Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Vandalism Link

I noticed at the very top of the article the link "Top Secret Weather Balloon" leads to the article for "Lie". While it did make me chuckle, it is obviously not the appropriate linked article. Someone please change it! :) Sorry if I posted this wrong, I don't edit wiki very often. -A Person using the Internets

PS: I'm sure that's not the only one... it might be worth looking through more

Jessy A. Marcel

I read the article for the first time to know more about this subject. At the beginning, I read "...In February 1980, The National Enquirer ran its own interview with Marcel..." and though to myself "Who's this 'Marcel'?!" because he has NOT be introduced before in the article. Later, I read "...Sheriff Wilcox called Roswell Army Air Field. Maj. Jesse Marcel". Ah, now I know who he is... until I later read "...who in turn notified Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office".

So, first, it would be nice to introduce this 'Marcel' before just saying "own interview with Marcel". Second, I don't find it clear on what he was doing back then. Not having any experience in Roswell, I can't do more than point this out :) -- Lyverbe 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Marcel is introduced before your reference - someone had vandalized the page earlier today. I've just reverted the old version so your query should be answered now. Canada Jack 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper Title?

ITS FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Found titling the first section of the page. I'm changing it to "Summary," but I don't think that's correct, so if someone knows what it should be, please change it. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.201.50 (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

WTF is this?

In November 2005 an anonymous source claiming to be part of a high level group of people within the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) of the USA, began releasing information allegedly concerning a Project Serpo. This released information allegedly confirms that in July 1947 there were two extraterrestrial UFOs that crashed in the state of New Mexico, referenced in this article as the Roswell UFO incident. The Project Serpo releases further allege that there was one surviving alien entity. Communication was allegedly established with this alien and its home world. The alien lived for 5 years and died in 1952. Communications continued with the home world, allegedly in the Zeta Reticuli star system, which led to the arrangement of an exchange program between 1965 and 1978.

Found at the end of one of the sections and presented as fact without any sources cited. I'm removing this to maintain the factuality and objectivity of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.35.224.64 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I have also tried removing this, but it appears that one user is watching this page and reverting any changes to this paragraph. Is there any legitimate reason to keep this paragraph? 71.109.148.244 03:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keep it, if some sources are added. It clearly is a "recent development," tied to Roswell, and there are sources (on the page link). Add a source or two and keep it is my suggestion. Canada Jack 14:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Canada Jack. As long as there is a page on Project Serpo, I suppose it should be mentioned here. If the page is deleted, then we can revisit the appropriateness of this paragraph. Phiwum 15:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the Zeta Reticuli star system is 39 light years away, radio contract and an exchange programme taking 13 years would be impossible. 193.25.116.40 08:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right using conventional radio communications, but the whole idea behind what's been published on inter-stellar travel is that this process involves a warping of space-time, itself, by which, in the case of travel from earth to some far-away star system, the distination point is "pulled" to the here, the person or communication is "attached" to the destination point, and then the destination point is "release" to its normal shape trasporting the traveller directly to the destination and not using the conventional crossing of space that would, take 39 years even traveling at the speed of light. Clearly, it would seem that if aliens have, in fact, visited this planet from such remote places, the do not use conventional methods of travel. 70.103.164.235 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote Early, Vote Often!

I will post a vote on my talk page about the Roswell crash. Anyone may participate. --Defender 911 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

aliens

arealeins true or a lie and who can prove it ?????? what about the roswell w/ the alien what do you think that it was true????

THis is not a forum go ask there. I will give you my opinion anyway. THe farmer found non-balloon which it wasn't just other crap. It was quickly forgotten. In 1978 the interview was infulecned by all the fiction and taken as fact. Every succeding book has gone farther and farther away. The CIA had let them belive what they wan't so they don't find out about the other secret prjects they had. In the end the latest books have absolutly no truth left. So the military covered up Project Mogul with a weather ballon to maintain National sucurity. No one from science belives it anyway. Uber555 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Somthing happned in Roswell that is for sure. if Aliens are the answer to the roswell incident, they will let themselves be known when they are ready, and will not listen to American bushit policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.227 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

I have changed the initial paragraph to "many ordinary people" from "UFO Proponents", as "UFO Proponents is misleading, if at the very least, not even a term that means anything.

UFO Proponents? what does this mean? Someone who argues that an unidentified flying object exists?

This has nothing to do at all with the Roswell incident, and the testimony and evidence of all those who were involved.

It is indeed many "ordinary people, the world over" who choose to beleive that this information and evidence provided by 1st and 2nd class witnesses to the event is credible, in the same way that ordinary people are chosen to sit a Jury. Removed vandalism editEvilMuppet 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When people are chosen for a Jury Duty, they are not labeled as anything except ordinary people! as so should be the same people who beleive that something happened at Roswell other than the official Military answer of a weather balloon, in the beleife that many of the witnesses and given evidence is contradictory to that fact! (Not UFO Proponents).

202.12.144.21 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) BillySkaf

The intro as it stood was the result of several months of back and forth and stands as a NPOV consensus. So it stood before as an agreed-upon intro. But even besides that, I removed "ordinary people" as it is a meaningless phrase. Many "ordinary people" DON'T believe there was any aliens involved. To be consistent, using your logic, we should say, "many ordinary people believe that aliens were involved. On the other hand, many ordinary people believe this was just a weather balloon (or what have you)."

And, yes, "UFO proponents" are those who argue that UFOs are of alien origin. And those are the ones who chiefly argue that this incident involved aliens (though many UFO proponents in fact don't believe this).

"When people are chosen for a Jury Duty, they are not labeled as anything except ordinary people! as so should be the same people who beleive that something happened at Roswell other than the official Military answer of a weather balloon, in the beleife that many of the witnesses and given evidence is contradictory to that fact! (Not UFO Proponents)."

You presuppose that the only people "believing" here are in the case of a) aliens were involved (believed by ufo proponents and "ordinary people") and b) no aliens were involved (the military). In fact, for a) we have proponents and ordinary people and for b) we have proponents, ordinary people skeptics and the military. As for Jury Duty, bad analogy. "Ordinary people" are supposed to be a tabula rasa in court, they aren't suppose to believe ANYTHING until they have been furnished the evidence. And that is why in the case of the article, we are talking about the PROPONENTS of the views rather than the audience. To extend the analogy, if we want to examine this like a court case, we don't discuss what the JURY believes, we discuss what the defence and the prosecution/Crown (in Canada) believes. Hence, while it may be true that "ordinary people" believe a UFO was involved, THEY aren't the ones making the case either way - UFO proponents are. And if you care to read the articles, you will find that the ones making the cases for both sides are NOT "ordinary people" which is why "ufo proponents" and "the military" and "skeptics" are discussed because they are the ones promoting the various sides of the debate. And to further extend the "court" analogy, since there is no clear-cut verdict as the the ultimate truth of the events, to keep this NPOV, we simply present the cases. To pretend that there is an "orthodox" interpretation to the events - which you seem to want to do - is straying into POV territory, IMHO.

