Talk:MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas

Can I get some HELP here?65.173.105.27 06:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not all that good at the whole writing articles thing, but how can i help? (also try WN:IRC). Bawolff ☺☻ 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Somethings i'm unsure of:

Hopefully someone will come along that actually knows what they are talking about (unlike me), so they can tell us if the article is ok or not. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that the report was released on july 4. (according to the date on the footer of the 77 page pdf). That could make this somewhat dated
 * The sources are somewhat similar in that they are all based on the same report. I'm not sure if there distinct enough
 * last source in list is dead link, but i don't think it'd be needed anyways
 * Bawolff asked me to have a look - sorry I didn't respond quicker but I was out fixing a sick PC.
 * The key concern is how credible are the sources? I just read the MUFON article on Wikipedia, that just existing is something that is a good indicator that reports from them are relatively credible. If you'd like to start a new section here and give some background on the other sources that might be really useful, I believe we have quite a few people who are curious about UFOs, but nobody who has really looked into it in depth.
 * One detail is that - if possible - the title should be shortened. IP editors and new contributors can't rename articles, so post some suggestions. It has to be renamed anyway because 'camel case' is disallowed by the style guide. As a first suggestion, MUFON releases Stephenville, US UFO reports, claims government intimidation of witnesses. An edit to explain the MUFON acronym in the opening paragraph would compliment that nicely and deal with people reading the headline and going, "What is MUFON?". --Brian McNeil / talk 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MUFON acronym explained. You have to fix that title.65.173.105.27 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment
I looked at this a little bit. It currently has major problems. Journalistically there is a major failure to a) state when this occurred b) describe who observed the alleged UFOs, besides the analysis of radar data.

Neutrality-wise there are also problems. Why are credible sources, such as ABC news being omitted? Why are there no statements included from the government when MUFON (and others) did get responses from them? Why are there no details to support the claim of government indimidation, other than referring to it vaguely as publically stating that the people are "nuts", mentally ill is a good tactical means of ridiculing someone? Why can I not find this alleged government intimidation in the MUFON report, even though both the title and the article say it is in the report? (If it is in there please give me a page number ... I searched for multiple key-words and looked at the table-of-contents and executive summary.)

Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The American Chronicle claims intimidation, as does a UFO Casebook source. Will place the ABC source.65.173.105.27 22:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So why is it attributed to the MUFON report? --SVTCobra 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to check the UFO Casebook ref on that. The guy who wrote that claimed that he or someone else was intimidated, its also indicated in the American Chronicle link as well about govt. intimidation.65.173.105.27 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He claimed (See 2nd source in Sources) that he was intimidated by the Feds because he reported a UFO had been seen over the Bush Crawford Ranch, and that his own speculation would cause the people to distrust the govt.(like that is'nt happening already) and scare the hell out of the people.65.173.105.27 23:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Claims are in Paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, in which he claims a govt. agency made him remove said matter.65.173.105.27 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad he did not state which govt. agency.65.173.105.27 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. He (UFO Casebook) stated: "I was told to remove this page from the Internet. The reason given was that the information and theory might cause 'public panic, and public distrust in our government.'" It mentions no intimidation other than an irrational fear that he might "lose my entire web site", a fear that he appears to have overcome since he put it back up. It is not much more than a link to the MUFON report. Furthermore, and importantly it does not explain why the claims of government intimidation in the Wikinews article are attributing these claims to the MUFON report. It is not in the report. --SVTCobra 23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The UFO Incident itself started on Jan. 8, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.105.27 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So why is it not in the article?
 * Placed.65.173.105.27 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Feds contacted them?!(MUFON ?!) Where are these sources?65.173.105.27 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No and Yes, they replied to FOIA requests. The MUFON report says Carswell Air Force Base responded "We have found no records responsive to your request" (page 6). Pages 10 and 11 have additional responses by the government. The ABC source also has govt statements. --SVTCobra 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ABC News link placed. May place a related link about a UFO that flew over my area while this was going on. In that, a local news crew got a video of a HUGE ship, and Barksdale AFB's Base Commander refused to examine that tape.65.173.105.27 23:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That has also fueled conspiracy theories as well.65.173.105.27 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is that tape:


 * - UFO from Stephenville caught over Shreveport, LA. 65.173.105.27 04:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* I find it odd that every alien always chooses to hover over populated areas at night, with bright lights shining downward. If they don't want to be identified or seen, why are they shining spotlights down? If they don't care if they are seen, why do they never do that kind of thing during the day? Given how close we are to *real* optical cloaking tech, you'd think that any aliens who were capable of interstellar travel would be able to utilize such tech. The fact that they always show up at night under bad visual conditions is either a massive coincidence, or a giant joke on their part. Or, you know, they might not be aliens at all.

You know, one time I saw a group of UFOs. They were flying in a V-shape. It was night. They were moving quite quickly over the sky, and seemed to be very high up, and very large. They were glowing brightly in a kind of orangish colour. And if I hadn't heard them start honking as they went overhead, I'd probably had thought they were aliens. Cause they LOOKED like aircraft, or spacecraft. Always remember that your brain does a huge *huge* huge amount of post-processing on the visual data it takes in in order to make sense of it. If there are no background objects to compare something with, something that is close, small, and moving slowly will appear exactly the same as something that is far away, large, and zooming along.

