Talk:UFO conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Editing

This page needs editing. By the end of the article, the author speaks opinion as fact. It is clearly not written in NPOV.

Agreed. I added a meaty origins section to try to begin addressing this. I'm not great at wikipedia formatting so I'd love help adding links to the references. I cited my sources with dates and authors in the section, but no hyperlinks.70.36.142.195 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

At the beginning of this article the author treats fiction as fact. This is also very obviously written under the spector of confirmation bias. There is and has always been evidence in UFOLOGY; soil from landing sights, 1st hand testimony from credible sources,.ie. This is an important subject. We have NO IDEA what these things are. Please treat this subject with respect. I don't edit the language on the amateur skeptics page to convince people of its efficacy. That is done through carefull co sideration of facts. 66.68.38.207 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Renaming this article

A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. A vote is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. -Willmcw 05:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The voting results concluded that no change was warranted. -- Papeschr 05:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup and introductory paragraph

The first few lines or first paragraph gives a conclusion based on an individual's opinion, that should be removed. It should be presented in its own section "Conclusions" as an opinion. Also, cases like Iran's 1976 F-14 chase etc should be added to the list. Overall, there are enough UFO cases, by any account, that show amazing flying objects which governments or even science itself is not able to explain (Iran 1976, Belgium dog-fight, Missile shutdown and other cases witnessed by US/foreign Airforce/police officers). The article should reflect this fact that neither authenticity of many such cases is in doubt nor the fact that they are un-explainable and/or the fact that us/foreign governments or scientists are actually free to explain these things if they can. Some documents giving evidence for same, as in case of Iran 1976 dog-fight or Belgium one, that highest level of government defense officials were involved and couldn't figure out what was happening, should be given as links; so that people can understand that givernment is not just ignoring such things but is as clueless as anybody else in many such cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.195.181 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Alien life be found, it finds his planet

Does the governments have a plan in case alien life is found, it finds us ?Martial Law 20:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If there is alien life form don't you think they will be looking for us?--Goblin1 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason I asked is that if it is found/it finds us, the people will revolt for various reasons, such as reasons dealing with religion and revenge because they were ridiculed, abused because they've had a encounter with a forbidden matter. Martial Law 22:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC) :)

POV tag

The tag says, "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page." I see no discussion here, no evidence that the neutrality is being disputed. I am removing the tags. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an NPOV fork. Lemme look up the definition.

Robertson panel

"In the 1950s, the US Government initiated the Robertson Panel to silence any and all who see UFOs and/or aliens. Since psychiatrists are employed for this, the assumption is that any who have these encounters, are interested in these matters are to be judged mentally unfit, i.e. crazy, insane and the like. This was initiated by the CIA to "reduce", if not eliminate interest in UFOs, aliens and the like."

I think we need a citation to show exactly who says 'the US Government initiated the Robertson Panel to silence any and all who see UFOs and/or aliens,' and to substantiate the rest of the paragraph. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this here from my talk page:

Its in the Wikipedia article, the part where psychiatrists are mentioned. Also done Google Searches on this as well. Someone sued the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act and got this information. Psychiatrists are used to "diagnose" a mental disorder in someone who has seen a UFO, a alien. Martial Law 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) :)

This was a means to "reduce" interest in UFOs after Washington D.C. was involved in a major UFO sighting. Martial Law 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Google Search results, there are 17,200 references to the Robertson Panel Martial Law 22:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Think about this: YOU see a UFO, a alien, then you report it, only to be declared mentally unfit, such as "crazy", a idiot, drunk, on drugs, and the like, since psychiatrists, are used in this program to ridicule people if they report spotting UFOs, aliens, have a interest in these matters. How would you like to be "diagnosed" with a "mental disorder", called a drunk, a dope-fiend, a idiot, worse, all because you had seen a UFO, a alien, have a interest in these matters ? I did'nt think so either. I have had contacts in the police forces I've came accross who were in the military and/or in the "Alphabet Agencies" themselves, and I've been told things that would scare Stephen King and other horror writers, and if what I was told was made public, Linda Moulton's suspicions, incl. Martial Law will be initiated, ostensibly for the public safety, to prevent rebellions and maintain order. Martial Law 08:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Why....

