Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Roswell incident. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Gaming

GTA San Andreas has an Area 51 type area in the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foylepher (talk • contribs) 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Who cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.152.131 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't we add that? MKguy42192 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should Jabbafett (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"People" vs "UFO proponents"

Someone has seen fit to change the text from the opening paragraph which had read:

The United States military maintains that what was recovered was a top-secret research balloon that had crashed. Many UFO proponents believe the wreckage was of a crashed alien craft and that the military covered up the craft's recovery.

Instead of "many UFO proponents believe..." the text has been changed on several occasions to read "Many people believe..." While this may be true, it is an example of employing weasel words when the goal here is to employ language that is specific and verifiable. Saying "many people" is not only not attributed, what, one many reasonably ask, precisely does that mean? More than 10 people? Millions? What is easily verifiable is that many UFO proponents claim the incident involved aliens.

Besides, to employ this weasel-word logic, we should also rewrite the part about the United States military in a similar fashion to read: Many people believe that what was recovered was a top secret research balloon... which is as justifiable as the above. And equally meaningless. If one wants to make the point that a great number of people or a majority of people believe that aliens are real or that aliens landed at Roswell and the government is hiding that fact, that precise point can be found within the text of the article. See the section "New witness accounts and Roswell UFO books." Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, per my edits, and for the reasons you have given. To reiterate to those who disagree: "many UFO proponents" is much harder to believe than is "many people", when both are unsourced. (Please) Do not change "UFO proponents" to "people" without discussion and consensus. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to use the term "people" because I think it's more NPOV. Using the term "UFO Proponents" is a bit sketchy both as a term, and also it's pretty difficult to provide support for this. It's also pretty common knowledge that indeed many people, if not most people, do beleive in the alien explanation for the crash. AFO Proponents would probably be more valid as this implies that people beleive that the UFO that crashed was indeed an alien flying vehicle, perhaps a more neutral sentance could be constructed such as "Many people support an AFO (Alien Flying Vehicle) Hypothesis, as not to create a loosely defined construct of "UFO Proponents" which most people would most definately not associate themselves with, and is somewhat conspiracy theory like in meaning. John.Darville

I guess I don't believe that most people believe in the alien explanation. That should be sourced before it goes in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

John Darville's comments are utterly illogical. It's absurd to say that it's difficult to provide support for the claim that many UFO Proponents believe, but we should say that many people do -- if people in general believe there was an alien craft at Roswell, then surely UFO Proponents do! In any case, so-called "common knowledge" is often false, and is no basis for Wikipedia content. But it's a documented fact, from their own writings, that many (a large fraction of) UFO Proponents believe there was an alien craft; it's absurd to say that's POV. OTOH, to say "many people believe" is totally POV, since it's also true that many people disbelieve. -- 98.108.208.207 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "people" is that it is almost impossible to establish that claim. How do you establish that "many people" believe this? I've seen a poll in 1997 which might suggest that, but does that still hold true? Contrary to what John Darville states, we can establish that many UFO proponents (For example, Stanton Friedman, Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, all of whom in the past year have restated their belief that aliens were involved) do maintain that belief.

It seems very strange that, somehow, "UFO proponents" is considered to be a loaded POV term. But it is precisely those people who are making the claims and publishing the books which make the claims! "Many" is used here as there are numbers of UFO proponents who do not believe aliens were involved. And, again, I point out that we could make precisely the same case in terms of those who claim that some military program accounts for the reports of aliens. Or, how about "many witnesses" believe... we could do that in both cases. The reason who "the military maintains" and "UFO proponents claim" are there is because those are the people who are making the major claims! To pretend that the belief emerges from amongst regular everyday people ignores the fact that there are many regular everyday people from Roswell who claim that nothing alien was involved. But these people, as with those who say something was involved aren't the ones publishing the books or making the reports. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating in the intro "UFO proponents believe in UFOs" is a tautology, a completely useless phrase. I agree with the problems of using the world "people" but "UFO proponents" is far worse. The whole paragraph should be reworked to refer to claims made by the military vs claims made by "alleged witnesses", "UFO enthusiasts" perhaps, or something else entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The intro doesn't say "UFO proponents believe in UFOs," it says "many UFO proponents maintain that in fact a crashed alien craft and bodies were recovered..." which is not a "tautology." I feel "UFO proponents" is best as it is these people who are publishing books etc claiming what the phrase says. The key here is who is making the claims. The US military made several claims about what the debris was in 1947, and again in the 1990s. And, since many of the witnesses who claimed they saw something may have not been describing actual aliens (by their own descriptions) or events linked to Roswell itself, it is more accurate to say that "UFO proponents" claim aliens are linked. The first book from 1980, for example, cites no witness who actually claimed to have seen aliens at Roswell, the book's authors maintain events witnessed by the witnesses were linked to Roswell, a point underlined by the Air Force. (Later, people like Glenn Dennis claimed to have seen aliens, but there are wars within the UFO community over who is a reliable truth-telling witness, so if we say witness A and B claim "alien," well authors A and B say "liar" while advocating witness C and D.) Canada Jack (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

# 6 Other unknown claims

Is there any reason why this unreferenced poorly written paragraph shouldn't be removed entirely?Derekbd (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It usually helps to be specific before you start complaining. What is your particular problem with the article which, as far as I can see, is laden down with a ton of references? Canada Jack (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Now I can see.... And you were specific... Thought this had to do with the citation tag. Sorry, Derek. I took it out. I will no go back to sleep. Canada Jack (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. <g> Sleep well.Derekbd (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To: "Agentleman" (who didn't sign his msg on my talk page and has no user page or talk page himself) ... Re:

Derek Before taking it upon yourself to delete something like the above mentioned artical, give some of us with about 30yrs experiance a chance to verify some of the claims and information given in an artical. I am hoping the person who posted this re-posts it! If you don't like how it was written, or that it was a pooly written artical thats your business but don't choose for the rest of us who read the content and not the grammer.

