Jump to content

Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Inconsistent citation format

This article still has an inconsistent citation format. That is a bar to it becoming GA. Bon courage (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Polishing references is usually the last thing to do in a workflow, we're still at the stage of ruling out bigger problems and soliciting other suggestions. When GA/FA hinges only upon reference polishing, we'll know the references are ready for a final polish. (but also, props to anyone who wants to polish now) Feoffer (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
But hasn't this article been nominated for GA? Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The GA review process is interactive -- a reviewer comes and looks over the article and makes suggestions and then you improve the text according to those suggestions. Per Rjjiii, I'm not even sure this article's citation style is problematic tbh, I'm primarily interested in the GA to see if it can help us find more substantive ways to improve our text. But of course I'm also on board to help fix the citation style if that's what's needed when we get there. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess I should ask you to actually clarify what you want done to improve the references. Last year, you were asked "Do you mean the combination of shortened footnotes via {{harv}} with repeated full citations? Which is the article's original format for repeated references? I'm assuming harv. I could take some time soon and convert the repeated full citations. I think it's no big deal though to have single use citations mixed in with shortened footnotes. I've been using {{sfn}}and feel like it's a strength of the format because it allows visual editor users to contribute." Maybe you made a reply I never saw.
What do you think is unclear about our current citation style, and do you have any MOS to back it up? So far as I'm aware, it's perfectly fine to have a Reference and a Sources section, with the former citing the latter. I literally just went to Category:Featured_articles and the very first article I clicked on 2nd Red Banner Army had both a Ref and Sources section. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The main thing is consistency; I don't have a super-strong preference but for book-heavy referencing harv works well. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Wait -- it looks like this has been addressed by Rjjiii already. Looks like all the SFNs have been converted to Harv -- am I mistaken? Feoffer (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue is the inline CS1 <ref>s which are mixed in. Bon courage (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Took some searching to figure out what you meant by CS1, let me echo back to what I think you mean. You are concerned that we mix {{Cite web}} and {{harv}}/{{sfn}}. A spot inspection suggests FAs like 2nd Red Banner Army do the same. Are you really sure this counts as "unclear"? Feoffer (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes. We have a list of "Sources" and some source aren't in it. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
After hearing you arguments, I see nothing in the MOS to suggest we can't mix CS1 and Sources. I see Rjjiii doesn't think it's problematic. And I see a FA that does the same, suggesting the project doesn't see it as problematic.
That said, Henny Penny and WP:SOFIXIT apply: If this citation thing is really important to you, then this is your time to shine and help us be all that we can be. I don't think anyone has any objections if you want to harmonize the article's sources, and I also don't think it's the end of the world if you object to GA status over a trifle. The point of the review is to improve the article, not earn a gold star. Feoffer (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be improved with consistent citations. I did it once many years ago, but it has degraded. Why are some articles, and some books, listed in Sources but others not? It is inconsistent (unless there is some organizing principle I have missed?). Hence the template. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a valid standard, but not one required for GA or FA. Don't argue with me, just go fix it. (Or don't!). I'm confident readers can ascertain where our sources are cited to. Feoffer (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This was already discussed.[1] So there is no argument. But if the "trifle" of a GA sticker is needed, then the "trifle" of doing the work to get the citations sorted is needed as a prerequisite. Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
if the "trifle" of a GA sticker is needed
It's not. This is a controversial topic, I'm completely fine with it never being a GA, if that's what's best for the project. I nominate it to solicit ways to improve it. I honestly don't think your proposed changes constitute an improvement, and my evaluation is only strengthened by your unwillingness to actually implement them yourself, much less cite any MOS suggesting we can't mix styles when FAs clearly do. Feoffer (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Read the previous discussion. Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage: Could you link to the old version you mentioned above? I'll look through the references later tonight, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Mirage Men conspiracy