Why is Project GRUDGE not mentioned ? Martial Law 20:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Unclear passage

"what it means is that if you see something in the sky, not held up by strings that you are unsure of, is a UFO, an “Unidentified Flying Object.”"

I'm not sure what the correct meaning here should be, but I don't know any strings that I'm unsure of. I can't put this sentence into any order that I'm satified with, so if anyone knows what the intendeed meaning is, can you please correct it? antabus 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vanunu of the UFOs

Why there is no mention of Gary McKinnon? He hacked half of CIA and US military computers to find proof of the saucer conspiracy!

Because he failed to find any such thing, I guess.

Probably because it was a pretty piss-poor excuse to hack government property when you get down to it... Shadowrun 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But he went on to talk about some of the information he saw, the researcher timothy good mentions it in some of his recent talks, Mckinnon referred to a list of "non-terrestrial officers" in his discussions with people who spoke to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.154.187.32 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Roswellproof.com is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

US Presidents and UFO's

Someone should add something about the US Presidents and UFO's topic. [[1]]--James Bond 10:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cold war pressure: the Russians

I can't remember where, but there was a documentary about theories involving Russians deliberately sending UFO type experimental craft over America. It was suggested the strategy was intended to intimidate or distract America, by either 1) maintaining the fear element in the cold war manueverings; or 2) as spycraft. There was no mention of it involving Britain though. If anyone does know/can find out about this, should it go in as well? Julia Rossi 00:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Secret UFO investigation archive?

On March 22nd, 2007, The French Space Agency released a secret UFO investigation archive online.

Is that true? Does someone have the link for that? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep - see here

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/French_Space_Agency_CNES_releases_UFO_files

The last sentence in this report is wrong, though, because the UK is now proactively releasing its own UFO files – much to the chagrin of UFO believers who thought the files would never see light of day and could hence make claims of an official cover-up without fear of contradiction... Skeptic2 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a neutral phrase. However, it has acquired connotations of quakery and illicits images of Mel Gibson screaming "no more gravy" in the minds of most Americans. The words describe exactly what it is, an unproven hypothesis(theory) which involves the coordinated efforts of more than one person(conspire). AwsedreswA T 00:36, 29 March 2012 (EST)

Hypothesis, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation". Jebediah doe (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Phil Schneider

This article red-links to Phil Schneider - aparently there was an article on him but it has disappeared - how can I find out why?86.132.231.78 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Government take down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.235.167 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty strange there is no longer an article on Phil Schneider. Regardless of what you believe, this man's life and death story is very significant and extensively referenced.50.21.206.12 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ALIENS and UFO are real things in Multiple Universes Update Theory

Edward Witten, Professor in Physics at Institute of Advanced Technology, USA, who had integrated 5 string theories to the one string theory and M-theory (Membrane or Brane theory) supported the persistence of parallel universes or more than that of Multiple Universes with different law of physics.

If boundaries of each universe are membranes and multiple collision of the membrane result in multiple big bang which create multiple string (oscilating loop of energy) to form fundamental matter(Fermions) and Force(Bosons) which can form quark,leptons,proton,nutron in nucleus,Hydrogen atom and another atom and molecule with strong nuclear force, weak force,ElectroMagnetic force, gravitation force. All matter was created to form the Planet earth.

About 50000 years ago the First man Adam was created by God from Heaven to earth (Spencer Wells,Human Genetics 2005). He was educated to know and understand most things on earth and teached his offspring that they must believe in God and Ethics for well-being of community for 600 years of age. Now we have 6800 million people in the world. Ethics still is problems in family, community, organization, institution, nation and internation.

In another planet with proper environment and good Ethical Leader and people of Alien can make peace and very high technology to create high velocity space craft (UFO) across universe to approach our planet and do no harm because of their high ethical social enterprise.

