Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 1

message: Please be careful when referring to so-called "problems with the theory."  In essence there are no problems with the theory, it's quite air-tight as far as circumstantial evidence is concerned - check the few FOIA reports that have been released on the matter, and that the cannibalistic UFO people have already no doubt consumed.  Rather, simply show that there are some people in the world who believe it, why they do so, and others who do not, and why they do not believe it is credible.  But the theory on its own, as do most theories not related to the physical sciences, can be as airtight as one wishes to make it, or view it.  
I believe that specifically the paragraph that starts with "If, though, it was ..." is far too insinuating. It should not be the purpose of an encyclopedia to imply that the US government is lying, as much as this paragraph does. Especially the sentence that US military might hold 'alien' weapons is beside the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Still... I didn't change the text because I'd like to hear other opinions about this first... Hwebers 6 Jan 2004
----
This article makes a couple of logical leaps that cannot be supported.  You say that if it were ever established that the thing that crashed at Roswell was indeed an alien craft, this was would prove that (a) the film of the purported autopsy of an alien would be verified as true, and (b) it would be proven that the USA has adopted alien technology.  
Neither of these outcomes follows at all.  
If the film was bogus rather than a true record of an actual alien autopsy, then any proof that whatever crashed was alien would not suddenly convert the film from being bogus to being true.  The same argument for the alien technology - because just because the US govt could be proven to have had contact with alien life forms does not of itself prove that they have been able to adopt any of their technology.  Cheers JackofOz 10:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware Calling Out Problems 

