The Archaeological Team Discovery: Civilian Scientists and Alien Bodies

---

title: "The Archaeological Team Discovery: Civilian Scientists and Alien Bodies"

date: 1947-07-05

location: "Plains of San Agustin, New Mexico"

witnesses: "Dr. Holden, Archaeological team members, Grady 'Barney' Barnett, Gerald Anderson, Military recovery personnel"

duration: "July 5, 1947, morning"

classification: "Classified/Disputed"

tags: ["Roswell", "archaeological team", "alien bodies", "Plains of San Agustin", "Barney Barnett", "civilian discovery", "multiple crash sites"]

description: "Comprehensive analysis of testimony regarding an archaeological team's alleged discovery of alien bodies at a secondary crash site on the Plains of San Agustin, examining witness accounts, military response, and the controversial nature of these claims in Roswell research."

summary: "Multiple witnesses claimed that an archaeological team from an Eastern university discovered alien bodies at a crash site on the Plains of San Agustin, leading to immediate military intervention and the removal of both the bodies and the civilian witnesses from the scene."

---

The Archaeological Team Discovery: Civilian Scientists and Alien Bodies

Background and Context

The alleged discovery of alien bodies by an archaeological team on the Plains of San Agustin represents one of the most controversial and disputed aspects of the Roswell incident. According to testimony from several witnesses, a group of civilian scientists conducting archaeological research in New Mexico stumbled upon a crashed extraterrestrial craft and multiple alien bodies, leading to immediate military intervention and the implementation of comprehensive security measures to suppress all knowledge of the discovery.

This account is significant because it suggests that the Roswell incident involved multiple crash sites and that civilian scientists had direct contact with extraterrestrial technology and biological entities before military personnel could secure the area. The testimony implies a level of civilian involvement and firsthand scientific observation that would have provided independent verification of the extraterrestrial nature of the crashed objects and beings.

However, the archaeological team discovery has also been one of the most heavily criticized aspects of Roswell research, with skeptics questioning the reliability of the witnesses, the consistency of their accounts, and the lack of corroborating evidence from the alleged academic institutions involved. The controversy surrounding these claims has made them a focal point for debates about evidence standards and witness credibility in UFO research.

Primary Witness Accounts

Grady 'Barney' Barnett's Account

Grady Barnett, a soil conservation engineer working for the federal government, provided the foundational account of the archaeological team discovery:

Initial Discovery:

According to Barnett's account as related by friends and family:

• Encountered an archaeological team at a crash site on the Plains of San Agustin
• Team was examining a crashed disc-shaped object and multiple alien bodies
• Scientists appeared shocked and frightened by their discovery
• Military personnel arrived shortly after Barnett's arrival at the scene
• All civilians were immediately ordered to leave the area

Description of the Scene:

Barnett reportedly described:

• Intact or semi-intact metallic disc partially buried in the ground
• Multiple small humanoid bodies scattered around the crash site
• Archaeological team members examining the bodies and craft
• Equipment and research materials belonging to the scientific expedition
• Evidence of impact and crash damage to both craft and terrain

Alien Entity Descriptions:

According to accounts of Barnett's testimony:

• Small humanoid beings approximately 3-4 feet in height
• Large heads disproportionate to small body frames
• Pale, grayish skin with hairless appearance
• Large, dark eyes with no visible pupils or irises
• Four-fingered hands with elongated digits
• Bodies wearing form-fitting metallic or synthetic clothing
• Anatomical features clearly non-human but suggesting intelligence

Military Response:

Barnett described rapid military intervention:

• Multiple military vehicles arriving at the crash site
• Armed personnel establishing security perimeter around the area
• Orders for all civilians to leave immediately and maintain silence
• Confiscation of cameras and research equipment from the archaeological team
• Threats and warnings about national security and the consequences of disclosure

Gerald Anderson's Testimony

Gerald Anderson claimed to have been present at the Plains of San Agustin site as a child with his family:

Family Outing Context:

According to Anderson's account:

• Family trip to search for agate and other minerals in the area
• Discovery of the crash site while exploring the plains
• Encounter with both the archaeological team and the alien bodies
• Observation of military arrival and evacuation procedures
• Long-term family silence about the extraordinary experience

