Body Snatchers in the Desert: The Horrible Truth at the Heart of the Roswell Story

by Nick Redfern

Book Overview

Body Snatchers in the Desert reveals the events that really happened in the New Mexico desert in 1947 that birthed the Rosewell Myth.

"RAAF captures flying saucer on ranch in Roswell region."

Ever since this provocative headline appeared on July 8, 1947, conspiracy theorists have sincerely believed that the U.S. government has maintained an extensive operation of cover-up-and-denial regarding its knowledge of alien...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0743497538
• ISBN13: 9780743497534
• Release Date: June 2005
• Publisher: Gallery Books
• Length: 248 Pages
• Weight: 0.75 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.5" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Even believers in space aliens aren't necessarily open-minded

I've always been hesitant to believe the ET explanation for Roswell for the same reason that the grandmaster of ufology, Jacques Vallee, is: the ufonauts seem too damn sophisticated to "crash" accidentally--and leave bodies behind, besides. So if what happened at Roswell in the first week of July '47 really did involve aliens (whether interdimensional or extraterrestrial), then it seems likely that it would had to have been done entirely intentionally, to see how we'd respond (or for some similar purpose). It's also always seemed unlikely to me that the US military actually knows what's going on better than serious civilian ufologists, and far more likely that since 1947 they've been committed to presenting an appearance of knowing far more than they actually do (so that the general populace thinks the UFO phenomonon is either completely bogus, or that the military knows what's up and keeping it under wraps; in either case, the impression will be that everything is under control, and we won't have to worry that our powerful leaders are actually as much at a loss as anyone else). The "leaked" documents over the past few decades (MJ-12, etc.), the hype around Area 51, and the transparently absurd "crash dummies" explanation the USAF gave in 1997 for the Roswell bodies seem to support this idea--that elements of the government want us to think they've actually got space aliens to hide. It would work to their advantage in many ways--particularly in keeping classified projects hidden under the mask of "ET spaceships," which keeps the UFO believers happy and the UFO disbelievers scoffing at any such assertions. Meanwhile, advanced military technology can quietly go about its business, either believed to be something it's not or dismissed outright as not worth paying attention to, but in neither case examined more closely for what it actually is. I think Nick Redfern's "Body Snatchers" is a tremendous contribution to the Roswell mythos, despite Stanton Friedman's scathing review (on his website) to the contrary. Friedman is a hero of mine (his Roswell books "Crash at Corona" and "Top Secret/Majic" are some of the best-researched, sensible approaches to this mystery out there), so I'd initially sided with him on his analysis of this book when it first came out. But last year I decided to take a closer look at Redfern's work myself, and I'm glad I did. Redfern's explanation, while perhaps a bit hard to believe itself, seems to present the most plausible explanation yet for what happened at Roswell. Ufologists say, "If it was just a Project Mogul balloon train, as the air force insists, then why all the military secrecy and panic around the time of the incident? What of the Ramey memorandum, the eyewitness accounts of small "Oriental" bodies, etc.? And why did the Roswell Army Air Field seem to not know anything about it beforehand?" But if, as Redfern contends, it was a top-secret high-altitude military experiment launched from Los Alamos, NM, involvin

Another Roswell Story

This is an interesting story which purports to explain the Roswell story. If the story is true, then it could explain Roswell. If its not true, its just another jewel encrusted helmet on the Roswell dung heap. The basic Roswell story has been around for years, with quite a number of witnesses from ranking officers down telling a story about the crash of an ET ship, the recovery of bodies and so forth. Over the years we have heard quite a number of people attempt to explain away Roswell, with very little sucess. We have also heard various witnesses come forward and tell incredible stories that can be verified, and we have heard some incredible stories that cannot be verified. We have had witness tell inaccurate stories and so on and so forth. The problems with the stories told by people in the Redfern book (not the author) is that we are again dealing with people who are telling an incredible story, yet we don't know as yet IF the their background can be independently verified or checked out. Did they actually in fact work where they claimed to have worked? Did they actually hold the rank and or position they claimed to have been? Does anybody that worked at those locations recall them? For example I remember a person who purported himself to be an Air Force Colonel who told some pretty incredible stories. When people finally got around to independently checking his background, such as supposed service records and unit historys, people found out that he didn't even show up. He pretty much faded away after that. Even if the witnesses can be checked out and verified, apparently there are no documents that can verify the story these witnesses told Nick Redfern...at this point. So in the end we have an interesting story that may be true. Time and further research will tell.

Thank you Nick Redfern!

In "Body Snatchers", Nick almost certainly offers the definitive explanation about what happened at Roswell. It may not be what you want to hear because I will tell you right now; it doesn't involve aliens, but as you read what he says, if your reaction is the same as mine was, then you will find yourself reluctantly coming to the conclusion that he has probably cracked it. As you read it, there is a "dreaded" sense of feeling that it all just seems to make a horrible sense. There is a lot to take in and it will be difficult to absorb in one hit but as you do, you will be struck with a further wave of shock as you then consider the implications of what he has to say. They are very, very profound for this subject that we love. For others there will be a sense of relief that, as they see it, this albatross is finally removed from around their necks and Ufology can get on with its "life" unfettered by the distraction of this incident. I would like to congratulate Nick on what I consider to be a truly excellent piece of research. My feeling is that this may well come to be regarded as his seminal work. The essential point of Nick's case is not new, although it actually may be new to you. The theory first surfaced with author John Keel about fifteen years ago although he was off base quite a bit, but in the mid 90s "Popular Mechanics" got very close indeed. Not quite there, but nearly. It is an interesting exercise to go back and read their piece again. They obviously had contacts. And others have been there too. It's been looked at, tossed around, laughed at, dismissed, and generally considered very unlikely. It will be a little harder to discard this time though. Nick presents new witness testimony and documentation and the way he pulls it all together is impressive. What is also interesting is the manner in which the story came to him. From two different separate strands, separated by five years. So the truth has been out there, of sorts, for a while. They have told us. They just didn't tell us they were telling us. There is bound to be controversy caused by Nick's conclusions and perhaps even mocking, and it would be naïve to expect otherwise. A lot of people are going to be disturbed by this. A lot of people have given their ufological professional lives to pursuing a particular aspect of Roswell or a particular case and all will be deeply affected and that should not be under estimated. The controversy will be welcomed. There are bound to be rough edges to Nick's story here and there and possible occasional inaccuracies but it is unlikely they will undermine the core of his account. But Nick would welcome the interest and input of other researchers, without question. He hopes that people will go out and check up on what he has written for them selves, and possibly even take the story further. His narrative also opens up many other potential avenues of research. If people accept what he has written and fully comprehend the consequence