Whenever we have still lost of ethics and got hidden benefit and have no good governance or no social enterprise. We can not go out of our Solar System before the end of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.101.30 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Krissada Tomyabatra MD December 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krissada

does this say what it says

a political committee dubbed the "Majestic 12" or afterrunner of the UK Ministry of Defence's Flying Saucer Working Party or the FSWPSlatersteven (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Vatican-UFO conspiracy theory

There is a conspiracy theory called Secretum Omega that alleges a secret UFO encounter during the papacy of Pius XII. It would be interesting if information could be added about this. [2] ADM (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a much better source then this. For starters I believe that the Vatican uses Latin not Italian. The English is also rather odd. Omega is a Greek not Latin Letter/Word (in this context it seems to be a word), so we have a very odd combination nof Latin and Greek. its the PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_10121999_history_en.html, not Papal (sorry aboiut the caps its a cut and paste thing), I would have thought that a Papal offical would use the correct phraseiology. Muroc Air Field Base was in fact called Edwards Air Force Base in 1954 (in was renamed from Muroc in 1949). James Francis McIntyre was made a Cardinal in 1953, again something a Papal offical should have been aware of (and would have referd to him as Cardianl not Bishiop). This seems very suspicious and I would like to see more informatuion from other sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I shoiuld clarify my statement. The Holy See uses Latin as its offical language, the Papal state usses Italian for its published documnets it has no offical language (though there seems to be contradictions to this some claim that Latin is its offical language). While other languages are now more commonplace, the use of Latin continues in the liturgy and in official documents and the typical idioms of the Latin language continue to pervade much of the Holy See's life.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Image conspiration

Some very very evil conspiracy, probably one of the Wikipedia Cabals, must have cleaned this article from all revealing images. Are there anyone out there, that aren't part of a cabal that might add any images to the article, semi relevant or so? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe not!? There's a clear lack of images related to the topic on Wikipedia. If someone is not deleting them to cover up, that is... ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

July 1989 MUFON Convention

This section of the article makes serious claims about Bill Moore (ufologist) - this seems to breach WP:BLP.Autarch (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

POV

Parts of this article show a ridiculous level of POV, not least in the intro and even the title (conspiracy theory being itself a negatively slanted term). For example, the intro begins:

A UFO conspiracy theory is any one of many often overlapping conspiracy theories which argue that evidence of the reality of unidentified flying objects is being suppressed by the governments. Such theories are often intentionally hoaxed, and are backed by little or no evidence, and absolutely no reliable evidence despite significant research on the subject by non-governmental scientific agencies.

Well, this is clearly untrue, given for example the multiple contradictory explanations for the Roswell incident which have been released by the US government, as is widely documented and well-known to those who have read up on the subject. The existence of multiple contradictory official explanations is in itself clearly evidence (while not proof) that a cover-up of some sort occurred or is still ongoing on that particular incident, and quite possibly a cover-up of the fact that the UFO sightings involved were of real objects (even if only some secret US craft of the time).

The intro also conflates UFOs with alien spacecraft. In formal usage, such as UFO literature, UFO means literally an apparent flying object which can't be identified - alien spacecraft is but one of a number of explanations offered for them. Confusing the two suggests ignorance of the subject.

The sources cited for the sweeping claims in the intro are inadequate - one being an article specifically about UFOs on the moon and the face on Mars (hardly relevant), the other being someone's personal musings on their web site!

Or, again, how's this for a typically sweeping, POV, unsourced claim:

A decade after the assassination of John F. Kennedy a cottage industry of JFK conspiracy theorists seemed to spring up out of the woodwork, fed by the tabloids. UFO conspiracy theories found fertile ground in this paranoid zeitgeist.