Detailed Observations:

Anderson provided specific details about the scene:

• Close examination of the alien bodies and craft
• Interaction with members of the archaeological team
• Observation of military recovery procedures and equipment
• Detailed descriptions of alien anatomical features and clothing
• Memories of family discussions and reactions to the discovery

Archaeological Team Interaction:

• Conversation with team members about their research and discovery
• Observation of scientific equipment and documentation procedures
• Witness to team members' shock and excitement about the find
• Knowledge of team's academic affiliation and research objectives
• Understanding of scientific significance of the discovery

Military Intervention:

• Arrival of military personnel in multiple vehicles
• Establishment of security perimeter and access control
• Removal of civilian witnesses from the scene
• Confiscation of cameras and personal belongings
• Administration of security oaths and threats to maintain silence

Archaeological Team Composition and Activities

Academic Affiliation Claims

Various witnesses have claimed that the archaeological team was affiliated with academic institutions:

University Connections:

• Team allegedly from an Eastern university conducting research in New Mexico
• Graduate students and faculty members participating in summer field work
• Official archaeological expedition with proper permits and academic backing
• Research focused on prehistoric Native American sites and artifacts
• Academic credentials providing scientific expertise and credibility

Research Objectives:

According to testimony:

• Systematic archaeological survey of the Plains of San Agustin region
• Documentation of prehistoric Native American settlements and artifacts
• Academic research project with published objectives and methodologies
• Properly equipped expedition with scientific instruments and documentation equipment
• Professional archaeological team with appropriate academic training and experience

Equipment and Methodology:

• Standard archaeological field equipment including cameras and documentation materials
• Scientific instruments for site survey and artifact analysis
• Research protocols and documentation procedures typical of academic expeditions
• Transportation and camping equipment appropriate for extended field work
• Communication equipment for coordination with academic institutions

Professional Qualifications

The alleged team members were described as having appropriate scientific credentials:

Academic Training:

• Graduate students and faculty with relevant archaeological and anthropological training
• Professional experience in field research and scientific documentation
• Academic credentials from recognized universities and research institutions
• Specialized knowledge in prehistoric cultures and archaeological methodology
• Scientific training providing capability for accurate observation and documentation

Scientific Expertise:

• Knowledge of anatomy and biological sciences relevant to examining unknown entities
• Experience with documentation and preservation of unusual discoveries
• Understanding of scientific methodology and evidence preservation
• Capability for professional assessment of extraordinary discoveries
• Training in objective observation and scientific analysis

Military Response and Security Operations

Rapid Deployment

According to witness testimony, military response to the civilian discovery was immediate and comprehensive:

Security Personnel:

• Multiple military vehicles with armed personnel
• Officers with apparent authority to implement security measures
• Specialists equipped for recovery and evidence preservation operations
• Communication equipment for coordination with higher authorities
• Transport capabilities for removing both evidence and witnesses

Operational Procedures:

• Immediate establishment of security perimeter around crash site
• Systematic removal of all civilian witnesses from the area
• Confiscation of cameras, equipment, and personal belongings
• Implementation of security oaths and non-disclosure agreements
• Coordination with broader Roswell incident recovery operations

Security Measures:

• Classification of the discovery at highest security levels
• Compartmentalization of information on need-to-know basis
• Long-term monitoring and surveillance of civilian witnesses
• Integration with broader counter-intelligence and information control operations
• Coordination with academic institutions to suppress research publication

Witness Management

Military personnel implemented comprehensive witness control procedures:

Immediate Control:

• Physical removal of witnesses from the crash site
• Confiscation of all photographic and documentary evidence
• Intimidation and threats regarding national security implications
• Administration of security oaths and non-disclosure agreements
• Coordination of witness stories and official explanations

Long-term Monitoring:

• Ongoing surveillance of witnesses and their families
• Periodic contact to reinforce security requirements
• Career and academic pressure on professional witnesses
• Social and economic consequences for those who discussed the incident
• Integration with broader witness intimidation and control programs

Controversy and Skeptical Analysis

Credibility Challenges

The archaeological team account has faced significant criticism from researchers:

