Skip to main content

The truth about the Roswell alien



Unless memory fails me, we have never before discussed on this blog the crash of something-or-other at a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico on July 7, 1947.

I bring it up now only to say that Roswell, and the much-discussed theory that the crash was of an alien flying saucer, makes a brief appearance in the recent book by Guy Lawson: Octopus: Sam Israel, the Secret Market, and Wall Street's Wildest Con.

The gist of Lawson's book is difficult to explain, but I'll dive in anyway. Sam Israel was one of the three principals of a high-flying hedge fund in the early years of the 21st century, a hedge fund called Bayou Capital, though it was run out of Fairfield County, Connecticut. It was called Bayou in recognition of Israel's renown Louisianan family.

In 2005, CNN Money described Bayou's collapse as "one of the most bizarre hedge fund blowups in recent years."

But they didn't know the half of it.

What Lawson focuses on is the strange confidence that prevailed in the final months of Bayou's existence. The fund wasn't making anything like the returns it was claiming, yet for a long time Israel was eerily confident everything would work out. He could get money from European sources, make up the shortfall, and all would be well.

He had confidence in those European sources because he was himself as much the victim as the perpetrator of a con. And the con man who was taking him for a ride, instilling him with that false confidence, was a fellow called Robert Booth Nichols.

Nichols had the air of a man who knew many mysteries, but who didn't want to reveal them to his good friends like Israel because ignorance is safer. But he could allow himself to be talked into disclosures, about a "secret market" where only the richest 13 families in the world and their good friends trade, about the extraordinary measures these 13 families go to, to maintain their control over the world, about how all the usual wacko conspiracy theories are true, but all of them are understatements.

The European sources of the money were to some degree Nichols confederates in bilking Israel. To a degree they were self-deluded, and bilking themselves as much as anyone else.

There are two possible reactions one can have if one is told that there are 13 families controlling the world and that everything we think we now about the world is a show these 13 families put on for our benefit. I mean, assuming you believe it. Reaction One -- let us, the masses, the non-privileged, rise up against them and take back the planet!  The usual crowd of purveyors of conspiracy theory are promoting just that response.

But the other possible reaction is: hey, wouldn't it be cool if I could become their friend? if I could trade on favorable terms in the secret markets, with the prime banks, that the elite have created for themselves? This is the reaction Israel had -- the reaction he had to have, as Bayou circled the drain, the reaction on which Nichols counted.

At any rate, at one point Nichols is trying to persuade Israel and Bayou's CFO, Dan Marino (not the football player!), to wire $138 million from an account Bayou had with Citicorp to a German bank. This payment was all part of the big picture of getting in good with the 13 families, of course, and it would more than pay for itself in short order!

To their credit, executives of Citicorp asked sensible questions and held up this transfer.

During a period when Israel had convinced himself that the Citicorp reluctance was a temporary glitch, he and Nichols had plenty of opportunities for heart-to-heart talks about how the world really works, and it this context Nichols told Israel that an alien really had landed at Roswell. But it had died while in captivity: because it turns out aliens are allergic to strawberry ice cream.

And even that tale didn't persuade Israel that Nichols was bad news?





  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak