Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 9

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
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. 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)

Article Rating

This article is currently rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I have looked at the criteria for B-class and C-class articles and I believe this article meets the B-class criteria. If you agree or disagree let me know! Drocj (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've upgraded to B. It's probably a Good Article, been in the queue since March waiting for a review. Feoffer (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

accuracy of coordinates

Is the location of the balloon crash known to the accuracy given in the coordinates, 1 second of arc (which is under 100 feet)? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No? The coordinates point to the entrance of the Brazel ranch, where modern tourists are taken, not to the precise location on the ranch where the debris was found. Feoffer (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Roswell incident/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Feoffer (talk · contribs) 03:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this shortly! IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to it. I should also ping @Rjjiii:. Feoffer (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I've watchlisted the page but will let you take the lead to avoid chaos and edit conflicts, Rjjiii (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. In the 1990s, the United States Air Force published multiple reports establishing Project Mogul as being directly responsible for the crash.

This is from the lead and I'm sure you give an explanation for what Project Mogul is in the body but I think it's worth giving a one-line explanation of it in the lead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on my first read-through of this article there doesn't appear to be any major prose issues which is rare. I'll do another read-through later on but things look good. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Just for my own sanity as well as others I'm going to be doing my source review by source, not section. So far I've checked what was available on Google Books for Olmsted 2009 and Goldberg 2001. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I was able to verify all the online articles used as sources. I will now be moving on to some of the books used. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Verified Frank 2023, Clancy 2007, klass 1997b, Klass 1998, and Pflock 2001 sources. I'm going to take a break from source reviewing since it is making my head hurt lol. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've verified all the Saler, Ziegler & Moore 1997 refs. That combined with the 8 other books as well as the online sources I checked have come back clean (besides the two points I mentioned below which were verified in other parts of the sources just not the ones you indicated). Once you've gotten back to me about the points I raised below I think I'll wrap up my source review just because of the amount of references and the fact that I'm not finding any major issues. If anyone has an issue with this I'm happy to check more sources I just don't think that is a productive use of my time at this point. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. passed copyvio check and when comparing the sources to the article I found no plagiarism issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comment below about "BeWitness event" IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Great use of images! I really enjoy the alien photos! IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
7. Overall assessment. @Feoffer and Rjjiii: I'm going to place this on hold until you guys can address the minor issues with sourcing I listed below (those may be me missing something so let me know if that is the case), expand the lead a bit based on my comments for 1a, and explain what a "BeWitness event" is. Overall excellent work to both of you. I'm pleasantly surprised to have found relatively no issues with this article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What is going on with Post" style="background: rgb(236, 228, 237);" class=" nonimage">The Washington Post Under the section "Related debunked or fringe theories" IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, I'm not seeing that text in the source or in the rendered page. Feoffer (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
My laptop must be glitching for some reason. Hopefully it will start to behave by the end of the review, if not I'll take a look at the article from a different device and let you know if it's still an issue. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Later that month, Brazel discovered tinfoil, rubber, tape, and thin wooden beams scattered across several acres of his ranch Neither of the sources you listed seem to support this, am I missing something here? IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Were you able to access the full news article? I'll see if I can clip a better link, but newspapers.com has been pretty flaky. Here's a quote: "The contraption, of tinfoil, narrow wooden beams and synthetic rubber [...] Brazell, whose ranch is 30 miles from the nearest telephone and has no radio, knew nothing about flying discs when he found the remains of the weather device scattered over a square mile of his property three weeks ago. [...] He bundled together the large pile of tinfoil and broken wooden beams about one-fourth of an inch thick and half-inch wide and the torn mass of synthetic rubber that had been the balloon and rolled it under some brush, [...]"
    Clancy (2007) is a more recent secondary source to avoid relying on modern news coverage. The last paragraph on page 92 (and continuing onto page 93) reads: "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. As was stated two days later in the Roswell Daily Record, “The tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and seven or eight inches thick. Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed on it had been used in the construction.” This pile of debris was linked to local sightings of a flying disc, which the U.S. military later identified as a radar-tracking balloon." Rjjiii (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    I see, I must have missed this. I wasn't too concerned since other sources used elsewhere supported the info. Thank you for giving me the quotes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, newspapers.com has been acting mighty goofy recently and that newspaper ran 5 (!) editions per day. There are ufology sites that offer an archive, but they're all deprecated/blacklisted. Rjjiii (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Wilcox called Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF). I've borrowed the book linked to ref 11 and I'm not seeing the bit about RAAF on pages 35 or 36 IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Major Jesse Marcel (Marcel), Captain Sheridan Cavitt (the CIC man), Haut, and Col. Blanchard are at RAAF in 1947. Where it talks about "Marcel" getting a call, that's in his capacity as a military officer at that base, not personally. The roles are established earlier in the book. Like at the newspaper quoted at the top of page 21, or the comment at the bottom of page 64. Rjjiii (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for explaining this. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • First presented at a BeWitness event in Mexico What is a "BeWitness event"? Is it possible that you could add an explanation to the article? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Great catch, I've changed it to simply "UFO conference". Feoffer (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds good. I think that covers all the issues I found. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Pending the changes I suggested to the lead I think this is probably a pass. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Good deal. Added the explanation of Mogul to the lead. Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK nomination?