Witness Reliability Issues:

• Questions about the accuracy of secondhand accounts of Barnett's testimony
• Inconsistencies in Anderson's testimony across different interviews
• Lack of corroborating evidence from alleged academic institutions
• Absence of contemporary documentation or official records
• Problems with timeline and coordination with other Roswell events

Evidence Standards:

• No physical evidence or artifacts from the alleged archaeological expedition
• Absence of academic records or documentation of the research project
• Lack of contemporary photographs or scientific documentation
• No independent verification from academic institutions
• Missing corroborating testimony from other alleged team members

Academic Institution Response:

• Universities denying knowledge of expeditions in the area during July 1947
• Absence of academic records or documentation of relevant research projects
• No faculty or student records supporting the existence of the team
• Lack of published research or academic papers from the alleged expedition
• University officials denying any knowledge of the incident or cover-up

Alternative Explanations

Skeptics have proposed various alternative explanations for the testimony:

False Memory and Confabulation:

• Possible confusion between separate events and experiences
• Influence of UFO literature and popular culture on memory formation
• Contamination from other Roswell witness accounts and media coverage
• Psychological mechanisms creating seemingly authentic but false memories
• Social pressure and attention influencing testimony development

Hoax and Fabrication:

• Possible deliberate fabrication for attention or financial gain
• Influence of UFO research community expectations and preferences
• Competitive pressure among witnesses to provide extraordinary testimony
• Possible disinformation campaign to discredit legitimate Roswell research
• Commercial motivations from book deals and media appearances

Misidentification and Confusion:

• Possible confusion with legitimate archaeological expeditions in the region
• Misidentification of conventional military exercises or training activities
• Conflation of separate incidents and experiences into composite narrative
• Normal military activities misinterpreted through UFO belief framework
• Conventional explanations enhanced by extraordinary claim expectations

Supporting Evidence and Corroboration

Indirect Support

Some evidence provides indirect support for aspects of the archaeological team account:

Regional Archaeological Activity:

• Documented archaeological research in New Mexico during the 1940s
• Academic expeditions and field work in the Plains of San Agustin region
• University programs conducting research in Southwestern archaeology
• Normal presence of academic researchers in remote areas of New Mexico
• Established patterns of academic fieldwork that could support the basic scenario

Military Response Patterns:

• Documented military interest in archaeological sites for security reasons
• Evidence of military coordination with academic institutions on sensitive matters
• Historical patterns of military intervention in civilian discoveries
• Established procedures for handling classified discoveries by civilian personnel
• Integration with broader military security and intelligence operations

Witness Corroboration:

• Some consistency between different witness accounts of the incident
• Correlation with other aspects of the broader Roswell incident timeline
• Supporting testimony from family members and friends of primary witnesses
• Integration with established patterns of military secrecy and witness intimidation
• Consistency with documented military capabilities and procedures

Contemporary Context

The testimony must be evaluated within the context of 1947 conditions:

Academic Research Environment:

• Active archaeological research programs in the American Southwest
• Summer field work seasons bringing university teams to remote areas
• Normal patterns of academic research that could place scientists in the region
• Established relationships between academic institutions and government agencies
• Historical precedent for military interest in academic research and discoveries

Military Security Considerations:

• High level of military secrecy and security consciousness in post-war period
• Atomic testing and weapons development activities in New Mexico
• Established military procedures for handling potential security threats
• Integration of civilian institutions with national security requirements
• Historical patterns of military information control and academic cooperation

Impact on Roswell Research

Multiple Crash Site Theory

The archaeological team account supports theories of multiple crash sites:

Site Distribution:

• Plains of San Agustin location distinct from Foster Ranch debris field
• Evidence suggesting different aspects of the incident occurred at separate locations
• Potential for primary impact site separate from debris dispersal area
• Geographic distribution consistent with high-altitude breakup scenario
• Multiple sites requiring coordinated military recovery operations

Recovery Coordination:

• Evidence of sophisticated military logistics and coordination capabilities
• Multiple teams and resources deployed to different locations simultaneously
• Integration of different recovery operations under unified command structure
• Coordination between different military units and specialties
• Evidence of advance planning and preparation for such operations