On these grounds I've added a POV tag. Ben Finn (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title doesn't relate to content

As mentioned above, the article's title is somewhat POV, but more to the point, doesn't relate to its contents. Much of the contents of the article seems to be a list of famous UFO sightings, which would belong in a differently-titled article; perhaps in UFO (which overlaps with much of the content here) or in a list article. The relevance drawn to 'UFO conspiracy theories' appears to be simply the assertion made here and there that the sighting in question was a conspiracy theory. Ben Finn (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the article history, starting from the earliest version (2003), my guess is that it was intended to impartially document the notion that "the government is not telling us the truth about UFOs, there's a cover up, etc." as put forth by UFOlogists. Examining later versions of the article (2005), you can see that it evolved into a POV manifesto that attempted to show there is a real conspiracy by using an "evidence list" format. Sometime later, the article POV was apparently swung in the opposite direction, but the list format kept. That's probably why the article structure doesn't seem to make sense, i.e. can you think of any UFO related incident that some UFOlogist didn't accuse the government of conspiring to hide facts about? That's why having a "list" of things that this notion has been attached to is a mistake. Besides the POV problems you noted, the "list format" continues to use Wikipedia's voice to build and narrate a case that attempts to show "the government is not telling us the truth about UFOs". It's a sad, battle-scarred article that needs a total refit.

IMO, the article would need to be rebuilt using high quality secondary sources (and eliminating junk like abovetopsecret.com) that put the accusations of conspiracy into the conspiracy proponent's mouths, rather than Wikipedia's voice. I'm sure it could be done by using third party reviews of UFOlogists and conspiracy writers books, e.g. "Author Jim Marrs suggests that the B2 bomber program is evidence that the US military is hiding advanced alien technology from the public" etc. There are probably sociologists who've commented on the subject in a disinterested academic way as well. It would be a lot of effort. Of course, I'm not volunteering!

Another option would be to take the whole mess to AfD, since much of the content is duplicated in the various UFO articles themselves. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:MJ 001.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:MJ 001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 28 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:MJ 002.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:MJ 002.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 28 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:MJ 003.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:MJ 003.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 28 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Star Wars

Apparently NASA knows of UFO's and Extraterrestrials, I think they refer to it as the "Star Wars", can anybody give me more info on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.87.226.148 (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

revert of edit "An Alien History of Planet Earth"

The edit abbreviation of subsection "An Alien History of Planet Earth" includes the phrase: "...suppressing evidence of top-secret Defense Industry technology gained from aliens." This last part is not true. The conclusion presented by Nick Cook in the program was that top-secret Defense Industry technology was being developed by government-backed Defense Industry programs, stimulated by the recovery of experimental research conducted by Nazi scientists during WWII and taken afterward to the U.S. and developed further at the top-secret research facilities established at White Sands, New Mexico, with the collaborative aid of the same former German scientists; and that the UFO phenomenon was generated and then promoted by the CIA as a false-lead explanation to cover-up genuine real-world military research and development (R & D) for the sake of National Security, particularly during the Cold War. Declassified top-secret documents and blueprints obtained from archives are produced in support of this conclusion.

LuckyLouis' edit summary said that the "copy edit" had "way too much hyperbole". The Readers Digest Encyclopedic Dictionary 1966 p. 659 defines hyperbole as: "n. An exaggeration or overstatement intended to produce an effect without being taken literally, as: He was centuries old; She wept gallons of tears." None of this was in the text removed by LuckyLouis. Nick Cook's purpose is quoted exactly as he stated it, the primary sources he consulted are given, with links to existing WP article entries under their names, only one example was cited (instead of 14), and his conclusion is quoted exactly as he stated it. None of this is hyperbole.

LuckyLouis gives the reason that "too much weight" is being given. The material already submitted above the new subsection "History Channel: An Alien History of Planet Earth" is entirely weighted solely in favor of an alien source of advanced technology without citing an existing balancing POV source of public record in the other direction WP:Balance.

The amount of copy summarizing the History Channel program of Nick Cook's probing investigation—disclosing an ongoing governmental disinformation campaign suppressing evidence of actual scientific human technological developments—is significantly less than the extent of the preceding copy above it offering examples supportive of the theory of governmental suppression of evidence of alien technology.

My purpose for submitting info on the History Channel program and its content was solely for the sake of a balanced encyclopedic presentation of the subject: i.e., the fact that a reputable researcher—Nick Cook—has evidence for a different explanation (a different kind of suppression of evidence) than that assumed and offered by most UFO conspiracy theorists. The program does contain "Allegations of suppression of evidence" relating to UFOs, but the UFOs may be man-made craft instead—not alien after all—and the prevailing non-governmental UFO interpretation of sightings (encouraged by the CIA) may be the actual cover-up for the sake of national defense and to avoid litigation for damage to persons and property (e.g. cattle mutilations).