If you look closely I didn't delete anything on the page (see above and check the history: it was CanadaJack, who I understand has worked on this page for quite some time) I merely raised the question of it here (again, see above.) What 30 years experience are you talking about? I have over 35 years experience with written English. And what does "hoping the person who posted this re-posts it" mean? Anything that was deleted on Wikipedia is easily retrievable. Your attitude is quite condescending for someone who apparently doesn't even know how Wikipedia works.Derekbd (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the passage as it was a complete mess. Here was the first line: There are other reports that the wreckage(disc), and or bodies(one alive)the military sent to Wright -Patterson made two other stops before reaching it's final resting place. Just ignoring the content, there are six typos I can see in that opening line. And it doesn't get any better. I could comment further, but I'll let that suffice. If you care to add a new section (or defend someone else who did so), you might do yourself a favour by making an even bare attempt to copy-edit, let alone post any reference for this. As it stood, it made some rather amazing claims with not even a hint of a citation, let alone corroboration. Which is why I described this stuff as "nonsense." And before you start screaming "censor," I am the one who wrote almost all the text on this page which describes the alien and alien spacecraft claims.

But, since I can't resist, here is another line: Seems Alien DNA mixed with humane DNA may have produced the first hybids born in the late 1940's to the mid to late 1950's there. Now we know were all the Sixties peaceniks came from - all that "humane" DNA! But I am curious to know about these "hybids" mentioned. Are these the same "hybids" which led to the recent real estate bubble? Canada Jack (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

anon Give Agentleman a break! Pompas a@#! He did'nt post the article. In addition, it is clear that you, and several others have been here at Wiki way to long. Your arrogant, self righteous attitudes are frankly an over compensation for some other personal issues. You and several others thrive on conflict with the sarcasm of 13 year old juvenile delinquents. Give us all a break guys! Get a life, an get off the Wiki. We know you have contributed a massive amount of time and effort, but it’s time to move on! “Poor social skills are indicitive of a lack in proper adult personality development.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.194.25 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is acting like a self-righteous 13-year-old, it is the timid poster above, too frightened too even bother identify himself in any meaningful way, but ready to suggest that I, somehow, am some sort of closeted virgin expressing my sexual and social frustration via diatribes... Why? Because I (gasp) suggested that the text in question was not only inadequate, it was laughably inadequate! Here, again, is one of the howlers: Seems Alien DNA mixed with humane DNA may have produced the first hybids born in the late 1940's to the mid to late 1950's there.

The reason I chose not to take this seriously is because it was clear whoever posted this wasn't serious. Why? Because the original poster (and if you care to reread my post, you would see that I didn't say that agentleman wrote the post) couldn't even be bothered to copy edit the text in even the most rudimentary way!

And I, again, point out that it was I who in large part wrote this article, including the sections which describe aliens and their craft being recovered at or about Roswell. So my objection is not with the content of the post, it is with the slap-dash manner in which it appeared (no attempt to copy-edit, no references - none - to the extraordinary claims made) and to the over-reaction by some - like yourself - to the deletion of the text as if it is up to us to copy-edit the section for you or whomever posted it, and to search out the references to these claims. Even my six-year-old knows what needs to be done when I see her do some homework half-assed and I say "do it again." She may moan, but she knows she's got to do the job. So I have to ask: What's your excuse? Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the interest of the others, I had my suspicions given some of the typos that this "64" was the same person who wrote the piece in question. So, I checked and, indeed, it would seem to be the same person, given the IP address matches. So, not only is this person hiding behind an IP address, he is too timid to admit he wrote the section in question, or at least knows who wrote the section in question. But, then again, if he believes all that stuff, he might be afraid that I am not who I claim to be... Mwahahahahha! Canada Jack (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Canada: Its because Agentleman is my older brother and I didnt know how to edit using this. Im only 7. This is a school computer so it has the same ip for everyone who uses it. I guess you think Im just a dumb girl. I think someone else wrote some of this stuff besides me. I wont try to helpor write on here anymore. Lori Beckman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.194.25 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be hard on yourself, Lori. And Canada Jack....Don't laugh like that. It would sound wierd.MKguy42192 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

UFOS Physical Proof of Alien Visitation

I saw excerpts of a documentary where a researcher claimed to have tested a piece he called "The Roswell Piece" in laboratories. The laboratories allegedly reported back that it was extraterrestrial. It can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPAuku46SfI Does such a piece really exist, or is it just a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.158.138 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true. I am Sub-Commander Bumblefuk, of the Xeronian Star Hegemony. I will revel my existence on December 13, 2010 on NBC. Be ready for that and, until then, watch Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.68.164.3.118 (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? From the documentary, all we are told is that they received this hunk of stuff and tested it. The problem is there is no indication that this object in fact came from anything associated from Roswell, and since the person who had this seems to have chosen to remain anonymous, serious doubts have to be raised. In other words, the onus is on those making the claims to establish that what they have is what they claim it to be. Looks like a piece of a meteorite to me.

If this was a serious claim, one would expect to have something akin to what one would have if, say, an ancient carving was found and said to cast new light on, say, the Mayans, or early Christianity. I would say that a claim that an object proves we were visited by aliens would require a pretty strong set of evidence beyond simply testing the object. First, we'd want a lot of evidence to establish the provenance of the object in question. Where, exactly, was the object found? When, exactly, was the object found? What were the circumstances of its discovery? And what was the chain of custody? And what proof can be supplied to back all this up? None of these questions were addressed in the documentary, and since I have never heard of this claim before (and I most certainly would have if anyone besides the producers of the documentary took this seriously) I seriously doubt that anyone here did a bona fide investigation here. Kinda reminds me of that "Jesus" ossuary a few years back. Canada Jack (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

+ Give Agentleman a break! Pompas a@#! He did'nt post the article. In addition, it is clear that you, and several others have been here at Wiki way to long. Your arrogant, self righteous attitudes are frankly an over compensation for some other personal issues. You and several others thrive on conflict with the sarcasm of 13 year old juvenile delinquents. Give us all a break guys! Get a life, an get off the Wiki. We know you have contributed a massive amount of time and effort, but it’s time to move on! “Poor social skills are indicitive of a lack in proper adult personality development

That's nice. Very well balanced. Can you sit down so that we talk some more about "lack of proper adult personality development"... Setwisohi (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

19.47 Latitude

It may be more than coincidence that the Roswell Crash was in 1947 and Nassim Haramein has valid reason to believe that Latitude 19.47 is an extremely important point on any asteroid, including for Extra Terrestrial interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.21.14 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsensical on multiple levels. -- 98.108.208.207 (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Extremely. MKguy42192 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the best latitude for out-of-this-world encounters is 69.68.164.3.118 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

'It is likely'?