Research Methodology Impact

The controversy has influenced UFO research approaches:

Evidence Standards:

• Heightened awareness of the need for corroborating evidence
• Development of more rigorous witness evaluation criteria
• Recognition of the importance of contemporary documentation
• Understanding of the challenges in historical incident reconstruction
• Balance between openness to extraordinary claims and critical analysis

Witness Evaluation:

• Improved methods for assessing witness credibility and reliability
• Recognition of the complexity of memory and testimony evaluation
• Understanding of social and psychological factors affecting witnesses
• Development of techniques for detecting fabrication and contamination
• Integration of multiple sources and types of evidence

Modern Investigation and Analysis

Contemporary Research Methods

Modern investigation techniques could potentially resolve questions about the archaeological team claims:

Academic Record Investigation:

• Comprehensive searches of university archives and faculty records
• Analysis of archaeological research grants and expedition documentation
• Investigation of academic publication records and research reports
• Cross-reference analysis of personnel records and academic affiliations
• Digital archival research using modern database and search technologies

Technological Analysis:

• Advanced photographic analysis of any surviving images or documentation
• Geographic analysis of claimed crash site locations and accessibility
• Timeline analysis using modern computational and mapping techniques
• Communication record analysis using contemporary intelligence databases
• Archaeological investigation of claimed crash sites using modern techniques

Historical Documentation

Recent document releases and historical research have provided new context:

Military Records:

• Declassified documents showing military activity in New Mexico during July 1947
• Personnel records and operational reports from relevant military units
• Transportation and logistics records showing resource deployment
• Communication logs indicating coordination between different commands
• Intelligence reports and analysis documents related to unusual incidents

Academic Records:

• University archives and faculty records from the relevant time period
• Archaeological research documentation and expedition reports
• Grant records and funding sources for academic research in New Mexico
• Student records and graduate program documentation
• Professional organization records and conference proceedings

Conclusions

The archaeological team discovery remains one of the most controversial and disputed aspects of the Roswell incident, representing either crucial evidence of civilian scientific contact with extraterrestrial technology and biology or a cautionary example of how extraordinary claims can develop and persist without adequate supporting evidence. The testimony, primarily based on secondhand accounts and disputed witness reliability, has become a focal point for debates about evidence standards and methodology in UFO research.

The lack of corroborating evidence from academic institutions, combined with questions about witness credibility and consistency, has led many researchers to conclude that the archaeological team account is either fabricated or based on confused recollections of separate events. However, the basic scenario of civilian scientists encountering extraordinary discoveries and military intervention remains plausible within the broader context of government secrecy and information control operations.

The historical significance of the archaeological team claims lies not only in their potential contribution to understanding the Roswell incident but also in their demonstration of the challenges facing researchers investigating historical events involving classified government activities. The controversy illustrates the difficulty of verifying extraordinary claims when dealing with institutional secrecy, witness intimidation, and the passage of time.

Modern evaluation of the archaeological team account, informed by contemporary understanding of government information control capabilities and academic institution cooperation with national security agencies, suggests that while such an event could theoretically have occurred and been successfully suppressed, the lack of supporting evidence makes definitive conclusions impossible. The case serves as both a potential window into extraordinary events and a reminder of the importance of rigorous investigation and evidence evaluation.

The ultimate assessment of the archaeological team discovery may depend on future disclosure of classified documents, discovery of additional witnesses or evidence, or development of new investigation techniques capable of resolving questions about the reliability of the existing testimony. Until such developments occur, the account remains a controversial but important component of the broader Roswell incident narrative, contributing to our understanding of both the potential scope of the events and the challenges involved in uncovering the truth about classified historical incidents.

Regardless of its ultimate verification, the archaeological team testimony has contributed significantly to the development of more sophisticated approaches to UFO research and has highlighted the importance of maintaining both openness to extraordinary possibilities and commitment to rigorous scientific analysis. The legacy of this controversial account continues to influence contemporary discussions about evidence standards, witness evaluation, and the appropriate balance between skepticism and investigation in the search for truth about anomalous phenomena.