If you simply want to make the point that most "ordinary people" BELIEVE that this case involves aliens, well that point is made on numerous occassions, in particular in the intro where it is noted that "Roswell" and "UFO" are pretty well synomomous, which means a public identification with aliens and this locale, and further on, it is noted that strong majorities in polls believe a) that UFOS are real (i.e. of alien origin) and b) Roswell involved aliens.Canada Jack 15:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this back to "ordinary people from all over the world" as this is probably a far more neutral way to describe the people who agree with the alien hypothesis of Roswell crash. The above member (Canada Jack) has stated above: "If you simply want to make the point that most "ordinary people" BELIEVE that this case involves aliens" - This clearly indicates he didn't either read my initial post, or understand it (I don't know which one is worse). It is indeed a common held truth that thousands, (if not hundreds of thousands) of very normal people (not UFO Proponents or people who push a UFO agenda) beleive in a DIFFERENT explanation from the commonly held military one.

If what I have said in this paragraph is not enough, he says "As for Jury Duty, bad analogy. "Ordinary people" are supposed to be a tabula rasa in court, they aren't suppose ................ etc, etc" So you think that Jury Duty is a bad analogy (for the sake of belittling my addition to this entry) and then continue to USE it as an analogy for the rest of your entry? (a very long paragraph)..... hypocracy. I simply ask the wikipedia community to answer and see what they think which is a more NEUTRAL way to describe somebody - as a UFO PROPONENT, or as a ORDINARY PERSON. why the need for labeling of people in a derogatory way and drawing conclusions?

Aditionally, The above user is a self proclaimed (in his own user section) "subjects of interest to skeptics (including but not limited to UFO claims, crop circles, JFK assassination conspiracy claims, 911 conspiracy claims, etc.); " Why on earth was a debunker in his own spare time (self admitadly) allowed to re-do the Roswell section? this is a clear cut example of conflicts of interest.

With respect, reread the initial post. Many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of "ordinary people" believe this had NOTHING to do with an alien vehicle. Yet you insist on calling that viewpoint the "military" viewpoint, while "oridinary" people see this as involving aliens. Clearly, that makes the paragraph "POV" as it implies that only the military is sticking to that viewpoint, while the "ordinary" viewpoint is to see this as involving aliens. But it is not for wikipedia to pretend there is an "ordinary viewpoint" here. Which is why the article starts with those who promote one viewpoint or another.

You seem overly defensive here. I used your jury analogy to explain why your approach falls outside of the NPOV guidelines. "I simply ask the wikipedia community to answer and see what they think which is a more NEUTRAL way to describe somebody - as a UFO PROPONENT, or as a ORDINARY PERSON. why the need for labeling of people in a derogatory way and drawing conclusions?" First off, what is "derogatory" about describing someone as a UFO proponent? Second, as I have repeatedly pointed out, to be consistent, we must also note that many "ordinary people" DON'T believe the alien hypotheses. Which is why to describe those who take sides in that manner is meaningless. We might as well describe (since who can truly objectively call others "ordinary people") "Numerous Humans" and it would have the same meaning. Besides, I have some material at hand which describes the three leading authors pro-ufo in a similar manner. Mr Friedman sent me some material in which he is described as "UFO lecturer." The back of his "Majic 12" book describes him as a "UFOlogist." Kevin Randle? On the cover of "The truth..." he is "special investigator for the Centre of UFO Studies." Further, and this is more to the point of what wikipedia is about, we simply can't say here "it is said" that x and y is so, or "some say...". We have to back up those statements. To say "ordinary people" say that, number one, how do you truly establish that? And second, the phrase is so generic to be utterly meaningless. You can state that about ANYTHING. You could say "ordinary people" believe that Santa Claus is Jesus Christ as an old man. WEll, some "ordinary people" actually believe that!Canada Jack 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Aditionally, The above user is a self proclaimed (in his own user section) "subjects of interest to skeptics (including but not limited to UFO claims, crop circles, JFK assassination conspiracy claims, 911 conspiracy claims, etc.); " Why on earth was a debunker in his own spare time (self admitadly) allowed to re-do the Roswell section? this is a clear cut example of conflicts of interest." Well, this is very revealing isn't it? Actually, I am an "ordinary person" who happens to believe that the Roswell incident didn't involve aliens. Seems that, in your mind, the second one takes that position, they are no longer an "ordinary person", they are "debunkers."

When I came to this page, it was structured in such a way as the incident was presented as an alien crash which had been covered up. Asides were there for the skeptical viewpoint, but these were countered by extensive rebuttals. What I have done, with others, is to simply present the incident as it was reported, chart the evolution of the incident as the various UFO advocates have presented it (there is no definitive view on what, exactly, happened), and then note the military and sketpical response. We strive to present the cases fairly and accurately. And I think that what we have come up with is a fair and neutral presentation of the incident.

As for the "conflict of interest" charge, interesting you should mention that. For one, you seem to be an unregistered member here, which begs the question: why are you choosing to hide behind a cloak of anonymity? It's clear who I am - who are you? And for another, when I started changing the pages here, I was opposed on many issues by a certain member. At one point, he made statements which seemed to indicate that he was one of the very authors whose claims are to be found on the various Roswell page. When I pointed that out, he not only never responded to the question, he stopped contributing. IOW, the only "conflict of interest" on Roswell and related pages seems to have come from those who have a particular stake in one side of the debate. I don't have ANY stake here, I've never published anything on it or related issues. Therefore your charge of "conflict" is warrantless. Canada Jack 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

you are quite psychotic and almost evangelical of your defence of this very simple statement, I couldnt be bothered reading all of that, but my previous statements still stand, and from what I can see, are still quite correct and accurate, I am glad others agree. 202.12.144.21 07:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)BillSkaf

The section has been reverted to NPOV. The consensus opening paragraph was created late last year, the unregistered individual has yet to identify a compelling reason to change it, nor has he responded to the specific arguments made as to why the changes would be POV. Indeed, he is willfully ignoring those arguments. Canada Jack 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Foo Fighters at Roswell Air Force Base