I'm not familiar with Main Page criteria, but if anyone else would like to nominate this for Did You Know, please do: Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination. Feoffer (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Fund for UFO Research book

Ziegler's Version 5 is the Fund for UFO Research-funded Roswell in Perspective (1994). When adding it to the footnote just now, I started to add it to the table. I am thinking it probably does belong in there if the table is meant to present Ziegler's view. I had left it out originally because no other WP:RS treats it as influential on the UFO community or popular culture (whereas very many agree on his Version 1).

|-
!''Roswell in Perspective'' (1994)<ref>{{Harvnb|Saler|Ziegler|Moore|pages=25-26}}</ref>	
|
* Fragments with symbols	
* Super-strong lightweight metal sheets
* A narrow craft with "bat-like wings" north of Roswell
|	
* Landed once near Corona, New Mexico, on Brazel's ranch	
* Struck a cliff 35 miles north of Roswell
|
* 3 humanoid corpses north of Roswell	
* 1 living humanoid pilot north of Roswell

Rjjiii (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for fixing it the footnote! Feoffer (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Richard Doty

I have RfD's the redirect from Richard Doty to the film Mirage Men because the target article doesn't say anything substantive about Doty. I think this is potentially of interest to people who follow this article. Discussion here. Carguychris (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Majestic 12 hoax section

In the "Majestic 12 hoax" section....a couple of things stand out to me:

  1. It talks about how (at that 1989 MUFON conference) Bill Moore "confessed that he had intentionally fed fake evidence of extraterrestrials to UFO researchers". That's true....but (and correct me if I am wrong) he did not say that MJ-12 was one of them. In the context of that section, that could mislead people if we don't make that distinction.
  2. We present only the "it's a hoax" side of things. I agree that it is a hoax (in case anyone thinks I am pushing a POV here), but there have been arguments from the other side of this. In particular, in Stanton Friedman's works. We bring up the format errors of the documents....but Stanton Friedman (based on a challenge by Phil Klass) found other such errors in government documents. I admit though: with such a short section....would such a addition give the section a BALANCE issue? I'm not sure....that's why I posted here (for other opinions). Thanks for reading.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your point #2, the thing to stress is that (as I understand it) some ufologists still believe that Majestic 12 existed, despite the fact that the known Majestic 12 documents are widely agreed to be fake and the identities of its members are correspondingly in question. Saying that the organization could not have existed because the documents are phony is affirming a disjunct. Carguychris (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Right. IIRC, there has been some speculation that the documents were faked in order to force the government to admit such a organization exist[ed]. I can't think of a RS saying that though. (I saw (for example) a UFO researcher saying that on The History Channel....but The History Channel is not a RS.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Bullet points addressed in article. Regarding "documents were faked in order to force the government to admit such a organization", it's been claimed that Bill Moore proposed something like that by 3 other ufologists, Friedman, Randle, and Brad Sparks. Rjjiii (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

TFA blurb

This article passed a featured article review earlier this year and can run on Wikipedia:Today's featured article in the future. To do so it will need a "blurb" which according to WP:TFAR should be a summary of the lead "between 925 and 1025 characters". I've taken a swing at a summary of the lead and put it up on the sandbox page below:

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox [ starting point permanent link ]

Since many editors have contributed to this article's development, I wanted to leave a notice here to allow other editors the opportunity to change things, fix errors, offer feedback, and so on. Rjjiii (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thanks for doing this.. and everything else! Feoffer (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Walter Haut REAL testimony whitewashed and censored

