Jump to content

Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

New Section: Roswell as misidentified military programs: The Air Force reports and Project Mogul

The next section has been added, though it is not yet complete. I've written the 1994/5 Air Force report section, but have not yet written the "critique" part beyond the opening paragraph, and left a lot of the following stuff intact.

I've also eliminated some duplicated sections, and some stuff which rests on the POV assumption that a cover-up was covering up something sinister.

I'll address the critiques of the 1994 report, then move onto the 1997 report and ITS critiques next.

Canada Jack 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Just added the "critques" section of the Air Force reports section. Next: Moore's Mogul flight 4 reconstruction with references to critisims (like Rudiak's), and then the 1997 Air Force Case Closed report.

159.33.10.92 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I've added the Mogul flight reconstruction. Next is the 1997 Air Force report addressing aliens.
Canada Jack 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Major Edits

I've done some major editing, first adding the 1997 Air Force report. I still have to complete the critique, and a follow-up on how many of the UFO researchers have been discredited (Scmitt; Alien film; Majestic, etc)

I've also taken out a lot of stuff that was a) redundant (like the FBI transcript, stuff on the Ramey photo, etc.,) b) stuff which was not about Roswell (general stuff about UFOs don't speak to Roswell itself) and c) stuff which will be dealt with briefly later (or in the case of the "strange experiments theory already in the later developments section). Most of the stuff gone is stuff that has been established to be hoaxes - like the Alien autopsy. They will be afforded brief mentions.

Thanks for the patience, folks, I am nearly done.

Canada Jack 22:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Too Biased Toward Air Force's Claims

I appreciate the work, Canada Jack, and your summaries are good. But I think they're skewing the article too much, turning it almost into a report on the Air Force reports. (And "Case Closed" this story is not, regardless whose story you personally happen to believe. The cultural mythos surrounding this topic is already way too big and fascinating for such a simple, "factual" or "scientific" dismissal.) This is supposed to be a NPOV article on the Roswell Incident, which would ideally give reasonable weight to all important dimensions of the story, and not tip the scales too much towards one particular theorist's claims (in this case, those by Colonel Richard Weaver of the USAF). I personally don't buy the alien crash-landing story myself, but I don't think the Mogul explanation fits the evidence either, particular as detailed by Stanton T. Friedman. Also, the "strange experiments theory" you mention above, especially as described by Nick Redfern in Body Snatchers in the Desert, most definitely warrants more space on this article, since it strikes an intriguing "third possibility" that isn't covered by either polarity currently outlined--i.e., the Project Mogul and Alien Spaceship theories. I don't have time to write such a thing myself, at least not in the immediate future, but if anyone out there is knowledgeable about that White Sands/Japanese Unit 731 angle (including perhaps you, Canada Jack?), it would be great to include a full description about that. And, as I'm suggesting, it would be ideal to cut down the length of the Air Force 'Case Closed' summary as well--and not just because it makes the Wikipedia entry for Roswell just a bit toooo lonnnngggg...

The truth is out there. :)

Kosmocentric 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, I've just added the critiques to the Air Force's 1997 report, so perhaps some of your objections have been met. AS for the cultural mythos surrounding the event, it would seem to me the rather lengthy list of cultural references and my note that despite the Air Force reports, most people believe that "something happened" at Roswell partly answers that.
But one point is valid - and that is the "weight" to the Air Force reports, and its considerable length. Once I'm done - and all I now have left is a smaller section on some of the post Air Force developments (which unfortunately for the UFO-believer side, involves a lot of subsequent discrediting of many chief witnesses and a few authors) - I will suggest we split the Air Force reports off to another page, replaced with a precis section on it. But I think the Air Force reports deserve a fair bit more coverage than before, and to be allowed to "stand alone" without tons of POV arguments. The critiques sections, I would say, have some pretty potent arguments against the reports, and they stand. But before, we didn't get a clear picture as to what the Air Force actually argued. For example, there were numerous explanations in the 1997 report as to how six-foot dummies could be mistaken for four-foot aliens found in the report, yet that was never apparant before. Or to the rather basic point that witnesses actually described themselves these aliens as perhaps being "dummies."
My particular problem with the Redfern idea is that it seems ad-hoc, coming almost 60 years after the events in question, without any concrete evidence from ANYWHERE that these sort of experiments were being carried out. A short mention suffices, I believe. I mean, why not time travellers? or assuming some of the fictional treatments mentioned in the end may be true? IMHO we stick to the scenarios which carry a lot of adherents, make some references to others. But perhaps others could chime in here?
Canada Jack 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Paranormal

I just wanted to take a minute to say hello and let the folks who regularly watch this article know that Wikproject Paranormal has selected this article as our collaboration of the month. So don't be surprised if you see some new faces sprucing up the article and speaking up here on the talk page. We'd ideally like to get this article up to snuff to have it featured on the main page, so if we do something too drastic or that you disagree with please just let us know. Thanks — ripley\talk 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party I guess... but I'd figured I'd lend a hand. The article actualy looks quite good. Just some ruff edges. ---J.S (t|c) 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Check the ToDo list and the discussion at the bottom; we've only got a little bit to go before we've got ourselves as GA! --InShaneee 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New page for Air Force reports

I've split off the main body of text for the Air Force report to a separate page, and drastically shortened the text here on the same subject.

Canada Jack 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great, Canada Jack. The new Air Force page is good. Kosmocentric 01:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cold War, military experiments and flying saucers

I think this section needs to be removed, with what's absolutely needed for context merged into other sections of the article. This is about UFO phenominon in general, and doesn't even mention Roswell. While I accept that it helps set the tone for the article, surely wikilinks to the relevant material would be more appropriate. --InShaneee 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Since most of the material comes up later, that's probably a good idea.
Canada Jack 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of this text is superfluous, but I'd like to see the information about the rise of UFO reports in that time period retained; I think it's important context. — ripley\talk 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It is, yes, but I don't think it belongs here. Perhaps there's another article it can be linked to (or one can be created) instead? --InShaneee 18:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think any discussion of critics' rebuttal of Roswell as an alien incident would not be well served without context about the rise of weather balloons and subsequent rise of UFO reporting. It doesn't have to be extensive, but this article should at least touch on it, IMO. I've significantly cut out the extraneous detail about Soviets and the Cold War, except what's necessary to explain why there were so many secret weather balloon projects. I've left the bit in about the couple but I wouldn't object to it being deleted. I'm not sure this is the best place for the section, though -- it may need to be moved down or merged elsewhere. — ripley\talk 18:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's neccisary for the criticism section, perhaps it can be worked in there. --InShaneee 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Concern about copyrighted information

As I've been copyediting this article today, I've noticed a large number of quotation marks that appear as ” -- rather than " (you can see the difference when you click on edit). This generally happens when text is cut and pasted from another source. This makes me wary of the potential for copyright violations in this article. We should be especially watchful of this and fix it where needed. — ripley\talk 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


I've included many direct quotes, but noticed that there were differences in the quotation mark styles. Not knowing what was "style" and what was not, I may have cut and copied some of those quotation marks as they existed earlier (to preserve open and closed quotes). Those quotes are cited by source. Often these quotes appear in multiple sources citing the original source, and I assumed that there was a "fair use" to using verbatim quotes - from witnesses - especially if those quotes appear in public documents such as the Air Force reports.
If there is a question about lifting actual text as if I wrote it, everything down to the Air Force reports (and including same) is what I wrote, except where I use quotes or paraphrase the opinions of others with a citation.
I'll be happy to clarify any concerns here and can flag what is not "fair use". For example, quoting an author rather than a quote of a witness.

Canada Jack 20:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, bits of quotes are definitely fair use. I mentioned that only as a general caution flag -- not meaning to accuse anybody of anything deliberately malicious. Thanks Jack. — ripley\talk 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken. This is only the second article I have written, and I am not sure what is and isn't fair use and I appreciate any comments like the above so I do this in the proper fashion. Suffice to say, I've assumed that any direct quote needs to be cited, and any specific claim (like "some say x is a liar") needs a reference. And that lifting text from books or websites and plonking them down and not indicating such is plagarism. That's why I took great care to make sure I actually composed the article and cited anything I didn't write.

BTW, so far, things look good - when you guys are done (I hope you don't tear what I've done to shreds) I'll address some of the citation issues I've already seen. For example "11" crash sites has a specific source.

Keep up the good work.

Canada Jack 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Roswell as an alien recovery and government cover-up

I'm not quite sure to make of this section. Much seems to be a rehash of information from earlier sections, the rest is unsourced, and the whole thing talks about its topic assuming it is correct. Any thoughts about what to do here? --InShaneee 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


In fact, the several scenarios come from the two cited sources, which, IMHO, more or less incorporate the general thrust of those who assert aliens were recovered and the government is lying about it. I could draw from more sources, but I think that would be redundant and simply gratuitously add a lot of extraneous sources when only several here need suffice.
The main differences in the various scenarios is which precise landing sites were the focus of alien recoveries, and which precise dates the recoveries started on.
As for the comment that it is a rehash of earlier sections, I am not sure that is completely accurate - though certain interpretations of events are mentioned, the actual scenario is nowhere else depicted and the reasons certain witnesses are said to have been here or there really only becomes apparent when you see the timelines presented.
It "assumes it is correct" only because it presents the case at face value - and I took care to underline that that is what THEY believe, not what is "self-evident" or what have you. AS I said when I took on this task, presenting the cases here is very difficult because of the widely divergent beliefs on what is valid and what is not. Presenting the sides as I have done here more or less at face value I believe answers that problem.
In the end, it is up to the casual reader to decide who has the more believable story here, and as long as I present the sides fairly, I think we can let the reader decide for himself. There is more than enough opportunity beyond the text itself to explore the issues on thier own via the links etc.
Canada Jack 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the sections in question in any depth yet (I may have time to do so tomorrow), but (with apologies if I've put words in your mouth) I think Inshaneee is probably searching for ways to trim the article. It's way too long, and streamlining overly verbose passages and removing redundancies is one easy way to do that without losing significant information. That's just what I did to the "cultural" section, for instance -- I removed the most superfluous references and edited the rest to be within 2-3 lines of text. — ripley\talk 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, ripley, thank you. This article is almost twice as long as the suggested article length, but I think there's plenty of places (like here) where we can merge content or simply make things more concise. --InShaneee 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly condensing or eliminating the section will save space, I am just concerned that the alien recovery scenario will therefore be accorded short shrift.

But that's just my opinion - if there is a concensus that omitting such information still satisfies the objectives of wikipedia, so be it. As I said before, I am new here...

