the famous alleged Area 51 whistleblower Bob Lazar was himself linked to Lear. Meanwhile, I'm not convinced any of them are really linked to Air Force or the CIA.

Meanwhile, Moore absolutely stands accused of promoting the MJ12 docs despite knowing they were anachronistic forgeries. This whole subject is well outside my wheelhouse, but the guy who wrote the book on Roswell definitely went on to claim he'd been lying about UFO stuff. Feoffer (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to focus the chronology section covering the reports on the timeline and the social impact. I'll revisit MJ-12 at some point. I'm also trying to go through and reduce the complexity of the citations by pruning extra cites and using a minimal number of pages where possible, but making sure to pair primary sources with secondary. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

How much weight do reliable sources put on the weird stuff?

The chart below shows the weight that reliable sources place on the main UFO books, the Alien Autopsy film, and the Aztec hoax. I didn't check the Jesse Marcel and Glenn Dennis accounts because I didn't think their significance was being debated. Ziegler lists 6 versions of the myth, and Korff lists 7 major books. Otherwise, I've just listed the approximate amount of coverage. I've used "chapter" kind of liberally to describe multi-page sections with headings. The sources vary considerably in length, so I've tried to highlight in green where it seems a source if giving signification weight to something. Also, some sources talk about Aztec and most sources talk about RiP without explicitly stating that they have contributed to the Roswell story.

Roswell myth contributors

Source Item	Peebles (1994)	Ziegler (1997)	Klass (1997)	Korff (1997)	Smith (2000)	Goldberg (2001)	Pflock (2001)	ABC (2005)	Olmsted (2009)	Ricketts (2011)	Gulyas (2014)	Clarke (2015)	Bullard (2016)	Kloor (2019)	Frank (2023)
Aztec hoax (1949)	notable hoax	prototype	other incident	none	pages	mention	other incident	none	none	other incident	mention	template	none	none	"noteworthy"
Roswell Incident (1980)	chapter	version 1	pages	major	page	pages	chapter	first book	page	paragraph	first book	page	page	page	"the first"
Majestic 12 hoax	chapter	version 2	none	chapter	pages	pages	chapter	none	page	none	pages	none	mention	none	none
UFO Crash at Roswell (1991)	paragraph	version 3	pages	major	pages	pages	page	none	none	mention	none	footnote	footnote	none	none
The Roswell Report (1991)	none	footnote	none	major	none	none	footnote	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	none
Crash at Corona (1992)	paragraph	version 4	pages	major	none	paragraph	mentions	none	none	mention	none	none	none	none	none
The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell (1994)	NA	version 5	pages	major	mention	page	page	none	none	mention	none	none	none	none	none
Roswell in Perspective (1994)	NA	version 6	other narrative	other narrative	none	mention	mentions	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	none
"Alien Autopsy" (1995)	NA	sentence	none	chapter	paragraph	paragraph	chapter	paragraph	none	paragraph	none	mention	page	none	notable hoax
Roswell UFO Crash Update (1995)	NA	none	none	major	none	mention	footnote	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	none
Top Secret/MAJIC (1996)	NA	NA	NA	major	none	mention	paragraphs	none	footnote	none	footnote	none	mention	none	none
The Day After Roswell (1997)	NA	NA	NA	NA	pages	mention	pages	none	none	footnote	none	pages	pages	none	none
Area 51 An Uncensored History (2011)	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	none	paragraph	none	paragraph	none

Hopefully this is useful when deciding which weird items need more weight [The Roswell Incident (1980)] and which need less weight [Crash at Corona (1992)], Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Update: I moved the columns so that the works are in chronological order.03:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Serious kudos for that (who needs a Christmas tree?). This will help with NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is incredible work, thank you!! I thought about doing something like this several years ago and instantly balked at the thought of how much effort it would entail! Per Bon, thank you for our Christmas present! wow. Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The Day After Roswell

I rewrote this section Roswell_incident#The_Day_After_Roswell with only reliable secondary sources. It probably needs to be trimmed. Cut details can likely be moved down to The Day After Roswell article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Making an outline for Roswell conspiracy theories (1978–1994)

Feoffer, I'm looking at the section Roswell incident#Roswell conspiracy theories (1978–1994) and have uncertainties on how to best organize some of the material. Much of the writing is new and much from a decades old version,[9] that was laid out differently. I'm thinking it may be best to create an outline first on what the key points are for each section, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the old version you cite, it does seem like we lost the straightforward presentation of the books as presenting a generally consistent conspiracy theory about a crashed UFO. Textual scholarship, like Ziegler's, by its nature comes from a "splitters" not "lumpers" perspective, and it may overstate the differences between the accounts.