The last sentence in the first paragraph does not seem to me to be neutral. Is there a better way of phrasing that?

59.101.68.229 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Do you have some reason to think Roswell isn't likely to be the most famous alleged UFO incident? Perhaps it should be rephrased, but not because it violates NPOV -- it doesn't, not even close. -- 98.108.208.207 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I had an attribution for that statement and it seems to have been omitted, so I will try to find it. Canada Jack (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the line has been changed, but for the record, the Skeptic magazine article which is used as references elsewhere starts with this statement on page 60: "During the last decades of the 20th century the alleged flying saucer crash at Roswell developed into the UFO world's most influential and celebrated myth.... During the 1980s and 1990s Roswell became popular culture's archetypal recovered UFO tale..." Then, on page 73, "Roswell is the world's most famous... UFO claim." And, from "UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth" on page x we have this: "...the event that members of the [UFO] community regard as the single most important UFO case is the alleged government cover-up of the recovery of a crashed flying saucer and the bodies of its crew at a site near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947." So, we can either re-insert the old phrase with these citations (and I'm sure it would be easy to get more) or keep the more neutral one there now. Canada Jack (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Way too much information.

This article has grown out of control, as editors add whatever facts they think are interesting or relevant without any concern about organization. The section on Air Force and skeptics' response, for instance, goes into far too much detail on problems with witness accounts. This is an encyclopedia article, not a complete source on Roswell. Seems to me the whole subsection on witness accounts should be reduced to about two paragraphs, maybe three, with sufficient references for interested readers. Similar criticisms apply to the Recent developments section. If the Haut book demands such attention, let's give it an article and reduce its presence here. As it is, discussion of Haut's book takes up about as much space as the sections on Background and Contemporary accounts of materials found combined. That's just nuts. Phiwum (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though more with the recent developments section. As for the witness accounts, it seems to me that the existence of a page the size of this one dedicated solely to witness accounts (with a link on there from the witness account section) requires the main responses from the skeptics. Sure it can be shortened, but charting the main responses to a page of 71,000+ bytes with "two paragraphs, maybe three" seems overly skimpy. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. This article is so out of control that users think they can add anything related to or that speaks of the Roswell incident. Only exact or related witness accounts are needed, not accounts that are completely unrelated stories or folklore that you can read from a fairy tail. This is Wikipedia, people!!! MKguy42192 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as somebody just popping in, this is WAAAAAAAY too much. Just because theres's a pro and con doesn't mean each and every example needs to be layed out - go read a book. "Some agree, some don't" is too simple, but not by much. Just like the UFO article, it reads like an agenda for two sides blowing it up bigger and bigger all the time. The writing is not POV, but the article as a whole is. This whole article could, and should be 1/3 the size it is - plus it's wordy, too. Jjdon (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I wrote most of the body here, I will substantially shorten Sections 3, 4 and 5, i.e. "Alien Accounts Emerge," "Air Force and skeptics respond" and "Recent developments." I'll get around to those sooner than later... Canada Jack (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Edgar Mitchell Apollo 14 astronaut went on record stating it is true

Dr. Edgar Mitchell just recently went on record on July 25th stating the government is aware that Roswell is a real visitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.134.162 (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Mitchell was saying as long ago as 1998 that he had seen files confirming a cover-up of aliens. However, now he is saying he grew up in the Roswell area and knew old-timers there who "confirmed" a cover-up. In other words, this is old news. Canada Jack (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell actually talked more about that statement in the Disclosure Project Book. atomicrockerdude (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect Dark 64

In the Nintendo 64 game perfect dark there are 3 missions which take place in Area 51. They contain references to the aliens and spaceships suspected to be found at Roswell. I believe this should be added to the 'Video Games' section. Cavetroll33 (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Philip Corso's claim cannot be so easily dismissed

Why is it that nothing of Philip Corso's work is here? AS the head of the foreign technology desk at the pentagon, most of the recovered technology passed through his hands yet his accounts are not here.

You could carpet the world with 'eyewitness' accounts til your blue in the face but this recounting by an Pentagon official holds more weight than all the eyewitness accounts. In my opinion.

Just wondering why more details about his experiences are not listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.134.2 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

He could garner a mention in the "new developments" section, but his claims, a full half-century after the events in question, are not taken seriously by most. In fact, his claims are so full of holes, it is amazing he got published in the first place. Stanton Friedman, who arguably started the investigation into Roswell, points out some very big problems with his claims. [1] He and other pro-alien researchers feared that Corsi would be exposed as a fraud and the field thus discredited. They were correct. His claims of reverse-engineered technology is clearly false as, for example, transistors were in development years before he claimed to farm out the technology, an easily verifiable fact. Let alone his claim that he, and not any one of the many engineers, physicists or scientists at the government's beck and call, should be asked, in 1961, to reverse-engineer all this stuff. His qualifications? He was an Industrial Arts major. (!) And the small detail about the Strom Thurmond forward, clearly written for a subject Corsi told him which was not the actual subject of the book. But for a good rundown of the clearly false claims (much easily verifiable), check out this. [2] Canada Jack (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I would like to know.. I just finished reading "The Day After Roswell" by COLONEL Phillip Corso. Clearly, the ones who wrote this article don't want definately proof of the validity of the Roswell incident. If it can be debunked, they do whatever they can to debunk the story, hence why Corso is not even mentioned. Pffffffft. - Kevin Palmer, January 3, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iroquoisfalls (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you are new this, Kevin. Most of the pro-Roswell authors are embarrassed by the "revelations" by Corso. Why? Because they are seen, even by those who hold beliefs on the margins, as being even too wacky for them. Perhaps, for you, seeing "COLONEL" makes common sense and reason vacate the premises as you seem intent on embracing a story even most of the wackiest Roswell believers find far-fetched. I suggest you not embrace the story until you've done some research, might try the link I provided above.