Canada Jack 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, as long as it can be sourced, we can cut most of it out (I don't think a complete timeline is neccisarily needed), and merge it elsewhere. --InShaneee 16:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what is decided, what we leave here does need to be re-edited for tone. As it stands, it presents the entire scenario as fact (hence, if edited down to the relevent points, it would be much easier to present as an allegation). --InShaneee 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally (and this is just my opinion), I'd completely seperate the different versions of this incident (coverup, balloon etc), and then present the pro followed by con/dubunk for each version together, with both the pro-con/debunk presented as if they were fact. As things stand, its one persons version against another and we frankly don't know which veriso is true, if any. Treat everything as if it were credible and true and let the reader decide which side they believe.
perfectblue 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just talking terminology, such as 'alleges', ect. --InShaneee 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramey and Brazel

Some questions/observations about these guys and their treatment in the article:

1) Is the Ramey telegraph image really that significant? Though I sympathize with the UFO crowd, I think this piece of "evidence" is pretty silly, as one can't really tell anything (IMHO) from looking at that picture. Now, if the image has been discussed by some of the major writers on Roswell, then I suppose it can stay, with proper citations, but if it's just something posted on someone's website, then I think we can remove it. What do other people think? (I'll admit that I don't know as much about Roswell as some of the people here, so if I'm realy out-of-touch, just let me know).

2) Maybe I'm not reading closely enough, but it's not clear to me what Brazel actually thought about the debris he found. Did he think it came from a weather balloon, or did he think it was from a UFO? Thanks, Zagalejo 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: It's my understanding that the crash occurred closer to Corona, New Mexico than Roswell. Is this true? If so, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Zagalejo 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


The Ramey telegraph is one of the later developments in the case, largely promoted by David Rudiak as describing "victims of the wreck." There was a lot more on this before, I reduced it to a short paragraph, but in terms of emphasis I'm not so sure it is truly the "smoking gun" some claim it to be.
I think the short paragraph is fine, but it definitely deserves a mention (i.e., DON'T DELETE IT, please). I've been a student of the Roswell story for well over a decade, and I think anyone interested in the subject needs to know about the Ramey memo. One can play with the images in Photoshop oneself and bring out details that aren't just products of Rudiak's biased imagination. But the fact is, this is one of the ONLY pieces of objective, hard evidence that the Roswell "crashed vehicle" (alien or otherwise) proponents have going for them, so it's very important amidst all the endless eyewitness and first-, second-, and third-hand anecdotes. Rudiak has downloadable versions of the memo available here. Kosmocentric 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
As for Brazel - and for anyone quoted in those early reports (Brazel was dead by the time this became a big deal years later) - the only description of this as a "flying saucer/disc" comes from the initial press release. Brazel at best says it's NOT a weather balloon as he had seen those before, but as is noted no one knew what a "flying saucer" was supposed to look like just days after the phrase was coined.
As for Corona, this is one of the numerous crash sites put forward by UFO researchers, though none are specifically mentioned save for San Agustin. Not sure if we need to be specific?
It's worth mentioning Corona. That's the nearest identifiable 'town' to where the Foster ranch debris field was located, by all accounts. Nobody has ever claimed the crash happened in Roswell. It's just the nearest big town/city. Kosmocentric 01:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada Jack 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I just found this page describing all the alleged crash sites, so I guess there's been a debate over it. I'm not sure how the article should treat this issue, but the most important thing is to stress at all points that the crash, wherever it was, did not occur in Roswell proper (and I think the article does this, for the most part). Zagalejo 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the article itself, something like 11 crash sites have been claimed. The above-mentioned site lists six sites, some around the ranch and therefore close to Corona, others not. And the Air Force centred on two accounts, one near San Agustin (no where near Corona) and the other Jim Ragsdale accounts which I believe were not near Corona.

"Roswell" is pretty good shorthand for the claims, though not geographically accurate. But since there are many claims as to crash sites and none which could be deemed "official" (try, for example, get Randle and Friedman to see anything eye-to-eye, for example...) by definition, I was rather vague other than to suggest they were claimed to be linked to the Roswell UFO incident.

Canada Jack 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibid

Could users please reframe from using ibidem (ibid) as a citation mark. I know that it's proper reference form in research papers, but sections get moved around so much on pages like this that it is not always clear what is the original citation being referenced actually is (if indeed it has not been changed or deleted by another user). Instead just use a named reference tag < ref name = ABC > ref details < / ref> and then < ref name = ABC / > there after. If you do this, it will automatically Ibid for you. If you want to include the page number, just put it in brackeds after you close the reference tag.

Thank you

perfectblue 18:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Roswell as misidentified military programs: The Air Force reports and Project Mogul

I just noticed that this section begins with a link to Air Force Reports on Roswell UFO Incident. I think this presents a great opportunity to cut down this section, as it is essentially ALL duplicate material from that article (including the image). --InShaneee 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the Air Force section was all on the Roswell page, so I created a new page and moved most of the material over there, drastically cutting down the Roswell section.
Canada Jack 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, cool. Still, we need to further cut down the section on this page now (including removing the image), since there's no need to duplicate content. --InShaneee 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I cut down on the length of the title... seemed to stretch out the TOC a bunch. ---J.S (t|c) 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Precis

I'm about to undertake what will probably be a fairly major precis of the article, trimming extraneous information where I can (without removing significant content -- for instance we can just say "at another ranch" instead of "at the Foster Ranch 70 miles away from Roswell" without removing much significant information). But, I have little personal knowledge of the story so if I end up inadvertently removing something you feel is significant to lay readers' understanding, please let me know. — ripley\talk 18:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a good move. If you change "at the Foster Ranch 70 miles away from Roswell" to "at another ranch" you are likely to be asked for details. Removing informative text is not helpful IMMHO. Moriori 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying "Foster ranch" begs the question of who "Foster is," and that means more information that adds nothing. That it was a ranch 70 miles from Roswell I think is enough, but I'm open to hearing others' opinions. Or is it important in a non-obvious way whose ranch it was on? — ripley\talk 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't make it through the whole thing today, but did do most of the article. I've also moved off what amounts to block quotes from various primary witnesses into its own article, Witness accounts at Roswell. It may also be a good idea to move the secondary witnesses there too, but I don't want to be too hasty. — ripley\talk 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, if you are to move the primary witnesses to a new page, you should do likewise to the secondary witnesses. As it stands (and I realize you are only partway through this) we jump from contemporary news reports to the more fantastic and mostly second-hand accounts of aliens etc.

I'd suggest moving ALL statements across (and, I realize, you may be in the midst of doing exactly that), and to leave a failry brief into on the main page along the lines of: There are numerous witness accounts which roughly fall along the lines of descriptions of similar material from the ranch to Ft Worth; later accounts tell of alien recoveries and witness intimidation, etc.

Canada Jack 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I agree, but I wanted to give people time to adjust to the idea of moving any of the statements at all -- if nobody objects today then we should go on and complete the move I think. — ripley\talk 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Rewrites

Just redid the "Air Force" section, just to more properly summarize what the new page says. (What was there didn't really speak to it) The "witness" sections, just moved, should get a similar rewrite on both the "Roswell" page and on the newly created page. I'll do it eventually if you guys don't.

Canada Jack 19:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! Thanks CJ. — ripley\talk 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural influence

I'm going to be working on this section in my userspace, as it's poorly organized and could use some pruning. So, if anyone has suggestions, let me know. Zagalejo 19:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking outloud here, but do you think the 'tourism' section would be better suited to the actual Town article, with a mention here? --InShaneee 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I think a paragraph about it here is justified, since it helps demonstrate the ongoing cultural resonance of the Roswell incident. The incident has profoundly affected the town, and I could have gone into a lot more detail than I actually did. If space continues to be an issue, however, I'll see if I can trim it down. Zagalejo 16:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
(For the record, there is NOTHING about tourism on the town's page). --InShaneee 16:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... Judging by comments on that article's talk page, it seems that the editors want to keep the UFO stuff to a bare minimum. They probably expected this page to talk about it. However, everything I've found suggests that UFO tourism has become an important part of the town. It'll be the first thing any directory or travel site mentions. Zagalejo 17:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: there is a brief line about tourism at the town page: "Roswell has benefited from interest in the alleged UFO incident, and in more recent times the business community has deliberately sought out tourists interested in UFOs." I do think that the town page should go into this in more detail. However, I still contend that this article would not be comprehensive without its own paragraph about tourism. Zagalejo 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Any detailed examination should probably reside on the city's article itself, but I don't have a problem with a short paragraph stating that it's impacted the town's tourism. We could perhaps place it with the paragraph about the museum. — ripley\talk!


Good job

Just want to say that you guys have done a good job of paring this article down and keeping the essence here. I might have a couple very minor things to tinker with but over-all, it looks good.

I was considering adding a short section on how many Roswell claims have now been proven to be frauds, and how some UFO authors have dismissed some of their own research (but which is still touted on some websites as "evidence"), but this seems now to be extraneous.

I could still do this if it is felt to be necessary. Otherwise I think this is pretty well done.

Canada Jack 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Some of the more recent edits here don't make much sense to me.
Omitting the Air Force reports - which identified the likely source of the 1947 debris - while including Bill Clinton's opinion, seems a rather strange choice here.
The key aspects of the skeptical response surely are a) accounting for whatever was found on the ranch in 1947 and b) explaining the reports of aliens.
Surely the Air Force reports deserve a paragraph or a section, with a redirect to the page.

Canada Jack 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the Air Force reports already have their own article. So all we need in this article is a brief summation, which I believe is what's there. If someone wants more detailed information they can click on the other article. — e. ripley\talk 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, when I checked earlier, that section had been completely omitted, now it has been reinstated along with some other stuff which probably should be there too.

What was there and now seems to be back is imho adequeat.

Maybe I should wait until the edits are done (d'oh!)

Canada Jack 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we're really moving along nicely; once we can finish off those concerns in the 'to do' list, we'll be ready for a Peer Review, and then I'm confident a GA nom will pass for sure. --InShaneee 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, definitely doing much better. I think the intro paragraphs are handled pretty well, but the rest of the article just feels too choppy and I'm not exactly sure how to fix it. — e. ripley\talk 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The intro paragraph is way to long is the problem (one of the GA/FA requirements); and yes, we should discuss an overall structure for the rest of the article. --InShaneee 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the new intro (concise, but informative!), but I think 'background' is still a bit redundant. Can the material in there be merged to other parts of the article (what's not already covered in more detail elsewhere)? --InShaneee 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I had the same thought... I wasn't sure where to merge it. I think were talking about a fundemenal article structure shift and I don't realy know the topic well enough to do that myself. ---J.S (t|c) 00:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have rejigged the intro to help make it more encyclopedic. Happy to help with other improvements too. Moriori 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply omit the "background" section as the new intro concisely sums up the controversy, while the remaining sections spell out the event?

