Lots of times, you see folklore about a site or an event develop after the fact, after strange things are reported at the site. Debunkers who then come in and, through historical research, are able to disprove the legends associated with a haunting or a case of alleged paranormal activity, will then claim to have disproven the paranormal activity itself. In reality this is a fallacy of logic. All they have disproven is the story associated with the event, not the event.
The story about the Navajo tribe having kept members of the Ute tribe as prisoners there in the Uintah basin, and the Utes placing a curse on the land—or is it the other way around? Either way, is that story the explanation for the strange phenomena that happens there? Or did the story develop after the fact to explain a place where strange things happened on the regular? I suspect it is the latter. I think the legend arose to explain the strangeness, or if the events describe a real historical incident, then the strangeness was blamed on the incident out of process of elimination, when in fact the strangeness may have predated the incident.
Just how long *has* strange stuff been happening in that basin?