For the record, I concur with this removal. Despite the contents of the book and film, it's not clear to me that USAF was really involved at all. I think it all comes back to "Doty said he was working for the Air Force", where Doty is a known hoaxer. Feoffer (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about it, Feoffer. I had intended to, and things came up. The other changes, I think, were pretty straightforward. My concern was that a "conspiracy by the U.S. military to fabricate UFO folklore in order to deflect attention from classified military projects" was a broader claim than what more academic sources make. It's still mentioned in the article under "Majestic 12" as "Richard Doty and other individuals presenting themselves as Air Force Intelligence Officers approached Moore". Rjjiii (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Systematic lack of sense

Just wheeled back to this article after a while, and it seems to have gone odd not least because of what seems like an effort to get a "myth" wording into it. So the first (odd) sentence offers this definition:

The Roswell incident is a collection of events and myths surrounding the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico.

What is "a collection of events and myths" and how can an "incident" be such a collection? Is there any sourcing for this? And if we accept this definition of "incident", subsequent sentences now make less sense, e.g.

Reporting on the incident ceased soon after the government provided a mundane explanation

Surely the "incident" was what happened, and subsequently a bunch of people wrote a load of mostly fictional stuff about it, some of which was (according to some commentators) 'mythical' in nature? Bon courage (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Surely the "incident" was what happened
Just responding off the top of my head ala brainstorming. I always think of The Roswell Incident as a 1980s-era myth (after the eponymous book), that drew upon a mundane set of events in 1947. So far as I'm aware, no one calls it "The Roswell Incident" until the CT. I feel like NPOV/V could support a sentence like "The Roswell Incident never happened"; but also, this article still has way too many of my fingerprints on it and at the end of the day, 'I have no strong feelings one way or the other' Feoffer (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the article title is wrong, which causes the word "incident" to get overloaded? Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm open to that, but what would the title be instead? Something like '1947 balloon recovery by Roswell Army Air Field'? Or should we put the title in scare quotes maybe, to help reader understand it's a proper phrase? I'm attached to nothing on this part -- ledes are not my forte. Feoffer (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage and Feoffer: Thanks for bringing this up. I looked through the WP:RS cited in the article.

My main takeaway was that the article should avoid using "incident" to describe things in favor of more specific language as much as possible. "Incident" is probably fine for the pop culture stuff. If something is a historical fact, a conspiracy theory, an urban legend, or part of a book, the article should say that. Many sources qualify "Incident" in several ways to avoid saying it in their voice. The sources cited vary in whether they use "incident" to describe the 1947 historical events, the 1980 book, broader legends, some combination, or none of the above. I've also snipped sections from the cited sources that give a definition or scope.