Canada Jack 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the information is elsewhere in the article I'd be cool with that. Just move the citations somewhere else that their relevant. ---J.S (t|c) 16:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with J.smith. --InShaneee 16:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of WP:NOT a collection of links and WP:EL, lets evaluate the external links section. Here's the criteria I'd like to use:

  1. Does the website linked provide useful information not already available on wikipedia?
  2. Does the website infringe on any one's copyrights?
  3. Is the website a "mushroom"? (Ie, springs up over night and all it has to stand on is bullshit)
  4. Is the link redundant to a link already in the references section?

If no to 1 and/or yes to any of the rest, then it's time to remove it. ---J.S (t|c) 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This is an invitation for discussion... I'm not trying to own the page:) ---J.S (t|c) 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Addtionally, I strongly support the removal of all the 'fringe' links, simply because they are fringe viewpoints. --InShaneee 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... ok, removed. I should have included it in this list, but silly section edit threw me off:) ---J.S (t|c) 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

skeptics

Who are these anonymous skeptics that the article keeps talking about? Seems a bit of a weasel word in context. I marked a few with {{who}} but I decided that wasn't realy a good way to do it it. ---J.S (t|c) 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, I wrote most of the article. And a lot of those "anonymous skeptics" are in fact fully cited elsewhere. I'm not sure what to do here. If the consensus here is that I should add citations, I could supply multiple sources for each instance of "skeptics say". Exactly how should this be cited? By specific multiple references? or by the name of the skeptic alone?

Canada Jack 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpfull to replace "skeptics" with the name or names of notable skeptics who hold the view. ---J.S (t|c) 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps (where overlap exists) it would be possible to restructure the wording a bit so that near the beginning it can say, "Skeptics such as X and Y", and then refer back to that. --InShaneee 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Gotchya.

I'll do this over the next few days.

Canada Jack 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. This is one of the hard fixes... but it can be a major blockade in the way of FA status. ---J.S (t|c) 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


I've done about half of the "skeptics say..." fixes in the skeptical response section. ANy comments? So far so good?

Canada Jack 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! This article will make GA in no time and well well-prepared for peer-review for FA. ---J.S (t|c) 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm pretty well done now. I tried to match the reference formatting, but someone better at this better take a look. If there are any more references you need, let me know.

Canada Jack 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome job! We've just got two more links in "Arguments from Authority" that need to be made in-line, and that's all of 'em! --InShaneee 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just did a fix to the first Timothy Printy reference near the top of the section, don't forget that.

Canada Jack 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant the ones labeled '2' and '3' in the third paragraph. --InShaneee 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Combining sections...

I'd like to combine Further reading (Skeptics)" & "Sources (generally "pro-UFO" explanations)". They seem redundant and judgemental... thoughts or objections? ---J.S (t|c) 21:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I never was a fan of those titles...I'd like to know what purpose those links serve before anything is done. Are the 'sources' actual sources? If any are, I'd remove the 'generally' and make everything that isn't (including the skeptics) 'further reading'. If they're not, just merge 'em all into a 'further reading' section, although if that's the case, we may need to evaluate whether they belong there at all. --InShaneee 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see the value of such a list... but I haven't read any of those books so I I can't relay judge them on an individual basis. I'll combine the lists and see if I can fix the formatting some. ---J.S (t|c) 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

extend colab...

I made an appeal on the colab page to extend the collaboration for this article. I think major progress has been made and I'd like to see this submitted to FA before we move on. ---J.S (t|c) 21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondary pages

Just a note here about the secondary pages, specifically the Witness page and the Air Force Report page. Is it necessary to tackle those as well?

I bring it up in particular because one of the strong advocates of one side of the debate on Roswell has in the past few days decided to transform what I felt was a fairly balanced, NPOV presentation of the various witness accounts to the Roswell UFO incident into a fairly slanted POV presentation, IMHO.

Canada Jack 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Some of the bigger points brought up on the peer review:

  • "Other theories" section too long (perhaps another sub-article candidate?) (My thoughts: Is Timothy Printy really a reliable source? If not, we can remove his objections)
  • Reorganization may be needed; suggestion was 'background', 'materials found', 'theories', 'recent developments', and 'in popular culture'
  • Use quotation templates to make the one or two very long quotes look more presentable.
  • All instances of "X claims", "X alleges", "X asserts" need citation.
  • In "Contemporary accounts of evidence found", it says "A telex uncovered in the 1990s". How was it uncovered?
  • News section doesn't really talk much about how the press initially believed it was a flying saucer, or what impact that had. (While this would be nice, and possibly necessary for a FA, I wouldn't make this a top priority)
  • In "Conspiracy theories", the alternative account recounted there is quite long, and feels awkward in context. (I'd suggest making it into a summary rather than a blow-by-blow)

--InShaneee 17:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Further reading...

Well, I reformatted the section. Combined both lists, sorted by authors last name and found ISBNs for everything but one book.

Thomas R. Morris & Theresa J. Morris, with Sally Hester "Roswell Connection", 2006

I'm not sure who listed it, but if you have it on hand can you grab the ISBN from the front cover? Anyone have any comments on the reorganisation?---J.S (t|c) 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all of the books that were also listed as citations. --InShaneee 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert War on "Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident"

As noted above, please draw your attention to the "Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident" page where one ufo-advocate has been reverting the POV contributions of his I have been editing into NPOV.

I just fixed up the page again, and I feel if we let the page get "taken over" by one side than a great deal of effort here may be for naught.

Canada Jack 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think some of his material does have merit; since it doesn't appear he's reading the article talk page, you may want to try contacting him on his user talk page. --InShaneee 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He routinely dismisses my approach as being "censorship." And he has a bone to pick for debates we had over on Space.com years ago. If you feel that what I have done here is "censor" one side, then maybe you are okay with what he is doing over there.

I feel he is turning the Witness page into a very one-sided page with not only extended asides with comments in the text like "witness x described what clearly was no 'weather balloon' " etc., but extended criticisms of the few witnesses there who thought the incident was just a weather balloon or some such object.

But each and every witness here has their critisms, and to include those asides would completely bog down the article into a debate which I feel is already addressed on the main Roswell page and the Air Force page - that ufo researchers assert certain accounts are not to be believed and that an active cover-up was in place. Similarily, skeptics' critiques of those witnesses who they view as not credible are on the main page.

My main issue here is that this guy has a history of viewing his clearly POV contributions as being "factual" and NPOV.

Watch what he inserts and tell me if it is POV or not.

Canada Jack 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

...As I just said, I think some of his insertions have merit. That doesn't mean I agree with all of it, and it doesn't mean I condone his attitude. However, wholesale reversions solve nothing. Talk to him about the SPECIFIC parts you have a problem with and why, and see how things go from there. --InShaneee 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we even need this article? It seems alot of that goes into a level of detail we don't need to go into. ---J.S (t|c) 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No comment on that either way, but for the record, it was split off from this article in an attempt to shorten it. --InShaneee 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


I've had a discussion with Dr Fil, after leaving most of what he feels should be in, but he seems to feeel that TONS of extra stuff is needed, stuff which I pointed out largely simply repeats what others say. The article - which was long enough anyway - now is probably way too long. Since he larrgely reverts what I have done and deletes my requests for quotes, perhaps someone ELSE should go in there and suggest that we don't need 20 alien accounts when four or five will suffice.

Canada Jack 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical tense

Comment about the "Arguments from authority" section -- When describing the contents of Randle and Schmitt's two books, we shift from the past tense to the present tense. "Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt initially focused on Marcel and the ranch as the main crash site in their 1991 book UFO Crash at Roswell. (past tense) Then, in their next book, The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, the crash happens several days later and at a location far from the Foster ranch. Marcel and Brazel are relegated to a lesser roles and, as The Roswell Files notes, the new accounts contradict the old accounts." (present tense). I think we should rewrite this section and stick to one tense (whichever would be most appropriate). Any thoughts? Zagalejo 19:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Past, definitely. The crash isn't happening as we write this. --InShaneee 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Added post-1995 developments

I've added what I intended to include in the article originally (and which I feel needs to be here for additional context). And that is some of the detail behind prominent UFO researchers concluding that there were no aliens involved (mentioned in the intro), the revelation of shoddy research and split between two major Roswell authors (alluded to earlier), and the discrediting of several prominent witnesses.

I think this adds more to the article, but if you guys don't, well, do what you will.

Canada Jack 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While the prose is fine there seems to be a bias in the selection of events that make up the story being told... were there not "positive" developments happening at the time? (I can't answer that as I'm not an expert in the subject) If not... then the section is great. (Except we have 10 new citations to fix;)) ---J.S (t|c) 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the "bias" is covered by the other stuff in "recent developments." The point to underline here is that up to about 1995, the UFO interpretation was by far the dominant one. Once the Air Force published its reports and a) a plausible explanation for the debris was suggested and b) ufo researchers were shown not to be doing their homework, the field changed. Once-strong advocates dismissed any alien presence.

A lot of the stuff on the internet today is a rehash of long-discredited (by ufo researchers) evidence, the added section hints at the problems with a lot of the "research" done to suggest aliens were involved.

Canada Jack 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Someone PLEASE help out at Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident

Dr Fil has gone completely overboard now, he's probably tripled the size of this once-manageable article and ignored my comments and critiques on what he has done.

At first, He seemed confused about the way I structured it, complaining that "primary" witnesses were taken off and put elsewhere, and inserting various POV comments about witnesses who saw this as a balloon or whatever while leaving witnesses with testimony of claimed sinister goings-ons at face value.

Realizing this stemmed from a lack of clarity about what was meant about "primary," I reworded everything so as to make it clear the intent of the sections - the first part focussed on witness accounts to the debris as described in 1947; the second part to accounts of aliens and cover-ups etc.

I also reiterated my intent here to present witness statements at face value. Since the vast majority of these statements could be considered "pro-ufo," I thought this was a balanced approach.

Perhaps now realizing my intent, he has ceased to keep reinserting irrelevant stuff and stuff into the wrong section, but has turned into the Sorcerer's Apprentice, burying the page with endless accounts.