There never was a Roswell Air Force Base. When the Air Force became a separate branch of the military, Roswell Army Air Field became Walker Air Force Base. When Walker AFB was closed circa 1966 or 1967, the land and facilities were given to the City of Roswell and it became the "Roswell Industrial Air Center". We still call it 'the base' though. 72.24.50.106 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Roswell 1847

Just a note here to confirm that "Roswell 1847" is indeed the correct title of said film. There has been a back-and-forth on this one (I think I am guilty of "correcting" it to 1947), but I checked and can confirm that production is starting this month and it is set 100 years before the events this page is concerned with. Canada Jack 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr Fil's changes

In addition to the fact that Dr Fil is an unregistered member and has thus far avoided answering a crucial question - whether he is a published author on the Roswell incident - his changes to what was here already are in my view largely unnecessary. He added a ton of detail which was not needed and did not add crucial information to what was already there. Simply put, though Lydia Sleppy was interviewed as long ago as 1974, it wasn't her accounts which brought this case attention, it was the accounts from Jesse Marcel. And, further, it wasn't until Marcel's interview in the Enquirer in 1980 that this case, arguably, was generally known outside of the UFO community. By the publication of "The Roswell Incident" in 1980, many more witness accounts were made public, but all that is noted within the body of the text. Indeed, I note that some 90 witnesses were interviewed for that 1980 book, so listing a pile of names in the intro is superfluous. As is noting at length the runaround from the military.

Further, though there was talk of aliens connected to New Mexico, this particular incident was almost completely forgotten until about 1978 and Friedman etc connected what Marcel said to old newspaper clippings. (Friedman himself has been in contact with me on this.)

This is a complicated case. I feel we have successfully covered the bases in a relatively concise way. If there is something inadequately addressed or misleading, we are open to addressing changes. But simply bulldozing through this consensus-built page is not the way to go about it. Canada Jack 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Unregistered member"? Isn't that an oxymoron? What's Canada Jack talking about? Of course I'm a registered Wikipedia member. I was editing this article and many other Wiki articles under a registered Wiki name long before CJ arrived here and totally rewrote the article to his personal liking giving it a heavily debunking slant. ("Canada Jack" is a well-known Roswell debunker in various talk groups writing as "Johnny Canuck." I'm not impartial, but then neither is he.)

I have no published Roswell books. There, satisfied? I have published on the Internet, just like CJ. I have investigated this in depth for 13 years and am generally considered to be a true authority on the case. I think actual experts should be making contributions to encyclopedia articles, don't you?

I made the changes because I think the introduction lacks historical perspective and is confusing and misleading to the reader. At least one reader has already expressed confusion at how the article is written, including how Jesse Marcel is introduced without any background. Who was Jesse Marcel? He was the head intelligence officer at Roswell and lead the initial investigation into what crashed on the ranch, that's who. Why isn't that important fact clearly stated up front? He wasn't just some nobody who had something vaguely to do with the retrieval of materials.

The article is totally misleading and inaccurate because it portrays Jesse Marcel as the sole Roswell witness as of 1980, and all the many witnesses followed only after the publication of the National Enquirer interview with Marcel. That's completely false. While it is true that the NE article was the first general introduction of the Roswell case to the American public, so was "The Roswell Incident" that came out the same year. There were many more witnesses than just Jesse Marcel in the book. Some of them were already independently corroborating key points of his story, such as Bill Brazel and Gen. Dubose, and there was already testimony of rancher Brazel being coerced by the military. The case was already under investigation by Stanton Friedman and Bill Moore: Brazel Jr., Dubose, and others were first interviewed before the NE article.

Lydia Sleppy was the original major Roswell witness to be interviewed and predated Marcel by four years. I think this deserves mentioning. Neither Sleppy nor Marcel came forward on their own to be interviewed. They were sought out. This also isn't clear. They were not publicity hounds. Marcel never used the word "spaceship" in his NE interview, nor anywhere else. He said the debris was strange, he was familiar with what we had and it was nothing like that, and he thought it was "not from Earth." That's the direct quote. Try to find Marcel using "spaceship" anywhere in his interviews. He may have thought it, but he never said it.

Marcel was the intel officer in charge and gave specific reasons for his conclusions, none of which is mentioned in the intro, as I tried to do. He wasn't some guy running to the National Enquirer shouting "spaceship" and he wasn't alone at the time. There were already other witnesses corroborating aspects of his story.

Also, as I tried to briefly mention, there was investigation into various stories of crashed flying saucers that predated the revival of Roswell or Marcel being found. Leonard H. Stringfield and others already had a core of witnesses talking about this, though not specifically about Roswell. There were already witnesses to alien autopsies at Wright-Patterson, some doctors. These date back to the early 1970s. One such crashed saucer witness was Senator Barry Goldwater, who was publicly admitting to his unsuccessful efforts to get into Wright-Patterson to see the rumored alien artifacts, including alien bodies, clear back in 1974 (answering a letter inquiry from Stringfield--Goldwater BTW was friends of Roswell base commander Blanchard and had tried in the early 1960s along with other Senators to get a Congressional investigation into UFOs). It is also true, as I stated, that FBI and Canadian documents dating to 1950 mentioned crashed flying saucers. These too emerged in the 1970s before Jesse Marcel and the NE article.

But as currently written, Jesse Marcel is just some nonspecific Roswell guy in the tabloid National Enquirer who alone gave rise to all the witnesses and stories about Roswell. Definitely FALSE and misleading, and a typical debunking way of introducing the case that I've seen many times before.

Although a relatively minor point, linking to the Wiki alien autopsy film from Glenn Dennis' story of an autopsy at the base hospital is also misleading. It subtly insinuates that the hoax autopsy was the same event mentioned by Dennis. I have no problems with mention of the autopsy film, but this is improper context to introduce it. It is also unclear why Glenn Dennis is singled out for mention among all the dozens of major Roswell witnesses besides Marcel, who aren't mentioned at all in the intro. I suspect it is because he is the best-known alien bodies witness and now considered shaky because he lied about the identity of the nurse he said told him about the autopsy. But Dennis wasn't the first to go public about alien bodies at Roswell. E.g., Capt. Oliver Henderson's story of flying Roswell flying saucer debris to Wright Field and seeing small alien bodies with big heads came out in 1988, a year before Dennis. Both Henderson's wife and daughter began talking about it and later signed affidavits, as did Henderson's friend and business partner, who said Henderson was already telling him about it in 1979.

