Critique of Wikipedia Raises Questions on Roswell and Project Mogul Accuracy

John Stossel, known for his libertarian views and investigative journalism, recently scrutinized the credibility of Wikipedia, particularly in relation to the controversial Roswell incident. While his focus was primarily on political bias, it sparked a wider examination of how Wikipedia handles topics like Project Mogul, a military program that some claim is the explanation behind the infamous UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

The Wiki entry begins with a definitive claim: “In 1947, a Project Mogul balloon NYU Flight 4, launched June 4, crashed in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico.” At first glance, this sentence appears authoritative. However, it omits significant historical documents, particularly the meticulous field notes and diary entries kept by Dr. Albert Crary, the project leader. These documents reveal an important detail: there was no balloon launch on June 4, contradicting the very foundation of the Project Mogul explanation.

Dr. Crary’s own writings state that on June 4, he noted, “No balloon flight again on account of clouds,” directly challenging the notion that a successful launch occurred that day. Ignoring these records is a glaring oversight. There was no Flight #4, as further outlined by the lack of documentation and the absence of data collections for that date. The following day, the successful launch of Flight #5 is well-documented, suggesting that any reference to Flight #4 being equally successful is misleading.

Charles Moore, an engineer on the Project Mogul team, described the two flights differently. He claims both were successful, but this contradicts available documentation because Flight #4 does not exist in any official records, signifying that the so-called evidence supporting its success is fabricated. Such discrepancies raise questions about the reliability of sources that some Wikipedia entries depend on.

Furthermore, a notable article from The New York Times attempted to describe Project Mogul’s balloons in an extraordinary light, claiming they resembled an “elephant in your backyard” to those untrained in the art of balloon identification. This exaggeration, while sensational, does not match the reality of the situation, especially as the documented balloon designs were not outlandish in comparison to typical weather balloons. Project Mogul used materials that were widely known and utilized; therefore, the notion that people would mistake them for something alien is unfounded.

Eyewitness accounts from individuals involved with the initial recovery, like Major Jesse Marcel, reveal even more inconsistencies. Marcel, who has been photographed with debris from the crash, asserted that the materials he handled did not align with the mundane components of weather balloons or radar reflectors. Moreover, rancher Mack Brazel’s observations about the debris field suggest it was substantial enough to concern him; he described a scene that did not resemble any previous weather balloon crashes he had encountered.

It’s essential to highlight the timeline discrepancies as well. Brazel waited nearly a month before reporting the debris—a delay that seems out of character given the apparent size of the wreckage. His concern about cleanup, alongside testimonies from his son and others, indicates there was something noteworthy about the debris that prompted a report to authorities.

Examining the sources cited in Wikipedia’s entry reveals a significant bias towards skeptical narratives, with an overwhelming majority of references coming from authors and publications with clear anti-UFO perspectives. This raises critical questions about the editorial integrity of Wikipedia, particularly when well-documented arguments supporting alternative theories are systematically ignored or dismissed.

Prominent sources used, such as cadet Kendrick Frazier and various skeptics from the now-defunct Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), indicate a lack of diverse opinion. For any significant historical event, varying perspectives should be considered to achieve a complete understanding. Authors who have actively engaged with witnesses and conducted in-depth research often find their contributions absent from platforms like Wikipedia.

The challenge remains: Wikipedia must strive for accuracy by integrating a broad range of perspectives, especially on complex and contentious subjects like Project Mogul. Stossel’s critique of Wikipedia can serve as a wakeup call, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach that ensures all relevant voices are included in documenting historical events.

The Roswell incident and Project Mogul deserve a thorough and unbiased examination free from pre-existing narratives, ensuring that all documented evidence is critically evaluated and presented fairly to the public. Without such diligence, platforms like Wikipedia risk propagating incomplete or misleading accounts, ultimately undermining their credibility as a source of information.