I also asked him to clarify a quote he inserted. He says Brazel Jr described a gouge of specific dimensions. While this quote may exist somewhere, I think it was important to a) supply the actual quote or b) say who claims he said this. Which is what I am led to believe wikistyle. He refuses to do either, saying the source at the end of the quote that is there has it. I've put a "citation" mark up three times and simply omits it without seriously responding to my request for a proper note on this.

Worse, in a section on Cavitt, a witness who supplied an account which suggests explicitly no alien craft was involved, he seems determined to discredit the account by saying some researchers said he denied ever being there. I repeatedly have omitted it asking why it is relevant, since NO ONE disputes he was in fact present. To me, if one doesn't know this person was in fact there, the comment may discredit the account which, no doubt, is the POV insertion's intent.

But the biggest problem now is that he has ignored my main entreaty - to resist the temptation to load the page down with extraneous material and limit the various sections to several preferabbly first-hand accounts, and to have a link like "for more, see here." Instead, he has now expanded the "alien" part to 21 quotes, including quotes which only remotely suggest anything (like Zimmerman's) and, again, ignoring and not responding to my requests to keep the article length reasonable.

My attempts to simply apply the standards to the page I, after all, created, have been met with cries of "censorship" etc.

I'd appreciate someone else going in there are weighing in on what I see as a hijack of the page by a strong pro-UFO advocate. He was a major cause of why the original Roswell page was a complete one-sided mess, he is well on the way to doing the same on the "witness" page.

Canada Jack 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take this to Mediation, since this goes farther than just an editing concern, and none of us are really neutral anymore. --InShaneee 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Conspiracy section redo

It seems to me that the biggest hole here is the conspiracy section. How about I do a rewrite with a structure somewhat like the Other Theory section, with the proper references etc.?

Canada Jack 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck CJ. It's a mess. Just the first paragraph of that section alone needs attention. For instance, it needs a few {{fact}}s added, as I have indicated here:
"By the early 1990s, some UFO researchers {{who}} had concluded that the original 1947 accounts were almost exclusively cover-ups. {{fact}} Based on the accounts of witnesses given after 1978, these researchers asserted that once word reached military authorities detailing the recovery of a UFO, {{fact}} officials switched the real debris for weather balloon debris {{fact}} in time for the press conference. {{fact}} Then officials intimidated Brazel {{fact}} into portraying the material as consistent with a weather balloon during his press conference {{fact}}. They claimed that at the same time the press was reporting that a rancher had mistaken a weather balloon for a flying saucer, the military was engaging in a large recovery operation, {{fact}} sealing off large areas and warning [[civilian]]s to be quiet {{fact}}, in some cases threatening them with death {{fact}} if they dared tell anyone what they saw."
Wikipedia is making a lot of unsupported claims. Moriori 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. I'm pretty sure a citation after "some UFO researchers claim" could clear up all of those fact templates. --InShaneee 21:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is entirely doable.

First, I'll do a rewrite of this, then I'll add all the necessary citations.

Canada Jack 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Only one or two fact tags would be needed to make the point. ---J.S (t|c) 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well now, that's a revelation. It's not about making a point, it's only about Wikipedia demonstrating accuracy and integrity. If we make extraordinary claims, we are duty bound to provide adequate evidence for those claims, each and every one of them, or remove them. InShanee's assertion that a citation after "some UFO researchers claim" could clear up all of those fact templates is far from true. A citation he suggests, to justify "some UFO researchers claim", could never adequately substantiate the claim made later in the paragraph that the military threatened some civilians with death. It, and others, need their own references/cites. Moriori 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


There are in fact specific claims that the military threatened to kill people if they spoke. I originally wrote the body of the section thinking it was adequate to refer to one or two sites for the scenario laid out, I realize now that is wholly inadequate and, besides, it can be presented far better and more spefically, along the lines of, "by 1994 UFO researchers such as Kark Pflock, Stanton Freidman and the team of Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt had interviewed several hundred people they claimed had some involvement with the events reported in 1947... New claims emerged such as from Schmitt and Randle detailing a military cover-up (source)..."

So, like in the skeptical section following, there will be specific references to specific claims.

Canada Jack 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a point. I didn't necessarily challenge specifics, I am merely pointing out each piece of information needs its own justification, and balance if it exists. Moriori 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Moriori, a single citation could, theoretical, cover the entire paragraph. InShanee wasn't wrong. It really depends on the variety of sources being used. Adding 15 {{fact}} tags is actually quite disruptive to the flow of the article. Please, no more Ad hominem arguments.
Yes, we need citations there... 15 {{fact}} tags is not a very civil way of dealing with it. ---J.S (t|c) 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you want Wikipedia to have some semblance of scholarship? Any significant claim has to be referenced/cited, even in paranormal articles A claim that the military threatened people with death cannot be justified by a cite supporting different information. There is no way a single citation could cover the whole paragraph. It's quaint that you say "15 {{fact}} tags is not a very civil way of dealing with it". Now how is that incivil? And where's the ad hominen. Still, you actually agree we need citations, and if I hadn't forced the issue we may never have ever seen them. I guess the whole article will get a makeover. It sure needs it. Moriori 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"...where's the ad hominen." -> "Do you want Wikipedia to have some semblance of scholarship?" Or maybe that is a straw man argument? *shrug*
But, in any case, covering a paragraph in {{fact}} is excessive. The {{fact}} tag is a communication device. It communicates your belif that there is a need for a citation in a paticular point in an article. That message can be communincated with much fewer. ---J.S (t|c) 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
An ad hominen was conveyed in a passage of text that didn't actually exist? How ironic, but I guess we are discussing an article about the paranormal. I am working hard to resist being sarcastic here. Suffice to say I know that {{fact}} is a communication device. Suffice to say too that I know it signals a point that needs citing. What I also know is that if there are several points needing referencing/citation, then it saves time to tag them all at the same time. Unfortunately, it demonstrates to readers that the article is probably not a reliable source of information. The only way to fix that is to provide the requested cites, all of them, and to junk claims that cannot be supported. That applies to all articles in Wikipedia. Moriori 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I figured I'd give you a more recent example. Whatever. All I've seen from you in regards to the paranormal project and articles has been aggression. All I was trying to do was to get you to calm down some. I caused more anger and aggression...so I'll leave. I'll keep out of this article for a while. ---J.S (t|c) 05:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Statements must be supportable/supported, whether in talk or article, a fundamental requirement of creating an encyclopedia. Asking for verification is hardly aggression, except maybe in the minds of people asked to justify article content who get their hackles up if their opinion is challenged. You never caused the slightest anger or aggression in me, so I never ever needed calming down. Well, you leave if you wish J.s but I'll stick around to help improve this article. Heaven knows it certainly needs it. Moriori 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You're not improving anything by misusing fact tags. You're completely misunderstanding the paragraph you've started an argument over. All that's needed is a citation as to who or what group of individuals is making the claims in the paragraph; we don't need to 'prove' that there was military harrassment or anything else, merely that someone asserts there is. That's how policy works here. --InShaneee 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Wikipedia's official policy, which in part says the following -- "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed......The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Not only that, NPOV basically demands balance, so when someone says the military threatened people with death, the article should also explain that the people making that claim have been criticised for their dubious research methods. Moriori 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say one thing: Moriori, your misrepresenting my point. I've made tons of calls for citations here. ---J.S (t|c) 17:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

J.s, nowhere have I said you have not made tons of calls for citations. You are making my point for me -- that what we write here has to be supported by evidence.Moriori 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I started this particular thread, I should point out that it was I, not you Moriori, who suggested a rewrite with proper citations was required. The main problem is that the way it was written, simply supplying citations for the statements would be, in my view, clumsy. So I propose to redo the section in a similar manner as the skeptic section to better reference this.

I DON'T proprose a detailed refutation of the various claims within the section, those critiques belong in the skeptical section and in the Air Force report section. And, it should be noted, while many people said many things - including that they received death threats - it is up to the reader to see what seems more likely, not for us to tell them what is the more likely scenario.

A careful reading of the claims will find that a lot of them stem from Randle/Scmitt who it has been shown employed dubious research methods to come to their conclusions. It makes their claims suspect, in my view. But they form the basis for much of what this incident has become.

Dr Fil over in the Witness page has gone a bit overboard (in my view) in inserting millions of witness statements, so there will be an opportunity here not only to access the author's claims, but the witness claims as well.

Canada Jack 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

CJ, you say (regarding death threats) that "it is up to the reader to see what seems more likely, not for us to tell them what is the more likely scenario"? How can they check out the source of extraordinary claims if the claims aren't sourced? They can't! How can they judge which is the most likely scenario if only one scenario is presented to the reader? They can't. Where's the NPOV? Why are you compelled to point out that it was you who suggested a rewrite and cites? That's a non sequitur if ever I saw one. Whatever, it is good if there is opportunity to access witness claims as you say, but balance is important too.
As a postscript CJ, can you direct me to evidence that names anyone who reported seeing an object flying near the site where the whatever it was, was found. Perhaps the name of this article should be Roswell incident, without any mention of unidentified flying object. Moriori 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that originally it was written as an example of the scenarios which UFO advocates promoted. As such, there were one or two sources - to those who promoted those scenarios. The "NPOV" approach was to present those accounts at face value - so, the initial 1947 reports were presented, then the "ufo" accounts, then the skeptical response. These sections have to, I feel, be better names.

That approach was taken for the simple reason that there is very little people agree on in terms of the truth of this incident. Further, a good deal of the evidence is hotly disputed. To wade through the debate, one has to know what the sides say happen.

As to the specific claims, witness claims in fact cover all this territory on the "witness" page. The problem identfied is that now it is a bit unclear as to where this stuff is sourced and I for one have said I will do a rewrite to more clearly present this case - specific to the various ufo advocates - with reference to where a lot of these claims arise (to be found on the witness page).

Far from being the only case presented, right below is the skeptical response to this, including a link to the Air Force reports which were so compelling that a) several prominent UFO advocates concluded there were no aliens involved and b) at least some of the ufo research was exposed as shoddy if not fraudulent. (That fallout is noted too)

I personally feel this needs a bit more work to make the sections more coherent, to make this section closer to the feel of the skeptic section where we go from specific advocate to other specific advocate, and make asides like "see Witness Accounts page."

As for the specific point about witnesses to objects flying, there in fact appeared at the time, in 1947, witness accounts from people saying they saw strange objects flying overhead. See this skeptical website page for more: http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/sighting.html

Canada Jack 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All this fingerpointing is rather pointless. What, precisely, is the disputed text? — e. ripley\talk 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nom

I think we're looking pretty good at this point. Unless there's any major objections, I'm going to nominate this as a Good Article tomorrow. --InShaneee 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think we need to clean up the section we talk about above. Won't be too hard, I say give it a week or so.
Canada Jack 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Redo of "witness" section

I've done a major redo of the "witness" section, more specifically identifying the various authors and claims, and changing section headings to reflect what may be a better approach here.