There also isn't anything about exactly how the official government Roswell investigation got kicked off in the 1990s, which is some more needed history. It's because Congressman Steven Schiff was asked by some NM constituents to look into it, which he did indeed do "reluctantly" because of the subject matter, and then got what he considered to be the complete "runaround" (his word) from the Air Force. That's what triggered the whole GAO investigation, and it wasn't just confined to the Air Force. Further, who conducted the AF investigation? It was the highest AF counterintelligence group in the country, located in the Pentagon, the ones specifically tasked with protecting the secrecy of black budget programs (AKA Special Access Programs). The reader should be aware the Air Force put the fox in charge of investigating the henhouse. There are a number of good reasons to believe the A.F. investigation was anything but impartial.

Also the Air Force's conclusions are presented in the intro as unquestioned fact instead of undocumented theories, including the "crash dummy" report with it's time-compression theory, which not just "UFO proponents" but the press in general thought was totally preposterous. There is no mention of the general ridicule that greeted the second report, but there is a gratuitous, out-of-place editorial comment that many alleged Roswell proponents had already abandoned ship. (BTW "ex"-CIA/DOD employee Karl Pflock is cited as a "proponent" who changed his mind. He was Roswell debunker from the very beginning and may also have been a mole inside of Schiff's investigation. His wife was on Schiff's staff and put in charge of the Roswell investigation.)

I should also like to point out that about 90% of the "references" are to articles by debunkers of the case, most of whom have never investigated anything. There should be a lot more balance here. Many of the references are also inappropriate and poor. E.g., how does professor Richard Mueller's video about the science behind Mogul have anything to do with the Air Force's first report? Why not just link to the Air Force's executive summary of the report, a much more appropriate reference?Dr Fil 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"I have no published Roswell books. There, satisfied? I have published on the Internet, just like CJ." Finally, after a half-dozen requests, Dr Fil has admitted that he indeed is a published author, which means if I am not mistaken, he can't be posting articles citing the very work he is involved with. If he would care to identify who he is, than we can ascertain if he is doing improper citations or not. As for the claim that this is "just like CJ," meaning me, I've done NO original research on this subject, I've simply debated this on Space.com, and worked here on wiki on the related articles. If that is his definition of "publishing," then I'd not say he's in no danger or reproducing his own work here.

This seems to be the relevant section: "Reliable sources"

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

It would be helpful, since you are an admitted author, in identifying your works so that we can be ensured that the sources you cite are not simply yourself.

"Who was Jesse Marcel? He was the head intelligence officer at Roswell and lead the initial investigation into what crashed on the ranch, that's who. Why isn't that important fact clearly stated up front? He wasn't just some nobody who had something vaguely to do with the retrieval of materials."

The article in the background section says this as to the origin of the claim: "On July 8, 1947, the Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) issued a press release stating that personnel from the field's 509th Bomb Group had recovered a crashed "flying disc" from a ranch near Roswell..." Then: "...in 1978, ufologist Stanton T. Friedman interviewed Major Jesse Marcel, who was involved with the original recovery of the debris in 1947. Marcel expressed his belief that the military had covered up the recovery of an alien spacecraft."

In case the implication that Major Marcel was part of the Roswell Base, in case somehow someone missed that Marcel was not "just some nobody who had something vaguely to do with the retrieval" we have this in the "contemporary account" section: "Sheriff Wilcox called Roswell Army Air Field. Major Jesse Marcel and a "man in plainclothes" accompanied Brazel back to the ranch where more pieces were picked up." And if that is STILL not good enough for you, we have quoted from the story: "...who in turn notified Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office."

Contrary to your bizarre assertions, Dr Fil, if you simply care to read the article, it is quite clear who Marcel was! How one could possibly conclude that he was "some nobody vaguely to do with the retrieval" tells me certain people haven't bothered to read the article they are so bent on rewriting!

WE had a short intro, which is all that was needed to tell the story. You, on the other hand, saw fit to double or triple the size of the intro for no other reason to, it would seem, establish the credentials of Marcel (which is in the article proper); list the names of all the witnesses introduced in 1980 (the article proper mentions the 90 claimed witnesses interviewed for the 1980 book) and to add excruciating detail on the sequence of events vis a vis the Pentagon before they investigated the incident (I fail to see the point).

"The article is totally misleading and inaccurate because it portrays Jesse Marcel as the sole Roswell witness as of 1980, and all the many witnesses followed only after the publication of the National Enquirer interview with Marcel."

Uh, he was, Dr Fil, at least in terms of what the public was aware. After Marcel's interview was published, The Roswell Incident was published the same year, and as is noted in the body of the article, some 90 witnesses were interviewed for that. I am not sure as to what you are getting at - the article describes the public disclosure of the event, which was largely limited to the UFO community until the 1980 NE article, then further expanded by the book published later that year.

It seems you simply want to front-end the article with a lot of material that more property should be introduced as the story is told in full - as it is. I didn't do the intro - others did, and the manner in which information was introduced WAS THE CONSENSUS.

"There were many more witnesses than just Jesse Marcel in the book. Some of them were already independently corroborating key points of his story, such as Bill Brazel and Gen. Dubose, and there was already testimony of rancher Brazel being coerced by the military."

ALL OF THIS IS IN THE ARTICLE! Have you bothered to read the article you are so bent on rewriting, Dr Fil? Sure, it's not in the intro, but that was because to introduce all that stuff then means people get hopelessly bogged down in detail and arguments without seeing the broad outline of the incident. Which is why the CONSENSUS was to have the short intro we have now!

"They were not publicity hounds. Marcel never used the word "spaceship" in his NE interview, nor anywhere else."

That may be so, Dr Fil, but that word doesn't appear in THIS article, either! And I don't suggest that Marcel or the others were deliberately seeking publicity, so your points are moot.

"Marcel was the intel officer in charge and gave specific reasons for his conclusions, none of which is mentioned in the intro, as I tried to do."

I can't say this enough, Dr Fil, but the intro was a consensus. I had more stuff in there myself, but we arrived at what we had through the process and it seems to cover in short terms what happened. And though it may be true that Marcel didn't use that phrase, he DID say "there's some credence to this UFO business" suggesting he was open to the idea of alien origin to this stuff "not of this earth."

"But as currently written, Jesse Marcel is just some nonspecific Roswell guy in the tabloid National Enquirer who alone gave rise to all the witnesses and stories about Roswell. Definitely FALSE and misleading, and a typical debunking way of introducing the case that I've seen many times before."

See the above. He is identified as an officer from the base, and is called: "Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office." So much for your "non-specific Roswell guy" claim. Besides, the case doesn't rest on whether Marcel's accounts come from Joe Blow or the president, they rest on whether they are credible!

"Leonard H. Stringfield and others already had a core of witnesses talking about this, though not specifically about Roswell." Then it is not relevant to Roswell. You seek to turn this page into something else - the case for aliens at Roswell. It's not. It's a description of the event as best we know it, with the various books describing what is thought happened followed by critiques.