And, again, I did suggest his claims could garner mention in the "new developments" section. Why don't you go ahead and insert something? Canada Jack (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This claim that "Most of the pro-Roswell authors" are embarrassed by Corso's revelations is simply not true. I've read dozens of books on the subject and surprisingly a vast majority of them confirm Corso's revelations in one way or another. There are obviously minor discrepancies between reports from various individuals, but the overall assessment is roughly the same - something interesting was picked up that night and it's highly unlikely it had anything to do with Project Mogul. Whoever wrote that ill-informed comment has not done their research, it's as simple as that. Whether you believe in UFO's or not, this article is clearly biased toward the latter - especially considering it goes out of it's way to debunk so many claims with 'facts' that are not any more reliable than those in Corso's book. Sorry. The truth hurts. joelpop (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

survivors?

I keep hearing confliciting reports on how many ETs supposedly survived the crash

==That;s part of the problem in terms of credibility with the accounts of the incidents. While we can explain away how there may be a discrepancy with the number of corpses, it's not so easy to explain away what must be about a dozen different claimed crashed sites. Even the pro-Roswell investigators disagree. Last I checked, the three main guys - Friedman, Randle and Schmitt - argue for three distinct and separate crash sites. Canada Jack (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tech Boom

It was after this incident that many techological advancments came. X-ray, cell phones, all produced in a, for the most part, quick time. This may a coincident but I think it deserves mention.

No original research. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to change the entire article

There have been signs that none of this is about aliens, but about God. We should make this more religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.224.229 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about no?--Uksam88 (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with Uksam88. Well put sir/madam. But the article could do with a good tidying up all the same. Far too much crankiness and complete BS on there. Setwisohi (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Astronauts and claims about UFO's

Buzz Aldrin talked in a few documentaries about the UFO subject

Edgar Mitchell answered questions about the topic on a radio show, in the Disclosure Project book, and on a few documentaries.

Gordon Cooper talked in the some documentaries and the Disclosure Project book about UFO's and the "Foo fighter" sightings when he was a WWII fighter pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicrockerdude (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant? The article is about a specific incident. Canada Jack (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Roswell in Hoyle series

Near the end

Recently, in the Hoyle Puzzles and Board Games of 2008, a feature was incorporated wherein the player was allowed to play against a green alien with black eyes, and a humorous personality, who goes by the name of Roswell.

The "Roswell" character in Hoyle Series has been there since Hoyle Board Games 4 / Hoyle Card Games 4 (2001-ish)

The said Roswell though, has a very "digital" sound and his head glows when he speaks.

Rubycored (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Location

Sources say the crash site is 30 miles north of Roswell, yet one book claims Corona is closer. A spot 30 miles north of Roswell is about 67 miles ESE of Corona, NM. ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.13 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are at least a dozen claimed crash sites for whatever landed at Roswell. Canada Jack (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This article may be propaganda itself

It seems the record itself of "conspiracy theorists" have been diluted or molested.

While The facts seem to be directly relative to the decade and populous desire for classified information. According to this article, William "Mac" Brazel found "large area of bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.". This so called quote is made laughable when Wikipedia's own article on tinfoil states its being replaced by aluminum foil in 1910. 30 yrs prior the supposed discovery of tinfoil and sticks. In addition reports of this incident 10 years ago mention a "metal substance that when crumpled seemed to repair itself". This behavior is in no way confusing with the properties of tin or aluminum foil, which was a popular cooking utensil thus well known behaviorally.

This article itself seems to insult the intelligence of the populous by asserting indirectly that William "Mac" Brazel would be so uneducated as to find a "balloon" clearly made from rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper, sticks, considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it" as something even worthy of reporting to anybody. Had this been the case in the construction material would anyone reading this give it a second thought as anything but a science project? Do you really think the US military conducts prototypes with flowery scotch tape? As apparently this article asserts this was a military experiment.

"no metal was found at the sight" .... really? ... really? ... wow

I have been very supportive of Wikipedia throughout its life and this is the first time i have run across such an article with so many fallacies and contradictions apparent. "The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been 12 feet long, [Brazel] " here's two fun filled facts for you. The only report of a "balloon" was from the FBI, AFTER several UFO civilian reports were made. The discoverer of the material never found or saw a "balloon". Fun fact number 2, In the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves there was a scene cut from the theater version which included Kevin Costner attempting to plunder a bow salesman only to have the salesman join his ranks by request. How are the two related? It seems when memories are forgotten so are truths.

I suggest this article be completely deleted and rewritten by a neutral source. Neutral by way of having no vested interest in the US government positive or negative. then locked to prevent vandalism. I apologize if this comes of as "another conspiracy nut rant". I am willing to accept either any version of this story so long as it doesn't have so many obvious discrepancies. Good luck Wikipedia, This article is clearly out of control. 68.38.13.24 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Marek

It seems the record itself of "conspiracy theorists" have been diluted or molested. While The facts seem to be directly relative to the decade and populous desire for classified information.

I've read the above sentences a half dozen times and I still can't figure out what you are trying to say.

This so called quote is made laughable when Wikipedia's own article on tinfoil states its being replaced by aluminum foil in 1910. And... so what? The "so-called quote" is a direct quote from the news accounts of 1947. The fallacy you are suggesting here is that the Roswell Daily News did a metallurgical exam, or reported a metallurgical exam, of the material recovered. News flash, Markek, people today typically call aluminum foil "tin foil" when it may be no so thing.(!)

In addition reports of this incident 10 years ago mention a "metal substance that when crumpled seemed to repair itself". Perhaps you should actually read the article, Marek. It quite plainly mentions the exotic claims on the material. Those claims are first mentioned, in the article, from the 1980 "Roswell" book. 2009-1980 = 29 years ago. Trouble is, others who handled the material made no such claims.

This article itself seems to insult the intelligence of the populous by asserting indirectly that William "Mac" Brazel would be so uneducated as to find a "balloon" clearly made from rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper, sticks, considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it" as something even worthy of reporting to anybody.