message: The section about Bill Clinton's Roswell statement is inaccurate and out of context, it implies he was in the Irish Republic when a member of the press put a question about Roswell to him. None of that happened, he was not "asked", he wasn't in the Republic.
What actually happened was this (I saw the speech on television, it was a big event at the time): He was on a trip to Northern Ireland (which whether you agree with it or not is part of Britain, and officially recognised as such by the Irish Republic's new constitution). He was due to switch on the Belfast Christmas tree lights. Before doing so he gave a speech during which he read out several letters sent to him by children from Northern Ireland before he came there.
--
Sorry, but if you want be TOTALLY accurate, Northern Ireland is NOT part of Britain, it's part of the UK.
--
Most of them were (obviously) to do with the peace process which he'd invested a lot of time in, but as a moment of light relief he said that a child (can't remember the name, let's call him Timmy) had written to ask if alien bodies were recovered by the US Air Force in Roswell in 1947 and being stored at a secret base. Clinton had a broad smile on his face when answering the question, "No, Timmy, as far as I know they did not. And if they DO have them stored somewhere, I want to know about it!" There wasn't an ounce of seriousness in the statement, and it's impossible to tell from it if Clinton has any genuine interest in Roswell at all.
----
OK, so in the interest of absolute factual accuracy, let's change Ireland to Northern Ireland and reword slightly to indicate that he was responding to a letter from a child.
The fact that the question was in a prescreened letter rather than a spontaneously asked question actually strengthens the argument about Clinton's interest.  Prearranged presidential statements are usually carefully vetted to prevent Presidents from saying the wrong thing.  Out of all the things Clinton could have responded to, he and his staff deliberately had him answer a potentially loaded question about Roswell, something they could have easily avoided.  The question is why?
Also read the part about Clinton instructing Webster Hubbell to find out about UFOs.  That's in Hubbell's book written after he left the White House.  That's a fact, not an interpretation.  Clinton also had a book on Roswell (the first one by Randle and Schmitt) on his Presidential bookshelf when his books were inventoried while he was under investigation by Kenneth Starr.  That's another fact.  The book was given to him by Paul Davids, who produced the HBO movie "Roswell."  According to Davids, his father, Dr. Jules Davids, was one of Clinton's professors at Georgetown.  That was the connection between Davids and Clinton.
Another indication of Clinton's deep interest in UFOs was attested to by senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who noted other senior officials in the White House were also briefed on the matter.  See, e.g., http://www.thecosmicfrontier.com/Cosmic/Sara%20Article117.htm .
The recent quotes on Roswell and UFOs from N.M. Governor Bill Richardson, Clinton's DOE head, and John Podesta, Clinton's chief of staff, are also part of the public record.  Dr Fil 22 May 2005
----
I'm not saying ANYTHING about Clinton's opinions on Roswell, I have no idea what they are. The other references you mention sound like more important sources about this topic.
All I'm saying is I saw the speech and the particular reference included in the article doesn't really tell you anything about Clinton's views either. If you want to present convincing evidence of something you have to be careful not to read too much into less convincing things.
The context of the speech was in a region where there had been mass murder for 40 years, with literally thousands of people killed, beaten and jailed in a self-sustaining cycle of violence and persecution from both sides that seemed to have no end in sight. The work Clinton was doing in Belfast was literally a matter of life and death for his audience, the Good Friday Agreement which he helped to broker was hanging in the balance.
The speech was meant about very serious issues but it also needed to be upbeat and hopeful, especially as it was at Christmas, so Clinton needed a few lighter items completely unconnected to any of the feuds in Ulster.
You asked why he mentioned Roswell as if the reference had no reasonable explanation, but it definitely does have an eminently reasonable explanation: Clinton wanted to lighten a serious speech in a very serious life-threatening situation with something totally utterly unlikely to offend either Catholics or Protestants, so what could be less likely to offend than a joke about aliens?
Also, at the time he made the speech Roswell was very much a "pop culture" reference with the recent huge successes of things like X-Files, Independence Day and Men In Black, and nearly all politicians love to make references to anything that's fashionable (that's why George W Bush tried a Segway in front of TV cameras, for example).
As well as Roswell, in the same speech he also talked about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, saying he didn't have their amazing athletic ability. It lightened the speech and was another pop culture reference (the MMPR were extremely popular at the time), just like the Roswell mention.
----
First of all, I got the date of Clinton's Belfast comments on Roswell wrong.  It was November 30, 1995, not 1999 (this has been corrected).  I am looking at Clinton's comments in a much broader context than you are.  It is part of the public record that various people in the Clinton White House were very interested in the subject, including the Clintons.  For more on this, see: 
Another important part of the context is to realize that Clinton made his Belfast comments just a few days before the Air Force issued their final version of their initial Roswell report.  (They issued a short "executive summary" a year before in Sept. 1994, what Newsweek magazine called a "preemptive strike," but their much longer "phone book" version came out right after Clinton's remarks.)
Given the context, I seriously doubt Clinton's remarks were made for comic relief, though they were made in a light-hearted manner.  This tone has a rather more direct interpretation than Clinton doing a stand-up comedy act to relieve tension in Northern Ireland.  One has to realize that taboo subjects like UFOs and Roswell are one of the third rails of politics.  Almost no politician dares to go near it for fear of ridicule.  New Mexico Congressman Steven Schiff, who got the initial Roswell GAO probe going, was the rare exception. Clinton couldn't publicly discuss the subject with total seriousness.  Hence the lighthearted approach, giving him plausible deniability should he be asked afterwards whether he did take it seriously.  In the meantime, Clinton and his speechwriters were delivering a prepared, carefully worded message to the Air Force.  "You didn't touch the subject of bodies in your first report, I'm the President, and I want to know."
(You might be interested to know that when the Air Force issed their press release about the Roswell report a few days after Clinton's comments, they quoted the first half of Clinton's remarks, that he was unaware of a saucer crash at Roswell, as supporting their conclusions, while leaving out the second half of his remarks, that the Air Force hadn't told him anything and also hadn't addressed the issue of bodies.  Talk about quoting out of context!)  
A year and half later out came the "crash dummy" report.  This was released exactly on the 50th anniversary of Kenneth Arnold's sighting of June 24, 1947, and also just in time for Roswell's 50th anniversary.  This again was no accident, but another "pre-emptive strike" by the AF public relations spin-meisters.
Incidentally, Clinton's remarks did not predate X-files, but they did predate Independence Day (1996) and Men In Black (1997), and also "The Rock" (1996), which also mentioned Roswell. Even if these popular movies somehow made Roswell "fashionable," they had nothing to do with what Clinton said before they came out.
Dr Fil 00:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton comments completely out of context 