Two things immediately caught my attention in reading LuckyLouis' edit: the actual program does not present evidence of suppression of evidence of Defense Industry technology gained from alien technology, but LuckyLouis says it does (did he actually watch the program?); he also removed the reference footnote citing the source of the program (this may have been an unintentional omission). This is misleading, and dismissive of a different representative POV reputable source re suppression of evidence relating to UFOs.

In his defense, I am in favor of reducing the amount of copy. I cannot say categorically that LuckyLouis is "suppressing" the opposing POV, and I don't think right now that anyone else should think that's what he was trying to do. I assume that he misinterpreted or misremembered the content of the program and was primarily trying to reduce an "unnecessary amount of material".

A good reason must be given for an edit WP:Revert. So, I offer the reasons set out above for my revert of LuckyLouis' edit, and for a (hopefully improved) revision of the copy. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: After careful consideration I'm going to hold off on a revert of LuckyLouis' edit and a revision of the "Alien History" sub-section so other members of the WP community can have an opportunity for discussion first. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Those aspects of the television program that were discussed in secondary sources might be eligible for inclusion in the appropriate article, but I agree that it was given too much weight in the previous version of this article. What are the one or two bits of alleged evidence suppression that you wish to highlight that are not already in the article? Location (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a bit more detail to the summary of the program content. Re the citation: we don't need to include a full list of production company and cast credits. A url to the History Channel listing is fine. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at the first paragraph of my rebuttal above, beginning "The conclusion presented by Nick Cook in the program..."—I believe this would make a good summary, with some very minor adaptive revision, and the program citation and url to the History Channel in footnote, viz:

"The conclusion presented by Nick Cook in the program was that top-secret Defense Industry technology was being developed by government-backed Defense Industry programs, stimulated by the recovery of experimental research conducted by Nazi scientists during WWII and taken afterward to the U.S. and developed further at the top-secret research facilities established at White Sands, New Mexico, with the collaborative aid of the same German scientists; and that the UFO phenomenon was generated and then promoted by the CIA as a false-lead explanation to cover-up genuine real-world military research and development (R & D) for the sake of National Security, particularly during the Cold War. Declassified documents and blueprints obtained from archives are produced in support of this conclusion."

I would then add, as only two representative examples of Cook's research findings, the info on declassified blueprints of "Silverbug" from Air Force archives almost exactly matching the descriptive report of officer Lonnie Zamora's sighting near White Sands, New Mexico, 24 April 1964 Blue Book File No. 33245/B24 Zamora 4/24/64 Socorro NM Confidential —and— the eyewitness sighting by Former Rancher Gomez of the hovering UFO with helicopter rotor blades with his belief that the whole affair of the cattle mutilations was a test.