"It is also true, as I stated, that FBI and Canadian documents dating to 1950 mentioned crashed flying saucers. These too emerged in the 1970s before Jesse Marcel and the NE article." Again, not relevant. The point the article makes is simply that it terms of Roswell, UFOs were not on the radar (;)) until Marcel came forward and Friedman made the link to some old articles which matched Marcel's account. THEN, he linked Sleppy's account to this as well. From 1978, the ball started to roll as Friedman and Moore started to talk to people, and they passed on Marcel's name to Pratt. ALL the article is doing is describing the sequence of events in short form to how this case came to the public attention and how it was described to the public over the years. Your intentions here, clearly, are different.

"Although a relatively minor point, linking to the Wiki alien autopsy film from Glenn Dennis' story of an autopsy at the base hospital is also misleading. It subtly insinuates that the hoax autopsy was the same event mentioned by Dennis." I wasn't aware of that - I agree. That link should be changed.

"It is also unclear why Glenn Dennis is singled out for mention among all the dozens of major Roswell witnesses besides Marcel, who aren't mentioned at all in the intro. I suspect it is because he is the best-known alien bodies witness and now considered shaky because he lied about the identity of the nurse he said told him about the autopsy." That's there because it was arguably the most famous story of the case, actual alien autopsies at the Roswell base. If you were only a casual reader, the Dennis accounts are likely the ones most associated with the case, not the Marcel ones. In truth ALL the first-hand accounts are on shaky ground in terms of credibility, so your argument is moot if that is what you think the intent was - to have a suspect account in the lead. Besides, you have to go to the "further developments" section to see any specific critique of that account.

"There also isn't anything about exactly how the official government Roswell investigation got kicked off in the 1990s, which is some more needed history." Well, maybe on the attendant page. I have the Pflock account of all that rigmarole but is it truly needed? I mean, do we go into discussions why Friedman wasn't on the front of the 1980 book but Berlitz was? Or Ragsdale's deal with the Roswell museum? The Schmitt stuff is there because it was clear claimed research was not done. But in terms of the Air Force, critiques are on the page already and if you think more should be added, that can be accommodated - I'm sure a note could added vis a vis "guarding the henhouse" (as long as YOU didn't write it)

"Also the Air Force's conclusions are presented in the intro as unquestioned fact instead of undocumented theories, including the "crash dummy" report with it's time-compression theory, which not just "UFO proponents" but the press in general thought was totally preposterous."

Uh, no, it says "The United States military maintains..." which simply states what they claim. In the "background" section, the reports' conclusions are simply described, the same as the previous claims of aliens, etc. The significant thing about those reports is not that the press dismissed them, but that some important UFO proponents ACCEPTED them. Like Pflock and Moore. So while you object that it is not simply stated that "the press in general" didn't accept them, I could make a similar case for saying that much of the media DID accept the reports (especially the first). To me, it is less significant in terms of the case that those with a general knowledge accepted or rejected the claims of the Air Force - but that those with SPECIFIC knowlegde - UFO proponents - found amongst their numbers those who accepted the claims of the Air Force.

"I should also like to point out that about 90% of the "references" are to articles by debunkers of the case, most of whom have never investigated anything." Who, like Klass, Korff and Pflock? Give it a rest, Dr Fil. A great deal of the references come straight out of the major pro-UFO books on the subject. The truth is, sometimes you need to check the skeptics to sort out all the competing claims from those who see aliens here. I mean, without Plock, how would I know who Kaufmann is in the various books? or where Cavitt appears when Schmitt/Randle refused to identify him by name? As for the link to the professor, I'm not sure why that is there. I had earlier described to whomeever first inserted that why the professor was wrong (he identified "disks" used in the projects as the source of the "flying disc" stories - when it was the press' misunderstading of what the pilot said about skipping stones).Canada Jack 21:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)159.33.10.92 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New Roswell book

I picked up Schmitt and Carey's latest: "Witness to Roswell", wherein two new crash sites are detailed and all the old ones are dismissed. I'll probably do a little update with that, including where Freidman stands as per his 2005 update of "Majic 12" Canada Jack 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

News article, July 1st 2007

Just saw this on Slashdot, a reference to an article in which the Roswell Public Affairs officer, Walter Haut, left behind a signed affidavit stating that indeed there was an alien spacecraft. The affidavit was to have been opened only after his death, and the text was released last week (according to the article).

I didn't see this mentioned in the article, so thought I'd put it here for your perusal. Note it also appears as though someone created a Walter Haut article today. -FeralDruid 03:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it mentioned on the Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident page. -FeralDruid 03:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Haut was the original public affairs officer who, on orders of the base commander, Colonel Blancard, released the press statement on the alien spacecraft on the morning of July 8th, 1947 only to release a retraction later in the day in which the long-suspect weather balloon explanation was handed out. What's remarkable about Haut's affadivit is that it is a signed, sworn notarized statement which is permissable as evidence, probably under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule in the federal rules of evidence as well as the state rules of evidence. As Fox news pointed out, Haut had distanced himself from the events of July 8th, for most of his life, never spoke of his place in any coverup, never tried to profit from his participation in the events of July 8th, and in his affadavit, clearly suscintly takes up almost every allegation of the Army Air Corps from the afternoon's revised version of events through the 1995 and 1997 investigations. One has to ask himself - WHY would he go to such trouble, and, of course, why would he make provision for the release of this affadavit to come out only after YEARS following his death? Just what was he so afraid of or concerned about that he would go to such great lengths to dispute his draft of the 2nd press release and ONLY after his death? This, for me, is one of the clearest indicators of a cover-up and knowledge of the facts of the incident all the way up through the US Army and into the White House, itself. 70.103.164.235 02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Several in the UFO community itself are raising serious questions about this affidavit, in particular, as mentioned on the page, Balthaser who filmed Haut in 2000 and says the confused, bordering on senile man who he saw then was not the author of the detailed and very specific 2002 affidavit. The authors of "Witness," who seemed to benefit from the release of the affidavit within its pages admitted that THEY had prepared the document, and had Haut sign it, though based on what they claim he had told them over the years.

Balthaser notes that the witness's name has been excised and the circumstances of the signing of the document by Haut have not been revealed. He also says that he was threatened by Haut's daughter with legal action if the video was released - within a day of Haut's 2005 death. It would seem that while Haut himself may not have profited by this death-bed "admission", his daughter as director of the UFO museum in Roswell might have, and the authors who released the document upon publication (and not upon Haut's death) seemed to have had an incentive here. Though a lot of this is left out on the page, a lot of people are very suspicious about the circumstances of this affidavit, and I'm just talking about MUFON - who claim aliens WERE at Roswell. I understand that some MUFON members are trying to confirm some of the specific details mentioned in the affidavit. Stay tuned to this one. Canada Jack 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding counter-arguments to book sections, etc.

