Feb 04 2010
|
|
Roswell: The Early Stories
Yes, the case that cannot die (Roswell, of course) still rumbles on at a steady pace, as the following article from Tony Bragalia at The UFO Iconoclast(s) demonstrates. In this post, Tony looks at the data on Roswell that surfaced prior to all the 1980s coverage that occurred in the wake of the publication of the Moore-Berlitz book, The Roswell Incident.
Tony says: “Skeptics who say that the Roswell UFO crash was never discussed before 1980 with the publication of the seminal book “The Roswell Incident” are wrong. In fact, the 1947 UFO event in New Mexico was brought up in many ways -and at many times- throughout the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s.
“These naysayers maintain that witnesses only came forward when the Roswell story became ‘popularized’ by the numerous books, movies, TV shows, documentaries and articles done in the 1980s and 1990s- many years after the crash event itself. They would like us to believe that after the original press release and newspaper articles in July of 1947 on the crash had appeared that nothing more was ever said until much later. The implication made by these disbelievers and cynics is that Roswell was a virtual ‘non-event’ until the release of the first book on Roswell in 1980 and the subsequent publicity in following decades. But an examination of the literature -and confirmation of stories told privately- reveal that the alien episode was known and discussed well before all of the ‘hoopla.’”
And, here’s the link to the complete article at The UFO Iconoclast(s).
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 4th, 2010 at 11:30 am and is filed under Alien Encounters, Anomalous Phenomena, Books, Breaking News, Close Encounters, Conspiracies, Crash Sites, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Government Projects, Guest Column, Roswell, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Uncanny Roswell »
- Roswell Before The Roswell Book »
- Roswell Secrecy »
- More Roswell Revelations »
- Gorightly on Roswell »
- Yet Another Roswell Witness Surfaces »
- Roswell Revelations »
- The Trowbridge Interview »
- Roswell and the USAF »
- New Roswell UFO Fiction »
|
February 4th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Yo! The photo atop Tony’s article is not of Wilhelm Reich! That’s Michael Straight, New Republic editor who helped orchestrate the campaign against Reich and later came out as a Soviet spy. The connection is made a little more clear here.
I’ve been making this point about Reich and Roswell for many years, though. I’m glad to see someone paying attention!
February 6th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
“These naysayers maintain that witnesses only came forward when the Roswell story became ‘popularized’”
That isn’t quite right and is a straw-man. The alleged naysayers maintain that the vast majority of witnesses only came forward after the Roswell story became ‘popularized’. You can’t deny that blatant in-your-face fact.
The rest of that post only goes downhill from there. Take a look at Tony’s first example of the “proof” that the Roswell Incident was ‘popular’ before it was ‘popularized’ — Dr William Reich. So what did Dr Reich specifically say about the Roswell Incident. Nothing. He merely mentioned that he “felt” some special “UFO energies” in the area. Wow! That is so special and scientific! And Tony takes all that to mean Dr Reich knew all about the Roswell Incident and was studying it. Haha!
Then there is Dr Kevin Randle, or more accurately, the second hand story of the hearsay of Dr Randle. Then, to assert even more pressure for you to believe his claim, Tony states how, “This remarkable story was told in 1976, years before the publication of the first book on the Roswell crash”. The problem is, the first book was in 1980, not 1976, and secondly, *ONE* person does not qualify as popular or as a serious study of the subject.
Now I’m not going to go over ever little detail that Tony got wrong in his post, since I need to make a very long story short, so I will highlight just one more thing.
“Now deceased UFO author Frank Edwards may have been one of the very first researchers to relate details on the UFO crash at Roswell”
The key words here are “may have been”. In other words, he didn’t clearly and unambiguously come out and say anything about the Roswell Incident, but if you use your imagination real hard like, you could delude yourself into believing he did. Of course in scientific circles we call that “grasping at straws”.
Was that article by Tony supposed to be a joke, because it sure didn’t seem like he was being scientifically or factually serious about it? Inquiring minds would like to know.