Obviously, I need to get all the references done and someone who knows what they are doing (not me) will need to wikify it all.

But this is the basis of what I think this should look like - any comments?

Canada Jack 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just moved around a bit of the "skeptic" section, new titles etc. I think it makes more sense to start with the Air Force reports as they form the basis for much of the skeptical response.
To me, the article now is much more coherent, though I still need to supply some more references in the "aliens" section and I may not be able to do much of that for a week or so.
Once that is done, THEN maybe we can submit this for GA!
Canada Jack 19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I know I've brought this up before, but any thoughts on the reliability of some of the skeptical sources? For example, who the heck is Timothy Printy? --InShaneee 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything he has said - in terms of what others have claimed - has been verified by other sources in my experience. The guy is pretty meticulous and is one of the best sources I've seen to wade through just about every aspect of the controversy.

Is there anything in particular you mean when you talk about "reliability." Most of the references I have here for him are on his opinion which is just that - his opinion. Is there something specific about his sources you are referring to? If so, I can try to verify those references.

Canada Jack 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image text

Below the image of 2 men posing with some of the balloon, it says "see below for an enlargement", yet there is no enlargement below. Was there? Should there be? If not, the text should be removed. 81.77.11.237 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There was... not sure what happened to it. Ummm weird. ---J.S (t|c) 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible revert war

I've noticed that one of the advocates of the ufo interpretation has decided to declare the article "biased" and, without discussion, start inserting pro-ufo interpretations into the section describing the skeptical viewpoint.

I've dealt with this guy for a long time in other venues and while his point of view is clear and he is entitled to it, he tends to seek to counter every view that might cast doubt on the ufo interpretation.

It took me a long time to clean up the mess that was largely his creation and let stand a fairly balanced NPOV article, he seems to think otherwise and is at it - again.

Canada Jack 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not start talking like he's a vandal just yet. As I said when I reverted him, since the current version of the page is based on broad consensus, he needs to bring any large scale changes here before implementing them. Additionally, dispute tags should not be applied when a single editor is challenging consensus. --InShaneee 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to suggest "vandal," but Dr Fil is what I would call a very passionate advocate of one point of view here. In my experience, he tends to see any claims which spells out the other point of view as "biased" and requiring counter-arguments, while claims supporting his views are left as is. It's not been easy to attempt - as I have - to present both sides of an argument without POV asides - and to have that left undisturbed by Dr Fil. This is what happened on the "witness" page where he insisted on inserting comments and asides which had the effect of disputing the credibilty of a witness he disagreed with.

And here it seems he is attempting to do the same, so that one side is presented, then the other - but since he disputes the other side, he feels the need to insert tons of counter-arguments.

Canada Jack 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making any accusations whatsoever. Let's just see how this plays out. --InShaneee 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, agreed.

Canada Jack 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Vandal" indeed. I have been listed among the top 100 contemporary Ufologists and am considered an expert in the field, including the Roswell incident, which I have intensively studied for many years. I have visited the area, interviewed witnesses, dug into archives, and know most of the major researchers, with whom I have exchanged information. I have written various published articles on some phases of the story which I have delved into in depth and have been interviewed several times for TV documentaries on the subject, exactly because I am considered one of the experts. I have also written a great deal of Wikipedia material and edited a great deal more.

In short, I am exactly the sort of highly knowledgable EXPERT contributer a real Encyclopedia would want helping write this and associated articles. I have had problems before dealing with hard-core skeptics who think they should have complete control over the contents of these highly controversial UFO articles, but I have always been able to edit material. But not here. Instead it either gets instantly deleted or has to pass through some sort of "consensus" board of censors for approval for anything I write. I am not even allowed to post Totally Disputed NPOV or Out of Balance notices. The administrator Inshanee (greatly exceeding his authority and violating the rules of Wikipedia) instantly deleted these as well. According to him, this wasn't the "consensus" view. I think he misses the point and why Wikipedia rules allow anyone to post these notices (note, e.g., how the wording says an "individual Wikipedia member" objects, not a "consensus" objects). The so-called "consensus" article may very well be full of serious factual errors, badly slanted, out-of balance, etc. Even when I think a POV label should be pulled, I always give the person at least a couple of days to make their case, if not several weeks. But again not here—instant deletion.

So here we have the situation where I, an actual expert on the subject, am being blockaded from making any contributions, including making simple factual corrections. Censorship is censorship, whether Inshanee likes me using the word or not. E.g., it is NOT true that only three people were photographed in Fort Worth (there were four, the fourth being Irving Newton, the weather officer), or that Marcel is the only known person to have accompanied debris from Roswell to Fort Worth (Robert Porter was another, and the names of other crew members are known as well, such as the acting base commander Lt. Col. Payne Jennings, who piloted the plane), or that Marcel had no radar experience (one of his official military occupations was radar intelligence officer). When I tried to make two of those simple corrections, they got deleted knee-jerk fashion along with everything else I tried to add.

Another one of Canada Jack's simple erroneous "facts" is that Sheriff Wilcox confirmed Brazel's mid-June discovery date in United Press stories. Yeah, but what about Associated Press stories where Wilcox contradicted his UP statements by saying Brazel made his find "several days ago"? Wilcox also contradicted himself as to when Brazel came to office (AP: the day before; UP: the day before yesterday). And Wilcox further contradicted Brazel's story by claiming (UP) that Brazel came in reporting a "weather meter", whereas Brazel said he told the Sheriff that maybe he had found a "flying disc" and also stated that what he found definitely wasn't any sort of weather observation device.

Such contradictions in the reporting were pointed out in the article previously, but Canada Jack made sure the reader wouldn't be "confused" by the alleged "pro-UFO" contradictions when he totally rewrote the article to his personal slant. He also freely editorializes instead of sticking to facts. E.g., instead of simply stating that Brazel's stated date of discovery disagreed with the base press release of "sometime last week", he instead editorializes that the press release was probably wrong because it was "fourth hand". Total speculation like that has no place in an encyclopedia article, but CJ obviously added that because he wants the article skewed in that POV direction. To those familiar with these Roswell debates, the Brazel's mid-June discovery date is considered debunking dogma because it supports their Mogul balloon theory; they definitely do not like having pointed out it conflicts with the early July discovery date from other contemporary accounts.

Here is another topic Canada Jack definitely does not like being raised: the question of Brazel being in military hands and likely coerced when he made his statements. Over on "Witness Accounts of the Roswell UFO incident", under "Accounts of Intimidation," I tried to insert 14 (!!) different eyewitness accounts of people seeing Brazel surrounded by military in Roswell, being incarcerated at the base, stating he been forced to change his story, complaining bitterly afterwards about his treatment by the military, saying he sworn an oath not to talk about what really happened, etc. Well Canada Jack thinks he owns this page as well and can unilaterally decide what goes in there. I tried to put this material in there four times, and guess what? He deleted it four times. He basically admitted he didn't want the material there because he again thought it was giving the article a "pro-UFO" or "pro-alien" POV (huh?), even though there wasn't a single word in that material to that effect. However, I think he understands full well what conclusion readers might well draw, which is why he doesn't want it in there. But I'm not supposed to use the word "censorship" here, as Inshanee has privately admonished me, even though obvious censorship is exactly what is going on.

Now over here on the Roswell UFO incident, the subject is very briefly touched on by Canada Jack, but the testimony is grossly misrepresented (he mentions only one witness, Paul McEvoy, the editor of the Roswell Daily Record), and then the witness' statement is ridiculed using a "citation" from fellow debunker Tim Printy (basically, argument by assertion or authority: it didn't happen because Tim Printy says so). Hey, what about the other 13 witnesses, such as Jason Kellahin, who was there with McEvoy and covering the story for AP, or the base provost marshal Edwin Easley, who admitted they held Brazel under guard (i.e., against his will) at the base for several days? Canada Jack ridiculing McEvoy and deliberately omitting even a mention of the other corroborating accounts is more of his blatant editorializing and slanting of the article to his personal POV. (That's why it's downright pathetic when he claims to be writing the article with a NPOV, "cleaning up the mess", and repeatedly attacking me as highly biased and POV. He should look in the mirror.)

So again, I, a mere expert on the subject, tried to insert a little balance and accuracy back into the article by quickly noting that dismissal of McEvoy's statement was nothing more than argument by assertion and then noting that there were many other witnesses corroborating McEvoy, such as Kellahin and Easley. Well, doggone it, I'm not supposed to use the word "censorship", but can anyone guess what happened when I tried to insert this?

If the "skeptical viewpoint" or any viewpoint is grossly distorting the facts (Marcel not knowing anything about radar, only McEvoy being a witness to the military and Brazel, etc.), a properly written Encyclopedia article should at the very least point out this out (if not delete it entirely for being nonfactual). But one of Canada Jack's editing POV ploys is to isolate topics so that contrasting information and corrections can't be made. Instead he tries to spin it as "inserting pro-ufo interpretations into the section describing the skeptical viewpoint" and "he tends to seek to counter every view that might cast doubt on the ufo interpretation." Well, a curse on me for trying to be actually FACTUAL by noting Marcel's record shows he was a radar intelligence officer or that numerous witnesses (not one) spoke of Brazel in military custody. Please explain how making those CORRECTIONS is "inserting a pro-ufointerpretation" into the article. Another thing I did was delete another very obvious editorial comment of Canada Jack's that had no place in any encyclopedia article, that the second Randle/Schmitt book was totally unreliable as a reference. (I am communicating with Randle right now about this, and he, no doubt is going to have a few choice words to say.) I also notice that both Randle/Schmitt books were deleted from "Further reading" along with the original Berlitz & Moore book. Whether one considers them reliable or not, they are widely acknowledged as being among the major books written on the subject and should be there. But when I tried to reinsert them, guess what?

I feel I have many justifiable grievances here. There is a good deal very wrong and heavily biased with this article as currently written (mainly by Canada Jack, a well-known Net debunker of the Roswell case, under his other alias of "Johnny Cannuck"). Yet I'm not being allowed to make any changes or even complain about the state of the article by posting disputed tags at the top. Canada Jack can freely and disingenuously accuse me of vandalism, bias, and "NPOV", while he editorializes the article at will and deletes any of my material at his personal whim, and yet I am the one getting admonished by the administrator for using the word "censorship" in frustration over what is happening. This is a total perversion of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

I am going to have a great deal more to say about this article as it currently stands. Dr Fil 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Here we go again...

