Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Space Idle

New Book Reports Soviets Behind Roswell UFO Scare 135

jalefkowit writes "A new book by Los Angeles Times Magazine investigative reporter Annie Jacobsen, titled Area 51, reports that that the famous 1947 UFO sightings in Roswell, New Mexico, were actually an attempt by the Soviet Union to demonstrate that they could panic the American population if they wished. According to the book, the UFOs were actually aircraft derived from flying-wing technology, piloted by 'child-size aviators' surgically altered by captured Nazi doctors to appear more frightening. Skeptics note that this account is based on testimony provided to Jacobsen by a single unnamed source, who she describes as one of only five engineers given full access to the crash debris at the top-secret facility in Nevada known as Area 51."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Book Reports Soviets Behind Roswell UFO Scare

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:56AM (#36262282)

    Silly claims about surgically-altered child-sized navigators aside, there is a connection between the Soviets and Roswell. Project Mogul [wikipedia.org], a top secret program to spy on the Soviets, was being testing near Roswell in 1947. One of their spy balloons was what crashed in that famous incident (and why there was a subsequent cover-story and cover-up by the local military).

    In fact, if you look at the mass of "UFO" incidents, you'll notice a pretty consistent pattern. They almost always took place near secret U.S. air bases during the height of the Cold War. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that the strange lights, mysterious craft, and "men in black" that people were seeing had a lot less to do with little green men than with Cold War secrecy, paranoia, and spycraft.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:59AM (#36262316)

    Russians? Nazis? Not according to any movie I've seen.

  • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:00AM (#36262334) Homepage Journal

    I know we're all naturally curious creatures, and love a good narrative, but no experimental technology, political conflict, or conspiracy surrounding a single crash in the 40s is going to have much bearing against todays in-use technologies, political conflicts, or conspiracies(if there are any). Whatever happened is essentially irrelevant today, unless it was aliens(it wasn't aliens).

  • by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:03AM (#36262364)
    It was called the Cuban missile crisis.
  • by robot256 ( 1635039 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:04AM (#36262378)
    An obscure journalist attempts to demonstrate that she can capture the attention of the media by publishing yet another a crackpot conspiracy theory.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:11AM (#36262474)

      Obscure? Hardly. Don't you remember her? She's the one who can't tell the difference between Syrian musicians and terrorists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Jacobsen

    • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:33AM (#36262820) Homepage
      Nope, she works for the Los Angeles Times, a reputable newspaper whose halo of truth shines on all its journalists. Her book is 544 pages, of which 30 contain this account. If she's making it up, then we must conclude that the Los Angeles Times and a whole lot of other reputable journalists make shit up on a regular basis, and we know this simply isn't true. Journalists are only allowed to print facts that have been independently verified by their editors. Get some knowledge before you spout off anti-journalist conspiracy theories, you stupid teabagger.
      • by lexsird ( 1208192 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:10PM (#36264830)

        Are we talking about the LA Times that slightly overshadows The Enquirer in reputation of truth? Sarcasm or did I fall into some cosmic bunny hole?

      • by tgeller ( 10260 ) on Saturday May 28, 2011 @11:53PM (#36277780) Homepage
        This barely merits a response, but what the hell. Where to start?

        >Journalists are only allowed to print facts that have been independently verified by their editors.

        O.K., I can find three errors of fact in this sentence:

        1) "Allowed"? By whom? The Federal Bureau of Truth? You posit an authority where there is none.

        2) "...to print facts". You've never heard of an opinion column, or advocacy journalism?

        3) "...independently verified by their editors". I don't know what newsroom you work in -- I'm guessing it's none, ever. But as a working writer of over a decade, including a few years in what could fairly be called "journalism", with dozens of editors, I've never once heard of an editor checking a writer's *facts*. That's usually impossible, for one thing. What are they going to do, return to the scene of primary reportage by turning back time? Re-interview the reporter's sources? Get an advanced degree that duplicate's the writer's?

