Talk:Roswell UFO Incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roswell UFO Incident article.
Article policies

This is a controversial historical topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)
Peer review Roswell UFO Incident has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
News On July 1, 2007, Roswell UFO Incident was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Roswell UFO Incident: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives


    Contents

    [edit] Nonsense

    This story is nonsense and should be deleted or moved to any ego-shooter gaming site, e.g. Wiki Doom etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.132.176 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


    [edit] Gaming

    GTA San Andreas has an Area 51 type area in the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foylepher (talk • contribs) 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

    Who cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.152.131 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] "People" vs "UFO proponents"

    Someone has seen fit to change the text from the opening paragraph which had read:

    The United States military maintains that what was recovered was a top-secret research balloon that had crashed. Many UFO proponents believe the wreckage was of a crashed alien craft and that the military covered up the craft's recovery.

    Instead of "many UFO proponents believe..." the text has been changed on several occasions to read "Many people believe..." While this may be true, it is an example of employing weasel words when the goal here is to employ language that is specific and verifiable. Saying "many people" is not only not attributed, what, one many reasonably ask, precisely does that mean? More than 10 people? Millions? What is easily verifiable is that many UFO proponents claim the incident involved aliens.

    Besides, to employ this weasel-word logic, we should also rewrite the part about the United States military in a similar fashion to read: Many people believe that what was recovered was a top secret research balloon... which is as justifiable as the above. And equally meaningless. If one wants to make the point that a great number of people or a majority of people believe that aliens are real or that aliens landed at Roswell and the government is hiding that fact, that precise point can be found within the text of the article. See the section "New witness accounts and Roswell UFO books." Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with you, per my edits, and for the reasons you have given. To reiterate to those who disagree: "many UFO proponents" is much harder to believe than is "many people", when both are unsourced. (Please) Do not change "UFO proponents" to "people" without discussion and consensus. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    I think it's probably better to use the term "people" because I think it's more NPOV. Using the term "UFO Proponents" is a bit sketchy both as a term, and also it's pretty difficult to provide support for this. It's also pretty common knowledge that indeed many people, if not most people, do beleive in the alien explanation for the crash. AFO Proponents would probably be more valid as this implies that people beleive that the UFO that crashed was indeed an alien flying vehicle, perhaps a more neutral sentance could be constructed such as "Many people support an AFO (Alien Flying Vehicle) Hypothesis, as not to create a loosely defined construct of "UFO Proponents" which most people would most definately not associate themselves with, and is somewhat conspiracy theory like in meaning. John.Darville
    I guess I don't believe that most people believe in the alien explanation. That should be sourced before it goes in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    The problem with "people" is that it is almost impossible to establish that claim. How do you establish that "many people" believe this? I've seen a poll in 1997 which might suggest that, but does that still hold true? Contrary to what John Darville states, we can establish that many UFO proponents (For example, Stanton Friedman, Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, all of whom in the past year have restated their belief that aliens were involved) do maintain that belief.

    It seems very strange that, somehow, "UFO proponents" is considered to be a loaded POV term. But it is precisely those people who are making the claims and publishing the books which make the claims! "Many" is used here as there are numbers of UFO proponents who do not believe aliens were involved. And, again, I point out that we could make precisely the same case in terms of those who claim that some military program accounts for the reports of aliens. Or, how about "many witnesses" believe... we could do that in both cases. The reason who "the military maintains" and "UFO proponents claim" are there is because those are the people who are making the major claims! To pretend that the belief emerges from amongst regular everyday people ignores the fact that there are many regular everyday people from Roswell who claim that nothing alien was involved. But these people, as with those who say something was involved aren't the ones publishing the books or making the reports. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


    [edit] # 6 Other unknown claims

    Is there any reason why this unreferenced poorly written paragraph shouldn't be removed entirely?Derekbd (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    Not that I can see. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    It usually helps to be specific before you start complaining. What is your particular problem with the article which, as far as I can see, is laden down with a ton of references? Canada Jack (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oh. Now I can see.... And you were specific... Thought this had to do with the citation tag. Sorry, Derek. I took it out. I will no go back to sleep. Canada Jack (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    No problem. <g> Sleep well.Derekbd (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    To: "Agentleman" (who didn't sign his msg on my talk page and has no user page or talk page himself) ... Re:

    Derek Before taking it upon yourself to delete something like the above mentioned artical, give some of us with about 30yrs experiance a chance to verify some of the claims and information given in an artical. I am hoping the person who posted this re-posts it! If you don't like how it was written, or that it was a pooly written artical thats your business but don't choose for the rest of us who read the content and not the grammer.

    If you look closely I didn't delete anything on the page (see above and check the history: it was CanadaJack, who I understand has worked on this page for quite some time) I merely raised the question of it here (again, see above.) What 30 years experience are you talking about? I have over 35 years experience with written English. And what does "hoping the person who posted this re-posts it" mean? Anything that was deleted on Wikipedia is easily retrievable. Your attitude is quite condescending for someone who apparently doesn't even know how Wikipedia works.Derekbd (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

    I deleted the passage as it was a complete mess. Here was the first line: There are other reports that the wreckage(disc), and or bodies(one alive)the military sent to Wright -Patterson made two other stops before reaching it's final resting place. Just ignoring the content, there are six typos I can see in that opening line. And it doesn't get any better. I could comment further, but I'll let that suffice. If you care to add a new section (or defend someone else who did so), you might do yourself a favour by making an even bare attempt to copy-edit, let alone post any reference for this. As it stood, it made some rather amazing claims with not even a hint of a citation, let alone corroboration. Which is why I described this stuff as "nonsense." And before you start screaming "censor," I am the one who wrote almost all the text on this page which describes the alien and alien spacecraft claims.
    But, since I can't resist, here is another line: Seems Alien DNA mixed with humane DNA may have produced the first hybids born in the late 1940's to the mid to late 1950's there. Now we know were all the Sixties peaceniks came from - all that "humane" DNA! But I am curious to know about these "hybids" mentioned. Are these the same "hybids" which led to the recent real estate bubble? Canada Jack (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

    anon Give Agentleman a break! Pompas a@#! He did'nt post the article. In addition, it is clear that you, and several others have been here at Wiki way to long. Your arrogant, self righteous attitudes are frankly an over compensation for some other personal issues. You and several others thrive on conflict with the sarcasm of 13 year old juvenile delinquents. Give us all a break guys! Get a life, an get off the Wiki. We know you have contributed a massive amount of time and effort, but it’s time to move on! “Poor social skills are indicitive of a lack in proper adult personality development.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.194.25 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    If anyone is acting like a self-righteous 13-year-old, it is the timid poster above, too frightened too even bother identify himself in any meaningful way, but ready to suggest that I, somehow, am some sort of closeted virgin expressing my sexual and social frustration via diatribes... Why? Because I (gasp) suggested that the text in question was not only inadequate, it was laughably inadequate! Here, again, is one of the howlers: Seems Alien DNA mixed with humane DNA may have produced the first hybids born in the late 1940's to the mid to late 1950's there.
    The reason I chose not to take this seriously is because it was clear whoever posted this wasn't serious. Why? Because the original poster (and if you care to reread my post, you would see that I didn't say that agentleman wrote the post) couldn't even be bothered to copy edit the text in even the most rudimentary way!
    And I, again, point out that it was I who in large part wrote this article, including the sections which describe aliens and their craft being recovered at or about Roswell. So my objection is not with the content of the post, it is with the slap-dash manner in which it appeared (no attempt to copy-edit, no references - none - to the extraordinary claims made) and to the over-reaction by some - like yourself - to the deletion of the text as if it is up to us to copy-edit the section for you or whomever posted it, and to search out the references to these claims. Even my six-year-old knows what needs to be done when I see her do some homework half-assed and I say "do it again." She may moan, but she knows she's got to do the job. So I have to ask: What's your excuse? Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Just for the interest of the others, I had my suspicions given some of the typos that this "64" was the same person who wrote the piece in question. So, I checked and, indeed, it would seem to be the same person, given the IP address matches. So, not only is this person hiding behind an IP address, he is too timid to admit he wrote the section in question, or at least knows who wrote the section in question. But, then again, if he believes all that stuff, he might be afraid that I am not who I claim to be... Mwahahahahha! Canada Jack (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    Mr Canada: Its because Agentleman is my older brother and I didnt know how to edit using this. Im only 7. This is a school computer so it has the same ip for everyone who uses it. I guess you think Im just a dumb girl. I think someone else wrote some of this stuff besides me. I wont try to helpor write on here anymore. Lori Beckman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.194.25 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] UFOS Physical Proof of Alien Visitation

    I saw excerpts of a documentary where a researcher claimed to have tested a piece he called "The Roswell Piece" in laboratories. The laboratories allegedly reported back that it was extraterrestrial. It can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPAuku46SfI Does such a piece really exist, or is it just a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.158.138 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Who knows? From the documentary, all we are told is that they received this hunk of stuff and tested it. The problem is there is no indication that this object in fact came from anything associated from Roswell, and since the person who had this seems to have chosen to remain anonymous, serious doubts have to be raised. In other words, the onus is on those making the claims to establish that what they have is what they claim it to be. Looks like a piece of a meteorite to me.
    If this was a serious claim, one would expect to have something akin to what one would have if, say, an ancient carving was found and said to cast new light on, say, the Mayans, or early Christianity. I would say that a claim that an object proves we were visited by aliens would require a pretty strong set of evidence beyond simply testing the object. First, we'd want a lot of evidence to establish the provenance of the object in question. Where, exactly, was the object found? When, exactly, was the object found? What were the circumstances of its discovery? And what was the chain of custody? And what proof can be supplied to back all this up? None of these questions were addressed in the documentary, and since I have never heard of this claim before (and I most certainly would have if anyone besides the producers of the documentary took this seriously) I seriously doubt that anyone here did a bona fide investigation here. Kinda reminds me of that "Jesus" ossuary a few years back. Canada Jack (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    + Give Agentleman a break! Pompas a@#! He did'nt post the article. In addition, it is clear that you, and several others have been here at Wiki way to long. Your arrogant, self righteous attitudes are frankly an over compensation for some other personal issues. You and several others thrive on conflict with the sarcasm of 13 year old juvenile delinquents. Give us all a break guys! Get a life, an get off the Wiki. We know you have contributed a massive amount of time and effort, but it’s time to move on! “Poor social skills are indicitive of a lack in proper adult personality development

    [edit] 19.47 Latitude

    It may be more than coincidence that the Roswell Crash was in 1947 and Nassim Haramein has valid reason to believe that Latitude 19.47 is an extremely important point on any asteroid, including for Extra Terrestrial interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.21.14 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)