message: A strong influence can be seen in UFO (later X-Com) games
where SECTOIDS default alien race + UFO`s are EXACTLY THE SAME
as in Roswell
--Rastavox 01:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO game series 

message: One of the things which has always amazed me about the Roswell "alien" claim is that this is a conspiracy theory with no leaks.  If anyone can track down the people who organised this completely leak-free conspiracy, I think the current POTU would be interested, and some previous Presidents would have been more than happy to meet those guys!
: It is also interesting to note that none of the first-hand witnesses to what actually happened near Roswell in July 1947 ever said that they saw aliens.   Bubba73 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Leak-Free Conspiracy 

message: I reverted the last edits because of NPOV issues.  To begin with, the article was almost totally on the pro-extraterrestial spacecraft POV.  When I started working on the article, ALL of the sources listed were from the pro-ET POV.  There was almost no balance.  I tried to make it more balanced, but even then it was strongly pro-ET POV.  I put in undisputed facts about what was actually reported at the time.  Now someone is claiming that I'm putting in POV!
I changed some inflamatory wording, for instance "claim".  The Air Force didn't "claim" that the debris was from a Mogul balloon, they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I didn't say that in the article, I said that their conclusion was that it was a baloon.  All the ET-POV has is second-hand rumors.  
A "claim" is a statement made without proof.  I can claim that my neighbor threw trash in my yard.  That is a claim.  If I have proof then it goes beyond a claim.  Like in a court of law ... evidence.  And, similarly, all the ET-POV has is hearsay.  Bubba73 (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted 

message: The strong bias toward alien explanations in this article is disappointing.  If alien theory advocates have any real confidence in their opinions then they should welcome articulate descriptions of the opposing view so as to challenge them in legitimate debate. Durova 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: It has been stated that a possible edit war will shortly ensue. The point of the article is NOT to prove aliens had crashed on this planet, nor to prove that this did not happen either. Failure to observe this may result in a Edit war. Martial Law 01:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article reads too much like it was written by a believer in the alleged incidents.  Additionally, the language is highly biased, misleading and loaded with implications that have no basis in fact.  A number (if not most) of the assertions made by UFOlogists re Roswell have been ably debunked, by putting all of the facts on the table, not just the select few that give the appearance of supporting a highly romantic yet non-scientific story.  This article needs to be rewritten, but as I haven't the time (working on other projects) perhaps someone else will buy several bottles of Tylenol and get started.  Jim62sch 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I reverted the edits by 212.219.149.121 as the comments were more appropriate for this Talk page rather than the article itself.  James084 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: There are way too many external links on this article IMHO.  Does everyone that reads this article get to link out to their personal web site on the subject?!  Check out WP:EL.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please start pruning. if you don't, i'll try to do it tonight. Kingturtle 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait a while too.  This can be the notice to everyone to start getting your Roswell info into Wikipedia and we'll be more careful not to let anyone link out to the rest of the world.  This is an encyclopedia, not a Yahoo-type launching point into the internet.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links out of control here! 