Reliable sources avoiding "incident" in their voice

  • "Roswell Incident"Ricketts (2011); Gildenberg (2003); Kloor (2019)
  • Roswell "Incident"Olmsted (2008)
  • supposed "Roswell Incident"Gulyas (2016)
  • so-called Roswell IncidentMay (2016); Clancy (2007); Frazier (2017)
  • For believers, the Roswell IncidentGoldberg (2001)
Do WP:RS call it the Roswell Incident?
Source 1947 events 1980 book broader legend
Frank (2023) No Yes No
May (2016) Yes Yes Yes
Gulyas (2016) Yes Yes Yes
Harding, & Stewart (2003) No Yes No
Kloor (2019) Yes Yes Yes
Gildenberg (2003) Yes Yes Yes
Clancy (2007) Yes Yes
kind of
Goldberg (2001) Yes Yes Yes
Levy & Mendlesohn (2019) Yes No No
Clancy (2007) Yes Yes No
Ricketts (2011) Yes Yes Yes
ABC News (2005) No Yes No
Baker (2024) No No No
Toby (2000) Yes Yes Yes
Dunning (2007) Yes Yes Yes
Grossman (2017) No No Yes
Peebles (1994) Yes Yes Yes
Olmsted (2008) Yes Yes No
Frank (2023)
"head-spinning mix of true believers, hoaxers, and charlatans attached to the name Roswell"
May (2016)
"so-called Roswell incident of 8 July 1947—just two weeks after Kenneth Arnold’s original sighting—when a “flying disc” was reported to have crashed near the military airbase in Roswell, New Mexico"
Gulyas (2016)
"suspicions that the United States government—particularly the military and intelligence services—have ben covering up evidence of extraterrestrial visitation to the Earth. From well known cases such as the supposed “Roswell Incident”"
Harding, & Stewart (2003)
"Among the thousands of stories of ufo sightings, Roswell was the most renowned site of these shifts. Thanks to a series of sensational publications by ufo investigators"
Kloor (2019)
"This conspiracy narrative has its roots in a true historical event involving a classified military project initiated in 1947, at the dawn of the Cold War, and just as the UFO bug was sweeping the United States."
Gildenberg (2003)
"On June 14, 1947, a rancher named Mack Brazel found a large amount of paper, rubber, and foil garbage scattered across his land––and ignored it. Mogul Flight #4 would then have remained lost forever, had not a “businessman pilot” by the name of Kenneth Arnold sighted the world’s very first flying saucers ten days later.Roswell is the world’s most famous, most exhaustively investigated, and most thoroughly debunked UFO claim"
Goldberg (2001)
"For believers the Roswell incident is the holy grail, and many have joined the search, making it the most studied event in ufo history."
Levy & Mendlesohn (2019)
"The Roswell incident (1947) was one of a cluster of reports of UFOs in the United States in 1947. Although the purported crash site was approximately 75 miles away from Roswell, New Mexico, the investigation and subsequent conspiracy theories involved Roswell Army Air Field"
Clancy (2007)
"Ironically, this report came out on the very day that the so called Roswell incident occurred. On June 14, near Roswell, New Mexico, a rancher had found some debris on the ground. He’d brought it into town on July 7."
Ricketts (2011)
"18 On July 8, 1947, the Roswell Daily Record published headline that stated "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Region. [...] The resurrection of the "Roswell Incident," as it has come to be known, provides a modern window through which the creation of sacred space can be understood. Roswell might seem an unusual candidate as a sacred pilgrimage site. The city is much like other cities - a long main street features the usual Wal-Mart and McDonald's. But upon closer inspection, Roswell is different. The McDonald's is shaped like a flying saucer and the Wal-Mart has a UFO theme. The Roswell visitor's cen- ter has welcome mats with UFOs on them, and every street light has a globe painted to look like an alien." Note: this source is a comparison of a Catholic religious site and Roswell, NM as places for pilgrimage and tourism so it has an unusual focus.
ABC News (2005)
"For those who believe that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrial spacecraft, a remote New Mexico ranch is hallowed ground. [...] Decades after something fell from the sky outside Roswell, the New Mexico town is now a tourist destination, complete with UFO museums, gift shops and guided tours. It doesn't matter that there isn't a shred of evidence to support the claim that a flying saucer crashed there."
Baker (2024)
"To the northeast, not far from Roswell, something crashed on a sheep ranch in June 1947. W. W. “Mac” Brazel, who found the wreckage, didn’t know what it was. [...] The records of Project Mogul weren’t made public until the ’90s, so there was plenty of time for a lush Roswellian mythology to germinate and ripen.
Toby (2000)
"Roswell the Incident was born and bred by the mass media. From its very first breath, in July 1947, when the Associated Press reported in newspapers and radio broadcasts around the globe that a flying saucer had been scooped up in Roswell, New Mexico."
Dunning (2007)
"In July of that year, a balloon train came down on the Foster Ranch, 75 miles northwest of Roswell, New Mexico. Rancher "Mac" Brazel, who had been reading about flying saucers, reported it to the local Sheriff, who in turn reported a crashed flying saucer to a Major Jesse Marcel at Roswell Army Air Field, but not before the local press heard about it."
Grossman (2017)
"Central to the belief in UFO lore is belief in a conspiracy by 'the Government' - and primarily those of the USA and UK - to withold the 'secret truth' from the public. [...] The ultimate expression of this modern legend is the Roswell Incident." Note: this is from "Rendlesham" by David Clarke, not the essay cited in the article.
Peebles (1994)
"The next step in the development of the crashed saucer stories was a book-The Roswell Incident-written by Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore. It was centered on the July 1947 report that the Army Air Force at Roswell, New Mexico, had recovered debris from a crashed "flying disk." The next day it was identified as coming from a weather balloon."

Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, great work! I took at stab at a lede where we just straight up say Roswell Incident is a conspiracy theory; It does seem to simplify things to me, but see what ya'll think.diff Feoffer (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Something I liked about the old version (drafted by JoJo Anthrax and copyedited by Alalch E.) was that it put the 1947 historical facts into the very first paragraph. And then the spooky claims in context in the second paragraph. I'll refrain from specific suggestions to avoid making the lead too verbose again. Rjjiii (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Good call. How bout this. Feoffer (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

37 witnesses to the Roswell shape memory foil

As far as I know there was no such foil in existence at the time. At least not created by humans. :)

References are at the end of the page:

Archived here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Accounts from Roswell do not describe "memory metal", they talk about a lightweight foil that can be crumpled and unfolds automatically: Think mylar balloons. If you heated the foil and it folded into an origami crane, that might be like "memory metal". I've been on the lookout for a good RS addressing the Roswell/Battelle/NiTinol tendril of the lore, but thus far haven't found one. Feoffer (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Mylar was invented in the 1950s. Nothing existed in 1947 with the memory foil properties described by the witnesses. And it did not need to be heated to return to it shape. Crumple it, and it returned on its own.
The memory foil is not mentioned at all in this Wikipedia article. Just like the Walter Haut notarized 2002 affidavit is not mentioned in the article at all. The article is completely slanted to it being the Roswell "myth" and "legend". It definitely does not deserve "good article" status.
--Timeshifter (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
it did not need to be heated to return to it shape Which is why it has no similarity to the memory metal effect. I don't mean to suggest that the foil was literally mylar, only that a very low-tech material can do things like unfold after being crumpled.
The memory foil is not mentioned at all
And I'd like to fix that -- but the source you linked isn't a reliable source, and if I tried to add it, it would just get removed (as it should be). I've looked (hard) for a RS talking about the memory metal thing, and I couldn't find one that met Wikipedia's standards (which I agree with). I'm still looking, and will keep looking.
The article is completely slanted to it being the Roswell "myth" and "legend". But that's not Wikipedia's fault. We're a summary of a certain set of sources (the "Reliable Sources"), we're not journalists writing out our own original research and opinions. Believers and skeptics all agree that the reliable sources are reporting Roswell was a Mogul balloon, so we summarize that. Feoffer (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are listed on the bottom of the 37 witnesses PDF. Here is one more:

  • 6 Things Witnesses Said About the Roswell Incident. Mar 23, 2023. By Beth Braden. Travel Channel. "The rancher who found the debris and US Air Force Major Jesse Marcel recalled that the metal recovered from the crash site was lightweight and couldn’t be dented — not even a sledgehammer warped the material; it always returned to its original shape."

That article also discusses some of the many witnesses to the alien bodies, the crash sites, and the craft too. I mean there are many books that have interviewed many witnesses, and their families. The problem is that some of the editors of this page are claiming that the many books, articles, and videos are not reliable. Why are they not reliable? Are the authors liars? Did they make up all the interviews?

See also: Page 54 of Jesse Marcel, Jr. book. Where he describes what he and his father experienced with the memory foil. "when he bent or folded a piece of the foil, it would return to its original shape when released ... took a sledge hammer ... could not make a dent in it or deform it in any way". Page 55: "Had it been a weather or a Mogul balloon, however, there would have been electronic components". See page 53 where the father and son looked through debris and could find no electronic components.