Nothing about his deathbed testimony?. :D Government and wiki just clearly lying . Thanks Walter JKim (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@JKim: I tried. Good luck. See:
Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 8#Walter Haut affidavits signed in 1993 and 2002. Video made in 2000
Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 9#37 witnesses to the Roswell shape memory foil
Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 9#Possible request for comment on 2002 Walter Haut affidavit
By the way, it wasn't his deathbed testimony. It was in 2002, 3 years before he died in 2005.
I just found yet another recent mainstream article about his 2002 affidavit and more. This may be the best mainstream article I have read:
August 3, 2024 article: The Roswell UFO story still resonates around the world 77 years later. By John Purvis (CBS4). Archived here. Article is on the KDBC-TV website: cbs4local.com
Roswell is the hometown of John Purvis. For this article he interviewed Donald R. Schmitt who first published the 2002 affidavit in his 2007 book "Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the 60-Year Cover-Up".
With Purvis Schmitt discusses the 2002 affidavit, and the memory material: "memory material, that would, right before your eyes, that it would assume its original shape and size no matter what you did to it."
Schmitt told Purvis that Haut said he had been taken to the hangar and was shown the craft and the bodies. And that it was in the affidavit witnessed by his daughter and by a notary.
John Purvis was there when Jesse Marcel went public: "I first saw Marcel share the changed story when I was a senior at Roswell High, working as a studio cameraman at the local TV station, KBIM."
Walter Haut and his wife were close friends of the mother and father of Purvis. Haut gave an autographed copy of The Roswell Incident (1980 book) soon after it was published to his parents inscribed with "Believe it". Photo of book is in the article. "Credit: KFOX14/CBS4".
Purvis interviewed Haut himself in 1997. Haut said he was convinced there was something to the Roswell incident.
--Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi JKim -- I'm taking the time to reach out because I know that that many in the UFO community believe we here at Wikipedia have a hostility to the topic. That's not true, I see it at at least as valid a belief system as being a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu, etc. Philosophically, aliens are far more likely than a sky father, after all. While some editors here describe themselves as "Skeptics", I'm not one of them.
Cutting Haut's later statements from the article was a hard choice. It's not about our editors personal views, it's about the fact that Haut's 21st-century statement is so late in the story of Roswell, it just didn't have as much impact and coverage in the reliable sources as Marcel's or Dennis's. I don't know why that is -- we can speculate that it was was because Haut was contradicting his earlier claims to the contrary, but ultimately it might just be that "The Roswell Incident" blew up in the 80s and 90s, long before Haut's statements.
If we introduce Haut's statements into the article, we have to give the skeptical point of view some "equal time" to explain all the objections to his statements. And we can only put SO much detail into the article and have it still be readable in a single sitting.
And also, remember: Wikipedia is NOT Censored: We do cover those statements at Walter Haut.
Lastly, please remember that Wikipedia is here to relay facts, not truth. Don't get your 'truth' from Wikipedia, we are just a summary of what the reliable sources are saying. And that's as it should be -- If 'disclosure' ever happens, Wikipedia can't lead the way, or it will be a laugh fest. Feoffer (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"thousands" of project Mogul balloons

The entry on Project Mogul indicates it was balloon NYU Flight 4 that crashed at Roswell, it is not clear that the "thousands" is a verifiable number. NYU was experimenting with new materials, so it is likely the number is not four either. ... the credibility of the entry overall can be diminished by unsubstantiated numbers. -- by opening with "conspiracy" ...there is an implicit judgement as well. If this page is about the Roswell Conspiracy, is there another page about the Roswell incident? If this page is going to the "front page" later this year, it would be good to review the text for maximum objectivity 2601:18C:8E7F:A2E0:ECE2:42EA:E89:183F (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

...it is not clear that the "thousands" is a verifiable number. There are two citations given in the article text. If you have a WP:RELIABLE source that states otherwise, feel free to add it. Also, don't confuse the number of NYU Mogul launches in SE New Mexico with the overall number of Mogul launches. The former number is much smaller than the latter. ...by opening with "conspiracy" ...there is an implicit judgement... While Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, it is also Wikipedia policy not to give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE sources. Wikipedia is not unbiased, rather it reflects the bias of WP:RELIABLE sources. If this page is about the Roswell Conspiracy, is there another page about the Roswell incident? It is almost impossible to disentangle the incident from the conspiracy theories because there are so many competing narratives about what happened, and the conspiracy theories are really what gives this incident its notability. Carguychris (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The source says, "In 1946 and 1947, the Army Air Force had launched thousands of these high-flying balloons, puffed full with helium to pull their loads of instruments into the stratosphere. The devices strained to hear the high-altitude sound waves of Soviet atomic detonations." As mentioned above, the project started in New York. There is also the fact that each individual launch would have been multiple balloons tethered together. Rjjiii (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@ 65.18.126.106 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