The WP link Nick Cook would also eliminate what was essentially a thumbnail bio in the first version. This and the summary (adapted) above would greatly reduce the amount of copy I first contributed—"minimal is good". And I want to include (from my original contribution) the verbatim quotation of Nick Cook's final conclusion near the end of the program that the findings he presents "make a strong case" that UFOs are human technology and that the UFO "alien" explanations are the actual cover-up, even while he admits that there are some things he cannot explain. We absolutely cannot state that the History program is about suppressing evidence of top-secret Defense Industry technology "gained from aliens", because that is not the conclusion presented by Nick Cook in his documentary. That would be false misrepresentation. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clarifying the alien bit, that's fine. But as for adding selected quotes and examples, I don't see this particular episode of UFO Files requires any more coverage by Wikipedia than any other episode of UFO Files that deals with UFO conspiracies. Has it been discussed in reliable secondary sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No more than Robert Emenegger's 1974 film mentioned earlier in the article, narrated by Rod Serling. Good point about the UFO Files list of programs. A point about that listing: History Channel has a habit of wording their teasers in a misleading form that legally is true only in the most literal sense—in this case, "... and a look at rumors of classified military aircraft incorporating alien technology into their designs." The casual reader of this statement can come away from it with the impression that the program presents (as fact) the case that classified military aircraft may have actually been incorporating alien technology into their designs. It doesn't (as I've already belabored the point too much, above). Rather, Nick Cook dismisses the rumors in favor of a different interpretation of the evidence. History is only trying its best to "draw in" the viewers by tickling their curiosity. This History Channel teaser can be dismissively addressed (indirectly) here in this article with only about three or four words, and I would like to go ahead and do that, with the understanding that my revision can be revised and improved (even abbreviated). Appreciate your input and your openness to accepting more information on any topic when it is presented. Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that instead of profiling the single episode of UFO Files "An Alien History of Planet Earth" a brief mention of Nick Cook's 20 years of investigative aviation journalism for Jane's Defense Weekly would be adequate coverage of the alternative conspiracy theory of covering up real-world human technological research and development with the UFO alien story. This would be inclusive of many more reliable secondary sources. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that if your aim is to to have the article mention Cook's alternative conspiracy theory, it's best to use a secondary source like this rather than a TV show. No need to emphasize Cook's resume, it's enough to cite Salon's opinion of him as esteemed yet criticized (for example). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, most sincerely, LuckyLouie, for the link to Salon.com! Gives a better perspective on Cook's material and the History Channel's program at UFO Files. Provided most adequate briefing for a minor revision—appreciated! And thanks again! (going to celebrate with an espresso café mocha con panna!) I wish you well! --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another cite-worthy review of Cook's book. If you feel ambitious, you could move your detailed coverage of theories expounded in Cook's book to a section of the Nick Cook article, and leave a nicely streamlined summary here at this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I trust your judgment after seeing your first "added details". Suggest a statement that Nick Cook, journalist "Jane's Defense Weekly", author of [Salon.com] and —— [theatlantic.com]. Then use most of your second real good brief summary (thanks for using most of my initial statement paragraph there!) ending with substance of my last two sentences (from my last edit, but not necessarily verbatum) on Cook's conclusions in the British television and History Channel program. Thanks for the suggestion, above, but I am absolutely persuaded that the result you compose will be outstanding and satisfying. Thanks! Go ahead with it. I think we have a consensus per article. I wish you well! --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are The Foundation for Earth-Space Relations, Tzadi Sophit, and Robertson's "The Long Island Saucer" ?

I have not found anywhere reference to The Foundation for Earth-Space Relations, to film producer Tzadi Sophit, or to Robertson's "The Long Island Saucer", mentioned in this article:

UFO conspiracy theory#1950s (10th paragraph, that Section).

I used the same search parameters for these that I successfully used to obtain needed citations for the rest of the article, with varying permutations and Key words. The only ones I found online (having these three elements) quoted only the brief WP Article text we have here (1950s, 10th paragraph): no other references came up. My library research ("Never heard of 'em.") came up empty. Por Nada...

Unless one of you WPs out there has a reliable verifiable source citation of some kind, that I could not find, to contribute re "Robertson's 'The Long Island Saucer' ", "film producer Tzadi Sophit", and "The Foundation for Earth-Space Relations"—then I think that paragraph should be deleted.

Meantime, I think I've improved the article all I can. I'll check back in a month (end of April) and see . I wish you all well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

oops. Forgot I'd intended to link "Vannevar Bush" and "Research and Development Board" before saying I've done all I can for now. Will check back end of April. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystery airships

I just read the WP article "Mystery airship" (1896-1897) and think it could be added to the "See also" list here. (It's not included in the "External links" section in the {UFO} Template under | Incidents | Pre-20th century | listings.)

What do you think? --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

An unrelated list of UFO incidents?

Should the article be stripped of the extensive list UFO reports that don't have any bearing on the conspiracy topic? More than a year ago the same question was raised on this Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. It's getting too long and this article is about the conspiracy, not reiterating individual incidents. Johnsagent (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit

This section was removed:

Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU) was a group of the department of U.S. military, scientific and technical direction of counterintelligence (Scientific and Technical Branch, Counterintelligence Directorate, Department of the Army) presumably created in the 1947 and dissolved in the late fifties.