That book is currently referenced 10 times in the Jesse Marcel article:

Marcel, Jesse; Marcel, Linda (January 1, 2008). The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site. Red Wheel/Weiser. ISBN 978-1-60163-026-1. Archived from the original on April 21, 2023. Retrieved November 6, 2020 – via Google Books.

There are many more articles about Jesse Marcel, Jr.. See The Guardian article:

I converted the 37-witness PDF to Excel, and then to a wiki table. To make it easier to work with. Also, the reference URLs at the end are clickable:

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A family history written by the family would be not be an independent source. Per WP:PRIMARY, materials close to an event are acceptable for "statements of facts" like that Marcel worked for the "Louisiana Highway Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Shell Oil Company". The theory that the debris came from an alien spaceship is not a statement of fact. Dr. Marcel's interpretation of the debris is also widely disputed by WP:Reliable Sources. Rjjiii (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Marcel Jr is mentioned in the article, and we link to video(s) featuring him. But his analogy of the debris to 'memory metal' doesn't have the sourcing yet to merit inclusion -- primarilty for all the reasons Rjjiii describes, but also for other reasons too. The Marcels likened the debris to 'fiber optics' and later 'memory metal', but in both cases they're not suggesting they literally found those things. For this article, at this time, the analogy is unhelpful -- memory metal doesn't actually behave like Marcel's debris! it's not indestructible, it doesn't just automatically reform after deformation, it's not exceptionally lightweight, etc.
Now, apart from this article, we all know there's a whole strand of UFOlogy, going back to the 1960s/70s, that Battelle was somehow getting the actual scoop on UFOs, and then that later got merged with the memory metal story into a "Battelle reverse engineered memory metal from UFOS" story. That latter story IS one worth telling, but only if we can find REALLY good sources -- like a book-length treatment by a non-Ufologist historian, ethnologist, or other such type. So for now, without those sources, any article we tried to create on the topic would just get deleted (which is as it should be). Feoffer (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The fact is that Jesse Marcel Jr. reported on various things his father told him about Roswell, and stuff he (Jr.) saw personally. The fact is that many reporters (that is WP:secondary sources) have reported what he said in many articles. None of it is in the article. This violates WP:NPOV because you are almost totally writing from one viewpoint: legend and myth. This article is far from being a good article.
It is a statement of fact (to Jr.), not opinion, that his father told him these things. The interpretation of what his father told is left up to readers and everything else they have read. Both father and son handled a material that returned to its original shape after crunching it together. Wikipedia should report what he said to many in the news media and elsewhere. Whether it is alien or not is another question. The fact is that no such material has been reported as existing in 1947. There are many reliable sources for that. It is a simple technical fact.
It is a fact (to Jr.) that his father said to him that the debris wasn't from a balloon of any kind. Jr told this to many people in the news media and elsewhere. That is WP:secondary sources. So report it in this article.
Jr and his father also discussed various other materials they found and what they might be. What it might be (fiber optics, etc.) is pure speculation on their part. In fact they said they were speculating. I don't think that necessarily merits being in the article. But the fact that the foil returned to its shape after crumpling is a fact, not speculation on their part. A fact to them at least. That merits reporting in the article. So we have both primary and secondary sources. And primary sources are not disallowed on Wikipedia. Especially when backed up by secondary sources.
--Timeshifter (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Much more detail on the memory foil witnesses, and more references:

The reference abbreviations are explained here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What is this bilge? Please stop posting this stuff here as it is getting disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Since when are references considered bilge? Please stop this characterization of my post. It is a personal attack. See: WP:NPA. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
What rubbish. There is a lot of stupid stuff posted online. Do not post it here as it wastes everybody's time. Please look for the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of the references in the 2 lists of references I posted concerning the memory foil are already used in this Wikipedia article. If some editors choose to ignore them, then that is up to them. But I have a right to post the references, and it is not disrespectful, rude, contentious, or a waste of time.