Which is why a good many UFO researchers dismiss this incident as having anything to do with aliens. Like it or not, Marek, those descriptions were the descriptions from 1947, from witnesses like Marcel, etc., and, not incidentally, what ALL the initial witnesses described up to the early 1980s! What goes unmentioned in the article is that Brazel saw the material and did NOTHING for several days - until he heard there was a reward for supplying one of the "flying saucers" which had been in the media reports that week. One wonders, if this was such an incredible find, why he didn't bother to do anything with it until he heard there was money involved?

"no metal was found at the sight" .... really? ... really? ... wow If you can find a contemporary report of metal at the site, Marek, let's see it.

The only report of a "balloon" was from the FBI, AFTER several UFO civilian reports were made. The discoverer of the material never found or saw a "balloon". Clearly, your ability to read and comprehend is lacking. No one, except you, is claiming anything different here. The first mention of "balloon" in the contemporary accounts - indeed the ONLY mention of "balloon" in the contemporary accounts - is from the very FBI telex you refer to here!

I suggest this article be completely deleted and rewritten by a neutral source. Neutral by way of having no vested interest in the US government positive or negative. then locked to prevent vandalism. I apologize if this comes of as "another conspiracy nut rant". I am willing to accept either any version of this story so long as it doesn't have so many obvious discrepancies. Good luck Wikipedia, This article is clearly out of control.

I suggest you actually read the article you so roundly critique, since your critiques are inane. For one, I wrote most of the article, and I have to ask you what "vested interest in the US government" would I possibly have, since I am, as you might discern from my name, a CANADIAN?

Bottom line, Marek, you are entitled to your own opinions on a matter, you are not entitled to your own facts. The article simply reports a) what was initially said, in 1947, on the incident, b) what various books claimed over the years on the incident and c) what skeptics claim in response. And, like it or not, what was described in 1947 doesn't amount to very much, which is why many UFO researchers believe that this was, in the end, some sort of weather balloon. And that's a fact. Canada Jack (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"And, like it or not, what was described in 1947 doesn't amount to very much"

Maybe i have misunderstood your intention in the article. For your assistance [vested - Adj. - Property law having an existing interest to the immediate or future possession of property] Please understand this in a larger concept as i have intended. If it would please you to metaphorically think of the board game "Risk" it may help. In addition to imply that statements made in 1947 do not amount to much, seems to say as well that information closest to the source is somehow less accurate then speculation.

You defend your article as expected and i salute you for that good sir. However It seems that you do not address the actual concerns in my statement and instead focus on derogatory terms to describe the questions. Again for your assistance [ inane - Adj - senseless or silly ] . As in "your critiques are inane". Please focus on the questionable nature and contradicting facts as aforementioned. Again I apologize if there is a misunderstanding on my part. 68.38.13.24 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Marek

Marek, your grasp of English is a bit uneasy, so I apologize for having some fun with you there.

In addition to imply that statements made in 1947 do not amount to much, seems to say as well that information closest to the source is somehow less accurate then speculation.

What was reported in 1947 does not amount to much. Not sure how one could conclude otherwise, which suggests to me you have misread and/or misunderstood the section. So what, precisely, are you saying here? That I am dismissing statements from 1947? I don't "dismiss" them, I simply underline the fact that it is hard to see anything "alien" from these accounts. YOU are the one who says only the FBI says "balloon," (which is the only "balloon" mentioned in the text), that press accounts of "no metal," is readily to be dismissed with "really? ... really? ... wow", what have you. But these are the original 1947 accounts! Verbatim! From your previous, sneering comments, YOU are the one dismissing the original 1947 accounts, YOU are the one "speculating" that the original information is suspect compared to your views derived it would seem from much later accounts.

However It seems that you do not address the actual concerns in my statement and instead focus on derogatory terms to describe the questions. I addressed the questions, but described them as "inane" because, since you describe problems with the text which do not exist you obviously did not read the text in question or comprehend what you read. Not sure what your problem is here.

I've, again, specifically addressed what it seems you are trying to address. But the problems you seem to be flagging don't exist with the text as it stands. This may be either a problem with how you express the problem or a misreading of the intention of the various sections of text you talk about. So, why not read the entire text of the article top to bottom, remembering that the intention is not to wade into various debates over the evidence, but to a) identify the sequence of events and claims as per the contemporary accounts, i.e., what was actually reported in 1947, b) move on to the evolution of the various claims of what "really" happened, i.e. claims of aliens, a cover up, various crash sites, etc, c) then go to the skeptical accounts from the Air Force, from others. So, for example, while you may say "but what about foil which uncrumples" etc, well, that was not reported in 1947, it was reported in 1980, and those claims about materials are mentioned in the place they appeared. Canada Jack (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Valid resources ?

How reliable are these sites as a list to references

 roswellfiles.com 
 ufodigest.com
 ufoevidence.org (does not work atm)

Seems to me that a site with flying saucers in their logo (roswellfiles.com) might not be the neutrality you want in a source of such a controversial material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.143.45 (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, if an article is discussing what some may call "out there" consipracy theories etc., then it is entirely appropriate to directly cite some of those people. As long as the only "facts" being established are whether the claims are actually being made, as opposed to implying that the claims are true (and, hopefully, the article is written so that it is clear that this is what is being claimed by those who see one side of an argument being true), we should be on firm ground. Canada Jack (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, 213..., but neutrality is required of WP articles, not of sources. Outside of WP NPOV doesn't exist. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alien Accounts?

Shouldn't this be "Witness Accounts"? Or did they interview aliens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.3.180 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Link defunct

Fyi:

Link defunct: “The Roswell Report: Case Closed,” Appendix C, "Transcript of interview with W. Glenn Dennis", interview with Karl T. Pflock, November 2, 1992, p. 211-226, James McAndrews, Headquarters United States Air Force, 1997 http://www.gl.iit.edu/wadc/history/Roswell/roswell.pdf 7bells (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Link defunct: Ref. 5 “The Roswell Report: Case Closed,” Appendix C, "Transcript of interview with W. Glenn Dennis", interview with Karl T. Pflock, November 2, 1992, p. 211-226, James McAndrews, Headquarters United States Air Force, 1997 http://www.gl.iit.edu/wadc/history/Roswell/roswell.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7bells (talk • contribs) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Date of find

The beginning of the section "Contemporary accounts of materials found" dealing with the date of the find says, "On the 14th of June 1947 William "Mac" Brazel noticed some strange clusters of debris while working on the Foster homestead." That is not correct. The date is controversial.