message: Regarding the following paragraphs:
Another theory is the craft was struck by lightning and partly exploded, creating the large debris field of small pieces found at Brazel's ranch. The rest of the crippled craft with crew came down at some other nearby location. Mack Brazel did tell his son Bill and Roswell intelligence officer Marcel that he first found the debris following a tremendous explosion he heard in the midst of a violent thunder and lightning storm. There are also other witnesses to this explosion, including some neighboring ranchers and a highly respected Roswell couple, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot, who reported to the local newspaper on July 8 seeing a glowing flying saucer pass overhead on the night of July 2. Marcel would later reveal in his last interview that Paul Wilmot had recently told him about his parents also seeing the craft explode in the distance after passing in the direction of Brazel's ranch to the northwest. Marcel added that Brazel came to Roswell a few days later to report the crashed flying saucer.
Regardless if this latter theory of the crash has merit, weather records do provide information on thunderstorm activity and can perhaps help pinpoint when Brazel found the debris field on his ranch. There were no thunderstorms in the region the first three weeks of June 1947, the period when the Project Mogul balloon allegedly responsible for the wreckage was launched (June 4) and when Brazel would later claim in a newspaper interview to have found the debris (June 14). However, there were thunderstorms in late June and early July, specificially July 2 and July 4. The latter dates are at least consistent with the initial Roswell base press release of July 8 that said the rancher had found the "flying disk" "sometime last week." Local ranchers have also told researchers Brazel would not leave such debris sitting in his fields for three weeks since it would have been hazardous to his livestock's health. This again suggests an early July discovery of the wreckage, alien or not.
Now I'm no aviation expert, but I'm pretty sure lightning doesn't cause human made airplanes to explode, they handle it quite well and usually make safe landings afterwards. Now a craft that was meant to travel in space and make it through the atmosphere would atleast have to be able to handle a bit more than a Boeing 747 wouldn't it? (Even if it wasn't one of Xenu's Boeings!) 
Not that thats the worst part of the article (there are too many to go into here, its a chore just to read the thing.) This article could use some serious cleanup. --Brentt 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lightning

message: There is a section titled "General Ramey's Roswell telegram".  In that section there are two sentences about telegrams.  It's not even clear that the two sentences are about the same telegram and one of them is just parenthetical anyway.
So why is the section title "General Ramey's Roswell telegram"? Phiwum 19:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The telegram section... 

message: This article uses too much emphasis on too many minor phrases. b4hand 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of bold 

message: I cut out the rambling addition to the alien autopsy section because it is way too long, badly written, redundant, and speculative.  However, I am preserving it here in case somebody wants to expand on some of the points, maybe in a new Alien Autopsy Wiki article.  Dr Fil 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The alien autopsy movie is a hoax. the authors have come clean  about it. Flabreque 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra Alien Autopsy material

message: However, one must consider other factors that make this thing a hoax. Some of the reasons are:
1. The hoaxers located various articles from the time period that it is supposed to represent i.e. 1947, through the display of certain materials including the telephone.
2. If this was a first-ever alien autopsy, they more than likely wouldn't do this in such a manner as presented in the film. 
3. If this was done in 1947, contamination would have been a severe issue. And more than likely would have happened.
4. There is probably more than likely no such autopsy-type facilities anywhere on the base in Fort Worth where this alledgedly took place.
5. It has been pointed out numerous times that the alleged surgeon behind the glass was masked to hide his identity. Whatever he was doing is also quite ridiculous.
6. The technology of the time in 1947 could not produce such conditions to have such an alien autopsy like that to take place. Which again buttresses the fact that the surgeon in simple mask and gown was absolutely pointless unless the technology at that time called for manipulation of the surgical environment and also had air scrubbers for handling possible major contaminants and/or possible biological ones as well.
To be fair in this, it can also be said that the real reason this was a deliberate hoax, was to show that an actual alien autopsy took place, but after 1947, and most definitely not in Fort Worth. This could very well be some dramatization footage that was created to show that an autopsy along these lines happened at Wright-Patterson possibly in the '50s and '60s and was made with only an inkling as to what really happened (hence the criticism about the non-knowing of actual military autopsy procedures).
Also, one must understand (or at least take into consideration) that we do not know the actual procedures and/or autopsy protocol for alien bodies. We cannot really say for certain that this didn't take place or what had happened. Is this clearly a hoax? Yes. Did Santilli do this? Maybe. But it cannot be said for certain whether this was done as a dramatic presentation of an actual autopsy or a deliberate hoax that netted Santilli money. Until either happens, we can never know.
There is much speculation about what "we know" and do not know, I agree. It would certainly be more appropriate to cite experts who have proven (?) the film a fake (e.g., not 1947), or to cite the reluctance of Santilli to provide for enough film material for proof, or things like this.
Why "rambling", "redundant", "badly written". All this only expresses a subjective, personal disgust. Maybe others feel otherwise. The only argument I see refers to "speculation".
-- Bwilcke 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The alien autopsy movie is a hoax. the authors have come clean  about it. Flabreque 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted material