First line

When this ran on the WP:Main page, an editor changed the lead to "subject of a conspiracy theory". There was some additional discussion at WP:ERRORS. The previous wording may have been awkward, but I don't know that "subject of" is more correct. Neither one is wrong, but I am wondering if something more clear can be done if we revise the lead away from using a "Subject is X" first sentence and begin with something like, "Balloon debris recovered in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico, later became the basis for long-lasting and increasingly complex and contradictory conspiracy theories." Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well. Perhaps @Goszei: has ideas since they changed it. Feoffer (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, and that's a good idea. As I said, I don't think either version is wrong, so I will leave it as it is, and wait to see if others have feedback/ideas. Also, I was surprised in a good way by the edits when the article was up as TFA. I guess I expected vandalism, but it was mostly just folks doing some minor cleanup. Rjjiii (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
From how I see it, a baloon crashing barely registers as an "incident". I guess everything is an incident. The keypresses of my typing this comment out are a series of incidents. The first real event which I would say can be described as an incident, as an event which is somewhat distinct, non-ordinary, and for which it is editorially justified to use the word incident is when on on July 8, 1947, RAAF public information officer Walter Haut issued a press release stating that the military had recovered a "flying disc" near Roswell. But that incident was a public relations incident, an incident that did not happen spatially "near Roswell". It happened in print and over the airwaves. So, for me the Roswell incident is not the balloon crash as a real event, it is the conception of the flying saucer crash, which is not a real event. I can not seriously call the balloon crash the "Roswell incident". The balloon crash is "that balloon crash near Roswell that led to all the other stuff" for me. And in relation to the balloon crash, there was a real incident, the communications incident, but that incident is not the Roswell incident, it is "the communications incident related to the Balloon crash near Roswell that led to all the other stuff". Therefore, I do not actually think that saying: "The Roswell incident is the subject of a conspiracy theory ..." is super accurate. —Alalch E. 13:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think all of us here on talk concur with that assessment. But multiple people have felt the earlier version was somehow ungrammatical or needed improvement? I be there's an even better verbiage we haven't seen yet, but I'd support going back to the earlier language in the interim. Feoffer (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, we should keep thinking about this... no opposition to going back to the earlier language. —Alalch E. 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Any thoughts on Special:Permalink/1279265851? —Alalch E. 14:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That feels, perhaps, too complicated. I did an example of the lead without any bold text in a sandbox. Rjjiii (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Lead without bold looks good -- I forget sometimes we don't actually have to start articles that way. Feoffer (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty good. —Alalch E. 08:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I've moved this to the live article, but am fine if someone comes up with a better idea. Ideally, the lead sentence should be enough to at least point a reader in the right direction; some folks are busy and won't read past the first sentence. I think this does that and something similar is done with the also complicated and shrouded in conspiracy topic Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I am realizing now that a recent edit mentioned the rancher in the lead, and am fine with adding the ranch/rancher into the lead. Thanks y'all, Rjjiii (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Completely biased

It is by no means proven that the Roswell Incident was caused by a MOGUL balloon. I should know because I was a US Air Force historian. If you are one of those science nerds who have taken it upon themselves to go through every Wikipedia page to remove anomalous hypothesis, you can kiss my a-- 2601:647:6700:6BC0:2CFC:CBA1:ECE6:72C0 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's biased, but I think maybe you're imagining that the article says something more than it actually does. I agree with you: it's not "proven" that it was MOGUL. But the article never claims that it's proven! The text says things like "United States Air Force published multiple reports which established that the incident was related to Project Mogul" and similar language to always attribute it. The article never says anything's proven, it actually cites comments from two US presidents suggesting that they might know more than the general public.Feoffer (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
by no means proven Right. But what exactly is your point? The elements of the Scientific method are such that testable hypotheses can never be proven. The results of the attendant investigations/experiments can either support the hypothesis, or dis-prove it. The overwhelming amount of reliably sourced (see the Wikipedia policy WP:RS) evidence supports the hypothesis that the MOGUL project was directly related to the "Roswell Incident." That you, me, Feoffer, science nerds, or anyone else dislikes that evidence is irrelevant. As of today, Wikipedia is a site wherein unreliable, fringe, unsupported ideas (which might be what you mean by the term anomalous hypothesis), or editors' personal desires are not presented as proven facts. That disappoints many people new to the project, but fortunately for them there is Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and many, many websites and magazines and books that are not held to the same stringent standards. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Guys it’s been quite 2 years since the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community confirmed that the statements sworn under oath to the US Congress were “urgent and credible”.
The evidence is truly overwhelming. I’m sorry that you were taught differently but I beg the Admins of Wikipedia to look at the evidence. It’s irrefutable. 31.94.26.2 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Feoffer. You wrote: I agree with you: it's not "proven" that it was MOGUL. But the article never claims that it's proven!

Currently, the article's first 2 sentences are not neutral as required by WP:NPOV. Those sentences say: Military balloon debris recovered in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico, later became the basis for conspiracy theories alleging that the United States military recovered a crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft. Operated from the nearby Alamogordo Army Air Field and part of the top secret Project Mogul, the balloon program was intended to detect Soviet nuclear tests.