        The rest of your post exhibits the same Making Shit Up school of knowledge. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    • She isn't obscure, and quite frankly I am shocked at how who journalism skill falls away at the end of the book.

    • As fun as slandering people is, two notes should probably be kept in mind. First, the vast majority of the book is about research told to her by multiple sourced first-hand accounts of what was going on at Area 51. As in, non-conspirational yet still interesting stuff. Second, as a commenter above noted, this is not Annie Jacobsen's crazy theory on what was happening. She took special pains to point out that this was a story directly recounted to her from someone who was supposedly directly involved, unfiltered by her bias. In fact, if I recall correctly, she actually says at some point that she thinks the whole story is highly unlikely.

      Unfortunately, the media loves a good sensationalist story, so out of the whole book, this is the one extremely minor thing picked out of it to publicize, and people are trying to cast Annie Jacobsen in the light of the crackpot theorist.

      How about actually finding out more about her and the book [npr.org] next time before you go maligning people like this? Oh, right. Because the media isn't the only one who loves a good sensationalist story.

      • by lexsird ( 1208192 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:21PM (#36264966)

        That is all fine and dandy, but anyone can go interview lunatics and come up with "research" and something that resembles a "story". What next, run to the nursing homes and start "documenting" and "researching"? I have a father who has Parkinsons and he will give you all sorts of "first hand accounts" of how "aliens have infected our blood supplies" and how he is still on a secret mission for Jack Kennedy. Sweet Jesus, I should be writing this all down and making bank on a book to the retards in today's reading clime.

        Seriously, as much as geeks want it to be so, Area 51, Roswell and Aliens, Russians and all the trimmings does NOT make for real journalism. Its pandering to the lunatic fringe for money, simple as that. Its not only pathetic and sad, but it also raises moral questions as to should people feed rumors that obviously aren't conducive to good mental health for those who are deluded by it. Way to reinforce these lunatics by giving them any ink.

    • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:08PM (#36267516)

      She does admit that this last part (the faked aliens/ufo thing) is not substantiated. She only includes it at the very end of a book about Area 51 that is much more thoroughly documented. She does not say that this new theory is true and is careful to say that it is only the word of this one guy who she was referred to by her other sources.

  • by bl8n8r ( 649187 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:05AM (#36262382)

    No matter how many people speak out the "truth", there have been so many wildly different stories and claims that everything automatically gets tagged as bullshit in everyone's mind.

  • Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hitch ( 1361 ) <hitch@@@propheteer...org> on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:05AM (#36262392) Homepage

    I'm more willing to believe it was an actual UFO.
    And I don't believe in Alien UFOs.

    This is the most convoluted conspiracy theory I've heard since the "9/11 was perpetrated by the US" and "Obama's Birth Certificate" nutjobs

    • by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:12PM (#36264868) Homepage

      So given all the improbabilities involved in interstellar travel, you think that's more likely than one government fucking with another, and expending great resources in which to do it?

      I'm afraid I have some bad news for you about how the world works...

    • by PuckSR ( 1073464 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @02:26PM (#36266278)

      I actually agree with you. I am more willing to believe actual aliens landed than this story.
      This is probably as crazy as the "9/11 was an inside job" nutjobs, but not as crazy as the "Obama Birth certificate" nutjobs. The birthers were more denialists. They just didn't want to believe a single fact and believed people might be covering up. They were not specific concepts that were massively convoluted and questionable in motive. I would compare the birthers to JFK conspiracy theorists. I would also put "aliens landed at roswell" in the same camp.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:06AM (#36262396)

    It's a shame that the stuff at the end (Stalin smuggled Josef Mengele out of Nazi Germany in the closing days of WWII so that he could surgically/genetically alter 13 year old kids to look like aliens for the purpose of starting a panic in the US that would delay the response to a preemptive Soviet attack- really?) will discredit what otherwise seems to be a well sourced history of cold-war research.