Well, I would say a lot of what Dr Fil says here illustrates why he can't be trusted to make this a NPOV article, which is why I started the rewrite several months ago.
"I have written various published articles on some phases of the story which I have delved into in depth and have been interviewed several times for TV documentaries on the subject, exactly because I am considered one of the experts."
Which, if I understand Wikipedia policy, pretty well disqualifies you from taking control of a page as you have attempted to do here, and on the "witness" page as well. If I am not mistaken, a published author on the subject can't be WRITING the page here at Wikipedia which discusses that same author's work. Perhaps Dr Fil can do us all a favour here and identify himself so we can be assured that he is not in fact doing this.
"So here we have the situation where I, an actual expert on the subject, am being blockaded from making any contributions, including making simple factual corrections."
In fact, you had inserted a pile of "context" to quotes in an attempt to dismiss the skeptical argument. The structure of the page was to present the "UFO" argument - with what I must say are EXTREMELY extensive witness accounts to buttress that claims - WITHOUT "context" - and then do the same with the skeptical response (which, together, has far less coverage than the "ufo" argument).
The issue of your knowledge of the issue is beside the point, the point is you are an ADVOCATE of one side who clearly seeks to turn the argument one way. The FACT that the ufo accounts are left there without "context" yet you feel this need to supply "context" to the skeptics demonstrates you are utterly incapable of putting aside your bias and fairly allowing the sides to present their case.
Besides, some of your complaints about "facts" are simply wrong:
"it is NOT true... that Marcel is the only known person to have accompanied debris from Roswell to Fort Worth"
Who said it was? OBVIOUSLY he didn't take the material - alone - from Roswell to Ft Worth. Sometimes Dr Fil, in his haste, doesn't read too carefully: "...Jesse Marcel, the only person known to have accompanied the Roswell debris from where it was recovered to Fort Worth..." and later "...Jesse Marcel. He was the only person known to have accompanied the debris from the ranch to Fort Worth..."
"...or that Marcel had no radar experience (one of his official military occupations was radar intelligence officer)."
Again, where is this claimed? What WAS claimed was: "there is no evidence in Jesse Marcel’s military record that he had any experience with the material used in balloon trains." No where is there a statement which says that Marcel was unfamiliar with radar. The crucial point was: Was he familiar with radar reflectors from balloon trains, an unusual piece of equipment if one had never encountered them before. And there is no evidence he in fact was. And that's all that the skeptics - who make the claim - said.
"When I tried to make two of those simple corrections, they got deleted knee-jerk fashion along with everything else I tried to add."
To me, there is only a single "correction" to be made - that a fourth person was photographed with the debris. This is hardly an earth-shattering correction, for sure, but the other "corrections" are a) wrong and b) is an attempt to counter a skeptic's argument which is clearly a POV "correction."
Then we read this:
"Another one of Canada Jack's simple erroneous "facts" is that Sheriff Wilcox confirmed Brazel's mid-June discovery date in United Press stories. Yeah, but what about Associated Press stories where Wilcox contradicted his UP statements by saying Brazel made his find "several days ago"? Wilcox also contradicted himself as to when Brazel came to office (AP: the day before; UP: the day before yesterday). And Wilcox further contradicted Brazel's story by claiming (UP) that Brazel came in reporting a "weather meter", whereas Brazel said he told the Sheriff that maybe he had found a "flying disc" and also stated that what he found definitely wasn't any sort of weather observation device."
"...instead of simply stating that Brazel's stated date of discovery disagreed with the base press release of "sometime last week", he instead editorializes that the press release was probably wrong because it was "fourth hand". Total speculation like that has no place in an encyclopedia article, but CJ obviously added that because he wants the article skewed in that POV direction."
Again, I have to wonder: Did you bother reading what we've written? The controversy with the dates "June 14" and "several days ago" are noted as BOTH are mentioned in contemporary accounts. Because the "several days ago" comment comes from the Roswell base release, it is, at best, a fourth-hand account (Brazel told the sheriff who told Marcel who told Blanchard who dictated it to Huat who told news people, perhaps over the phone, the story). The June 14th date comes from a story which quotes the man who actually first saw the debris. I mention the controversy, but I lead with the June 14th date because it is closer to the source, which most would likely do under this circumstance. I don't see this as "editorialing," just noting which account is closest to the source.
Here is the passage on the page: "This exact date (or "about three weeks" before July 8) is a point of contention, 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 quoting Sheriff George Wilcox (whom Brazel first contacted). The initial report from the Roswell Army Air Field said the find was "sometime last week," but that description may have been a fourth-hand account of what Brazel actually said, and mentions the sheriff as the one who contacted them about the find."
I fail to see how that "editorializes" that the "last week" date is wrong - I simply state what seems closer to the source from the contemporary account. It IS controversial, which is why a) I STATE the controversy and b) justify leaning to the "June 14" date.
The ONLY time this becomes an issue is if one side or another seeks to attach a date for whatever scenario they like. And when it comes to the UFOligists, even THEY can't agree on a date that fits. For the purposes of the page, the specific debate really doesn't swing readers one way or the other - they are aware of the controversy, to see why it is important, one must visit the various advocates detailed accounts of WHY the date is important.
His charge that this is a "POV" article is therefore nonsensical.
"To those familiar with these Roswell debates, the Brazel's mid-June discovery date is considered debunking dogma because it supports their Mogul balloon theory; they definitely do not like having pointed out it conflicts with the early July discovery date from other contemporary accounts."
Simply put, that is false. It really doesn't matter WHEN, if you believe Mogul as an explanation, the debris was first seen. As long as it was AFTER June 4th, it's fine. June 14th, July 2nd, whatever. But, like it or not, Dr Fil, various accounts say "June 14th," and all the section does is recount the story as originally presented in 1947. Most of the accounts are consistent with "June 14th," some say within a few days of July 8th - they are noted. What's your problem?
As for the part about when Brazel came in, THAT discrepancy is noted as well: "On July 7, Brazel saw Sheriff Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he may have found a flying disc.[8] Another account quotes Wilcox as saying that Brazel reported the object on July 6.[7]"
"Here is another topic Canada Jack definitely does not like being raised: the question of Brazel being in military hands and likely coerced when he made his statements. Over on "Witness Accounts of the Roswell UFO incident", under "Accounts of Intimidation," I tried to insert 14 (!!) different eyewitness accounts of people seeing Brazel surrounded by military in Roswell, being incarcerated at the base, stating he been forced to change his story, complaining bitterly afterwards about his treatment by the military, saying he sworn an oath not to talk about what really happened, etc. Well Canada Jack thinks he owns this page as well and can unilaterally decide what goes in there. I tried to put this material in there four times, and guess what? He deleted it four times. He basically admitted he didn't want the material there because he again thought it was giving the article a "pro-UFO" or "pro-alien" POV (huh?), even though there wasn't a single word in that material to that effect. However, I think he understands full well what conclusion readers might well draw, which is why he doesn't want it in there. But I'm not supposed to use the word "censorship" here, as Inshanee has privately admonished me, even though obvious censorship is exactly what is going on."
Actually, I am glad you raised this, because this illustrates PERFECTLY what I mean when I suggest Dr Fil can't remove his bias from these pages.
When I created the other page, on witness accounts, I included a section on "witness intimidation," and I included half a dozen or so accounts from various witnesses claiming this. Then, Dr Fil came in and added piles more accounts and added a NEW section - for accounts dealing with this particular witness. Why is this so important? Why does Dr Fil INSIST on including not one but 14 accounts about a SINGLE witness? Because he seeks to make a case about OTHER witness statements. He seeks to counter the various OTHER statements from this person, to suggest that anything he said in 1947 had to be taken with a grain of salt.
I REPEATEDLY told him that this was inserting a POV argument into the page. And that the page is simply a collection of unadorned accounts from witnesses who described debris, aliens, coverups and intimidation. He sought to turn this into the case for not only one side of the debate, but a particular viewpoint held by several UFO authors that a) certain witnesses are not to be believed (hence his insistence in inserting "context" to those whose testimony might suggest non-alien explanations) and b) certain witness statements are not to believed owing to coerced testimony (in particular, Brazel's). I told him of this objection and others, and told him that at best AN account from this witness of his intimidation would suffice, in the "witness intimidation" section. It seems this does not sit well as he insists on making a case for his viewpoint.
What is laughable about his cries of "censorship" is that if you look at the page, you will find about 80 per cent of the quotes describing a) aliens b) cover up and c) witness intimidation. NO WHERE do you find stuff like "this was clearly no alien spacecraft" or whatever. But in Dr Fil's mind, I have somehow "censored" his views even though DOZENS of accounts suggesting aliens are there with NO "context" from the skeptical viewpoint!
Which tells me that Dr Fil is not capable of anything close to an NPOV as he seeks to completely slant an article one way even when it already IS largely on that side of the debate (!).
When I discuss the ufo interpretation on the main page, this is what I say: "And further accounts seemed to establish that Mack Brazel had been held in military custody and otherwise intimidated into changing his descriptions of what he saw so as to be consistent with the emerging “cover up” identified by the authors."
Some "censor."
"Now over here on the Roswell UFO incident, the subject is very briefly touched on by Canada Jack, but the testimony is grossly misrepresented (he mentions only one witness, Paul McEvoy, the editor of the Roswell Daily Record), and then the witness' statement is ridiculed using a "citation" from fellow debunker Tim Printy (basically, argument by assertion or authority: it didn't happen because Tim Printy says so)."
Another indication that he seeks this to be not an elucidation of the various sides of this debate, but a forum for him to attack any account which is at odds with his personal belief.
I CLEARLY state the case that he makes - accounts were coerced by intimidation, mentioning the particular person he speaks of by name, suggesting that accounts from him were lies forced out of him by the military, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, identifying the authors who made that claim - and THEN I state the skeptic's view saying that the original accounts suggest he WASN'T coerced and mentioning a skeptic BY NAME who suggests that one witness who said otherwise has an important contradiction.
What Dr Fil doesn't seem to get here is that this is not the place for the debate - it is the place to lay out the cases. OF COURSE Dr Fil doesn't agree with the skeptic's explanation, but HIS explanation is there, as are TONS of witness statements, unencumnered by skeptical "context," AS IT SHOULD BE IF THIS IS TO BE AN NPOV ARTICLE. The same applies to the skeptics! InShane was RIGHT to delete your additions here - you were attempting to debunk one side of the debate on the very sectiion their case is made! THAT'S POV!!!
"Canada Jack ridiculing McEvoy and deliberately omitting even a mention of the other corroborating accounts is more of his blatant editorializing and slanting of the article to his personal POV. (That's why it's downright pathetic when he claims to be writing the article with a NPOV, "cleaning up the mess", and repeatedly attacking me as highly biased and POV. He should look in the mirror.)"
If the above doesn't underline that Dr Fil doesn't get it, nothing does. I made the ufo case on this issue. I made the skeptic's case on this issue. I provided links and sources whereby one can read more on each side. To Dr Fil, that's clearly not good enough. The skeptics have to be countered in their own section, lest any reader think that their argument has any validity. Well, that's not the function here of the page, Dr Fil. The function here is to simply present the cases, unadorned, and let the reader decide. As long as each side is presented fairly, that should suffice. This falls apart when one chooses to remove that objectivity on one side or the other.
So far, I've seen no complaints about me misrepresenting the pro-ufo side, which is good. Because I believe I fairly present their case, and fairly present the sequence of events which led them to their various conclusions. That says to me that a good part of this is fine. But to aloow Dr Fil free reign here - well, by his comments we can see the true agenda here. The skeptic side is wrong in his view and must be SHOWN to be wrong at each opportunity. That is not NPOV.
"Another thing I did was delete another very obvious editorial comment of Canada Jack's that had no place in any encyclopedia article, that the second Randle/Schmitt book was totally unreliable as a reference. (I am communicating with Randle right now about this, and he, no doubt is going to have a few choice words to say.) I also notice that both Randle/Schmitt books were deleted from "Further reading" along with the original Berlitz & Moore book. Whether one considers them reliable or not, they are widely acknowledged as being among the major books written on the subject and should be there. But when I tried to reinsert them, guess what?"
I can't speak to the list of books as I didn't create that, though I do agree that the Randle/Schmitt books should be included in the lists on this page, and I in fact mention their importance: "Dennis’ accounts were featured in Randle and Schmitt’s 1991 “UFO Crash at Roswell,” one of two books they co-authored. This book, along with “The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell,” published in 1994, remain highly influential in the UFO community, their interviews and conclusions widely reproduced on websites. [16]"
As for this "totally unreliable" comment supposedly made, here is what I in fact wrote: "Later, discrepancies with certain accounts and problems with research done by Donald Schmitt would cause Kevin Randle to reject much of the evidence from The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, yet many who embrace the UFO explanation still quote many of these accounts.[30]"
Nowhere do I say "totally unreliable": I simply state a fact. Randle has repudiated large portions of the very book he wrote. I spell out the problems Randle HIMSELF identified with not only some of the star witnesses from the book, but with his fellow researcher Schmitt. Schmitt did much of the research and Randle publiclly said that Scmitt is a "liar"; He also publiclly doubts Dennis' story which, you have to admit, take up a good portion of the book; and he also now casts serious doubt on Kaufman's credibilty, another main witness in the book. These are no mere quibbles, Dr Fil, they form a chief part of this book and, more to the point, I document the claim made in the statement.