Then the section reads, "This exact date (or "about three weeks" before July 8) is a point of contention [ref. 10] but is repeated in several initial accounts, in particular the stories that quote Brazel and in a telex sent a few hours after the story broke." There is only one person who would know the date of the find, Mac Brazel, and he gave differing accounts. This difference is a matter of "contention", not the resulting press telexes, which, of course, differ also. The USAF could not establish the 24 June date, the conclusion of Col Weaver regarding Mogul Flight No. 4 reads, "most likely."

Then there is a reference [10] with a statement playing the role of judge on the plausibility of one of the dates. There is no literature etc. quoted, so this statement obviously is "original research" or original concluding respectively and POV.

The facts are that the date (and the features of the material) cannot be proved, the opponents have to rely on newspapers, witness accounts and expertise. The task would be to put that in adequate wording. I have tried to do that. 7bells (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in your haste here, 7, you somewhat missed the point of the section. It is to describe the contemporary accounts. Not to wade deeply into the controversies. When it comes to the precise date of the find, I opted with the contemporary sources which seem to be closest to Brazel, which quote him at June 14th. Other accounts say "early last week," but they are at best third-hand accounts, even fourth-hand accounts. Nevertheless, the difference and the point of contention is noted. If you have a source which quotes Brazel as saying June 24th, we could certainly add that.

There is only one person who would know the date of the find, Mac Brazel, and he gave differing accounts. The ones I've seen which are apparant first-hand or second-hand accounts say "three weeks" or "June 14." If there is, in addition, a June 24th, we should add that.

The USAF could not establish the 24 June date, the conclusion of Col Weaver regarding Mogul Flight No. 4 reads, "most likely." Not sure of the relevance of that remark. The section quite clearly stated that the exact date was open to debate. The Air Force's statements were issued nearly a half century after the contemporary comments we seek.

Then there is a reference [10] with a statement playing the role of judge on the plausibility of one of the dates. There is no literature etc. quoted, so this statement obviously is "original research" or original concluding respectively and POV.

I have no clue as to what you are talking about here. The reference in question simply states why this is an issue - for many UFO proponents, they discuss scenarios with crash events circa July 2. Therefore, if the object in question crashed June 14, they are not connected. If the object Brazel found was in fact first seen on or about June 14th, many scenarios suggested by authors suggesting the recovery of an alien craft would not be plausible, as most of these scenarios offer witness statements from those who saw or heard an object fall to earth in the early days of July. The issue of an exact date is not a problem for those who suggest a Project Mogul device was the source of the debris as the most frequently cited balloon train source of the debris flew in early June, so any debris found afterwards could be accounted for.

The note says NOTHING about the "correctness" of any particular date. The article simply states that the "June 14" date seems to be coming most directly from Brazel (which is what many, including pro-UFO authors in fact argue). And, even if we COULD establish that Brazel said that date for a fact, as noted later in the article, UFO proponents say that Brazel was coerced into saying that date. Which is why the debate is later, though because of the discrepancy, the issue is mentioned here first.

However, if this doesn't clarify matters and you still feel we need a rewrite, let's discuss some fixes. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Canada Jack, thanks for you detailed reply. First let me say I confused the 14 and the 24 of June (may be because of Kenneth Arnold's sighting date sticking in my head). Of course, it has to be the 14 June.

The first paragraph of Date of Find does not state in a neutral way that the date of the find is controversial but obviously favors the 14 June date adding "repeated in several initial accounts, in particular the stories that quote Brazel and in a telex sent a few hours after the story broke quoting Sheriff George Wilcox". That is what I stumbled upon.

Maybe I missed something, so let me ask: First, when you talk about the "several initial accounts" - which accounts do you mean? I know of only one account from the original source of the 14 June date, Mac Brazel himself, in the press (10 July). And what about the telex, I don't know about a telex quoting Wilcox stating the 14 June (besides, he also would only repeat what Brazel said 10 July, and mere repetitions do not put any more credence to the repeated, right?). --7bells (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The first press release from the Roswell base said "sometime last week," or words to that effect, and that date is quoted by UP from the base people. Later that afternoon, a telex update in which Sherrif Wilcox is quoted says "three weeks ago," (i.e. circa June 14th) which was issued before the press conference was held in which Brazel said "June 14." (see note 11 for links) Then, in stories actually (apparently) quoting Brazel, we get the "June 14" date.

Let's be clear here - I am not trying to "prove" a date is the "right" date, I am simply trying to establish what in fact was claimed. Since Brazel seems to supply the June 14 date, THAT is the one closest to the source. This is somewhat corroborated by the Sherrif, a second-hand source. However, the Roswell base which issued the first report said "sometime last week," so that date has to be mentioned.

But, recall, most if not all UFO researchers say that Brazel, indeed, said "June 14," but say that he was coerced into stating that date and that the "true" date was mistakenly issued in the initial press release, i.e. "last week." But for the purposes of the section, which simply reproduces what was initially stated, back in 1947, we need not wade into the claims or counter-claims. The later claims that Brazel was coerced into changing the date of discovery are fully explored later in the article. Indeed, the very existence of the two dates is evidence, say the UFO researchers, of a cover-up. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As for your argument that the way the date issue is phrased is POV, while I don't think it is, perhaps you have a suggestion or perhaps I can suggest a better phrase? Canada Jack (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I looked at Ref. 11 leading to David Rudiak's website page about the first telexes. He notes that the UP telex - you obviously have in mind and which was allegedly saved by Frank Joyce - shows several inconsistencies, one of which is the odd time line, the other the fact that the UP telex does not quote Marcel but "Sheriff Wilson" [sic] instead. Obviously there are difficulties with this UP telex. So it should be disregarded.