I think we need a request for comments: WP:RFC.' --Timeshifter (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You have no "rights" to anything on Wikipedia. And posting crap about "memory foil" is WP:PROFRINGE disruption which is damaging. You have been warned this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
But the fact that the foil returned to its shape after crumpling is a fact, not speculation on their part.
@Rjjiii: Timeshifter doesn't phrase it well, but it turns out they have a small point. The current article text never mentions the 'uncrumplable foil' (which, OR but sounds likea proto-Mylar). Do you happen to recall when that entered the story? I presume the 1980 Roswell Incident book? Feoffer (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Feoffer Korff (1997, pp. 65-66) talks about the foil used in MOGUL and the foil in witness accounts. Goldberg (p.196) says the 1980 book "pieces together the various accounts". Hope that helps, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Feoffer. This is the better table of witnesses and references:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/debris2_memory_foil.html
I went through half of the list of 24 witnesses (until I got tired) for this column: "Memory/ unfolds/ no crease, no dents". All but one I looked at is very clear about the material going back to its original shape after crumpling up.
Most of the references are books. 1980 is the earliest year in the reference glossary:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/debris_main.html - scroll down a bit for the reference list.
"The Roswell Incident" is a 1980 book.
Leonard H. Stringfield has a 1980 report.
Room-temperature shape-memory alloy did not exist in 1947. Meaning the foil is crumpled at room temperature, and unfolds right away at room temperature. This type of material did not exist in the human scientific world in 1947. Certainly not in Project Mogul balloons. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, they did help me pin down the first public mention of the foil to the 1979 interview. And thanks for pointing out that the article never actually mentioned Marcel's uncrumpling foil. It does now, though perhaps not in the precise terms (memory metal) that you might prefer. To get the phrase into the article, I/we'd need to have a very mainstream RS talking about that term, in more than a passing mention, with regards to Roswell incident. (But of course, even if/when that milestone is crossed, the RS will also almost certainly discuss the more mundane theory that it was just Metallised PET, later known as Mylar(tm), which it turns out was in existence in 1947 US.) Feoffer (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

BoPET (Mylar) does not have this type of shape memory. It can not be crumpled and immediately return to the original shape. Without creases. The article does not discuss this at all. It only mentions super-strong lightweight metal (or variation thereof). It mentions this around 5 times in the current version of the article.

This is also true for metallised film and shape-memory polymer and shape-memory alloy. None can be crumpled and immediately return to the original shape. Without creases. Even today as far as I can tell. Read the articles. Search the web (I did). The polymer requires an "external stimulus (trigger), such as temperature change" to return to its original shape. The alloy "returns to its pre-deformed ('remembered') shape when heated."

Some of the same references you are using for witnesses to super-strong lightweight metal also have those witnesses witnessing the crumpling/uncrumpling ability. So there is no reason not to mention the crumpling/uncrumpling ability. Some source might claim that the military had super-strong lightweight metals back then. But the room-temperature crumpling/uncrumpling without creases ability does not exist even now as far as we know. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Frank Joyce

Per Frank Joyce himself, he is not a reliable source, "I was there when it happened and I’ve read so much about it, but darned if I know what’s true anymore. (Goldberg, 202)." There is something that I see in some sources, but only attributed to Joyce. Pflock (2001) cites a taped interview with Joyce, so any sources citing Pflock are still citing Joyce.