message: Does anyone have any thoughts about breaking this article into some smaller pieces?  It's quite large right now.  Just thinking out loud, but one way to do this would be to have an article on the history of the Roswell incident, containing most of the info now in Sections 1 & 2, and then perhaps an article on "theory and speculation", containing most of the info in Sections 3, 7, 8 & 10.  I'd be happy to help with such a project if people were interested.  Any thoughts? --Deville (Talk) 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a big article 

message: I have seen a movie in which aliens did crash at Roswell, but the real aliens were human, the Greys were "Bio-robots". The aliens were sent to earth to take a primative A-Bomb, modify it, so that when it was "tested" it would destroy the planet by burning up the atmosphere. Later it is revealed that humanity came from a planet that was ruled by a military government who threw out the "undesirables" such as philosophers, intellectuals, artists, all who were heading to a prison planet when its navigation array malfunctioned, sending it into deep space, and towards Earth. When the military government finally located where the long lost prison ship had went to, they sent a detail to destroy this planet, hoping to exterminate the descendants of the undesirables that dissappeared. I cannot recall the title of this movie at this time. Martial Law 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else seen this, and what is the title ? Martial Law 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seen movie

message: The following text was added to the main article by an anonymous user. As it did not belong there I have moved it to this talk page.--SomeStranger (T | C) 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text moved from main article 

message: The reference section is useless. There is no way of knowing which reference is being cited. This is going to need a clean up. If people here can not match the references properly then the whole article might have to come down.
The way to do this is as follows.
(1)Click edit page above and see what the text source for the next quote looks like.
"Dr. xxxxx and the editors of the Oxford & Harper Collins translations, contend that the number of Roman Emperor Nero is 92. D.R. Hillers, “coffee time”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 170 (1963) 204., a view that is also supported by Elvis
Blue shows. Ed. Raymond E. Brown. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990. 678."
This way the reference will automatically be given a number and entered into the notes section at the end of the article also automatically. I have prepared that notes section already. Whatever gets into that notes section stays in the article and whatever doesn't needs to be cited in the above manner or will eventually go. (Simonapro 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section is very bad and needs editing 

message: The article doesn't link to or explain what the RAAF is as mentioned in the first headline on the page. I assume it's not the Royal Australian Air Force (the usual abbreviation), but some kind of explanation of the headline near the top might be helpful :-) --BadWolf42 10:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAAF? 

message: Having read this entry several times and considered the above passionate, if somewhat overheated discussion, it is my humble opinion that this entry is currently very accomplished, and does not require further editing as yet. It is both balanced and informative, and I do not perceive one POV as being "promoted" over another. Credit is due to the contributors from all sides of the subject, but further tit-for-tat editing wars are only going to damage what is a very well written and pertinent Wiki entry. Saintjohnny 23:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can We Leave This Entry Alone Now Please? 