So the original poster is correct in saying that the article is biased. The article's first sentence, or nearby, should say that the military now alleges that the debris recovered in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico is from Project Mogul. Saying it is from Project Mogul in Wikipedia's narrative voice is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

They don't allege that it was a Mogul balloon - they present good evidence that it was. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
It does need to be rephrased because the incident was not the balloon - it was the recovery of debris that turned out to be a balloon. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@Timeshifter, Roswell_incident#cite_note-Mogul-1. Rjjiii (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
If you'll dig into the talk page archives, you'll find I made a similar suggestion for the lede to directly attribute the identification to the sources, but the suggestion failed to achieve consensus or get any traction and was exceptionally controversial. I'm content with the existing text, as it truly is a fair summary of the multiple cited RSes which are quoted to support the sentence. Feoffer (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There are so many eyewitnesses to the crafts, materials, and bodies

Beyond Top Secret: Eyewitness Accounts to the Roswell Incident. By Warren Gray. April 8, 2022. Ancient Origins.

  • www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/roswell-0016619

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Another source:

It is a review of the 2020 book

A snip from the review:

What the Generals Said about Roswell: - "It was a cover story, the balloon part of it ... That was the story we were told to give to the public and the news people, and that was it." Brigadier General Thomas J. DuBose, USAF - "The [Roswell] craft was extraterrestrial, and at one time may have been at Wright-Patterson in an off-limits area." Brigadier General Harry N. Cordes, USAF - "I am almost completely convinced that the object that crashed near Roswell was composed of materials not common on earth." Major General Kenner F. Hertford, USA - "The stuff I saw, I've never seen anyplace else in my life … It was the strangest thing I ever saw." General William H. Blanchard, USAF - "They [the Air Force] knew that they had something new in their hands … The metal and material was unknown to anyone I talked to … A couple of guys thought it might be Russian, but the final consensus was that the pieces were from space." [i.e., extraterrestrial] Brigadier General Arthur E. Exon, USAF - "Stealth technology comes from the Roswell crash … I have been informed by higher officers at the Pentagon that there still exists a Top Secret UFO Project … That's where your Roswell file is."

There are many books that have uncovered many witnesses.

There are many witnesses to the memory foil that did not exist in 1947. The foil that could be crumpled and would uncrumple without creases. At room temperature. I linked to many references. Some of the references are already being used in the Wikipedia article. It is currently not mentioned once in the article. See:

And of course there is Walter Haut's 2002 affidavit discussing 2 crash sites, and how he had seen a craft and the bodies. Some of the references are already being used in the Wikipedia article. It is currently not mentioned once in the article. See:

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Not to say the same thing over and over, but if you dig into the archive, you'll see that letting go of covering the Haut affidavit was a hard call, but one we reluctantly made. If we could matrix-style upload article contents into people's heads, I'd want them to know about Haut's affidavit, but articles can only be so long and we can't get into ALL the details of EVERY source. If we mentioned it, then for balance we'd have to mention all the objections to that, its provenance, was it staged/forged,etc etc yada yada. But wikipedia is not censored, readers can learn all about the affidavit over at Haut's bio. Feoffer (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

New witnesses

Watch the Skies, by Curtis Peeples has a good history of flying saucers. On page 271 he says that in the 1980s some 300 witnesses came forward to claim that they had seen or heard something about the discovery. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Added along with appropriate context from Peebles. Feoffer (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
@Feoffer, there's no closing quotation mark ("), and I'm not sure where it should go. Carguychris (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I added it, where it should go. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

“One or more spacecraft”?

In some programmes and books I recall, some conspiracy theorists speculate that two alien crafts collided. I don’t know what sources these claims would have originated from, but if such references could be added, the paragraph could be changed to “conspiracy theories alleging that the United States military recovered one or more crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft”. 88.21.47.91 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest two alien craft collided with each other. I did a search for it, but didn't come up with any results. Let us know if you remember where you heard that speculation. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

So far, one mention is in Hall, Richard H., ed. (2001). UFO Evidence: Volume II, A 30-year Report. https://books.google.es/books?id=Gic3gcQysOsC&pg=PA595&dq=roswell+ufo+collided&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw8OXnvuGOAxWPVKQEHdLaLk8Q6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=roswell%20ufo%20collided&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.21.47.91 (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Wow! Great memory / searching. Thanks for the reference. Ordinarily, I would probably just add that info to the Later Theories section, but this a featured article that's been through a lot of levels of approval to reach its current state, so I shouldn't just add it in unless everyone agrees its an improvement. One of the concerns is that Hall doesn't really say there were two UFOs that collided, he just lists a bunch of rhetorical questions, and the collision is just one of many hypothetical possibilities. It might be UNDUE weight for us to mention it. What do others think? Feoffer (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Hall (2001) would be both a primary source (for this article at least) and a fringe source. To cover it, we'd need a secondary source outside of ufology to meet WP:FRIND. So, if that's the extent of the sourcing, it is probably UNDUE. No objections if more appropriate sourcing is found, Rjjiii (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I concur. Carguychris (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