Joyce says that his radio station reported a crashed flying saucer before Marcel and Cavitt went to the ranch. Is there any evidence that this happened in that order? It would be significant if backed up, but can be left out otherwise. Rjjiii (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a page number where Joyce says that (he's all over the place in Pflock 2001) / what are his exact words? I've never heard of a crashed Roswell disc being reported before the Haut press release, but there was another really big wire service story earlier on July 8 about a crashed saucer in Lancaster CA -- so Joyce's memory may actually make perfect sense. The Wikimedia Library's access to the Newspaper archive is currently down, or I'd send you clips instead of a BBS archive link, but it was covered all over earlier that day and its easy to imagine a radio announcer in Roswell repeating it. Feoffer (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I've found several versions of Joyce's explanation so far:
Not related, but hopefully they fix the situation with newspapers.com soon. Even before it was down, it was constantly cutting out. That story you linked even has ranchers, so maybe so. Rjjiii (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Joyce sounds plausible when he recalls talking to Brazel and referring him to RAAF. If local media _had_ been helpful in making the referral, that might actually go a little bit towards explaining the bizarre choice to issue a press release. Joyce seems to have a clear memory of initial great skepticism to Brazel's story.
But then Joyce will turn around and say something that's obviously a false memory (or worse). Why confiscate a single press release that's already been reprinted world-wide? A smell of dead bodies at the Brazel site? The term "little green men" used in '47 when it wasn't coined until '51? Feoffer (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible request for comment on 2002 Walter Haut affidavit

2002 Walter Haut affidavit.

After some thought, I think this RFC should happen before the other one I suggested.

WP:RFC says: "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC."

Info about the 2002 Walter Haut affidavit was previously mentioned in the article here but was removed. I think it should be returned, and I don't think it is too much of an ask. I think it is a smear on his legacy to only mention his involvement with the initial 1947 news article, and his subsequent cooperation with its coverup due to orders from higher ups.

His legacy is that he refuted the coverup, and said that there were 2 crash sites, and that he had seen a craft, alien bodies, and handled wreckage material. Rather than duplicate what is written elsewhere, please see:

The 2002 affidavit is also mentioned in the current (and stable for half a year) version of his article:

As far as I know there has never been an RFC for this topic in this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RFCs are typically more for talk page disputes where two different "camps" of editors have different opinions on how to best improve an article, not so much when one editor wants so-called "fringe" content to be included while multiple other editors explain that that's unwise.
I think it is a smear on his legacy
Then you're not thinking NPOVly -- you have to hold both the possibility that he was honest and the possibility that he was lying in your head at the same time, and then write an article that neither perspective could tear apart. If you have your perspective and just try to make Wikipedia reflect your perspective, you'll go crazy (and I would go crazy too if I edited that way! lol)
But let's say Haut really did see bodies: what does mentioning that really add to the readers of this article and their understanding of the Roswell incident? We have plenty of people who said they saw bodies, loudly and vocally, during their lifetimes. People who gave filmed interviews, spread stories for twenty years before Haut's affidavit. If this is a courtroom and we wanted to convince the jury that there were bodies at Roswell, we'd 'rest our case' without introducing the Haut affidavit and then watching it get ripped to shreds for being composed by someone else, contradicting prior statement, his financial interest via the museum, etc. We don't need it to understand the case. Sapho Henderson (secondhand hearsay witness who did filmed interviews) is a MILLION times better of a "witness" to bodies than the Haut affidavit, but we don't mention her because that's just plain WAY too much detail for our readers. Feoffer (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a video of Walter Haut while he was alive talking about possible alien bodies. But the bodies are not my main interest. Walter Haut and Jesse Marcel were 2 of the main officers involved at the time. And both said there was a craft (not balloons), and strange debris (not from balloons). Only the Jesse Marcel info is in the article. I responded to most of the other points you made in the previous threads.
The current version of the article has references from Tom Carey and Don Schmitt. But somehow not from their book "Witness to Roswell" with the affidavit. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
That's likely because we have so many good sources (like Saler, Ziegler & Moore) that talk about how influential the earlier works were. Feoffer (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Friedman, Moore, Berliner, Randle, Schmitt, and Carey are cited where the Wikipedia article quotes their claims or mentions their work by name. This is accompanied by reliable and independent secondary sources that often directly dispute their claims. For example, The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell section cites Schmitt's book and its narratives, but is clearly doubtful. WP:RS say their work is influential, not accurate Rjjiii (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The authors of Witness to Roswell interviewed Walter Haut over years, and compiled the info. Walther Haut read it, alongside his daughter who reviewed all of it with him, and he signed it in front of a notary. That is 4 witnesses to him signing it in 2002 3 years before his death in 2005. See my previous threads for all the references. Officers Walter Haut and Jesse Marcel saw the debris and the craft. Those are first-hand witnesses. There are no better witnesses mentioned in this article. And Walter Haut is only mentioned concerning his previous testimony.