I've noticed that over the last day or so a number of changes were made, such as changing lines to stuff like "However it is not known how many people who actually examined the debris had any experience with high altitude wather ballons" in the section describing one of the books.

This needlessly changes what are DESCRIPTIONS of the contents of these various books. The point in the section is to simply establish the narrative of what the UFO authors claimed happened, NOT to rebut various claims as they are made. So, "...such as more accounts of the UNKNOWN qualities of the recovered debris" has been reverted to the original "...such as more accounts of the UNEARTHLY qualities of the recovered debris," as that is what the authors are claiming, that these things were of alien origin. The only "fact" to be addressed and verified is if whether that is the CLAIM being made, not whether the claim itself is factual and based in reality.

This page has been the product of a long process of back-and-forth, and I and others seem to agree that it addresses a very controversial subject as neutrally as can be. And that is largely due to fairly spelling out the arguments and counterarguments in their own sections. The skeptic charge that this "alien" material was simply balloon debris is fully covered later in the article. AS soon as we start to introduce counter-arguments within the section that claims are being describedCanada Jack 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC), we start slipping back to the mess that existed before, which was, in effect, a yelling match back and forth between various sides of the controversy, and to which the casual reader who came here to learn about the incident would find themselves hopelessly confused by all the claims and counter-claims.

Weather Baloon not likley. i think of 2 posibilities

A) UFO crashed. over 10000 reports in 10 years, interesting not everyone of them can be a nut B) Military top secret project, type of new plane, whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.227 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Video?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0UP1OU9uQ2k&mode=related&search= what is this?

It's a film made in the 1990s by one Ray Santilli, who first claimed it was "genuine" footage shot in the 1940s. Go to the wikipedia article called Alien autopsy to learn more. Canada Jack 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These people

Wikipedia has no articles about Friedman, William Moore, Karl Pflock, Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt. I believe that we need some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shade11sayshello (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Friedman. Canada Jack 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

William Haut testimony

I've reverted a lot of material added about William Haut whose posthumous testimony regarding seeing aliens etc at Roswell appeared with the release of "Witness to Roswell" this past May or June. A lot of material was added to the opening sections which referred to this later testimony. But this testimony was referred to already in the "new developments" section where it appears within the "Witness to Roswell" subsection. I'm not sure this needs a new section on its own, or any added remarks to the previous sections, but let's hear a counter-argument to the need to include more. Canada Jack 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Make that WALTER Haut... d'oh!Canada Jack 14:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And... his testimony is covered more fully in the Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident page. Canada Jack 14:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, some have seen fit to greatly expand the accounts which exist a) on the Witness page and b) on Walter Haut's own page. And, again, I have chopped this down to the original size. Recall that Haut in fact already had discussed seeing aliens at Roswell, (see Haut's page for more) so this affidavit adds nothing new, except more specific detail. Canada Jack 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to add a section on the Haut testimony, as it has ignited a fire-storm in the UFO community. I wrote the section, though I had timed out and my IP address is showing. Canada Jack 18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Fil additions

Dr Fil has added a lot of material which is, in my view, extraneous and in some cases POV and/or irrelevant. Dr Fil, you are invited to state your case here for their inclusions. Here are the reasons for their exclusion:

1) In the section describing describing shoddy research and witnesses suspected of hoaxes, Dr Fil has inserted a line about one of the researchers nevertheless accepting the truth of aliens at Roswell owing to other witness accounts. In the context of the section, this insertion is irrelevant because it is discussing what evidence has been found to be wanting, not whether an author still believes the event is real.

The section spends a lot of space trashing "pro-UFO" Roswell researcher Don Schmitt. But Roswell debunker Karl Pflock has been guilty of at least as many sins. If Schmitt's past is somehow relevant, why isn't debunker Pflock's? Is being an admitted hoaxer a commentary on the man's integrity? What do you think?

Maybe we should also throw another Roswell debunker and author Kal Korff with the obvious fabrication of his credentials, about 100 times worse than anything Schmitt has ever done. Just about everybody in the field now realizes he's a pathological liar and total mental case. Again, if Schmitt's past sins are relevant and deserve a long paragraph, why don't Korff's or Pflock's deserve similar commentary? I think the answer is obvious. Pflock and Korff are debunkers of Roswell. They get a free pass from C.J. and I'm sure he will continue to immediately delete anything negative about them.

This whole section and most of what precedes it has also been written by Canada Jack. The implication that C.J., a well-known Net Roswell debunker, obviously wants to leave with the Wiki reader, is that absolutely everybody is bailing out on the Roswell case. That clearly isn't the case with Randle and a number of other researchers. What's wrong with noting that while Randle has dissociated himself from Schmitt and now rejects witnesses like Kaufmann and Dennis, he still strongly believes that most of the witnesses are telling the truth and that Roswell was indeed a flying saucer crash? Don't you think the reader's should at least be reminded of that?

To tell the truth, I don't think any of these sections deserve to be in the article, at least not as previously written, almost entirely by Canada Jack, of course. They are one-sided and defamatory of many witnesses and researchers and not really necessary for the reader to understand the Roswell case. Dr Fil 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

2) The new section "A skeptic changes his mind" describes skeptic Joe Stefula who initially believed that Roswell was "nonsense." But he later is quoted as saying he has seen "nothing to persuade" him of an "extraterrestrial source for the crash." This is clearly NOT someone who "changed his mind" in going from believing that talk of aliens as Roswell was nonsense to one who believed it was now plausible. Therefore it was omitted.

This is a totally irrelevant if not irrational objection by Canada Jack (very typical of how he operates BTW when he arbitrarily censors material not to his liking). Stefula was a hard-core skeptic who indeed changed his mind from Roswell being "nonsense" to it definitely NOT being nonsense and also now believing it had nothing whatever to do with Mogul. It was a total flip-flop. Instead he now feels something of extreme importance happened there that was covered up and remains covered up. He prefers to believe in some conventional explanation, though doesn't totally reject the possibility of a UFO event. Read his article.

Again, this was an attempt to add a little balance. Some initially "pro-Roswell" researchers like Kent Jeffrey eventually rejected the case. C.J. wants those examples left in there, but a counter-example based on important eyewitness testimony he immediately wants to censor using some nonsensical rationale--Stefula still doesn't support the alien scenario. What does that have to do with anything?Dr Fil 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3) Massive expansion of "Witness to Roswell" section. I cut this down to the original length. AS Dr Fil made it, it was a far longer section than any of the other previous sections, in large part because he needlessly added extraneous detail to what I had originally - in particular top the Walter Haut testimony. NONE of the witnesses previously had anything approaching the length of their account included on this page, this sort of detail more properly resides on the "Witnesses to Roswell" page and/or Walter Haut's own page.

