Talk:Project Blue Book
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Blue Book article.|
|WikiProject Paranormal||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 A Blue Book officer in each AFB during the Ruppelt era?
- 2 Dead
- 3 Subtle POV?
- 4 Futility
- 5 Question of Catagory
- 6 Interviewing people involved with Project Blue Book
- 7 -insider-
- 8 Needs serious work with citations and such.
- 9 Who the hell is Swords?
- 10 Incoming
- 11 Now for some unsubtle POV
- 12 "preposterous" , uncited
A Blue Book officer in each AFB during the Ruppelt era?
Each U.S. Air Force Base had a Blue Book officer to collect UFO reports and forward them to Ruppelt. should probably be removed.
The relevant quote in Out There by Howard Blum is "Blue Book officers had been assigned to every Air Force base in the nation." It does not specify the time period. There is no official source for a Blue Book officer in each AFB during the Ruppelt era because it is not true. Later, most AFB Commanders, in response to AFR 80-17 (1966), appointed a UFO investigating officer, usually as an additional duty, as described in the Bolender memo. Nablator (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Link http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/bluebooku47.htm is broken.
The "Special Report No. 14" is stated in the article to have been concluded in 1954 at the hands of four "scientific analysts" unrelated to the Air Force. This isolated report seems to have little value in my eyes (although I see no issue with its inclusion in the article). The issue I am having with it is that, first: 1. It covers a much briefer time period than the entire Blue Book itself (up to 1954). 2. It relies heavily (exclusively?) on the personal opinions of four (4) people.
..And despite this, it is being referred to as some kind of gold standard elsewhere in the article. One example of this is a comment about the results of the real Blue Book, as they were summarized in 1969/1970 and didn't go all space alien on our asses: "These official conclusions were directly contradicted by the USAF's own commissioned Blue Book Special Report #14."
"Were directly contradicted"? I'm no grammar expert but this formulation sounds to me as a deliberate chronological twist. How can something from 1969/70 get contradicted by something much less comprehensive from 1954, isn't it rather the other way around?
Another example of subtle POV are the lines: [...] This was the exact opposite of the result predicted by skeptics, who usually argued unknowns were poorer quality cases involving unreliable witnesses that could be solved if only better information were available. Which "skeptics" assessed these reports/top secret material at the same time and put forth a figure that the concluded report later disagreed with? I just see this as an attempt to disqualify a common notion in all skepticism (e.g. the less you know - the more you think) which might or might not apply to every single occurence, study or whatever. But were there any "skeptics" (aren't the investigators skeptics by profession, anyway?) that evaluated the material or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to have some POV sections, e.g. "As might be expected, Grudge concluded that all UFOs were natural phenomena or other misinterpretations..." QuinnHK 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but that may just be the way things like this stay. The number of UFO fans and die hard conspiracy buffs who take the time to edit wikipedia articles like this outnumber the more logical encyclopedic style authors. It's just that way with any of the paranormal stuff, I rarely even bother anymore trying. I once had to edit the curse of the Hope diamond here because someone had posted open endedly that it 'was rumored to be unable to be photographed cleary'. This was approximatly 3 inches below a picture of it, which was quite clear. No matter how hard you clean this page up, give it 3 months, and someone will have come in and PoV'd SOMETHING.
Question of Catagory
Why does this have a categorization of a CIA Operation? There does not seem to be anything in the article that supports this classification. If nothing can be added that supports this, it should be removed. 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd that, if not done so already. If it has to be linked, do it to the USAF, not the CIA.
Interviewing people involved with Project Blue Book
I know from personal experience that there is much more to the Project Blue Book story than is in this article, it would probably be interesting to interview people associated with it. My Mother (deceased) was a secretary for Project Bluebook in the mid to late 60's. She had worked in the secretarial pool at the White House at the end of WWII so it was fairly easy for her to get the Top Secret clearance she needed for the Job. Now think about it, if it was as benign as they say it was, why the neccesity for the clearance? I also know for a fact, from personal observation when I went to work with my Mother (I was quite young so it is doubtful they were concerned with me) that they had some things that looked very much like UFO's to a kid who grew up on comic books and scifi. All of my Brothers (I have 3) have similar recollections and two of my brothers are respectively 4 and 6 years older than I, so while I admittedly was too young to be a reliable witness, they weren't. So much time has passed since then, I bet other family members of staff or the staff themselves might be willing to discuss what they saw.
The one I vividly remember was a seamless silver elliptical saucer shape that kind of looked like liquid metal was there. I remember my Mom saying that they were unable to put so much as a scratch on it but were able to scan it in someway. The scans showed objects in a void inside that were in different positions when different scans were taken according to my Mom, she was fascinated with her work there. But again< I was young at the time she worked there, and 18 when she died, she talked about her time there up until her death, more than she even talked about her time at the Whitehouse, and that was where she met my Dad.
SEllisM 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Needs serious work with citations and such.