Some ufologists hypothesized it was a military unit tasked to investigate the phenomenon of UFOs. U.S. Army authorities, while confirming the existence of a project with that name, denied it was a military unit, stating it was a study group's internal counterintelligence, and have stated that after its dissolution all the documentation was transferred to U.S. Air Force (USAF), in the archives of Project Blue Book.

While we cannot use primary sources to establish notability, it should be acceptable to add primary sources when the title of the article is UFO conspiracy theory which immediately set the precedence that these views are in the minority thus conforming with WP:UNDUE. How can we write an in depth article about UFO conspiracy without a few primary sources? While I personally find the claims of this unit dubious, it remains apart of UFO conspiracy theory. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Per FRINGE, a minority view needs to be mentioned by reliable independent sources for it to be deemed notable. Every weird and interesting claim found on the Internet A Lulu.com self published book, a fringy website, and a book alleging alien agendas aren't reliable sources in any case. I don't have access to the UPI story being used as a reference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not true though per WP:PRIMARY

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an article about UFO conspiracy theories, I'd have no problem including a para in this article about how some fringe ufologists speculate that the IPU was some secret military unit investigating UFOs. But if the IPU was an actual government unit, there should be reliable secondary sources that refer to it and comment on its activity, and note the fact that ufologists have some weird claims about it. So I think you are misunderstanding WP:PRIMARY. Put it another way, I can find primary sources saying extraterrestrials created Jesus, but if they are fringe sources and their view hasn't been taken seriously enough to be mentioned in reliable secondary sources, then I can't put it on Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That I fully agree. I'm trying to confirm that right now before I add anything these fringy things are difficult to research which I'm sure you've found out. I'm glad we reached consensus :). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bruce Rux book is pretty horrible as a source. Like many others that show up on Google Book search, it's pushing the fringe view of alien/ufo/conspiracy. The closest I came to an independent (not pushing the fringe view) source is this: [3]. I have a HigBeam account and will do further searching, but have run out of time for today. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Do you know anyone with Nexus as well? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have Lexis Nexis Library Express, maybe not as powerful as the commercial version, but I used it and also High Beam, to search for any mention of the fabled IPU...and found zilch. Out of curiosity and since it was in the citations you gave, I searched for "New York Times, July 5, 1961" and there's nothing except fringe sources like this gem that imagines a MacArthur speech quote taken out of context ("...earth might have to unite to fight a future war against an alien menace...") is somehow proof the IPU really existed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That was not my source I found it in the old article here: [4]. I was not able to verify it so I did not add it to the main space. I was looking for verification and was not able to find anything. I posted it here so other could take a look. As far as I can tell the unit exists solely in UFO mythology. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory ?

It's not a "theory"! The "theory" is about the nature of conspiracy, not the conspiracy in itself! Obviously there is a conspiracy ! How to explain the military,scientist,and intelligence circles ,etc are linked to this subject?

They talked about Ufos, investigated Ufos .. hard to claim Ufos don't exist and theses people are not involved.

The Theories ask if the whole ufo phenomenon is - a secret project ? - extraterrestrial origin? -a psi-ops/ disinformation program ? Anyway there is a phenomenon .. and military/intelligence/security are involved. The declassified files from many countries prove theses two affirmations. it s a fact.

They gathered information and perhaps material evidences (or more) for decades on the subject. Only a small part has been public .. some FOI request led to refusal for national security reason,(on this very UFO subject).

Many rationalist people have agreed on ufo reality,there are physical traces of landing and scientific analysis of the effect of the "craft" on environment.. + hundreds of reliable witnesses, radar evidence, picture,video ..sometimes of all this for one case. So the reality of it is proven.

Information is kept secret . Until we gain better understanding of the subject,it s called a proven conspiracy. not a conspiracy theory.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.249.173.33 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Phil Schneider reality or just crazyness?

Good afternoon.

It's really rare that after seeing what Phil described as real and also claimed to have seen and interact with, people still have doubts. It is ok to doubt, we should not be believing in everything we see and read since we need to add a little bit of critic to everything. Now, that's when my question is formulated, was he crazy? was he a lier? was he insane or trying to get some sort of protagonism? Well, I personally don't think that. He have shown us proves, he lost some fingers with the alien encounter, he showed pictures of an alien spaceship etc.