message: I've just added an introduction to the article, something which was sorely needed.
I am in the process of assembling material to more coherently present the incident.
Here is what I propose:
1. a new introduction (done)
2. The context of the find: the Cold War era, secret military programs, 100s of UFO reports and the coining of term "flying saucer", balloon experiments in New Mexico, reports of a mysterious crash early July
3. The incident as reported and recorded in 1947, with information from the primary 1947 sources. This would describe the incident and debris AS IT WAS DESCRIBED IN 1947 from the teletypes, stories and photographs from the days in question in July 1947.
4. The emergence of Jesse Marcel and the accounts of the PRIMARY WITNESSES starting in 1978, ie. those who actually saw or handled the "flying disc" material, with descriptions of the debris, the sequence of events from discovery to the news conferences, and how they differ from the intitial accounts.
5. The emergence of SECONDARY witnesses (who had no first-hand contact with the material but heard stories etc.) who claimed a) cover-ups, b) multiple crash sites and recoveries, c) aliens and alien autopsies
6. Skeptical reports in the 1990s, specifically the two Air Force reports linking the crash to Mogul and aliens to faulty memories, and the Mogul flight 4 reconstruction.
Each section would note the major dissents from the evidence supplied. 
Additionally, a lot of the POV stuff should be removed, such as the references in the skeptical sections to some reports as being "frauds" or their authors being experts in disinformation, etc.
Canada Jack 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me: I think the context and historical sequence of events is very important to understanding what may or may not have happened at Roswell. Mark Grant 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Introduction Added; Proposal for Rewrite

message: I noticed that the article failed to mention that no UFO event or anything of importance has actually ever happened in Roswell. It also failed to mention that the mythology surrounding this event exists as nothing more than a refuge for those who are too dysfunctional for normal society to distract themselves from their current pariah state. A few pieces of scrap metal and plastic in the desert does not make an alien invasion or military conspiracy. Triumph's Hour 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Dose Of Reality 

message: I've added Section 3 from my list above which replaces the somewhat incoherent (and POV) account of the intitial discovery which was there before. 
I've presented the incident AS IT WAS INITIALLY REPORTED. The old account chose to provide a sequence of events which focussed on what some saw as a pattern of cover-up and subterfuge suggesting something far more sinister than what may in fact have happened. That version of events WILL BE PRESENTED but it was decidedly POV.
The next sections will be: New details from the primary witnesses; New details from secondary witnesses, etc. (see above).
For those of you who choose to dispute the sequence of events laid out above, remember they are the sequence of events AS REPORTED. 
Canada Jack 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section added, replacing old section

message: I've just added the next section from the list I posted above.
Remembering that this is an NPOV attempt to address the Roswell UFO incident, I have presented the testimony of the various first-hand witnesses - those who are known to or likely encountered the debris - and have avoiding the usual POV "clarifications" of some of these reports.
As I stressed above, those arguments will be addressed later. 
The next section will bring in the secondary witnesses from where many of the reports of "cover-up" emerge, reports of aliens and what have you, and what UFO researchers interpret the true chain of events (as opposed to what had been presented to the public back in 1947).
Then, I propose to spell out the skeptical Air Force response to these allegations, with asides to the critiques.
Remember folks, if we are to be NPOV, we have to present the accounts and witness statements, at least initially, at face value. Because NONE of us are in position to know with certainty who is right and who is wrong. When the arguments after the secondary witnesses are given, then we will see why certain scenarios - and certain witnesses - are believed or not believed.
In that way, all sides are satisfied, as best can be, as evidence is presented fairly and opportunty is offered for the various interpretations, unlike before where the article was written in a clearlp POV style as if the "facts" of "cover up" and aliens was a given.
Canada Jack 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 4 added: Primary witness testimony from 1978 on