But as you say - and that is my opinion, too - one should not try to prove the right date. So one has to find one or two sentences which avoid taking sides. But your first sentence, although the controversy later is mentioned, does nevertheless make the impression that 14 June was right by stating, "On the 14th of June 1947 William 'Mac' Brazel noticed some strange clusters of debris." This is not a wording that avoids taking sides, and it changes nothing that afterwards the controversy about the date is mentioned, especially since you try to underpin you view by arguments without giving the arguments for the other dates to balance this.

Whereas I tried to find a wording that avoids stressing one side of the controversy, and, by the way, tries to find a way to fit the date issue with the heading "Contemporary accounts of materials found" which makes the sentence about the date controversy look quite displaced. I entered,

The definite features of the debris found by William "Mac" Brazel - foreman of the Foster homestead, some north of Roswell - as well as the exact date of the discovery cannot be finally and absolutely established. As to the date of the find, Mac Brazel first had stated "sometime last week" (Roswell Daily Record, July 8), but shortly thereafter he gave another story stating "14 June" (statement at Roswell Daily Record, July 9), i.e. about three weeks earlier. The UFO-crash proponents are of the opinion to have a strong case for the first week of July to be the right period of time, whereas the US Air Force - and the skeptics - point out the date June 14 as the right date based on the 1994/5 USAF study that "indicate(s) that the most likely source of the wreckage recovered from the Brazel Ranch was from one of the Project Mogul balloon trains," i.e. Flight No. 4 launched June 4.

I think this gives the facts as they are. There is no attempt to find out what or who is right. There is no part which makes the impression to stress - if subtly - one view or tries to judge the plausibility of one of the sides. I don't see what is wrong with it, sorry, whereas your sentence is - or at least makes the impression - to take the 14 June for granted, even if the controversy then comes into play.

So I would strongly propose to enter my correction.

Then there is this reference [10] which does not give a reference (source) but a statement (as if the reference where a footnote) playing the role of judge on the plausibility of one of the dates. This is exactly what should be avoidd. Furthermore, there is no literature etc. quoted, so this statement obviously is a personal consideration and therefore POV. I mean... 7bells (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

7, with respect, I think you are missing some fundamental points here. For one, EVERYONE agrees that Marcel in fact said "June 14th," both UFO believers and skeptics, and for the purposes of the section which limits itself to accounts from CONTEMPORARY sources, that is sufficient.

If you wish, I could get multiple pro-ufo citations which state that Brazel in fact said "June 14." This is a major part of their argument, that Brazel in fact said this. It is not controversial. What IS controversial is whether he ever said another date. Pro-UFO people say he did, skeptics suggest he did not. But all we have from the contemporary accounts is a press release which didn't quote Brazel saying "last week." So, to suggest that Brazel said "last week" is POV as we don't know, from the original sources, if he ever did. Some argue he did, but those ARGUMENTS are found later in the article.

You are attempting to change this into a debate over evidence, which is already on the page in the appropriate sections. The issue becomes in those sections not whether Brazel said "last week" or "June 14," it becomes whether he was coerced into saying June 14th or not coerced into saying June 14.

Then there is this reference [10] which does not give a reference (source) but a statement (as if the reference where a footnote) playing the role of judge on the plausibility of one of the dates. This is exactly what should be avoidd. Furthermore, there is no literature etc. quoted, so this statement obviously is a personal consideration and therefore POV. I mean...

What are you talking about? What in the note suggests one date is correct and the other is not? It simply explains why the date makes a difference in terms of workable scenarios as it is not clear why this date should be an issue if one is not aware of the much later UFO scenarios suggested. For those who say a Mogul balloon was found, any of the dates is fine. But, for those who say the debris was associated with some object which fell on July 2 or so, obviously nothing first seen on June 14 could be associated with that object. Which is precisely why ufo researchers suggest Brazel was coerced into changing the date to June 14. If you want me to get a source which says what the note says - that the June 14 date makes most ufo scenarios implausible - well, there are dozens of sources, I can supply one on Monday. Canada Jack (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Canadian Jack, first let me say that I did not expect such a long discussion. I did not think that it would be so difficult to agree upon a wording that would - from the start - appropriately present the controversy about the date of find.

I am not quite sure what to think about this long discussion.

Yes, you are right, "everyone agrees that Marcel [sic] in fact said 'June 14th,' both UFO believers and skeptics". He (Brazel) is quoted as saying so July 9 (Roswell Daily Record, "Harassed Rancher…"). But everyone also agrees that the first press release initiated by RAAF (July 8) said "… Roswell Army Air Field was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers … flying object landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week," and it would seem hard to believe that RAAF invented the dating instead of basing it on what the finder, Mac Brazel, said, right?

So Brazel gave two different accounts as to the date. And this is exactly the starting point of the controversy because had Brazel stated only one date there could not be any controversy, not about the date, and this - and only this (not the "cover-up", don't mix that up, please) - is the issue here.

Now, is it your responsibility to decide which date is more "plausible" and try to back that up by personal WP:original research in the Internet, or should Wikipedia leave that to the reader (the opponents in the UFO field, respectively?

Besides, I actually don't see any need to mention the date issue in the section "Contemporary accounts of the materials found," it seems somewhat displaced... --7bells (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The underlying purpose of the section is not to establish what is or isn't "plausible," it is to establish what, exactly, was claimed to have happened at the time that it happened, i.e, over those several days in 1947. So, my intent on the "June 14th" issue was simply to establish, as best as we can, what was actually claimed, NOT to establish whether that date is more or less "plausible."

That being said, it seems to discuss the controversy is - or should be - outside of this section, and, you are correct, it should be moved elsewhere. So, how about giving me a few days here, and I'll rephrase the section in question so it is simply what it should be - this date and that date were reported - and leave the controversy to elsewhere (the claims about how the date "June 14" came about are explored later in the article anyway). Fair enough? Canada Jack (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I found an interesting paragraph on David Rudiak's "Summary of Roswell Press Reports" (Rudiak meticulously gathered UP and AP telexes, newspaper articles, etc.):

To this day, the date of Brazel's discovery is hotly debated. All that can be said with certainty is that originally the base press release stated the discovery was within the last week, then it was later pushed back to three weeks before in the story put out by Ramey in Fort Worth and by a local sheriff who further admitted to working with the military.

http://www.roswellproof.com/press_coverage.html

--7bells (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite accurate. All we "know" is that the June 14th date appeared when Brazel was actually interviewed, and that the initial press release said "sometime last week." Whether the June 14 date was from "the story put out by Ramey" is pure conjecture, as is the implication that a similar date from the sheriff was connected to his "admission" that he "work[ed] with the military." Canada Jack (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, I excised the note explaining the controversy, and clarified the text to read:

On June 14, 1947 William "Mac" Brazel noticed some strange clusters of debris... This date (or "about three weeks" before July 8) appeared in later stories featuring Brazel, but the initial press release from the Roswell Army Air Field said the find was "sometime last week," suggesting Brazel found the debris in early July.