I think some of the important take home points are that the basic story of the Brazel ranch debris remains relatively constant albeit exaggerated, while the stories of extra crash sites and humanoid aliens were very controversial even among people who believed in the basic conspiracy theory. The story of a civil engineer, an archaeology team, and a military detail all simultaneously stumbling onto the same crash site hundred of miles away from Roswell is absurd on its face. Every version of the myth has different numbers of bodies that make up a larger portion of the tale -- Marcel says zero bodies, by Moore there's bodies 150 miles away, then bodes make to it Roswell's air field along with the debris, then the bodies actually go to the hospital for autopsy.

The section needs a lot of work -- we never really specify "what" the disagreements are about. The Majestic hoax influenced the narrative more than is captured in the current text, ditto for Glenn Dennis. So yeah, lots of room for improvements here. Feoffer (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to pull it off, but I have always dreamt that this section might cover the material in two different "streams" or "threads". On the one hand, we have claims that are consistent with, and supportive of, the Project Mogul conclusion -- Marcel, DuBose, the many people who recall being told not to talk, probably even the people who report detention or threats, etc. And then, in a second, parallel-yet-intermingled thread, we have clearly fringe nonsense of every-evolving wild claims i.e. dead alien bodies. It would be great if we could present this material while still keeping those two threads clear and distinct in the minds of the reader. If we err too far on the side of "it was all crazy", the reader won't understand why Congress started asking for the real story (Mogul). Meanwhile, if we can somehow just tell the story of how the crazy stuff evolves over time, in a distinct thread, without talking about the people who obviously just witnessed Mogul, then it becomes quite obvious that the CT is an increasingly elaborate self-contradictory fairytale, not just "better detective work yielding new evidence". Feoffer (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm following now. I started tracking down reliable sources for MJ-12 and have started drafting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roswell_incident/sandbox&oldid=1195567567#Majestic_12_hoax

That is likely already too much information for here (not sure that Doty even needs to be named in this article). Feel free to pull anything from there to this article or Majestic 12. I think for MJ-12, the most clear structure is something like:

• What is it? (hoax via faked memos)
  • Who spread it? (Bill Moore in the 80s)
    • How do we know that? (not sure how much evidence is going overboard here)

And then:

• What was the MJ-12 story?
  • What did it add to the Roswell conspiracies?

I think mentioning Ziegler's versions 1 to 5 is probably confusing outside of version 1 (the Berlitz & Moore book). I'm imagining a reader dropping down to MJ-12 or Kevin Randle's book and puzzling over what the versions mean. I think version 1 is also the only one I see wider agreement on. Perhaps Ziegler's versions offer a more verifiable way to construct the diagram? Rather than descent, Ziegler is using a framework more of what does each version contribute as noted by his "(V#)" throughout chapter 1. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks great to me! and yes, Zeigler could be used to make a REALLY amazing table or image. First go round, I just tried to keep things as simple as possible and only keep debris and bodies distinct. I've replaced the old text with that from your sandbox and chopped the version numbers. Feoffer (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Outline of different sources

If it's helpful, I took notes of which novel elements Zeigler attributes to which sources: User:Feoffer/sandbox mythogenesis of roswell Feoffer (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This really helps. As far as historical elements, the only thing absent from the Wikipedia article is "Alamogordo stages balloon demonstration for press to divert attention from [Mogul debris found near] Roswell". Are there sources not involved with Charles B. Moore that say this? He wrote a chapter in that book, worked with Weaver & McAndrew, and corresponded with Pflock. I think they all include some version of this. This may be one of the few "cover-up" actions that have reliable, secondary coverage.

I don't think we'll have the space to cover every detail, but this looks like a good way to organize the Berlitz & Moore (1980) book. A lot of this can be sourced to other secondary sources as well, like the current lightning strike paragraph cited to Olmsted. I'm thinking anything from the book that can't be found in one of the secondary sources is likely out of scope. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reformatted and trimmed the existing section in the sandbox.[10] Let me know if that's looking more clear or less clear. The primary source citations are still present for quotes, but every passage cited to the Berlitz & Moore book is marked with . I'll start working on checking the secondary sources soon. Those bits may be covered in the more reliable sources but in a different way. For example, Ziegler makes note of Marcel's "nothing made on this earth" comment as an example of how Marcel was pulling elements from other crashed saucer stories (16-17). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking good to me! If I'm not mistaken, we have contemporary sourcing from 1947 on the Alamogordo balloon demonstration in connection with Roswell. (It might have been a demo at Ft Worth).