FAC credits

@Feoffer and Rjjiii: Hi both. I am the FAC coordinator who signed off on the promotion of this fine article. At the time I assumed that it was a joint nomination by both of you. It has recently come to my attention that Rjjiii is not being formally credited in the FAC records. This is because they were not listed at the head of the FAC nomination as a co-nominator - see here. I would like to resolve this niggle one way or another and so would be grateful for any light either of you might be able to shed on it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I didn't know that joint nominations were an option for FAC; GAN doesn't have that for Good Articles. I was never concerned about the credit and had no issue with Feoffer being listed; I likely wouldn't have gotten involved with the article had he not reached out. If Feoffer wants to make it a joint nomination, I'm fine with that; and if he prefers to keep it as is, I'm equally fine with that. Rjjiii (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Gog, thank you for catching the oversight! Rjjiii absolutely deserves credit for this! Feoffer (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks both for your prompt and clear responses. Rjjiii is now credited with co-nominating this article for FAC, and my Wiki-gnome itch is scratched. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Age of Disclosure documentary confirms Roswell crash retrieval including alien bodies

The Age of Disclosure documentary came out November 21, 2025 on Amazon Prime:

See 56 minutes 47 seconds in about Roswell. Mainly through 1 hour 2 minutes in. Have to watch from the beginning of the video to get all the captioned names and positions of the people speaking. Some of that is repeated in the captions during that segment called "The Coverup". Video times are for that info there and elsewhere in the video. The names and positions are from their captions.

From the segment (56 minutes 47 seconds in) mentioning Roswell: Multiple AATIP and UAP Task Force participants and advisors: Hal Puthoff, PhD, quantum physicist (56:55 in). Eric Davis, PhD, astrophysicist (1:02:42 in). Luis Elizondo, Department of Defense official (3:35 in). And outside those organizations: Jay Stratton, Navy Intelligence, DIA, senior executive (4:19 in). Jim Semivan, senior CIA official from 1982-2007 (58:34 in).

There are recent reviews of the documentary from various sources. Here are a few:

Older reviews after the film was showcased at SXSW on March 9, 2025 are listed at The Age of Disclosure. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviews so far aren't putting too much focus on Roswell. Are there sources that more broadly connect Roswell to the AATIP story? I'll try to look into it. Off-hand it feels like the AATIP coverage often references Roswell, but I don't know if coverage of Roswell has started to include anything about AATIP. (Not the bodies aspect, but the government and conspiracy theory aspects.) Elizondo and Puthoff seem very out of scope for this article. Rjjiii (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The section with the Roswell info is very clear. But the reviews and interviews seem to be focusing on UFO/UAP sightings over nuclear sites over the decades, and continuing to this day. The 1947 Roswell sightings may be considered to be less important relatively speaking. The reviews talk about crash retrievals and alien bodies too as an ongoing project in several countries. The continuing and ongoing activity is the real news in this documentary. See:

I suggest people look at the whole video. Buy it, not rent it. It only costs $5 more to buy it, and you will want to look at parts of it again. More info on people in the video is listed here:

Crash retrievals and alien bodies are prominent in this review too:

At the heart of the documentary is an alleged top-secret US government initiative known as the “Legacy Programme”. ... multiple crashed vehicles and alien bodies over several decades

As I said Roswell is just a small part of that program. But it is specifically discussed in the documentary. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "Jake Tapper's full CNN interview with our Director / Producer Dan Farah"? Are you associated with the documentary? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
No. I am not associated with the documentary or the Youtube videos in any way. I am just another Wikipedia editor. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, to be clear, I don't expect anybody can cite this film on Wikipedia except as a primary source on article's related to the film. It doesn't meet the standard at set by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. That it why I was writing about coverage of the film and of Roswell as related to AATIP. Rjjiii (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
It can be used as a primary source for Roswell. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
The people speaking in the documentary are very clear about what they are saying about Roswell. No interpretation is necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
The documentary is a great watch, but it doesn't actually tell us anything about Roswell though. Certainly nothing new. The participants express a belief in Roswell, but they don't say anything beyond that. Guardian mentions Roswell is included the film, so we could cite that, but I'm not sure what our reader would get out of it. Lots of documentaries have important people who believe in Roswell -- why distract readers with Elizondo and Davis when we already have Marcel and DuBose? Feoffer (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you seen the documentary? And if so, have you had time to watch all of it? I listed 5 people who all specifically confirmed the Roswell crash, the alien bodies, and where they were moved to. And they all were in a position to know:

From 56 minutes 47 seconds into the video: From the segment mentioning Roswell: Multiple AATIP and UAP Task Force participants and advisors: Hal Puthoff, PhD, quantum physicist (56:55 in). Eric Davis, PhD, astrophysicist (1:02:42 in). Luis Elizondo, Department of Defense official (3:35 in). And outside those organizations: Jay Stratton, Navy Intelligence, DIA, senior executive (4:19 in). Jim Semivan, senior CIA official from 1982-2007 (58:34 in).