Further, though I did this a while back, I amended the lede to say debris was found from an object which crashed in "June or July 1947". And still further, I added some text to the first Roswell book "The Roswell Incident" to underline the contention that the book (and others) suggest an object crashed on July 2, 1947. This is alluded to later on, when it is stated that a "new" crash date of July 4 was suggested, but I think this needs to be stated explicitly earlier. The Roswell Incident doesn't explicitly state that the "June 14" date was a date Brazel was forced to say by the government, nor could I find that specific claim in the first Schmitt/Randle book, (maybe someone else can) otherwise I would have inserted that reference. It most definitely is implied by the claims of a July 2 crash and claims that Brazel was forced to spout a military-supplied story. Canada Jack (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the June 14 date was from "the story put out by Ramey" is pure conjecture, you say above. Oxford Dictionary: "objecture - put forward an opinion without facts as proof." As (e.g.) David Rudiak has based this on a great amount of facts (telexes, witness accounts, etc.), I don't think, "conjecture" is the right word here, but it shows your POV, and as you are talking of "conjecture" without putting forward your opinion giving facts as proof, I think, what you say is much more rightly called "pure conjecture."

Your new wording - being almost exactly the same as before - again shows you personally prefer June 14; for that matter you even insinuate RAAF to only "suggest" that Brazel found the debris "last week". It seems to be extremely difficult for you to find a neutral wording not taking sides and stating clear and distinct from the beginning that the whole matter - including the date - is controversial. You will not be of the opinion that you personally have the solution to the decades-long controversy at hand which you want the readers of the article to participate in, will you? 7bells (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

7, with all due respect, the section simply is designed to reflect what was reported in 1947. What was reported in 1947? This: Brazel related that on June 14 he and an 8-year old son, Vernon, were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J. B. Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.

So, the section here quite properly relates what Brazel actually said. He's the person who found the debris, he was the one who described when he found it. And he said "June 14." In other stories which don't quote him, we see "three weeks ago," and we see "last week." Those dates are also mentioned.

As (e.g.) David Rudiak has based this on a great amount of facts (telexes, witness accounts, etc.), I don't think, "conjecture" is the right word here, but it shows your POV, and as you are talking of "conjecture" without putting forward your opinion giving facts as proof, I think, what you say is much more rightly called "pure conjecture."

Brazel was dead by the time this was investigated. Ramey never said he fed Brazel the date. Therfore, coming to a conclusion as to how and why the two dates came about is conjecture. Pure and simple. It is not a "fact."

Your new wording - being almost exactly the same as before - again shows you personally prefer June 14; for that matter you even insinuate RAAF to only "suggest" that Brazel found the debris "last week".

The June 14 date is mentioned first for a very simple reason - that is the date quoted from Brazel. The other dates are not direct quotes. Nevertheless, the rest of the sentence also gives the other dates, "This date (or "about three weeks" before July 8) appeared in later stories featuring Brazel, but the initial press release from the Roswell Army Air Field said the find was "sometime last week," suggesting Brazel found the debris in early July."

You will not be of the opinion that you personally have the solution to the decades-long controversy at hand which you want the readers of the article to participate in, will you?

??? Clearly, you are completely confused, 7. Did Brazel say "June 14" or did he not? That is all we need to ask. You are conflating, again and again, the purpose of the section - reproducing CONTEMPORARY accounts (do you know what the word means?) - with debates about whether Brazel was coerced into saying a particular date. Canada Jack (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This debate is getting rather silly. Why? While I agree that the way it was worded before it may have seemed to give a "preference" for the June 14 date, (it no longer does now) let's look at the bigger picture - the ENTIRE story of Brazel would be, by 7's definition, "POV." After all, isn't it just the skeptic's view that what was actually found was a pile of weather-balloon junk? Where are the allegations that the material was switched? that Brazel was coerced into telling a different story?

That stuff is not there because all this material is is CONTEMPORARY descriptions of what was found. It seems rather bizarre to get so hot and bothered over "June 14" which, the ufo believers claim, was a manufactured date, yet not raise even the slightest peep about descriptions of a "bunch of sticks" etc. IOW, there is nothing intrinsic about the June 14 date that throws anyone off the track here, unless they already know the story very well. (Which is why I had that note originally, but 7 said it was somehow "biased"(!))Indeed, the average reader won't give a shit about that date - they'd be asking themselves "how can this be alien debris?" But that's the contemporary account! If this wasn't so, then the case would not have been forgotten for 30 years.(!)

Indeed, the "June 14" date is CENTRAL to the ufo believers allegations that some story was manufactured. 7 does not seem to appreciate this. I've been in touch in the past with the guy who first publisized this in a large way - Stanton Friedman - and I'm sure he would agree with the FACT that Brazel claimed "June 14" back in 1947. He, of course, argues Brazel was coerced into saying that date. Just as he was coerced into stating that a bunch of weather balloon junk was, indeed, what he found. As I have said repeatedly, all the claims of stories being changed are found in the later sections. What 7 fails to appreciate is that what was reported in 1947 is claimed by these authors to be a manufactured story. But that "manufactured" story, by their account, still needs to be reproduced as it is their POV that it is manufactured, a POV which is fully explored later. The way the section is set up, there is NOTHING suggesting that what is there is "the truth," it is simply what was then reported, either more or less an accurate story (with some discrepancies), or a manufactured lie and cover-up. The debate on that issue follows. Not really sure what 7's problem is. Canada Jack (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)