Glenn Dennis did not witness anything himself. He only heard things secondhand. So to leave out the Walter Haut info violates WP:NPOV. It does not allow the reader to have this info. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Anybody can make stuff up / imagine things and sign a document. The question for us is, what do high-quality sources say. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
We have whole movies about Jesse Marcel and Glenn Dennis's stories, but the late-dated Haut affidavit is only really discussed in one book and it sort of fizzled. The Roswell Incident, the story, doesn't really feature any tales of a young press officer seeing dead bodies. On this article, we have to help people understand the 1980s and 90s cultural phenomenon. But Wikipedia is not censored -- we DO cover the Haut affidavit on his own bio, and we could conceivably also cover it on an article about the book it was featured in or its author(s). At some point in the future, we may discover mainstream RSes on the Roswell Incident talking in-depth about the Haut affadivit. Feoffer (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we have reached an impasse. I hope to do an RFC soon on whether the Roswell story ended in the 1990s. It clearly has not. There were affidavit articles in 2007 and since then. It, along with Roswell in general, is still discussed in many media. See the previous threads I linked to. Besides being in the 2007 book the 2002 affidavit is archived here, along with a 2007 article about it from his daughter. And a 2007 review of the book, affidavit, and video of Haut by Stanton Friedman: "The tape was not to be released until after Walter’s death. I saw the tape in confidence and Walter said he had seen a body and wreckage... more or less consistent with the new affidavit." --Timeshifter (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably WP:1AM is pertinent. Without pukka sources, A RfC would be a waste of time to the point it would be disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Nice try with that essay. But many people agree with me. They just aren't here currently. Thus the RFC. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE, so numbers don't matter. We have consensus and it's time to drop this. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I like your thinking with going looking for RSes to verify the importance of the material you want included. When I saw your summary, I did get hopeful that there was something I had overlooked. An in-depth review, penned by Friedman, in a widely-distributed major publication, might be a step in the right direction, showing that the affidavit actually did make an impact on the cultural zeitgeist. But alas, he's just writing in the MUFON newsletter -- If I tried adding it, people just remove it and remind me that MUFON isn't "outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself" per WP:FRIND. And they'd be right. Feoffer (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
See the previous talk page threads I linked to with multiple articles in various media reporting on the 2002 affidavit when it came out in the book in 2007. There are also much later articles linked there reporting it too. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article names no witnesses that saw a craft. I am sure there are. So let's start with Walter Haut: "Once inside, I was permitted from a safe distance to first observe the object just recovered north of town. It was approx. 12 to 15 feet in length, not quite as wide, about 6 feet high, and more of an egg shape. Lighting was poor, but its surface did appear metallic. No windows, portholes, wings, tail section, or landing gear were visible."

I think this alone is a good reason to include the 2002 affidavit in the article. Thus no need for an RFC. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There was no "craft" other than a balloon per our reliable sources, and Wikipedia says so because it is required to be neutral. If you want to write UFO fiction, start a blog or something; trying to push that here is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
article names no witnesses that saw a craft We do, though: Barnett, Ragsdale, Truelove. Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Where in the article does it say that they personally saw a craft? And why the small font? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I just used the small font cause I knew what I was saying wasn't really addressing the crux of your argument and that my aside wouldn't actually nullify the point you were trying to make. Feoffer (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roswell_incident/Archive_9&oldid=1255003218"