Lastly, before you say "I hate sceptics!!!111one11You don't want to believe!1!!", let me say that I DO want to believe, as do most other sceptics. If we didn't want to believe, then we wouldn't take the time to review the evidence. Unfortunately the data up to this point does not in any way support the conclusion that there are aliens around or on Earth. That makes me sad. I wish it did. I wait for the day when some evidence... any evidence... will appear that is even halfway reasonable. But that day hasn't yet come.

All that said, both this article and its sources are heavily biased nonsense. Using twisted primetime *entertainment news* as a source isn't exactly my idea of a reliable source, nor is using press releases from people who want to believe in aliens so badly that they will ignore any rational explanation for what little data they gather, and instead jump to unsustainable, unprovable conclusions. Gopher65talk 04:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Geese don't glow in the dark. That is why (not me) some people laugh at skeptics. Also, some of those people carry guns, and one witness who has claimed that he was harrassed, talked about shooting someone, then the other guy said that his side had more guns than he did. IF ET is'nt for real, why the harrassment, and if they're ours, why do we not use them to dictate policy to the whole planet, and make gasoline $0.05 a gallon instead of it being $5.00 a gallon? 65.173.105.27 04:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ships like that do make a great weapons platform, to carry on one that is even 1mi by 0.5 mi in diameter, you'll need countless heavy machine guns, anti aircraft missiles, anti-missile missiles, rocket platforms, even countless heavy cannon, even countless nuclear armed (tactical nukes) missiles, etc. pending on ship size. With weapons platforms like that, and if the US was one of those conquering militaristic states, like Rome or Nazi Germany, NO ONE anywhere,anytime will oppose the US.65.173.105.27 05:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * *Jawdrops* Your ignorance is astounding. Of course they don't glow in the dark. They REFLECT city lights off their undersides, just like clouds do. I've SEEN it happen, on more than one occasion. And man do they ever look like UFOs (well, they *are* UFOs if you don't know what they are;)). This is why sceptics laugh at conspiracy theorists. You don't bother thinking before you flip your imaginations into high gear and start spitting out nonsense (like this article). Gopher65talk 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out the primary sources.65.173.105.27 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange things going on here
Been getting "401" errors, worse on some, if not most originating sources. Someone accessing these may assume that something is going on. still hunting other sources.65.173.105.27 21:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been getting weird 401s all day. There is probably a main router down somewhere today.Gopher65talk 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still after sources, incl. primary/originating sources.65.173.105.27 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Status
Is this article ready for release? (Got into a "Edit Conflict.)65.173.105.27 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed the latest, but the article still claims that allegations of government intimidation are within the MUFON report, which they are not. So from that alone, no it is not ready. The sources are also not formatted properly and there are more sources than content. Unused sources should not be listed. --SVTCobra 23:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How can that be fixed w/o making a mess?65.173.105.27 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sentences like The MUFON reports claim that witnesses and investigators have been and are being intimidated by the US Govt. should be rewritten or removed. The article title also needs to be changed. --SVTCobra 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you fix that? IPS cannot.65.173.105.27 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can edit and rename the article, but if you are seriously asking me to do so, I will make all edits that I feel are necessary, not just the ones that you like. You might end up calling me a member of The Men in Black or a government stooge. My help comes all or none. Either way, it will not be tonight, so think about it. --SVTCobra 01:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it. The main gist of it is that witnesses report govt. intimidation, as seen in multiple sources, one or more UFOs have flown over President Bush's Ranch, that something strange went on at Stephenville, as stated in multiple sources. Really, go for it.65.173.105.27 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Time for article Release yet?
Is it time to release it?65.173.104.138 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources need to be formated with source first. Anonymous101 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There! I have done it. It has been moved to ready. After review it may be published. --SVTCobra 01:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn fine job. 65.173.104.138 07:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Much improved. Gopher65talk 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this published now?!
Read it, so, can we get this published? 65.173.104.138 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been published over 4 hours now. --SVTCobra 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't see it on the front page, hit the Refresh link to purge your cache. --SVTCobra 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 65.173.104.138 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article
Can someone place this news item on the Wikipedia article, Stephenville, Texas ?65.173.104.138 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 65.173.104.138 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed that one. Thanks. 65.173.104.138 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuff
Puh, this is one article bearing the signs of amateur journalism. All the silly little dramatic insinuations - makes me feel like vomitting. Anyway,

"I'm trying to decide whether or not to open the door, (are you? really? why?)''" Sorrells said to the Empire-Tribune. "We're just standing there face to face looking at each other (did Clint Eastwood feature in this movie?). I'm thinking he's dressed for the elements and the dogs are raising such a ruckus (and pa is humping ma in the barn together with uncle Ted and sissy?) he must know he's in danger of being caught (by whom?? what for? what did he do?). That's when I realized he wanted me to see him. (a man comes to your door and you reason he wants to see you - thats good thinking)" The man then turned away and walked into the woods. ''(back to home to fill Wikipedia with UFO conspiracies...?)

Can we have an English translation for this man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.0.118 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I live in Texas. "You" threaten someone in Texas, you will get shot. This alleged military officer or soldier did just that to Sorrells, so Sorrells got his rifle, and all hell nearly broke loose. Simple enough English for you?!65.173.104.138 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to see a UFO incident in which people shot at aliens, See the Wikipedia article Kelly Hopkinsville UFO Incident. By the way that hillbilly joke does not apply to Texans at all.65.173.104.138 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected "Harrassment" => "Harrassment [sic]" (the title in the source is misspelled as well) Van der Hoorn (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it myself by using link [sic] . Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)