Did Bill Moore essentially create most of the UFO story?

[Ostension]

 

[boomerang]

Which is more likely, aliens from another planet? or a mixture of myth, folklore, aging witnesses, confabulation, and the heavy hand of military intelligence all coalescing in the creation of a Roswell myth.

Roswell is best viewed in context.

If only a handful of cases and a few credible witnesses were concerned in the totality of the UFO phenomenon, the answer would be obvious. Considering the sheer number of people defined by societal norms as 'reliable' who have come forward over the last 60 years with tales of things strange and incredible: nothing seems likely when traditional standards of witness evidence are applied. This, and not certain enthusiasts who seem to thrive on public noise, is the kernel of the mystery.

We don't need the dubious behavior of John Lear, Corso or Stephen Greer to indicate that something outside our standard frame of reference is amiss. Whether Bill Moore is a player in genuine high strangeness machination or just untruthful, I leave for others to decide.

But my larger point: Even taken as a purely sociological or psychological anomaly (although I personally think it is much more) we should ask ourselves why so many hundreds if not thousands of people, with nothing to gain and often much to lose, risk discrediting themselves by reporting experiences traditionally associated with pathological thinking. Security guards at nuclear bases, ICBM launch officers, and air transport pilots, just to name a few, do not fit the profile of the confabulating prankster or hallucinating psychotic.

I could be content with any realistic answer to this question--ET, terrestrial black ops, sociological or whatever.

 

[Constance]

Excellent post. I completely agree that the 65+ year context has to be dealt with.

It's not remotely possible that US black ops and its predecessors could have put the whole planet-wide show up since WWII. I also find it hard to believe that some ultradimensional entities have produced a virtual reality show over seven decades to provoke our uninteresting little species to learn something or other. Most of our species still ignores the ufo history and the subject as a whole. Most people talking about it online don't seem to have read a fraction of the history. There is a real and hard core to this phenomenon; no way around it.

 

[Burnt State]

But my larger point: Even taken as a purely sociological or psychological anomaly (although I personally think it is much more) we should ask ourselves why so many hundreds if not thousands of people, with nothing to gain and often much to lose, risk discrediting themselves by reporting experiences traditionally associated with pathological thinking. Security guards at nuclear bases, ICBM launch officers, and air transport pilots, just to name a few, do not fit the profile of the confabulating prankster or hallucinating psychotic.

I could be content with any realistic answer to this question--ET, terrestrial black ops, sociological or whatever.

There's the rub. Why tell the tale in the first place? Those who honestly tells their story of the impossible thing they witnessed confound the listener; because, the witness themselves is confounded. And as an audience we are more convinced by those people in positions of authority when they tell the tale because they have everything to lose. History has borne out that these witnesses are perhaps the most vulnerable in a society that prefers to enforce the norm as opposed to embrace the surreal. So we run them out of town, burn their houses to the ground, call them "mad hatter" and hang effigies in their yard. This story is not one to pass on - yet still they are compelled to tell their story.

While this suggests that there is some very unusual truth that lies underneath their sorry, the normal rules of testimony just do not apply, as what hppened resides only in their minds & memory. So something utterly fantastic took place but as far as what or from where we can confirm nothing. There are suggestions; there is the appearance to the alien - accidental evidence of a powerful and unconfirmed experience of unknowable proportions.

Now here's the value of Lundberg and ostension. What's being pointed out to us is that alongside the witness, their story and their event, travels other social events, social contexts, and those who would, as he describes, "weaponize the myth." Again, this does not have to mean all stories of UFO's are about perception management, or that our brains are responsible for fantasy. There are other hardcore cases but they also exist inside a larger history and social context. We must recognize that many hands & histories have been woven together to create what we call the UFO conundrum, be ye folklorist, skeptic, believer or seeker.

Not to get all Sausseruan on people but these ideas and how they function have been mythologized whether we appreciate this or not. The whole shape of the UFO sign itself has been constructed by a specific process. While it looks like a UFO from outer space what we really have is a repeating social milieu that has circumscribed these highly unique human experiences in the shape of a flying saucer from outer space. This is most likely a gross oversimplification of what it is and really is worth our time in thinking more about it. People see strange things - it's undeniable, so very strange and intense are these Experiences they even feel compelled to share their story even at their own peril. In moments of intense trauma, sightings we can not understand will still be processed by a brain just doing the best it can to interpret the evidence as it appears. This elaborate social process is even in the shape of a saucer.

As a sidebar, this Radiolab episode concerning the terrorist attack at Westgate Mall illuminates this concept further as intensity of experience, and the need to tell one's truth does not always equate to any confirmed reality. Conspiracy thinking often follows after such events. I encourage people to listen to this excellent piece of journalism and then try applying what comes out of this tale of trying to find truth in trauma. 9/11 would also be a classic example of impossible events producing a diversity of unconfirmed personal truths. Things are not always what they seem, neither is history - it's all about human interpretation.