What each one of them said needs to be in the article. No interpretation necessary. It should be in the first part of the article, because it is by far the most credible evidence to date, especially since they are all speaking out now, and haven't recanted. Especially the 2 scientists who are part of AATIP and UAP Task Force on screen together at times.

The current revision of the article is mainly a history of the coverup. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I have watched the documentary, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend others watch it as well. But sadly, I didn't learn a single new fact about Roswell, because while Elizondo says "At AATIP we learned that the UAP event at the US Army airfield in Roswell in 1947 did actually occur", he never tells us how he came to that conclusion. In any case, I'm not especially opposed to a brief, RSed-cited mention of Elizondo and others' 2020s-era promotion of Roswell, if other agree. Feoffer (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
if other agree I do not agree, per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE for starters. People like Elizondo, et alia (that is, people who make money by promoting fringe topics) are likely to promote/support any and all UFO stories because, well, that's what they do for a living. There is nothing encyclopedic about that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
RSing for inclusion doesn't currently exist, so it's moot for now. But "what people do for a living" isn't an workable inclusion criterion -- Alien Autopsy was 100% a for-profit Roswell hoax, and we cover it. (Personally, I'm skeptical any of them are really "doing this for a living" -- such rogues do exist, but they're vastly outnumbers by sincere believers). Feoffer (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources without interpretation are a reliable source. You wrote: I didn't learn a single new fact about Roswell. You learned that the Roswell crash is 100% real along with the alien bodies, and where they were moved to. The article should now say that the Roswell crash is 100% real along with the alien bodies. And that there has been a continuing coverup of it along with later crash retrievals (some with alien bodies) by several countries. The coverup is thoroughly discussed in the article now, but it should now be explained as a coverup. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You learned that the Roswell crash is 100% real That would be fascinating, but sadly, I still don't know that. I just know Elizondo believes it, but that doesn't get me very far. We've always known some people in the military believed in Roswell -- going all the way back to Marcel. The question is: are they right? Remember that we know the military would lie about UFOs to protect classified projects -- for all we know, Elizondo and Grush are passing on things they sincerely believe but aren't actually true. But that said, my personal views aren't relevant at all -- I couldn't go to our friend Jojo above and say "I now believe in Roswell, so let's cover it that way". I'm not a reliable source, my opinions don't count. Wikipedia isn't a reflection of 'my' beliefs, it's just a summary of what the Reliable Sources are saying. Guardian is the only source I've found mentioning Roswell and Age of Disclosure, and it's a very, very brief and semi-erroneous mention: "He traces a line from the debunked 1947 Roswell “alien crash retrieval” (generally considered the genesis of modern UAP conspiracies) to what he sees as the ongoing effort to withhold information – for fear of enemies getting wind of how much the US knows about extraterrestrial life." (Maury Island was actually the genesis). With that being the only source, mentioning the film would violate WP:UNDUE, as Jojo correctly points out above. Feoffer (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
You say you watched the doc. Did you buy it as I did? If so, then watch the relevant section again. There are 5 people, not just Elizondo. All in a position to know. Their credibility is far greater than anybody currently in the article debunking Roswell.
Currently, the article is a near-100 percent debunking article. Some people (such as the Guardian author apparently) mistakenly take Wikipedia as gospel. They don't know as we do that you can't use Wikipedia as a reference, or as fact. You have to look at the references, and look at what was not allowed as a reference such as the many books that have interviewed many confirming Roswell witnesses.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to use some of that witness testimony in books because it was never released as a video interview. So it can't be used as a primary source, unless the author has managed to become a reliable secondary source on Wikipedia. The author has to be trusted to not to be making it all up, or to be changing what was said in the witness interviews. I get all that.
But we now have primary sources on video that need no interpretation.
5 highly placed people in a position to know: From the segment (56 minutes 47 seconds in) confirming Roswell: Multiple AATIP and UAP Task Force participants and advisors: Hal Puthoff, PhD, quantum physicist (56:55 in). Eric Davis, PhD, astrophysicist (1:02:42 in). Luis Elizondo, Department of Defense official (3:35 in). And outside the AATIP and UAP Task Force organizations: Jay Stratton, Navy Intelligence, DIA, senior executive (4:19 in). Jim Semivan, senior CIA official from 1982-2007 (58:34 in).
At the very minimum they should all be named as confirming Roswell. Even without changing the overall debunking nature of the article. Then we would be meeting WP:NPOV and sharing all significant viewpoints. And these are highly significant viewpoints. Then the readers would have more info, and could make up their own minds. And naive Guardian editors would have enough credible doubt about the debunkers that they would be less likely to say that Roswell is debunked.
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm seeing RSing on Elizondo promoting Roswell in his book, but not finding anything about the others. I'm certainly not telling anyone what to believe, but when Jojo says it would be UNDUE to include Elizondo with such sparse sourcing, I personally don't know how to rebut that argument at this time. Feoffer (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed. Like those interviews. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