Canada Jack 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a lot of animosity between us, but this ALSO has everything to do the extreme bias, lack of balance, many mistakes, and overall poor structuring and narrative of the article. (E.g., the reader is just dropped into the Brazel interview, FBI telegram, and base press release with absolutely no idea as to what led up to any of these or how they relate to one another. This is just plain bad history telling. The "Background" section needs to be greatly expanded on and rewritten in order to lead the reader logically into the material that follows.)
Also Wikipedia ENCOURAGES articles of highly controversial subjects to have back and forth contrasting discussions and rebuttal arguments so that both sides get presented and arguments get balanced out. But here it is not only discouraged but actually FORBIDDEN. I'm not allowed to add, correct, or delete a single thing, even add disputed banners, contrary to all Wikipedia rules. Dr Fil 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, what's between you two goes deeper than this article, and it needs to be taken to dispute resolution, not here. --InShaneee 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been extremely frustrating to try to do this with someone who in my view does not operate on good faith. Sure, we take differing viewpoints on this, but I think my approach has been fairly balanced. I have tried to present both sides at face value and without editorializing, which I believe is the only way to go here.

It seems he takes issue with this approach but from what I have seen from the above is really a complaint that boils down to "you aren't allowing me to insert counter arguments to what the skeptics say, you are therefore censoring me."

My suggestion here would be to focus on the case made by the ufo side, and if that is found wanting - perhaps, for example, we could insert one of his quotes on Brazel's abduction there (though I think it more properly should be on the "witness" side) that might lessen the blow.

As you can see from the above, there are arguments and counter arguments to what happened at Roswell. My approach was to basically state the cases without weighing down the pages with a lot of extraneous and side issue debates. So we see, first, what was actually reported in 1947 with asides to the various discrepancies as there wasn't complete consistency with the sequence of events as reported in 1947.

Then, giving a sense of how the ufo researchers came to believe there was far more to the story, starting with Marcel and the early books, moving onto the first alien accounts and the authors in the 1990s, with some more recent stuff. A side page supplied a lot of the accounts from which both sides drew their arguments, but instead of further weighing down THAT page, I thought the best approach was to divide the accounts up by subject matter. Dr Fil doesn't agree, he says that it would be better to do it in terms of a sequence of events, with corroborating statements from some what I would view as peripheral players who nevertheless tended to buttress the accounts of more direct witnesses, even if they didn't actually see the debris or aliens or what have you.

I didn't agree with that approach as I felt it best to mirror the basic structure of this page and I further feel that by in effect recreating the ufo-believers' argument via a sequence of accounts (which is why, in part, I felt a new section on a particular witness's alleged intimidation was not warranted and POV) the purpose of the exercise is defeated if we are left with the argument for aliens as some particular authors believe it is.

The skeptics section gives THEIR counter-argument with a side page on the Air Force reports. On the Air Force page, I explained the basis for their conclusions and note the controversy and some of the arguments against the report.

But that in my view already exists on the main page in the case for the ufo interpretation.

Dr Fil seems quite angry that I noted Randle's repudiation of much of the evidence found in some of the books published, but that alas is a matter of public record.

I think my approach is the best one given the very strong views on both sides. I've at times allowed a bit of bias to slip through, so I have addressed those concerns where I believe they are warranted.

But the critiques above, save for the minor points mentioned, do not carry any weight, in my view.

In my view, the choice is between what I have done, with modifications where needed, or Dr Fil's approach which amounts to a yelling match back and forth between proponents of each side.

Dr Fil should concentrate not on what the skeptics say - since that is THEIR opinion - he should ensure that the case FOR aliens is fairly presented. He doesn't agree with their side, he has counter-arguments. But this is not where they are to be presented. The skeptics have THIER say, just as the ufo believers do.

Canada Jack 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I say again, this really should be taken to mediation between you two at this point. --InShaneee 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me that judging by the collaboration going on here the past few months, my approach has been accepted. I'm open to correcting any innacuracies, or adding information to the "alien reports emerge" section if anyone finds that section wanting. And, of course, if someone is to spell out a better way to present the cases NPOV, then I think we are open to suggestions.

Canada Jack 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is definitely a lot of animosity between us, but this ALSO has everything to do the extreme bias, lack of balance, many mistakes, and overall poor structuring and narrative of the article. (E.g., the reader is just dropped into the Brazel interview, FBI telegram, and base press release with absolutely no idea as to what led up to any of these or how they relate to one another. This is just plain bad history telling. The "Background" section needs to be greatly expanded on and rewritten in order to lead the reader logically into the material that follows.)"
Well, I fail to see the bias here. My approach, I believe, REMOVES the bias by simply presenting the story as it evolved. Sure, the reader is "dropped into" the Brazel interview, as in 1947 that is what we were told. Much later, various sides had strongly differing interpretations of that interview - that Brazel was coerced into saying something different vs. he was talking accurately about what he said.
UFO researchers have created a rather elaborate sequence of events based on various witness accounts which suggest far more to the story than what was presented in 1947. However, skeptics and the Air Force sees this reconstucted sequence of events as a cobbled-together collection of accounts, many of which are not credible or contradictory, many of which have been attached to the Roswell incident to lend the alien cover up scenario credibility. Many of which, in other words, do NOT accurately reflect what happened.
To do as Dr Fil suggests would, without making it clear, add what a lot of ufo researchers BELIEVE is the "true" sequence of events, with possible asides to skeptics. A sequence which in the manner it is presented would not be understood by the casual reader to in fact be a reconstruction based on the presumption that there was a cover-up of an alien recovery. THAT is what existed before, and it was ludicrously one-sided, it was POV. Apparently, Dr Fil believes that was "balanced."
All I have done is taken an NPOV approach, reproducing as best we can the sequence of events as intitially reported. There are discrepancies in the intitial reporting - those are noted. Where is the "bias" there? Then we present the various interpretations, such as the belief that an elaborate cover-up was proceeding, and aliens were being recovered. Without rebuttals. THEN, the skeptical viewpoints. Without rebuttals.
BOTH viewpoints are explored later in the appropriate sections which spell out the various cases. In a case where such strongly held interpretations essentially tell completely different stories, it makes sense to me to present the ORIGINAL story and then the various interpretations, rather than wade into a complicated debate right from the start which in the original form of this page, was extremely confusing to all but the ones who knew the story very well.
The original approach made it incomprehensible to all except those who were already very familiar with the incident. And THAT is not what can we can assume here at wikipedia.
The narrative is NPOV because it HAS to be NPOV for anyone new to this to understand what happened. Presenting the narrative AS IT WAS REPORTED can't be seen as "bias" as long as I underline that that was how the story was presented. The DEBATE started many years later when sides chose to see certain parts as either part of a cover-up of an alien recovery or simply a story of a misidentified balloon train grown fantastic.
Over the past few months, Dr Fil, we've worked on this page in this manner and the consensus here seems to be that this approach is the desired one.
You've identified "errors," but save for saying "three" appeared in the photos instead of "four," the other errors you identified were in fact misreadings on your part.
"Also Wikipedia ENCOURAGES articles of highly controversial subjects to have back and forth contrasting discussions and rebuttal arguments so that both sides get presented and arguments get balanced out. But here it is not only discouraged but actually FORBIDDEN. I'm not allowed to add, correct, or delete a single thing, even add disputed banners, contrary to all Wikipedia rules."
The approach was to leave those viewpoints to the sections that present the sides of the cases. Your rebuttal approach ignored that structure and was deleted by others. As I have said several times, if you feel your side has not been fairly presented in its section, we are open to discussion about how to alter that.
No one here has a monopoly on the truth. To presume someone DOES is a fatal mistake. All we can do is present the arguments as they stand, no matter how flawed or how many rebuttals you can think of. We could do an entire page, for example, on the issue of Brazel's incarceration. I just don;t see the point in getting mired in such a debate. One side says he was coerced and that coercion was part of a cover up effort, and there are witnesses to that effect. The other side said he wasn't, and there are witnesses to THAT effect. The controversy is mentioned, but to flesh it out into a full-borne debate is a waste of time and space.
Canada Jack 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what all has come between you two, but I can't read the voluminous amounts of text that are being dumped into this page. It looked, on a cursory glance, as if Dr. Fil has brought the debate over the Witness accounts at Roswell article here. Don't do that. This talk page is for discussing this article and this article only. Keep disputes over other articles on their pages. Also, please remember to keep discussions focused on actual article content. It can be tempting to use these pages to debate the rightness or truth of certain theories, but that's not what these pages are for. They're for discussing discrete changes to the article itself, and nothing more. — e. ripley\talk 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, that's what happened -- Dr Fil reposted an enormous bloc of text that he had originally posted at the fork article. I have removed it. Keep discussions about that article on that article's talk page. It has no place here. — e. ripley\talk 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made the case. In fact, I've done so repeatedly, the "case" being the approach to the structure here.