  • by joltguy ( 721360 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:06AM (#36262400)
    An actual alien crash landing is almost more believable than this "explanation".
  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:08AM (#36262428) Homepage Journal
    the crap that is told by that book, is less believable than extraterrestrial visitors.

    ironic that this shit came out a short while after fbi ufo disclosure (right or wrong) news hit the major news outlets.

    aliens may be there, or not, but, THIS is the most incompetent piece of disinformation that can ever be attempted. 'child size aviators' my ass.
  • by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:10AM (#36262454)

    Holy crap...the most batshit-crazy theory yet to explain Roswell, and it doesn't even point to a consipracy by our own government, or a shadow organization? Who would have thought?

  • by kubitus ( 927806 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:10AM (#36262456)
    they would have made it public for a worldwide haha on the US!
  • Hear her out (Score:5, Informative)

    by just_another_sean ( 919159 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:11AM (#36262472) Journal

    She was on the daily show last week; she seemed pretty sane, even if her story doesn't... Judge for yourself. [thedailyshow.com]

  • by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:15AM (#36262522) Homepage

    This narrative doesn't make sense for any of the players involved. The only way you see the plastic-surgeried child pilot is if you're deliberately crashing the thing - at which point it is clear to the people picking it up it's "normal" technology and the child is clearly a clumsily mutilated (even modern plastic surgery is not going to conceal this kind of thing) human. It would have also been immediately clear who did it, why it isn't scary aliens, and it would have been reasonably hard to do (requires launching a plane deep into the US). It also wouldn't make much sense to keep secret - the message is simple: the Russians are weird douchebags who sent a over a plane with a dead kid.

    Contrast that with another, significantly-less-crazy-but-still-pretty-crazy plan that could have actually worked: Have a weird formation of small planes with blinking lights. Send them around at night to New York. If you want, maybe blow up the Statue of Liberty with an unconventional mix of explosives while shining a big light on it or something. Get a whole bunch of weird coincidence stuff going too, broadcast strange radio messages and have it happen in correspondence with some astrological phenomenon. Then get out real fast before they can find your planes, and see that they have conventional propulsion systems and human pilots.

    Anyways, I'm sure you or I could do better than the above stupid plan with a little time to think it out (heck, a rope and a cornfield works pretty good). Imagining that the Russians, with plenty of time to think through a plan that required significant commitment, couldn't do better than mutilated kid crashing a plane in the desert... is just so very dumb. I think the only people dumb enough to accept it would be the morons who already have an "explanation" (ie. those who believe it was aliens).

    • 1) The account seems pretty clear that the intention was to crash one, to prove to the US military that they (the Russians) could cause a nation-wide UFO scare.

      2) Flying disk technology was considered advanced technology in that day, as flying wing technology was still being tested.

      I'm not fully convinced of the truthfulness of the account, but it seems far more plausible than a covered-up alien encounter.
      • by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:44AM (#36262972) Homepage

        The account seems pretty clear that the intention was to crash one, to prove to the US military that they (the Russians) could cause a nation-wide UFO scare.

        To cause a scare, why not, uh, let their UFO get caught flying on film (hopefully doing things that only their advanced aircraft could do). Again, if I was trying to fake this, I'd do it at night with a formation of planes (thus appearing larger than a plane could be, or - using tricks of perspective and a formation moving faster than planes could move). Crashing one proves only one thing: that they couldn't fake a crash site well enough to fool anyone. How do I know their crash evidence wouldn't be good enough to fool anyone? Because you still couldn't do a crash that would fool anyone, at least not by starting with a plane that could fly in that era and a human pilot.

        Flying disk technology was considered advanced technology in that day, as flying wing technology was still being tested.

        If you're trying to make a good crash site - why make it fly at all? Again, if I was doing a fake crash site, I'd leave out the human (which is an obvious, stupid tell that only a fantastic moron would think of or try) and just have a big disk with layers of odd metal. Have a bunch of magnets, glass spheres, crystals, long antennas made of strange plastic, and generally weird crap in there, all intricate and incomprehensible. Then drop the whole deal out of a plane.