Outside Westgate - Radiolab

 

[Trajanus]

The witnesses were so afraid to talk that they remained silent...before finally talking with great detail. It doesn't sound very persuasive to me that the witnesses were sacred into secrecy only to spill their guts to Moore and Berlitz,

Marcel originally talked to Friedman, with impunity, which apparently emboldened others.

So again, we have established several of the Roswell witnesses, including high ranking men like Corso lied.

Investigators considered some witnesses credible even if others were not. There wasn't always agreement on who had veracity--Friedman rejected Kaufmann long before KDR who rejected Anderson, accepted by Stan. But just about all the researchers accepted the Marcels.

So now we are left with some choices...Roswell was either a crashed UFO event complete with aliens and witnesses were sworn to silence, but not real silence, because they eventually talked.

Not for more than 30 years even in the case of the first.

Or, like most the characters in the narrative, embellishment, confabulation and the heavy hand of military intelligence played a role in taking a very earthly encounter and turning into something other worldly...

I don't think there's any doubt something really strange came down near Roswell. It's not just the failure of the base personnel to identify the stuff with strange properties. KDR and others have exhaustively considered every conceivable prosaic explanation--weather balloon, flying wing, V-1, MOGUL--and none of them work. MOGUL was blown out of the water on KDR's blog, and the best-informed skeptics there had no alternative.

Which is more likely, aliens from another planet? or a mixture of myth, folklore, aging witnesses, confabulation, and the heavy hand of military intelligence all coalescing in the creation of a Roswell myth.

Considering what evidence we have, ET--which is not really such a big deal considering the concept only involves a duplication of our intelligence and extension of our progress elsewhere. Believe me, I don't doubt the Roswell case has been mucked up like crazy by nonsense, most of it probably deliberate disinfo. But it reminds me of what Timothy Good wrote: "It is important to emphasize that there would be no point in disinformation if there was nothing to cover up."

 

[withoutlimits09]

Some good criticisms here. So you think that the narrative has since grown into a mythology many believe in based on a combination of fabricated and then disconnected narratives - the whole thing getting assembled into a storyline of crashed aliens? Stories of the dead nurse in the hotel room that just could not be suicide are the things said just to construct an elaborate story?

Why do you think the report is first published in the news- we have a crashed saucer? Was that just a James Carrion cold war tactic? This part of the story continues to confuse.

I think we give far too much respect to those military men. Even when you read Corso's book, he comes across as pretty average in terms of intelligence, and he was one of their brightest and best. So someone probably stumbled upon some earthly hardware, probably not a balloon though, and called it in as a "flying saucer" and it was reported as such. These people were not exactly MIT scientists, granted they followed military protocols as it pertained to nukes, but coming across an "unknown" debris field and or metal disk probably sent those kids into a frenzy. What exactly compelled Marcel, a seeming intelligent honest guy to say the things he said is unknown, BUT not uncommon, i.e., see Corso.

The whole "it looked like balsa wood with Egypt writing on the inside of it" again, sounds contrived to me.

Let's get this straight, according to the Roswell narrative, the "aliens" spoke telepathically to the officers, yet still rely on a written language, with visual symbols on their hardware?

That is like saying "Well they communicate digitally via text, but carry around paper and pen for writing"

Makes little sense. Probably more confabulation.

 

[Trajanus]

So someone probably stumbled upon some earthly hardware, probably not a balloon though,

Then what, exactly? Again, every conceivable alternative to ET has been exhaustively considered, yet nothing works. Not a V-1, conventional aircraft or flying wing.

These people were not exactly MIT scientists, granted they followed military protocols as it pertained to nukes, but coming across an "unknown" debris field and or metal disk probably sent those kids into a frenzy. What exactly compelled Marcel, a seeming intelligent honest guy to say the things he said is unknown, BUT not uncommon, i.e., see Corso.

Marcel shouldn't be compared with Corso. The latter has been rejected the former is still considered credible. Corso was an obvious phony who like so many others helped muck up the case with dubious claims. In contrast, Marcel was there and--beyond a reasonable doubt-- he handled something really strange. Had Marcel, and Blanchard etc failed to identify prosaic stuff and caused a big ruckus needlessly, they would've been canned in no time. Instead as others have pointed out, Blanchard was later promoted.

Let's get this straight, according to the Roswell narrative, the "aliens" spoke telepathically to the officers,

What officers and when??? Various accounts mention bodies and perhaps a survivor but I don't recall reading about telepathic communication to officers. Maybe that idea comes from a scene in a movie on Roswell, where the being in bed spoke telepathically to a high ranking officer. But that's fiction not part of the Roswell narrative, to my knowledge.
Btw thanks to Constance for the likes. I wish I got more...

 

[Constance]

Tranjanus, you've clearly read the research and know the history, and you always make sense.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

And this person is whom?

 

[Ostension]

And this person is whom?

Its Bill.

 

[Trajanus]

Tranjanus, you've clearly read the research and know the history, and you always make sense.

Thank you very much.