Automotive Deals HPCC Shop Women's Clothing Learn more Discover it Crown the Empire Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Segway miniPro
Customer Review

110 of 113 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Couldn't Put It Down, July 28, 2007
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the 60-Year Cover-Up (Paperback)
Relying 100% on eyewitness and secondary witness testimony this book weaves together a picture of what the authors believed happened at Roswell back in 47'. If you don't believe the ET craft / alien body hypothesis then the first question that you have to answer about half way through the book is simply this, "Why in the world would these people - quite a number on their deathbeds - make this stuff up?" Fame and fortune? I don't see fortunes being raked in by these supposed witnesses and if fame is having your name written up in book that just might get you weird looks at the church bingo game....well, then I guess it's worth it. Unless of course, the answer is all these people have somehow collaborated together for this story or borrowed from each other's accounts. In other words, they are all bold-faced liars. The fact that 600+ people would randomly do such a thing I believe is a bigger focus of concern than if an actual alien craft did crash near Corona. All the supposed fabrications just don't make sense. And if it does make sense where else in history do we have an example of such a lie that has the same positive benefits for those that perpetrate it? I couldn't think of any.

The authors also mention a number of people who refuse to talk at all about their involvement with Roswell. If these tight-lipped folks are represented accurately by the authors - then one gets the distinct impression that they aren't talking because they are afraid of being associated with the wing nuts who believe in the ET hypothesis - it is because they fear reprisal by the Powers That Be or they feel a duty to keep the secret they were told to shut up about half a century ago. Those that do talk seem to verify this is the reason the others aren't talking. The author's ask the appropriate question repeatedly, "Why would these reluctant participants not want to talk about a weather balloon?" And if it was something top secret other than a weather balloon - it certainly doesn't answer why, according to the witnesses - everyone was scratching their heads trying to figure out what the debris was.

Those of us who have read and thought about what happened at Roswell grow tired of the argument that something extraordinary such as a UFO crash didn't happen because we don't have any physical evidence, pictures, or something else that would hold up in the court of law to prove it. It's ludicrous to suggest that if it was determined that an event of this magnitude would be far too earth-shattering to reveal - particularly on the heals of world war - that a secret of that nature couldn't be kept and evidence erased or locked up. Of course it could. Extraordinary events demand extraordinary measures and if vacuuming a desert floor isn't just that - I don't know what is. The author's outline events in a way that certainly makes one believe this was the Event of the Millennium - and those who were in charge knew it.

I only have a few complaints about the book. While it's obvious the authors have done their research and homework - it's difficult to take them seriously when the book is laced with the perfunctory alien head or outline of the classic UFO on every page. While the UFO enthusiast might understand such graphical enhancements - the skeptic certainly wouldn't. It detracts from the serious subject matter of the book and just might keep me from sending a copy to my Roswell skeptic, Air Force retired Dad.

I'm also disturbed by the author's apparent dismissal of mortician's Glenn Dennis testimony of his encounter with the nurse and further question his voracity as a witness. They have no trouble accepting the testimony from witnesses who lied through their teeth about their participation in the Roswell incident in the past - because they felt an obligation to country or their safety of their family to do so, yet Mr. Dennis says that he lied about the nurses' name because she requested he do so - and the author's cry foul. What's the difference? It suggests a hidden bias against Mr. Dennis that leaves the reader wondering why. By the author's own admission he certainly was a man in position to know something about what was going on.

What? No mention of the testimony of Philip Corso of "The Day After Roswell" fame? It would have been fascinating to know the author's take on his crash testimony. The same holds true of David Rudiak's potentially ground-breaking research on the Roswell memo. It leaves the impression that the author's might be selectively picking and choosing their evidence particularly when Corso's testimony ended up being a New York Time's bestseller and Rudiak's work was highlighted by none other than Jesse Marcel Jr. - who handled crash debris himself. The absence of Corso's testimony - or at least an opinion of his testimony - leaves a hole in their otherwise comprehensive research. The same holds true with the Ramey memo in the famous weather balloon photograph featuring Marcel Sr.