In fairness to Dr Fil, besides his inclusion of all those witness accounts of Brazel's incarceration, his debate DOES reside on this page.

But, as I've pointed out, the structure here stands as this is what the consensus over the past few months seems to be.

Again, I think we are open to suggestions, if Dr Fil has any, to how the ufo argument is presented, if he feels that there are points to be fleshed out or omissions clarified. But I personally don;t feel any need to change the structure as it stands.

Canada Jack 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that discussions are focused on this article, that's fine. I removed the portions that were not. May I ask that you please try to make your comments concise? Wikipedia isn't a forum and it's not an email listserv so space is limited. As well, we're all volunteers with finite time. Stay on topic, resist the urge to debate the rightness of some theory or another, and above all be as brief and polite as possible. (This applies equally, I'm responding underneath Jack's text but I direct it to Dr Fil also). It will help if you will curtail using carriage returns quite so much. You'll notice I've typed multiple sentences and haven't used one. Sometimes it makes sense, but for example in your response directly above this one you use one sentence per line, which makes discussions scroll way too quickly (which in turn makes them too disjointed and difficult to digest in this particular medium). — e. ripley\talk 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in future, I will be brief, and will lose the carriage returns - I am fairly new here, getting up to speed. There is one thing that I think Dr Fil was right on, and that is the inclusion of the two Schmitt/Randle books. He has the info on the witness page.. I note within this page that one of the authors - Randle - has publicly parted with his co-author over various issues and has also dismissed the credibility of several key witnesses in the books, but as I also say, the books retain enormous influence in the pro-ufo community and are widely cited, therefore they should be included in the "further reading" section. Canada Jack 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, this place has a pretty steep learning curve so don't sweat anything! I didn't mean that message to come out harshly so I hope you didn't take it that way. You're doing great here. — e. ripley\talk 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of UFO Books and Skeptics sections

I've been doing a bit of an expansion of the case for UFOs at Roswell as it evolved via the various books published over the year, including more specific quotes for the cases etc. I feel it needs a bit more detail (not tons), and I think I will rewrite the skeptic section. As it stands, the article is almost there but not quite. Canada Jack 15:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just redone the "New witness accounts and Roswell UFO books" section to better expand on the development of the "UFO" story. Accordingly, I've moved some accounts - the Rudiak "photo" account and the General Exon account to "new developments" as they came later. I will follow-up with a redo of the skeptical response section to more closely follow the sequence in the preceding section. Canada Jack 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've pretty done what I think needs to be done. Hopefully, someone will properly format this for me, assuming this meets with general approval. Canada Jack 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dummies and Mogul?

I watched a program on National Geographic that said Roswell was nothing more than a weather balloon experiment, and the "alien bodies" were just crash test dummies.

But is there a connection between dummies and Mogul, which is seems to be the most popular explanation of the debris? Were dummies on the Mogul aparatus, and what were they for if it was just for listening? Or was the debris more than one experiment that crashed in the same place?

No, no dummies with Mogul. Mogul was assigned to detect possible Soviet atomic blasts and was equipped with microphones. In their Report on the Roswell incident in 1994, the USAF bypassed the alien aspect, but in their publication "Case Closed" in 1997 they deal with it contending much later crashes of devices with dummies had misled people to think they saw alien bodies. The USAF "evidence" is based on the home-made speculation that all the eye witnesses had memory deficiencies (leading to mixing up things or substituting earlier memories by later ones or even invent "memories"), what surely CAN happen once in a while but hardly with ALL witnesses regarding ONE single event (besides, these alleged deficiencies were not at all checked with the involved). -- Bwilcke 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of misrepresenting what the Air Force said, why not direct them to the page on the subject? Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident has the two reports spelled out without the POV stuff above. I've reverted the original intro which was the result of a lengthy edit process - someone it seems saw fit to simply chuck out that work with a POV intro. The old intro had a link to the Air Force reports page which spelled out what they said. (The link is also elsewhere in the article as it stood) The claim above that the Air Force case is "home-made speculation that all the eye witnesses had memory deficinies" tells me a) the writer here has not read the Air Force report in question and b) hasn't even bothered to read Wiki's page on the same subject.

We all are at perfect liberty to disagree with what person A says or what person B says. We are NOT at liberty to misrepresent what person A or person B said, however, ESPECIALLY when there is a page here at wiki which spells out the case they made.

Canada Jack 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewrite and revert

Bwilcke redid the intro twice and it's been reverted twice, viz:

"Thirty years later, former Roswell AAF intelligence officer Jesse Marcel confessed the crash of a UFO back then. Three UFO researcher teams (Moore/Berlitz, Randle/Schmitt, Friedman/Berliner) confirmed Marcel's testimony on the basis of a great number of witnesses. 1994 the congress had the General Accounting Office (GAO) carry out an archive search for documents possibly related to the incident, whatever it was, with no results except that Roswell AAF documents regarding the period 1947 – 1949 were missing and the obligatory documentation on their deletion not found. The US Air Force at once undertook an own archive search with the result of only one document (teletype) found, and claimed "no indication" of a UFO crash but "most probably" a crash of a weatherballoon train in connection with Project Mogul. 1997 the US Air Force repeated this result in a further publication, adding - especially concerning the "alien" aspect - the memory of the witnesses unreliable, and declared "Case Closed". UFO researcher criticized this as unfounded und incorrect and presented more evidence supporting their case. Some other UFO researchers as well as "skeptics" joined the case of the Air Force and tried to strengthen their stance. There has been a passionate debate ever since about what really happened."

I reverted to the original intro as did InShanee the second time around. I think InShanee and I agree that what was originally there and what we reverted to was the best NPOV intro that we had and seeing that it was the result of a fairly intensive edit process, it should stand. IMHO, there are several problems with the Bwilcke new intro, such as "...Jesse Marcel confessed the crash of a UFO..." which to me is clearly POV and probably not accurate anyway. "Confessed" implies that Marcel revealed the truth that a UFO crashed, a "truth" which is in fact hotly disputed. Further, and I think most of the named pro-ufo authors would agree here, Marcel simply voiced his BELIEF that there had been a cover-up of a UFO, he didn't in fact reveal some secret file that indicated aliens had been recovered. Further, as InShanee indicated in his revert, this information is quite specifically spelled out in the body of the page, the Air Force reports have their own pages which spell ojt their conclusions and the controversies (like the missing documents) which are properly there and not in the intro. Besides, there is a misrepresentation of what the Air Force in fact said in this intro - it was more that witnesses reported what they in fact said WERE dummies but pro-ufo authors had omitted their prosaic descriptions and fixed these often undated occurences with the events as described in July 1947. It didn't simply say the memories were "unreliable."

As indicated in both the original intro and the Bwilcke intro, "there has been a passionate debate ever since," and I and others here have strived these past few months to give a balanced presentation of the facts which, it seems, has largely been embraced with a few notable exceptions (see above). My take on this leans towards the skeptical, but as long as we present the case for and against in as neutral a way as possible - and as long as we accurately portray the sides in a manner THEY present their side, then we are on stable ground. Canada Jack 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is Not a crystal ball

This whole article should go. Its just a list of things people dreamed up out of their own paranoia and lack of education. You ought to be able to accept the idea that Roswell was the result of a rocket flight from White Sands by former Nazi rocket scientists. Their existence in this country was secret. The whole thing flew funny because of ionization during re-entry, and caused von Braun to get together with Hannes Alfven and have him write a textbook about ionization in 1949 - called _Cosmic Electrodynamics_ In the preface Alven says he cant reveal who asked him to do the work.

The secrecy of White Sands led to the first versions of Dyna-Soar not to be understood. Even as late as 1962, no one understood that magnetic fields that were causing the X-15 to roll during flight. Modern Space Shuttles have the same defect - they were designed for hypersonic flight through fluids. The next shuttle ought to be designed for flight through magnetic fields. In the meantime, this wiki article documenting everyones paranoid ideas ought to be deleted. Mr Grant ought to know enough to be able to verify my scientific claims. And the Help files can tell you that Wikipedia is not designed for documenting things people imagined or were afraid of because they were uneducated.

Conventional Theories/Skeptics Satellite imagery - Project Corona It seems possible that the Roswell incident of July 1947 might have been a failed attempt to retrieve film from space. Possibly the Corona Project was named for Corona, New Mexico which is the site of the Roswell incident. V-2 engineers at White Sands were working on taking photos from space and had perfected a technique for orienting the camera by 1948. http://www.infoage.org/paperclip.html Remember that the existence of German rocket scientists 100 miles away at White Sands was classified. Five flights in April and May 1947 included experiments in photography, but the next published photo flight was not made until December. It was well known from Eugene Saenger's work that a rotating disk allowed for an even distribution of convective and radiant heat during reentry. What they did not know until around 1949 and the work of Hannes Alfven, was the large amount of re-entry heat due to ionization. The first photographs from space were successfully returned to earth on July 26, 1948. http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/FactSheets/V2/v-2.htm

21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is well sourced and relevant for what it is. Your misunderstanding of wikipedia policy is thorough; the interviews and opinions linked to here were not 'imagined'. --InShaneee 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Air Force, in its reports from the 1990s, addressed the specific question of whether the Roswell incident involved misidentifed rocket programs. It found no link between the tests undertaken and the reports received concerning recovered debris and aliens. Canada Jack 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roswell_incident/Archive_2&oldid=1187264095"