1. "Though many accepted Blue Book's final conclusions that there was nothing extraordinary about UFOs,"
'Many' is a weasel word, and there are no citations as to the number. Was it the majority? A minority? How many?
2. "critics — then and now — have charged that Blue Book, especially in its later years, was engaging in dubious research, or even perpetuating a cover up of UFO evidence."
No critics are cited.
3. "Some evidence suggests that not only did some UFO reports bypass Blue Book entirely, but that the U.S. Air Force continued collecting and studying UFO reports after Blue Book had been discontinued, despite official claims to the contrary."
The 'some evidence' mentioned is a book called "The Complete Book of UFOs: An Investigation into Alien Contact and Encounters". I actually happen to own this book, and it's nothing more than a surface-scratching, totally credulous book that latches onto *all* UFO encounters as evidence of alien activity. It is not "evidence" in any sense of the word.
There's a LOT of similar work to be done throughout the article - this is just from the introduction!
Who the hell is Swords?
In the "Ruppelt Years" part there is a bit where it refers to someone named "Swords" as if it is a surname of someone who has already been mentioned. The stupid thing is, there hasn't been anyone of that name mentioned yet. I'm finding this more and more in articles and it is very hard to understand. Sometimes it is even confusing when the name HAS already been mentionedbecause often the full name is mentioned right at the start of an article and then sometimes that person is not mentioned again until the end. It should not be allowed. I think the full name should always have to be qouted even when the name has already been mentioned previously in the article EXCEPT for the subject of the article's name. Obviously if we are reading an article about Michael Jackson, there is no need to qoute his full name in every sentence, but his manager? his collaborators? his dancers? anyone else who isn't him? YES! There is a very big need! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Fixed", linked occurrence of surname to his own article -- NO thinking required, the viewer may not be familiar with his browser's "find" feature, Sword is indirectly referenced by citations to his books, both before and after the actual use of his surname. But this highlights the secondary complaint of poor or inconsistant editing by the multiple writers of articles. Wherein originally good portions of text may be revised without regard to the overall integrity of references to named persons within the larger article. WurmWoodeT 19:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Now for some unsubtle POV
"preposterous" , uncited
"preposterous", shouldn't of used. "seemingly preposterous", should have. "in a long, uncited", my bad, will correct. (some people refuse to face facts, or refuse to become aware of them ie: 'skeptics'. and this page WELL appears to be written by such. it does NOT take into account what was actually occurring during the project/60's that FORCED the airforce into assigning someone else to decide if "ufo's" were apparently interplanetary space vehicles. it was members of congress who were pushing for an open hearing/congressional probe on the subject due to the airforces' lies/misinforfation and/or apparent ineptitude that forced the airforce into hurriedly assigning an "unbiased investigation", with the work to be "conducted under condition of the strictest objectivity".
BUT.. that did not happen. The project head, mr Condon could not of been more biased!, and "unbiased objectivity" was directed NOT to be used, as implied by the Low memorandum to CU President Thurston Marshal and other university heads, stating that "Our studywould be constructed almost exclusively by non-believers... The trick would be, i think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear to be a totally obbjectivestudy..".
FAR from being reprimanded for such a statement/recommendation, he was then made Project administator, AND, the two invetigators who released the memo to congress/public were fired!
now, as for mr condon -Oct 7, 1966 AF announcement that CU Study would be "a serious, objective, scientific investigation"... within 24 hours he stated "it is highly improbable they exist".
-oct 9, "air force had been doing a good job."
"about 95% of the ufo reports are relatively easily identified, with more info others could probably be explained, (which) indicates an appalling lack of understanding."
How would he know?!! leass than 48 hours in!
jan 1967- "ufo's were not the business of the air force and it did not take the matter seriously" "my attitude right now is that there's nothing to it" "anyone who believed the AF was concealing facts was suffering paranoia" (omg. they have been caught concealing facts/given false statement HUNDREADS of times!)
now, mr low.. -oct 9, "this project came close to being unacceptable. it will probably yeild more information about witnesses who report ufo's than evidence."
please, we all must ensure a correct description of the projects/events is viewable for the adults, and most importantly the children of this earth. IT WAS NOT AN UNBIASES STUDY, IT IT DID INDICATE "ALIEN" VEHICLES, AND THE WIKI PAGE SHOULD INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THAT. i look forward to someone more capable reworking this/these pages very soon, if you would be so kind mr moon, i would be very very appreciative.
- And does Mr. Keyhoes material constitute a neutral take on things? Wikipedia is striving for NPOV, remember that. After all, Keyhoe was a prolific science fiction and mystery author and became immersed in "UFOlogy" after his then-editor (Purdy of True magazine) told him it'd make a great story. From that point and on, Keyhoe made a great buck selling his take on everything. Of course Keyhoe like any other UFO writer worth his salt did put things under (apparent) scientific scrutiny as he progressed with his stories but his biased interpretation of certain cases and outright omissions of key details are all too obvious. In short, it ain't NPOV my friend.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:57, November 20, 2012 (UTC)