message: As stated above, I've been to Roswell, New Mexico. It is not a good idea to call the locals liars at all. I've even seen the Funeral home that was indicated by many sources as being the place that the boss there had taken a call from the US Army concerning hermetically SEALED caskets, children's size, The International UFO Museum, the UFO Museum (Roswell has two UFO museums), talked to the locals, of which a elderly gent stated that the alien incident happened, the people were coerced into compliance, (When someone places a LOADED gun to your head, and tells YOU to "Shut the hell up about what happened here !", are YOU going to tell the soldier, "Hell NO!" ? I did'nt think so either, unless you wanted your brains blown out.). I've also seen this matter come up on Unsolved Mysteries, Sightings, the PAX TV Network called The Unexplained, on the 'net, heard about it on Coast To Coast AM, Jeff Rense's radio show, seen it on his site as well, other places. Another native told ME flat out that, "IF there is alien contact, the entire planet will revolt, some will, due to religious reasons, some will revolt as revenge for being made a fool of (as persuant to certain govt. protocol, such as the Robertson Panel), revolt as a reaction to said contact, rebel, to cause trouble." Too bad I can't incl. that in Wikipedia, due to certain Wiki-protocol, and I'm NOT going to violate it. Martial Law 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm referring to is the coercion that went on, incl. that a radio DJ was threatened, a civilian taking a injured Army airman to the base hospital was threatened with death, a nurse was allegedly killed to shut her up because she had seen "the creatures", "the things", a woman was threatened by a US Army MP, who told her that "No one will find you in this damn desert.". This goes on and on. Martial Law 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a section in the article discribing the alleged coercion in the article ? Martial Law 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the response to the "loaded gun" statement, just stating what has been and is still said all over the place. I do apologise if I had upset anyone. Martial Law 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have been referring to this testimonial. I've seen what was recreated on Unsolved Mysteries, incl. several witness testimonials, incl. the one about a woman claiming that a US Army MP had threatened her, had stated that NO ONE will find her in the desert. This matter has also been brought up on Coast To Coast AM many times as well. Martial Law 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As stated above....

message: ::Are you going to indicate that witnesses were intimidated ? The intimidation was mentioned on Unsolved Mysteries, Sightings, on the radio shows Coast To Coast AM and on Jeff Rense's radio show, the 'net, other places, and I've talked to the town's citizenry about this matter. The radio DJ was threatened w/ his job being lost, jail time, a civilian taking a soldier to the Base Hospital was also threatened with death (the civilian told the officer, a Captain, to "Go to hell, I'm a civilian!" in retaliation), a nurse was killed, records altered, a woman was cussed at and threatened by a Army MP. This goes on and on. I've also been to the two museums myself, and this kind of thing is there as well. Martial Law 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certain people claimed to have been intimidated, several decades after the event. That's a big difference to saying that 'witnesses were intimidated'. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a shred of evidence from 1947 that anyone was intimidated, though Brazel seemed a bit upset at his interrogation by the Air Force in one of the newspaper articles. That's not to say that their claims shouldn't be included, but they are just claims made many years later. (P.S. Changed your header above to a wiki header so it will show up in the table of contents). Mark Grant 21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, it was the US Army who was intimidating people, not the USAF, since they was not in existence @ that time, it was part of the Army @ that time as the US Army Air Corps.Martial Law 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intimidation of witnesses