Detractions aside, I agree with other reviewers that this is so far the definitive work on Roswell and for that reason alone deserves 5 stars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 31, 2007 4:10:29 PM PDT
I think the focus of Witness to Roswell was to lean more heavily on new or lesser known material in an attempt to avoid rehashing already well known testimony to give the reader or investigator some new material to work with to better put things into perspective.

Also, I think you may have misinterpreted the Glenn Dennis critique. They never stated that Dennis was certainly not telling the truth. Carey and Schmitt acknowledged the possibility that he may have been being sincere, but pointed out the inconsistencies in his story that make it difficult to believe. It definitely doesn't lend him much credibility, no matter what his reason. I don't believe they wanted to spend to much time in a point by point analysis of his claims nor do I believe they simply denounced his statements as blatantly fraudulent.

As for Philip Corso, many Roswell researchers have reason to believe his statements are simply not true, as do I. Either that, or it is some form of government disinformation or inadvertent misinformation on his part possibly due to his own personal conjecture and time confabulation. Or maybe in fact he was telling the truth as he knew it to be, who am I to decide? However, I do agree, he could have at least been mentioned, even if only in passing such as Dennis. But again, you must understand the sheer volume of testimony. 600 witnesses and counting, merely a small fraction were included in the book. It would surely be difficult to include ALL testimony, particularly wasting time with potential fictional accounts.

Posted on May 15, 2010 7:02:37 PM PDT
I can easily see not mentioning Corso. Corso claims that basically he personally was responsible for all the electronics and related breakthroughs of the second half of the twentieth century by giving Roswell debris to various companies that reverse engineered it. And yet, in his entire book the only NEW information he provides is a copy of a long-forgotten pre-NASA plan to build bases on the moon that had been declassified. It is easy to substantiate that Corso was in the department he claims to have been in. But that alone doesn't prove he had anything to do with Roswell. If he DID, he should have been able to provide SOMETHING new and clearly related to Roswell, however minor.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2010 10:14:23 PM PDT
OkieJohn says:
I appreciate your comments and observations about Corso but I would disagree that the only "new" information he provided in his book were the NASA plans for the moon base - unless of course you are saying any new information that's verifiable from other declassified sources. Doing the same with Corso's major assertions - if true - would no doubt still be classified as Above Top Secret. Corso's entire approach with the book was new information as far as the revelation that much of the technology that's responsible for transforming our modern world today may have in fact been stolen rather than invented and that he was the man who had the ways and the means to funnel it to the proper development sources. Yes, such a Theory of Modern Technology has certainly been postulated before from other sources - but not from a man of Corso's stature. I don't see that he had any less "evidence" to present - other than his willing personal testimony - than any other significant military figure in the Roswell case.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2010 10:30:16 PM PDT
OkieJohn says:
Thank you for your comments and response.

Regarding Glenn Dennis. It felt like to me anyway - and as you rightly point out it may have been a simple misinterpretation on my part - that Carey and Schmitt were cherry-picking those inconsistencies in Dennis' testimony. There certainly must have been similar inconsistencies with other prominent witnesses' story to the Roswell event. Those inconsistencies didn't seem to be a matter of focus for the authors to the degree they were for Dennis.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 6:21:17 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 2:41:45 AM PDT
Alien says:
Nonsense , who should i believe , pilots , astronauts , miltary witnesses , or you ?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:45:24 AM PDT
Believe the Schmitt (your local mailman) and Randall UFO team. They have all the answers.....but of course, so do YOU Alien.....(lol)!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2012 5:16:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 28, 2012 5:22:37 PM PDT
Sam Iam says:
Roger Borroel 'evidence' includes both indirect evidence which hints at truth, and direct evidence which proves it. In many complex and unpredictable situations (the Roswell incident being just one example ~ another is the reported phenomenon of ball lightning), we have only indirect evidence such as eyewitness testimony available upon which to make judgements.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details