Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Curious heart attack[edit]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that a 38 yr old man died of a Heart Attack? 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Did he have a pre-exisiting condition? Was he a heavy drinker and/or smoker? What about cholesterol intake? Did he have a family history of heart problems? It's unusual, sure, but not unprecedented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, June 17, 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions a previous heart attack in 1956. __meco (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have two questions:
Question 1: I would like to know where this information (suffered previous heart attack) comes from.
Question 2: "The Air Force cleared the book" (Ruppelt "Report..."). Where does this information come from?
The source(s) of these infos are not given. Can anyone answer these questions/give the sources?--7bells (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruppelt’s 1956 book cleared by USAF?[edit]

Sword’s opinion that “Ruppelt's published account of the material contained in the ‘’Estimate of the Situation’’ left out significant documentation proving that UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin” would mean US Air Force censorship of the book, is off-base. There is no proof of that. Nobody knows why Ruppelt did so.

What we do know is that he posed the question, “What constitutes proof?”:

  • The hassle over the word “proof” boils down to one question: What constitutes proof? Does a UFO have to land at the River Entrance to the Pentagon, near the Joint Chiefs of Staff offices? Or is it proof when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO streak away at a phenomenal speed? Is it proof when a jet pilot fires at a UFO and sticks to his story even under the threat of court-martial? Does this constitute proof? The at times hotly debated answer to this question may be the answer to the question, “Do the UFOs really exist?” I’ll give you the facts - all of the facts - you decide.

So he was not going to “prove” the UFOs to be of extraterrestrial origin. He even left it to the reader to decide whether the UFOs really existed or not, which question has to be answered ‘’before’’ any discussion of their origin. Ruppelt obviously tried to not take sides. ‘’This’’ cautious approach may much more have been the real reason why he left out the material that ‘’Sign’’ thought to be “proof” of the interplanetary origin of the UFOs. Maybe he had other reasons, for instance, that the material seems to be too hot in his opinion. We do not know. It is quite unnecessary to speculate about US Air Force censoring interference, and more so since Ruppelt was a “whistleblower”. The Air Force would have done everything to prevent the book from being published, they would with certainty not have “cleared” it, to be sure.

Swords speculation makes no sense, at least in the form Hoyt quotes it, and the alleged “clearance” is off-base. This paragraph should therefore, in my opinion, not be included in the article.7bells (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

external links[edit]

I have removed the links above as they fail to meet the criteria for inclusion of external links. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: External links to archives of works[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to add all. The majority opinion is they are useful and some contain things the others do not. The minority opinion picks one, or in one case two, of the group to exclude. AlbinoFerret 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the External Links section contain:

-- GreenC 13:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Support all The WP:ELNO #9 guideline advises against linking to search results. Nevertheless there are some sites which are only accessible via search. It's possible to obtain searches with extreme accuracy to the point of having zero false positives, negating the concerns of searching. As is the case here. There is wide prior consensus for including these 3 archives which are used in 10s of thousands of articles across Wikipedia for at least a decade. Other than to blindly follow a generic guideline for the sake of the guideline, which was never intended to stop us from linking to the archives at Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive and LibriVox. -- GreenC 13:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose Librivox the only resource there is the Wikipedia link, it provides no value -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an audiobook at LibriVox, linked at the bottom of the page. -- GreenC 15:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Gutenberg has plain text, Mobi and Epub versions of the book which are unique resources. -- GreenC 15:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all - per Green Cardamom. Of interest to any student of Ruppelt who wants more information. Jusdafax 08:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support WebArchive & Librivox only - Atleast to me they both seem somewhat helpful if you wanna either dig deeper or to simply listen to the book, Gutenberg just seems useless .... –Davey2010Talk 00:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support WebArchive & Librivox only - for the same reason as the above user. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all per GreenC; I think this is a good case for WP:IAR. —烏Γ (kaw), 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all I note the German WP uses these links as much as possible, to the extent that an article on anyone with published works would be considered incomplete without them; they avoid the sort of long lists of references to individual books or search result items that we use. But these particular links are always justified. They're not a link to search results as such, but to a place where more information can be found. (To be sure, if there is only one item, we might as well link to it directly). DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


I went ahead and added IA and LibriVox. If anyone disagrees we can ask for an official close. -- GreenC 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.