This goes for the greatly expanded accounts of others. Such detail is unwarranted and unprecedented on this page. The original should stand - Haut talked of seeing aliens and their craft, and of a cover-up. Other new accounts also described aliens (those witnesses are named), that is what stood before and should suffice.

There are a lot of new witnesses in "Witness to Roswell" that you won't find in other Roswell books. Except for Haut, all other witness testimony was generally summarized in one or two sentences with links to book page numbers for more information. Much of this testimony supports Haut, such as the existence of a craft/body site closer to Roswell (another reason to include the Stefula's important eyewitness Chester Barton), or bodies and and craft being being taken to the base hangar.

I don't mind paring down Haut and referring readers elsewhere for more info, but a very quick summary of new and important witness testimony in the book seems highly relevant.

Lengthy skeptical sections, of course written by C.J., like "Contradictory conclusions, questionable research, Roswell as a myth" present no real information, just the negative opinions of a lot of debunkers, including the totally discredited Kal Korff. Yes, that can take up a lot of space, but not the summary of actual witness testimony in an important new book.Dr Fil 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't omit the Richardson comments as that is something genuinely new and relevant.

But first-hand body witnesses Army photographer Frederick Benthal and MP Ed Sain aren't somehow new and relevant? Or more witnesses to the craft/body site? Or new eyewitnesses to the craft being driven through the town and to the base hangar? Or more witnesses to the bodies being guarded at the hangar or flown out the next day? Please explain that logic. If you had to pick and choose what to include here, it would seem this is more important information to readers of the Roswell case than Kal Korff's worthless opinions or whether Carey and Schmitt support the Barney Barnett or Frank Kaufmann or Glenn Dennis stories, all of which could easily be deleted (and have been covered ad nauseum elsewhere).Dr Fil 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dr Fil has reverted what I changed back - twice now. This is a request therefore to enter into discussions. Canada Jack 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Canada Jack has immediately deleted almost all my additions--twice now. I have had numerous run-ins with Canada Jack, who in my experience has never been sincere about actually discussing the material. Canada Jack plays his usual game of first hitting the delete button, then claiming he wants to discuss, then ignoring whatever I have to say. He feels he always gets the final say on any content and organization. He dreams up ridiculous rationales to censor obviously important material that runs against his belief system (like the Stefula/Barton material above). He continues to treat these articles as his own personal skeptical soapbox. Why aren't the Wiki referees reigning this man in?Dr Fil 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the section "trash" pro-UFO Roswell believers and not the skeptics? Because the evidence for the presence of aliens was in some cases dubious and the result of bad and probably fraudulent research, that's why, and the fact or accusation that skeptic X lied about his credentials doesn't equate as THEY aren't bringing forward fraudulent evidence for or against!

AGAIN, we are not here to construct a pro- or anti-UFO case, we are here to fairly present an evolution of the incident as reported and researched. The issue of Schmitt's credentials and research practices were a BIG issue in the community as it cast doubt on many of the conclusions they were reaching. Go ask Friedman. Korff and the others? Who went pro- or anti-UFO because it was revealed their backgrounds were not what they claimed? It's not relevant, Dr Fil. And because you seem incapable of discerning that, your editorial changes have to be heavily scrutinized.

"What's wrong with noting that while Randle has dissociated himself from Schmitt and now rejects witnesses like Kaufmann and Dennis, he still strongly believes that most of the witnesses are telling the truth and that Roswell was indeed a flying saucer crash? Don't you think the reader's should at least be reminded of that?"

This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say Dr Fil's edits have to be closely scrutinized. CLEARLY tons of people and researchers believe that aliens were at Roswell in 1947 and the government is covering up that fact. However, that is not the point. The point is the revelations of Schmitt's research tactics and mendacity caused a huge rift in the circle of believers. The point anyway is not a particular researcher believes - unless he dissassociates himself from a previous stance pro or anti-alien. Noting that Randle didn't change his mind is not news, nor is the fact that neither did Schmitt.

"Stefula was a hard-core skeptic who indeed changed his mind from Roswell being "nonsense" to it definitely NOT being nonsense and also now believing it had nothing whatever to do with Mogul. It was a total flip-flop."

You are conflating several things here: a belief in a government cover-up and a belief that aliens were recovered at Roswell. And this one of the tactics of the hard-core believers - to imply that someone, when they express doubts about an official explanation that this means they are confirming a belief that aliens were involved, even when they say nothing of the sort.

The so-called "total flip-flop" here is simply that - a skeptic once believed the Mogul explanation and now believes the government is hiding something else. Well, whoopee, Dr Fil! If this same skeptic said that that something else was aliens and/or alien craft, then I'd say let's put it in. But what does he say? He says he sees no evidence aliens were involved! And saying aliens can't be ruled out is not the same as saying this person now believes aliens were involved.

"C.J. wants those examples left in there, but a counter-example based on important eyewitness testimony he immediately wants to censor using some nonsensical rationale--Stefula still doesn't support the alien scenario. What does that have to do with anything?"

I am really quite amazed you can say that - what is this page about, Dr Fil? Is about an alleged alien recovery, or is it about an alleged government cover-up? If this was the "government cover up" page, which may or may not involve aliens, then Setfula's testimony would be pertinent. But it isn't, Dr Fil. It's about ALIENS. And this guy doesn't say he believes they landed at Roswell. Therefore his testimony is IRRELEVANT.

"I don't mind paring down Haut and referring readers elsewhere for more info, but a very quick summary of new and important witness testimony in the book seems highly relevant."

We had that summary already, Dr Fil, and as we have with other witnesses, there is that page of witness testimony and in the case of Haut - as you well know as you have edited it - he has his OWN page. I don't see anything wrong with what was presented initially. It was quite clearly stated that Haut's affidavit said he said there was a cover-up and aliens were seen. And others said similar things. Again, we are not making a case one way or the other, so we don't need to "corroborate" anything.

Besides, the Haut affidavit has already sparked another Friedman/Schmitt&Randle-style controversy within the community, and that is noted below. Others wanted to expand greatly the page to incorporate the Haut stuff, but the particular details aren't so important as the fact he states he saw aliens and engaged in a cover-up.