        Again, the starting plot doesn't make any sense, and requires a lot of commitment for something that obviously wasn't going to do anything (at least not anything more than just flying around a weather balloon would).

        I'm not saying my stupid ideas would work either. But they at least aren't guaranteed not to work (as this stupid, stupid plan would be), and they have some hope of not being discovered in an embarrassing way. Give the Russians some credit - if they'd wanted to do something like this (which they, uh, wouldn't because it's a fantastically dumb goal to start with) then they could have come up with something much better.

    • by domatic ( 1128127 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:40AM (#36262916)

      Or just release a bunch of prank balloons:

      http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/candbal.htm [sgc-hosting.com]

      Note: Don't actually use this design; they can start fires. I bet some great prank balloons could be made from flashing LED light toys and helium balloons.

  • Whoosh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:23AM (#36262640) Homepage Journal
    That really isn't the story here, and she pretty much says that in all the interviews I've heard with her. The story is the fact that the organization behind Area 51, the US Department of Energy, can classify information so tightly that no one in the US Government (Including the President) could be deemed to have a "need to know" to see it. They are unaccountable and outside any system of checks and balances. Of course, that alone doesn't sell books so I can see why she trotted out the freak show.
    • Re:Whoosh (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:35AM (#36262850)

      The story is the fact that the organization behind Area 51, the US Department of Energy, can classify information so tightly that no one in the US Government (Including the President) could be deemed to have a "need to know" to see it

      Or the DoE has no such ability, and the only reason nobody has ever been able to see this "information" is because there's no such information to see beyond the rather mundane and the now widely reported stories regarding weather/spy balloons. Even if there was still a hidden truth behind this, how do you know what the President or any other high-level official has seen? Right, you don't. Your "real story" is as much a conspiracy theory as the UFO crash itself.

    • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @11:12AM (#36264130)

      The story is the fact that the organization behind Area 51, the US Department of Energy, can classify information so tightly that no one in the US Government (Including the President) could be deemed to have a "need to know" to see it.

      Trash that video of "Independence Day" and get back to taking your meds.

  • by supersloshy ( 1273442 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:24AM (#36262666)

    "Lesbian Nazi hookers abducted by aliens and forced into weight-loss programs. All next week on Town Talk"
              - George Newman (Weird Al Yankovic), UHF

  • CLearly she stopped applying all thought when she talked about child altered surgically and/or genetically.

    In fact, in order to use emotions to make her claims more believable, she changes from a proper journals 3rd person writting to a 1 person writing.

    IT's crap. Complete hearsay. She also made the classic blunder of people who start to buy in to this kind of lunacy: Made up security clearances.

    At one point she said:
    My source remains anonymous because he is afraid of what will happen. He is the last remaining engineer on a 5 man tame.
    As if that wouldn't give him away to the very people she claims he is afraid of.

    "Gosh Bob, we would shut this person up, be he is anonymous. We do know he was on the uber top secret project with pal;id levels security, and we know he's the only surviving member. But Who can it be?"

    When pressed she started making up crazier and wider reaching 'theories'. I mean she was told by some guy who claim to have been on some project, and then uses the Ad ignorantiam ad the 'argument from authority' logical fallacies.

    IT';s kind of sad. Watching a good journalist get sucked in like that.

    • by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:17PM (#36264922) Homepage

      IT';s kind of sad. Watching a good journalist get sucked in like that.

      What makes you think she is a good journalist or sucked in?

      The most logical explanation is that she knows what she is doing. It would explain the consistent form-change, and the over-the-top conspiracy theory that would guarantee her free publicity and probably even make people who thinks it sounds stupid, buy the book, in order to find out where it is coming from, or to have laugh.

      Sounds to me more like an evil journalist than a good journalist.

