Thomas J. Carey
Co-author of Witness to Roswell [2007, 2009]
This article is used with permission and was originally published in What’s Happening Magazine.
After a stint in the Air Force where he possessed a TOP SECRET/CRYPTO clearance, Thomas J. Carey became interested in anthropology and human evolution and received a Masters Degree in Anthropology from California State University, Sacramento. Tom then received a fellowship to pursue a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Toronto.
Carey became interested in UFO’s while in high school and rekindled that interest when he became the MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) State Section Director for Southeastern Pennsylvania (1986-2002). In that capacity, he investigated local UFO sightings in the Delaware Valley, which encompasses the five-county area surrounding Philadelphia. Since 1991, Carey’s research has focused solely on the so-called “Roswell Incident” and the alleged retrieval/cover-up by the U.S. Government of an alien spaceship and crew that crashed near the town of Roswell, New Mexico in July, 1947.
Carey was the investigative consultant for the highly acclaimed and top-rated 2002 Sci Fi Channel documentary, The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence. Most recently, he has appeared on Larry King Live (2003), CN8 Weekend Live (2004), The FOX NEWS CHANNEL (2004), Coast-to-Coast AM with George Noory (2004) and the Jeff Rense Show (2004).
Everyone has seen a movie or a play at some time or other in his or her life that involved the invocation of that time-honored theatrical technique known as “suspension of disbelief” [hereinafter referred to as “SOD”] by which the audience is required to believe a premise that they would normally never accept – things that happen in the story, which no one would believe if presented to them as fact in the real world. In such instances, the audience makes a semi-conscious decision to put aside its disbelief and accepts the unbelievable premise as “real” for the duration of the story, as long as the story maintains consistency with that premise within the parameters of the storyline. In other words, the audience suspends its disbelief of what it is witnessing in order that the story can go forward. If it doesn’t, the story doesn’t work, and everyone goes home unhappy.
SOD lends itself most notably to comedies, fantasy and science fiction, action and surprisingly, sports movies. Older readers will remember the 1943 WW II fantasy film, A Guy Named Joe, wherein its star, Spencer Tracy, plays a bomber pilot who was killed in a crash only to reappear as a ghost to harass his former buddy, another pilot played by Van Johnson, in Johnson’s pursuit of Tracy’s former girlfriend, played by Irene Dunne. The SOD occurs when the audience, who can clearly see Tracy “in the flesh” as the ghost character on the screen, must accept the disbelief that the other actors on the screen, most notably Johnson and Dunne, also cannot see him . Without the audience’s acceptance of their SOD, the film doesn’t work. In the 1990 film, Ghost, starring Patrick Swayze as a ghost and Demi Moore as Swayze’s former true love, although the story-line is completely different [i.e., a real “tear-jerker”], the same SOD concept, but with a twist, is similarly employed between the on-screen images of the characters played by Swayze and Moore when they appear together on the screen. In this film, however, although Moore’s character cannot see Swayze as a ghost, the audience is led to believe that she can “sense” his presence, much to everyone’s delight.
Action movies, however, sometimes push SOD believability to the limit, and in such instances SOD must be employed with caution. It doesn’t always work, especially in sports movies where professional actors with no athletic experience try to portray sports heroes. Although audiences, out of respect for a beloved sports icon, tried their best to suspend their disbelief, movie critics were not so charitable with 1948’s The Babe Ruth Story because the film’s star, William Bendix, displayed an obvious inability to throw, catch or hit a baseball remotely like the left-handed “Bambino.” The problem was that in real life Bendix was right-handed! Unlike the critics, however, audiences could overlook Bendix’ dexterity shortcomings in the role and loved the movie, because they liked William Bendix from his role as a household bumbler in the weekly radio and TV series, The Life of Riley, and they still revered the recently-deceased “Sultan of Swat,” Babe Ruth.
Robert Redford had at least played some minor league baseball before becoming an actor. So, his baseball skills, on display in the role of the aspiring but over-aged “rookie” Roy Hobbs in the 1984 film, The Natural – my all -time favorite sports movie – were well within the boundaries of “belief.” The SOD arrives, however, when the audience is asked to accept that a scrawny, un-muscular, late “thirty-something” could hit a baseball “Ruthian” distances, explode light standards and knock-down tall buildings with a single blow. Further, in the filming of the action sequences, it appeared that the trajectory of some of Hobbs’ “moon shots” [“Oh, my! Goodbye Mr. Spalding.”], if followed, would have had trouble clearing the infield dirt rather than the outfield fences! In the end, the audiences – including me – overlooked their disbelief of Roy Hobbs’ hard-to-believe physical prowess to launch baseballs into the stratosphere in favor of a desire to root for a downtrodden underdog who came from nothing and nowhere to reach the mountaintop of success against the odds, which represents the “American Dream” to most people not starting out from privilege.
From these few examples, it can be seen that the success or failure of SOD depends upon several key factors, most notably the context or milieu in which it is employed, the degree of disbelief involved [there are limits] and the predilections of the audience at any given moment [e.g., what worked for audiences in the 1940’s or 1950’s might not work for today’s audiences].
These “explanations” have generally sufficed for a disinterested mainstream news media, academics, politicians and other “professionals,” all of whose livelihoods depend to some degree upon their credibility or public reputations. To these, the subject of UFOs remains an anathema, and any statement tossed out there that “explains away” the latest big sighting as something mundane – no matter how ridiculous – is good enough for them. In their world, it’s just another misidentified or misrepresented “case closed.” This trusty template for denying the reality that some UFOs may represent extraterrestrial space craft from another world, can trace its roots back to the year 1947 and the Air Force’s handling of the so-called “Roswell Incident.”
For those of you who were not around in 1947, or were around but were too young to know anything, or were old enough but have simply forgotten, the Modern Age of UFOs [called flying saucers or flying discs, back then] burst upon the scene in late June of that year. For a period of two weeks, flying saucers were front-page news in every newspaper throughout the land. What were these mysterious objects flitting about our airspace with seeming impunity? Where were they from? Were they Russian, and were they a threat? A nation anxiously wanted to know. Even though many eyewitnesses seemed to be describing something that was beyond our known science and technical capabilities of the time, Gallop Polls taken during and shortly after this first known post-war UFO wave or “flap”, consistently showed that most citizens believed them to have been of earthly origin – either U.S., Russian or German devices developed since the war. That they might represent extraterrestrial technology was way down on the list. It was during this time – occurring just two weeks after Kenneth Arnold’s seminal sighting of nine “saucer-like objects” near Mt. Rainier in the state of Washington – that what has come to be known as the “Roswell Incident” shook the world.
Vietnam disillusionment was still decades in the future. So, in 1947, when our beloved and victorious military said something was fact, people were still predisposed to listen and believe. Consequently, the “Roswell Incident” was quickly “killed” as a news story and quietly passed from the scene for the next thirty years. It all had been just a big mistake.
Oh, really? The Air Force had been “too cute by half” with its balloon explanation. Had they simply offered-up that an experimental jet aircraft had malfunctioned and crashed, or that a captured German V-2 rocket had veered off-course from its launch pad at White Sands, NM and crashed near Roswell, these lies probably would have been accepted without question and forgotten, and I would not be writing about it to you today. But, it didn’t, and things got worse – for the Air Force, that is. Responding to an official probe by the U.S. Government Accounting Office [GAO] [the investigative arm of Congress] into certain procedural aspects of the Roswell Incident, which was conducted in 1993-1995, the Air Force finally admitted
Source: wh-magazine.com/default_files/SuspensionofDisbelief.htm.