In the sandbox -- the archaeology group got cut from the 1980 book, but they'll come up again in subsequent versions. It is probably important for the reader to know that Barnett wasn't with the archaeology group in the legend and he didn't lead them there -- instead the claim is that three different groups descended on the same San Agustin site almost simultaneously.

Looking good. Feoffer (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through the parts cited only to primary sources. I need to see why the Klass cite is so many pages and then copyedit. When I update the live article, I may ping you about the archaeologists because their significance is escaping me. They just seem like this bizarre and random nameless group that are plopped all over New Mexico. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

the archaeologists because their significance is escaping me

If I'm not mistaken, Barnett and the archaeologists were a major source of schism between the Friedman camp and the Randle camp. At some point in the history, Barnett and the archaeologists get discredited and an entirely different group of archaeologists is invoked to witness a crash hundreds of miles away.

Zeigler, p.23-24: "However, some ufologists, notably Friedman, were unconvinced by the core scenario of Versions 2 and 3, which placed Grady Barnett and the archaeologists not on the Plains of San Agustin but more than 100 miles (160 km) away on the ranch operated by Brazel.... The key to Friedman and Berliner's Version 4 was the testimony of Maltais (1991) and Anderson that placed Barnett and some archaeologists on the Plains of San Agustin. At the 1992 conference, Randle, Schmitt, and Carey (1992:19) argued cogently that Anderson's tale was "no more than a fabrication." These authors also indicated that they had evidence that Barnett never claimed (as Maltais had alleged) to have seen a crashed saucer. Insofar as something resembling a consensus resulted from this conference, it appears that Version 3 triumphed over Version 4. For example, the conference moderator concluded that Anderson's story presented "warning signs of a hoax" and that evidence for the Barnett story was "extremely soft" Nevertheless, despite a general trend of commentary favoring Randle and Schmitt, their Version 3 also came under fire. One ufologist (Whiting 1992:35) noted that "the basic weakness in the Randle-Schmitt argument is that it fails to provide a credible reason for moving . . . Barnett miles [240 km] to the east," where, according to Version 3, Barnett and some archaeologists had stumbled upon the crashed saucer near Roswell.Perhaps sensing that the tide of opinion was running in their favor, in their next book Randle and Schmitt (1994) produced Version 5 of the Roswell myth. In this version Barnett does not appear, thus eliminating the need to explain why he was near Roswell rather than on the Plains of San Agustin. However, new witnesses had come forth (or had been ferreted out by Randle and Schmitt), and their testimony indicated that an archaeological team did stumble upon the crashed saucer near Roswell. This, of course, was not the archaeological team of the Barnett-Anderson story (which had been largely discredited in the eyes of some ufologists) but rather a different group of archaeologists. Indeed, in their book Randle and Schmitt (1994:191) declare that, for lack of evidence, "Barnett's story and, in fact, the Plains [of San Agustin] scenario must be discarded." It was also necessary for them to change some details, such as the date of the crash and the shape of the alien spaceship, to conform to the testimony of their new witnesses. Despite these changes the core scenario of Version 5, which follows, is essentially a replay of Versions 2 and 3 " Feoffer (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well done on incorporating this content into the narrative! It's such a luxury to sit back and watch the article be improved by leaps and bounds! Feoffer (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In re your recent removal, the Globe's significance is them being the first to report bodies actually brought to the base at Roswell (and flown to Wright Field by Pappy Henderson). I don't know we need to actually bother the readers with that level of granularity, but it is an element that gets incorporated into the narrative, and it helps to understand that it came from a tabloid. Feoffer (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The date given (1981) is likely an error. It says that the article cited his widow Sappho. Henderson seems to have lived until 1986.[11] Korff (1997) credits Randle (1991) for getting the story from surviving Henderson family members. Randle (1991) and Stringfield (1989) attribute the story to family members interviewed after Henderson's death, which would be 1986 at the earliest. The 1981 date seems to be a misreading of Stringfield (1989) who says that Sappho only heard the story in 1981 when Pappy saw an article in Globe about Roswell.[12] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: to anyone reading this who has not read the sources, I realize I should make clear that I believe an error was made by Smith (2000), not Feoffer. When looking into it, I found several other sources that repeat Smith's Globe/Henderson claim (sometimes with the almost certainly false detail that he was dead in 1981) but none of these cite an issue of the tabloid. Stringfield (1989) wrote, "On February 17, 1981 the story appeared in the tabloid Globe and Henderson admitted to his wife and daughter that the story was true." Here's a clip of his wife Sappho Henderson and daughter Katherine Groode explaining the 1981 supermarket conversation:[13] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Great catch, that would explain why I could never find the Globe article that actually mentioned bodies, why it didn't appear in the RSe, and why it didn't fit into the chronology! Good solution. Feoffer (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)