message: Perhaps your silence the past few days indicates you are at least willing to see what I am coming up with, since my presentation of the primary witness' statements avoided the sort of "debunkery" you were probably expecting.
But though I believe the skeptical line here, this article, whoever wrote it, was so one-sided and so incoherently laid out, that it was flagged for a rewrite.
What I am trying to avoid here is POV - the goal is NPOV. Bloody hard in this case, but I think it is doable. Please bear with me here, it's not easy to do.
Look at some of the POV statements in the article. Rememeber the goal here is not to parrot one line, but to introduce an unbiased account. Instead we have lines like: "Impressive testimony about the Roswell Incident..." In the "1994/95 Air Force Roswell report" section, one would expect an explanation of their rationale for linking this to Mogul. Instead, we have precisely ONE paragraph describing the Air Force's lengthy report followed by FIVE paragraphs countering it. Then the next section on the 1997 report does the same - ONE paragraph outlining the AIr Force case, NINE on critisms.
Then, below that, we FAR more space dedicated to the alien autopsy film, which is an admitted fraud!
Then, in the reference section, we have the pejorative "debunker" title for the skeptical resources, and more than a few POV comments attached to these references: "Weaver and McAndrew are both officers in the Air Force counterintelligence branch, Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Weaver is known to have taught courses on propaganda and disinformation."
"Note: Pflock has a CIA background and was once involved in a cattle mutilation hoax."
"chapter by former Mogul engineer Charles Moore on Mogul balloon trajectory calculation to Mack Brazel ranch is contended to be a hoax..."
Nowhere do we see, for example, any caveat about the fraudulent research carried out by Donald Schmidtt, who has now been disowned even by his long-time coauthor Kevin Randle.
This is NPOV? This is better than what I have done so far?
The goal of any article here, let's remember, is not to ensure your POV triumphs over any other competing POV: the goal is to in as best a manner possible produce a NPOV presentation of what we know and what we don't know, and present the various arguments as that - different viewpoints.
We all know many here take their arguments VERY seriously. But those views, however passionately held are their OPINIONS based on what they embrace as facts. Widely divergent views are also passionately held but they are also OPINIONS based on what others see as the "real" facts.
The way it stood, the premise that this WAS a cover-up, there WERE aliens recovered, a few nods were given to skeptical arguments with, more often than not, an avalanche of rejoinders to those nods.
We are not here to parrot one side's point of view or the other: We are here to present, as best we can, a balanced view of the events. The way the article was written, it procedes as if the idea there was a "cover-up" of alien recovery is a given. It most certainly is NOT a "given" - it is the view strongly and passionately held by some - like yourself - but it is a POV argument.
I will be soon introducing the witnesses who claim that there had been cover-ups and alien recoveries and witness intimidation.
If you look at what I have done so far, you will note a distinct absence of the sort of "clarifying" comments so common in the previous version. And I think we can form a basis for a NPOV presentation of the events. 
Canada Jack 05:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Fil's critique

message: I have just added a section describing accounts of aliens, military recoveries and intimidation. 
I've included these accounts without comment, save for the notes about evidence even hard-core ufo believers have trouble with, and the Ramey photo since that is a piece of evidence readily open to interpretation (unlike someone saying "I saw an alien"). In many cases the accounts I have listed HAVE been challenged for various reasons, but that will be noted later.
The next section, of which I have only included a short line, is slightly different from the line-up I had above. Also, please note that I have discarded my original idea of including rebuttals for each piece of evidence as presented. Makes more sense, I believe, to do that afterwards, to essentially lay out the cases as they evolved. In that way, we will have: a). the account as originally reported (done); b) the account according to the alien/coverup scenario; c) the account according to the skeptics; d) the Air Force and Mogul accounts; e) the critique to the Air Force/Mogul accounts; f) the skeptic's view of the Air Force critique
My next sections will be:
6. The emergence of an "alien" timeline and coverup scenario by the early 1990s
7. The skeptical response
8. The first Air Force report and Mogul explanation
9. The second Air Force report, acconting for alien corpses
10. The response to the Air Force reports 
11. The rebuttal to the responses
Canada Jack 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 5 Secondary Witnesses added

message: I've just added the text to the new section describing the scenario that had emerged by the early 1990s which suggested alien recoveries and government cover-ups.
I forgot to sign-in, so my location was noted, not my "canada jack" id.
Since this is largely drawn from two accounts there are few references.
Next: The skeptical response.
The skeptical response will NOT include the Air Force report. That will be the section afterwards, as a lot emerged from there, in particular the identification of Mogul as a source of the debris at Roswell (though it had been previously suggested).
Canada Jack 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section added: Alien recovery and government cover-up

message: I've just added the next section, highlighting the main skeptical responses to Roswell which existed BEFORE the Air Force reports and Moore's reconstruction of the Mogul flights.
The next section will be something like "The Air Force Reports on Roswell and Mogul" (Moore's reconstruction of the 1947 balloon train flights)
Remember, folks, this is designed to be NPOV so though there are those ready to pounce with their own counter-arguments to the skepical response, our purpose here should be to present the arguments and let them stand, as long as we agree that the side we favour has been presented fairly and without the POV addenda which plaqued earlier versions.
Canada Jack 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next section added: Skeptical response