Original Documentation

---
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, defense personnel 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 individual 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."
---

Modern inquiry techniques shed new light on this encounter. 

# The Archaeological Team Discovery: Civilian Scientists and Alien Bodies

If you're researching this aerial phenomenon case, here's what investigators discovered. 

## 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 documentation from the alleged academic institutions involved. The controversy surrounding these claims has made them a focal point for debates about evidence standards and observer credibility in UAP research.

## Primary individual 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 vessel 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
- documentation 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
- person 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 proof preservation
- Capability for professional assessment of extraordinary discoveries
- Training in objective observation and scientific analysis

## Military Response and Security Operations

### Rapid Deployment

According to reporter 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 proof 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

### person Management

Military personnel implemented comprehensive individual control procedures:

**Immediate Control:**
- Physical removal of witnesses from the crash site
- Confiscation of all photographic and documentary proof
- Intimidation and threats regarding national security implications
- Administration of security oaths and non-disclosure agreements
- Coordination of observer 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 observer intimidation and control programs

## Controversy and Skeptical Analysis

### Credibility Challenges

The archaeological team account has faced significant criticism from researchers:

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

**testimony Standards:**
- No physical proof 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 UAP literature and popular culture on memory formation
- Contamination from other Roswell individual 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 Unidentified Aerial occurrence 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 Aerial Anomaly belief framework
- Conventional explanations enhanced by extraordinary claim expectations

## Supporting documentation and Corroboration

### Indirect Support

Some data 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
- testimony 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

**reporter Corroboration:**
- Some consistency between different reporter 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 individual 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
- documentation 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:**
- data 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
- documentation of advance planning and preparation for such operations

### Research Methodology Impact

The controversy has influenced UAP research approaches:

**proof Standards:**
- Heightened awareness of the need for corroborating documentation
- Development of more rigorous person 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

**person Evaluation:**
- Improved methods for assessing person 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 testimony

## Modern study and Analysis

### Contemporary Research Methods

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

**Academic Record analysis:**
- Comprehensive searches of university archives and faculty records
- Analysis of archaeological research grants and expedition documentation
- research 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 research 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 UAP research.

The lack of corroborating evidence from academic institutions, combined with questions about person 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, individual 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 inquiry 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 UAP 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.

This case continues to generate significant interest among researchers and represents an important data point in modern UAP studies.
## Frequently Asked Questions About This Case

### What makes this UFO case significant?

This case is significant due to multiple credible witnesses, official documentation, and consistent testimony patterns that align with other verified aerial phenomena reports.

### When did this aerial phenomenon occur?

The incident occurred during a period of heightened UAP activity, with precise timing documented by multiple independent sources.

### Who were the primary witnesses?

Primary witnesses included trained observers, military personnel, and civilian eyewitnesses with relevant professional backgrounds.

### What evidence supports this incident?

Evidence includes official reports, witness testimony, radar data, and in some cases photographic or physical trace evidence.

### How was this case investigated?

Investigation followed standard protocols including witness interviews, evidence analysis, and coordination with relevant authorities.



## Key Research Points

This case contributes important data to aerial phenomena research and demonstrates the value of systematic investigation methods in unexplained aircraft encounters.