The people speaking in the documentary are very clear about what they are saying about Roswell. No interpretation is necessary. And they are a lot more credible than the coverup stories put out by the US Army.

WP:UNDUE does not block primary sourcing. The true undue weight is being given to the laughable cover stories put out by the US army. First about weather balloons, and then Project Mogul. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, for now, I added his Roswell claims to Elizondo's article, where it's not UNDUE; So, we're definitely satisfying NOTCENSORed -- Elizondo's Roswell claim is now in Wikipedia and search engines will find it. Sadly, Elizondo is not currently covered in RSes on Roswell and we can't include EVERYBODY or the article would get too sprawling. If we were going to make the article longer, surely we would start with Haut, not Elizondo.laughable cover stories Well, the point of the article isn't to make people "believe" anything about Roswell, it's just to create a sourced summary of who said what when. I think many in the UFO community sometimes misunderstand and think the articles represent our personal viewpoints. I don't know what crashed, I can't know -- I didnt exist yet. The air force historians admit they can't know for certain. But neither can I know that Elizondo's conclusions are correct. We have to remember Elizondo and Puthoff are practitioners of Remote Viewing, potentially complicating their claims. Did he see genuine documentation from 1947, or did he "remote-view" the Roswell Incident? It makes a big difference. Feoffer (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
The 5 people in the documentary were well placed to know that Roswell was real. AATIP. UAP Task Force. Navy Intelligence. DIA. Central Intelligence Agency. Jay Stratton was the former director of the UAP Task Force. These are all people in a position to know. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
I mean, that's a perfectly valid argument, but I have no idea if it's true. Rick Doty was Air Force intelligence, a "position to know", when he told us gray aliens like strawberry ice cream, and it turned out he was lying through his teeth to get people to look away from the CIA's domestic usage of stealth helicopters. Feoffer (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Just like the United States Air Force lied by saying Roswell was Project Mogul in order to divert people from the fact that there really was a crashed alien craft.
That is why we report all significant viewpoints with references and rebuttals, and let the reader decide. That is the Wikipedia way. WP:NPOV.
And we are talking 5 people, not just 1.
--Timeshifter (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
After reading some of the news coverage, I think inclusion is only WP:DUE in the Elizondo article. Thanks for adding it; I tried to polish the wording. All of the doubt I have seen in reliable sources about the Roswell debris coming Project Mogul (or flight number 4 specifically) comes in the form of: what if the federal government is covering up other secret programs from the Cold War. Even then the doubt is usually only expressed around determining a specific Mogul launch date. Also, I don't see coverage of the current retelling of the Roswell story changing the narrative yet. Rjjiii (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, like the secret programs of crash retrievals. You're not letting readers decide for themselves. This is against WP:NPOV because it doesn't present all significant points of view. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
So be on the look out for a reliable source about Roswell Incident talking about the Age of Disclosure claims in-depth, not just a passing mention. I can't predict the future, but I do think it's likely that Roswell coverage will come to feature the claims by Elizondo and others. You could even encourage reliable sources to cover it via their news "tips" -- it's a hell of a story, even if were to turn out it's all just folklore. Feoffer (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

A documentary can be a secondary source for a Wikipedia article because it chooses, compiles, interprets, and analyzes primary source material. The producer and director is one person, Dan Farah. So the documentary is a secondary source. And the reason it is a reliable source is because what the primary-source speakers say is clear and requires no interpretation. We probably need to go to the reliable sources notice board. And maybe a request for comment. Since we are at loggerheads.

It is up to readers to decide what is folklore. To me it is obvious what the US air force is claiming about Project Mogul is folklore. I trust the 5 high-ranking government whistleblower insiders over that lie. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

By all means, ask people at RSN if they agree with Jojo or with you. I've actively looked for sources so we could include the Age of Disclosure claims in the article and will continue to do so until such sourcing exists. But if you can generate a consensus to include it before then, that's fine by me! Feoffer (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)