  • by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:29AM (#36262744)

    I recently heard an interview with Annie Jacobsen and this book is a huge load of crap. It's all based on third-hand information ("I was told by someone, who was told by someone...."). She claims that the aircraft was being remotely piloted by the Soviets and contained people, who appeared to be 12-13 years old, who had been genetically engineered by Josef Mengele (who went to work for the Soviets after the end of WWI) to look like aliens.. Of course she had no explanation of how Mengele genetically engineered a few 12-13 year old people in the 2 years between the end of WWII and the crash at Roswell. Not to mention the fact that the knowledge and technology for genetic engineering didn't exist at that time. She never did answer questions about the people in the aircraft -- did the US recover them? Were they alive? Were they dead? She just changed the subject and started talking about something else.

    The entire interview was nothing but weasel words and lots of backpedaling whenever she was asked about specific details.

    • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:29PM (#36267742)

      She doesn't claim this, she is quoting a source that she explicitly says is just a source with no substantiated evidence behind the claims. She doesn't have the details because she is just relaying information. She does not claim that this is true either. It's just a tacked on section at the end of a much longer book.

      Personally I think it could have been left off but she included it in order to increase sales of the book. So there's the ethical question here. She switches from 3rd to 1st person explicitly to denote that she's no longer being a journalist in this chapter, but is that enough to avoid the ethical question that arises by sticking sensationalism in at the end of an otherwise normal journalistic book? This is sort of like writing a well researched book about the Apollo program and then putting in an appendix about someone who claims to have been in on the moon landing hoax.

  • Was Area 51 even a facility back then? Whatever they recovered from Roswell went to "Hangar 18" - an environmental test facility at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, OH.

    Even most skeptics agree on that (regardless of what they thought was recovered).

    Anybody claiming Area 51 involvement in the Roswell incident instantly loses all credibility.

  • by sproketboy ( 608031 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @10:44AM (#36263732)

    Roswell explained:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2334857802602777622&ei=DoRESannBJLAqAL5p7z4DA&q=physics [google.com]

    This is a lecture on physics a Berkeley. It will take an hour but it explains the Roswell UFO stuff and why it was classified.
    More fascinating IMO than aliens....

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @11:35AM (#36264388)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Flying wings, piloted by child-sized aviators ... makes me think of the The Turk [wikipedia.org], piloted by a child-sized chess master.
  • ...did anyone else immediately get that idea?

  • by El_Furioso ( 1307641 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @03:46PM (#36267168)
    If you've read the book, or heard her discuss the book at length you might be a bit more informed to make comments. She -does not- make these claims on her own, nor does she report it third hand. She reports it as an addendum to the, most likely true, accounts of what the UFO's at Area 51 actually were ... experimental aircraft. The 'conspiracy' theory was not a leap of logic, it was a journalistic account told from an immediate source who supposedly worked on the 'alien' crash at Roswell. Don't jump to conclusions about the book, or the contents therein just because -you- do or don't believe in what happened or what you think about a 5 minute interview on a comedy t.v. show.
  • Climate change is all a Conspiracy organised by the M.I.B. who killed J.F.K, faked the moon landing and stole the alien aircraft from Area 51!!!

    But I’m here to stop them! I will now reveal to the world the presence of this infamous font of infamy! The M.I.B. are actually the Mason’s in Black. You can learn all about them if you just buy my upcoming book, Why climate change is crap and you must fear the M.I.B. instead for just $29.95.

    If you like Why climate change is crap you might also enjoy the sequels,

    More about the M.I.B,
    What you can do about the M.I.B.,
    How to survive the coming M.I.B. take-over,
    Another 100 reasons climate change is rubbish and your local CSIRO lab have also been brought out by the M.I.B., and finally,
    How the M.I.B. fabricated the laws of physics on a universal scale to trick every spectrometer and science student in every lab across the planet, ever. No really. (This last title is a little long but my publishers say it appeals to a very specific market. One has to pay the bills, and what the heck is wrong with that?)

    You’ll probably want to buy the boxed set for only $100. It’s all good science, you can trust me. The fact that I couldn’t get my works published in the peer-reviewed journals only proves how far the M.I.B. have come! Once they have control of our minds, the Rubber Duck underwear laws are soon to follow.

Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner

Working...