"But first-hand body witnesses Army photographer Frederick Benthal and MP Ed Sain aren't somehow new and relevant? Or more witnesses to the craft/body site? Or new eyewitnesses to the craft being driven through the town and to the base hangar? Or more witnesses to the bodies being guarded at the hangar or flown out the next day? Please explain that logic."

The logic is that a presidential candidate making comments about Roswell is something new and perhaps important. Noting that various new witnesses make statements about seeing aliens IS ALREADY MENTIONED in the book precis as it stood. You seem to think that "encyclopedia" is a synonym for "comprehensive" in that as much information as there is has to be squeezed into a page. Nonsense. You have to, as I have repeatedly stated, EMPLOY YOUR INTERNAL EDITOR. Your changes turned a description of this new book into the LONGEST section on the page! No one is "censoring" anything when they note the numerous new witnesses who state aliens, an alien cover-up and secretive operations instead of laboriously detailing those same statements! And, actually, Benthal's testimony isn't new - as we previously discussed. What is new is that he is identified by name and not initials. Correct me if I have this wrong, but his descriptions appeared in Schmitt/Randle in 1994.

"I see that Canada Jack has immediately deleted almost all my additions--twice now. I have had numerous run-ins with Canada Jack, who in my experience has never been sincere about actually discussing the material. Canada Jack plays his usual game of first hitting the delete button, then claiming he wants to discuss, then ignoring whatever I have to say."

When you, without any discussion, add 10,000 bytes of information to a page which is the result of a long and painful editing process, you are damn right I will revert, especially when almost all of your changes seek to either needlessly expand what is already there and therefore not "censored" or a counter-argument to something that detracts from the "case" you seem to want to emphasize.

This is not the prosecution vs the defence on Roswell, Dr Fil. It is a description of the event, the various scenarios proposed, and the critical responses. No conclusions are to be made from what here is presented. And, as one can quickly confirm, when you have done this in the past, I have reverted and requested a discussion - even suggesting that certain critiques, for example, are relevant but in the wrong place (in the midst of a description of, say, the Air Force report) and should be placed in the appropriate section.

Far from "ignoring" what you say, I address your points. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we don't have the past emphasis remaining on this page, which gave readers the strong impression that a cover-up had been enacted here, a cover-up of aliens, when that is the viewpoint of some but not the viewpoint of many others. Now we have something pretty close to a balanced presentation of views. And given that others here have agreed with me strongly on this approach, I suggest you engage instead of dumping your views on the page in the hope that CJ or someone else is napping on not paying attention.Canada Jack 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the changes Dr Fil has re-inserted. The extra stuff about Birnes counter-argument re the Haut affidavit I belief is relevant and, considering the source here, relatively concise.

But a) we don't need extraneous detail on new witnesses, Dr. Fil. And b) the skeptic who supposedly changed his mind now believes there is a government cover-up, but most likely of a nuclear event. Which is beyond the scope of this article which is focussed on the claims of aliens at Roswell. And c) placing a counter-point in a section detailing the poor research habits and false claims of Schmitt is turning the page into a court case where each point needs a rejoinder.

This time, Dr Fil, your reverts will be followed by censure. The changes were explained, no one came rushing to your defence, so I will move to have you blocked if you continue vandalizing the page. Your contributions are welcome. Imposing them are not. Canada Jack 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr Fil has re-inserted his changes again, despite my clearly stated reasons for their omission. This is your final notice, Dr Fil, another revert without a discussion identifying compelling reasons you have not stated for their inclusion will force me to seek a block as you are vandalizing the page. Canada Jack 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, as he has added yet another bunch of material, Dr Fil has added stuff about various skeptical authors for "balance," for example reports that Pflock had used an alias and engaged in a cattle mutilation hoax in the 80s to get a book deal and that Korff has made numerous oddball personal claims which one person is quoted makes him "seriously delusional." Even if all this stuff is 100 per cent true, it is, again COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. It is ONLY relevant if these claims are in any way connected to claims about Roswell. NONE of these claims have anything to do with Roswell. How does cattle mutilation negate the research Pflock did on Roswell? How does Korff claiming a high IQ negate the research he did for Roswell?

In contrast, the person for whom he seeks "balance" for here was caught lying about research he never did FOR ROSWELL. He further suggested a background in the sort of research work which would make him seem an "expert" in criminology, some skills which would be applicable in researching the various claims at Roswell. It was in fact revealed he had NO known academic credentials and was a mailman in Wisconsin. And he was disowned by his co-author for these very reasons.

THAT stuff is relevant.

Again, Dr Fil seeks to turn this into some sort of court case where every argument has to be met with a counter-argument. Even when that counter-argument has little or nothing to do with Roswell itself. Canada Jack 04:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Source

Hi Just Added A book by the USAF that was a very entertaining read.

Wow there is alot of information on this page...

jabbafett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbafett (talk • contribs) 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Omit dispute tags

It's now been four weeks since Dr Fil, without engaging in ANY discussion as to his actions, slapped "dispute" and "factual accuracy" tags on this page. He may disagree with some of the reverts I did, but he has so far refused to engage in ANY discussion since he added these tags and he has supplied NO justification for his "factual inaccuracy" tag.

I am therefore removing the tags. Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Roswell VS. Nikola Tesla...

  I am a bit tired here, so I shall make this quick...
  Has anybody realized the relationship between Nikola Teslas death and the dates of the Roswell incident(S)? 

Research the greatest inventor/ genius ever born and look at one of his biggest dreams... to create a craft that was propelled through the air by reactance to the earths magnetic feilds using high voltages. No wings, no motors, no propellors... No liqiud fuels. (Except for maybe water/glycol to cool off the tesla transformers.)

  When he died in New York City in 1939? His hotel room was immediately raided and almost every, if not all of his sketches, ideas, and formulas along with certain gadgets were confiscated and labeled as classified. 
  This craft in Roswell, NM. was the U.S. Armys early attempts to understand and manipulate Teslas designs. Bodies were found, I am absolutely sure, but they were not your typical aliens. They were the deformed bodies of the test pilots who not only hit the earth at a large rate of speed, but also crashed this/ these crafts which were surrounded by millions of volts of electricity. This accounts for the deformities and the ashen colors of their flesh. 

  For six days, the U.S. Army made public these finds, calling them the remains of a U.F.O. if only to mis-lead the public of their real doings. Six days later, the Pentagon stepped in, putting a halt to the publicity, creating a wall of silence, thus, giving life to all of your conspiracy theories. 

  You cannot trust freedom when it is not in your hands...

  Nor can you understand the consequences of "true" freedom.

  Research Nikolas Teslas ideas and inventions and create a time-line. See how the numbers coincide.

Dec. 11, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.246.5.220 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)