The interesting part is that his article on Wikipedia was deleted. Also he mentioned something about "Bel Valiant Thor" which was a man who worked for the government which is rare also..I tried to search for him today on Wiki and the article has dissapeared as well. I read about him on Wikipedia before but I coudln't. The only logical reason that I found about why the government doesn't want to tell the truth about aliens is because humanity is not ready yet! We are very inmature on astrological things and ideas so understanding the alien ideology and fact will be very hard for most of the ppl in this world. I don't think this is right but I'm not anyone to decide that. Nations are looking for the total power of the world and they try to keep things in secret, if they get more power, they will have more chances to rule this world. Thanks for reading.

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc twisting source

The source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/former-sen-mike-gravel-says-white-house-suppressing-112957111.html

Text in the source: "“What we're faced with here is, in areas of the media, and the government too, an effort to marginalize and ridicule people who have specific knowledge,” he says."

Original wiki text: "Former Senator Mike Gravel, claims that the White House is suppressing, ignoring and/or marginalizing evidence."

New text, changed by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc on 16:47, 11 March 2015‎: "as with the rest of ufology, are believed mostly by marginalized individuals."

This is blatant bad faith editing. 80.201.60.73 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ufo

I am brett m I have pictures of a real ufo.. im not kidding I have never seen anything like this before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.251.85 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on UFO conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://mufon.com/znews_publicopinion.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010510-19816390.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to lede - first sentence " suppressed by various governments, and politicians in every country"

I've just read this article for the first time and the first sentence really surprised me with the statement that UFO conspiracy theories are "...supressed by various governments, and politicians in every country". The term "every country" really hits me as an extreme claim. Is it generally accepted that conspiracy theorists truly believe that even the smallest pacific nations included in absolutely every country in the world are actively involved in this subject?

I propose toning down the first sentence of the lede from "in every country" to "globally". This still gives the flavor of the existing lede without the extreme claim.

If no-one objects, I'll make the change in a few days. Savlonn (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UFO conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027082646/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/18/the-jfk-ufo-connection-bogus-documents-or-unanswered-questions/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/18/the-jfk-ufo-connection-bogus-documents-or-unanswered-questions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Title really should be UFO coverup conspiracy theory

This article focuses on allegations of government coverup, not UFO as being caused by a conspiracy. Feoffer (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Title should be "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis".

The titles mentioned this far only confirm Wikipedias own statement;

"The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content, perspective and sources within these articles. However, this goal is inhibited by systemic bias created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects and perspectives on the encyclopedia" (Wikipedia, 2020).

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is a childish term used as a discrediting method. It's time to start acting like adults and use this platform for educational purposes and not playground name calling.

Hypothesis, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

Can we please have some level headed people editing this platform, then maybe universities will can take it more serious. Instead of advising students to stay well clear because of its bias. Jebediah doe (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Add the true scale of witness testimony instead of a tiny subset

The amount of witness statements that exist on this subject go into the thousands. So why does this article play down the mountain of evidence.

The article states "Individuals who have publicly stated that UFO evidence is being suppressed include Senator Barry Goldwater, British Admiral Lord Hill-Norton (former NATO head and chief of the British Defence Staff), Vice Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (first CIA director), astronauts Gordon Cooper[3][4] and Edgar Mitchell,[5] and former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer. Beyond their testimonies and reports they have presented no evidence to substantiate their statements and claims. According to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry little or no evidence exists to support them despite significant research on the subject by non-governmental scientific agencies.[6][7][8][9]".

I'm skeptical about the subject, but even I can see it has been heavily watered down. Because of this watering down of the subject matter, why would anyone want to donate to a platform that attacks people's views. The article isn't neutral, it's biased and watered down. Jebediah doe (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop Biased Censorship

Can Wikipedia stop censoring discussions on this article so it can be presented in a way that is not heavily censored and biased to the extreme. Jebediah doe (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)