Famous UFO quotes!! Winston Churchhill "destroy one’s belief in the church!"

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
I found this particually interesting, a quote by Winston Churchhill reguarding a UFO encounter:

"this event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic amongst the general population and destroy one’s belief in the church.”

This is reported by a man whose grandpa claimed he overheard it when working as Churchill's aide. Your grandpa ever tell any long stories...?

I wouldn't take it to the bank and cash it.

reply to post by SkuzzleButt


I still enjoy the text of the "Twining Memo". I'm sure most people in this forum are familiar with it. If you're not, here's a link to the letter (at the bottom of the page) and to a really interesting discussion regarding its origin.

a. The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
e. The apparent common description is as follows:-
(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.

Crazy Air Force kooks. They were certainly wearing their tin foil hats that day. And making such outrageous statements without a single shred of evidence.

Was this post of any use to anyone?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Here's one example of such a bogus quote:

"At no time, when the astronauts were in space were they alone: there was a constant surveillance by UFOs."
--NASA's Scott Carpenter

And the email I got from Carpenter, with whom I've had a long professional and personal association:

From:
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:37 AM
Jim,
Thanks for offering me a forum. In the past, I've not bothered to refute these and other outrageous reports of my belief in, or sightings of, UFOs (Flying Saucers). They are too preposterous to favor with credibility or honor with reply. You however, raise a different and more important issue, that of the young kids who are not yet familiar with the power of logical thinking, who are unsuspectingly led astray by the glamour of the UFO idea, and who tend to believe the nonsense these twisted minds dream up and post as fact on the Internet. They claim that those who disagree, lie, and challenge us to prove that UFOs don't exist. That's their leg up...proving non-existence is impossible.
So, Mr. Oberg, in order to help set these naive people free of the crazy beliefs they are asked to adopt, feel free to quote me as follows, (and use any adjectives you choose which are roughly synonymous with poppycock): The quote (below) is absolute hogwash and a blatant lie. I never thought it, never said it, and it never happened
NASA's Scott Carpenter "At no time, when the astronauts were in space were they alone: there was a constant surveillance by UFOs."
I hope the two of us can help set at least some people straight
. Really enjoyed perusing your web page.
All best, and Merry Christmas
Scott


From: To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:06 PM
Jim. Good for you and your follow up. I wish more folks like you would challenge these guys. At least that might get some of the trash off the street.
Happy New Year.
Scott

reply to post by JimOberg


Yes. Thanks for posting it. I also am fond of this Coast Guard document. What were they smoking?

reply to post by Orkojoker


MJ12 documents, LoL

reply to post by JimOberg


Of course he had to say that Jim, after the ridicule that was placed on Cooper and after a NASA "debriefing" he had no choice but to rescind his statements...

We have no way of knowing if what you say, or what Carpenter said is true. And I'm not saying I know what's true either, just speculation. How does anyone know if you are 1) totally in the know about whats going on and cannot/won't talk about it. 2) Don't know whats going on, but have been fed years worth of disinfo. 3) Are totally on the up-and-up and giving us exactly the truth...

I'm not trying to portray you as a liar, just playing devil's advocate here....

Originally posted by Toxicsurf
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Of course he had to say that Jim, after the ridicule that was placed on Cooper and after a NASA "debriefing" he had no choice but to rescind his statements...

We have no way of knowing if what you say, or what Carpenter said is true. And I'm not saying I know what's true either, just speculation. How does anyone know if you are 1) totally in the know about whats going on and cannot/won't talk about it. 2) Don't know whats going on, but have been fed years worth of disinfo. 3) Are totally on the up-and-up and giving us exactly the truth...

I'm not trying to portray you as a liar, just playing devil's advocate here....

edit on 21-3-2011 by Toxicsurf because: remove a not

What you are doing is setting up a paradigm by which you are totally immune to inconvenient or objectionable testimony or evidence.

A method to determine which version is accurate would be to track back the allegedly bogus quotation to its source, to the first time it was used in print or on the internet. Then look at the credibility of the person who made that first posting.

Now, usually when I make the suggestion, the response is, Well, that's just too hard, I'm ready to give up before ever starting, and just not care if the quote is accurate if it makes me feel good believing it.

That sort of helplessness is why ufology is where it is stuck today. IMHO.

The Churchill quotation is the same. It has no verifiable origin. It cannot be differentiated from a crude hoax.

That's your preferred type of evidence?

Originally posted by JimOberg
The Churchill quotation is the same. It has no verifiable origin

Well...

We know the immediate source of the purported quote. It is from one of the files released by the Ministry of Defence documents released during 2010.

That file included several documents from someone that claimed his mother told him that her father (i.e. the writer's grandfather) told her that he heard Churchill make the relevant statement during a discussion between Mr. Churchill and Eisenhower in the United States.

The name of the person that wrote the letters is redacted in the relevant file (as is the name of the grandfather).

HOWEVER, I have looked at the relevant documents and there are quite a few personal details about the writer within the various (relatively lengthy) letters he wrote. Most of those personal details have NOT been redacted.

For example, the grandson gives various indications of his employment at the time of writing (working on software for 'spacecraft thermal engineering', writing from Leicester). He also gives detail of his prior experience and quite a few other personal details.

It probably would be possible, with a little bit of effort, to track him down (and this may have been done already, e.g. by Dave Clarke - I haven't asked him).

The question is whether it is worth the effort to track down the grandson and seek his confirmation.

What would we have then?

Even if his mother is still alive and can confirm that her father told her that Churchill made the relevant remark, so what?

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by JimOberg


I think what Toxicsurf is trying to point out is that we really have no way of knowing for certain that the email you present as being from Scott Carpenter actually is from Scott Carpenter. We really just have to take your word for it. I'm not doubting that it, in fact, is from who you say it is from, only helping to point out that it would not be difficult to fake such an email. Again, I'm sure that's not the case. A video of Scott Carpenter denying the claim would be better evidence that those are his actual sentiments, but that would be difficult and inconvenient to obtain. It would be unreasonable to expect you to try to produce such a video to prove a point on this forum.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Good point Isaac. When it comes right down to it, every quote is nothing more than a second-hand claim that some person made some statement. It is no real proof at all that the person actually made the statement, only that the statement was written down and attributed to that person. It might be reasonable in any particular instance to infer that the person actually DID say what it is claimed he said, but we should always admit to ourselves that our inference is just that and not actually direct knowledge of any kind. The point could be argued to what some people might consider absurdity.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I think what Toxicsurf is trying to point out is that we really have no way of knowing for certain that the email you present as being from Scott Carpenter actually is from Scott Carpenter. We really just have to take your word for it. I'm not doubting that it, in fact, is from who you say it is from, only helping to point out that it would not be difficult to fake such an email. Again, I'm sure that's not the case. A video of Scott Carpenter denying the claim would be better evidence that those are his actual sentiments, but that would be difficult and inconvenient to obtain. It would be unreasonable to expect you to try to produce such a video to prove a point on this forum.

no argument, except to point out that such caution almost never is in evidence with alleged quotes that support pre-existing opinions.

AND that such quotes are subject to the ultimate verification, of asking the person quoted.

The pattern is pretty well established that pro-UFO quotes are rarely if ever validated, so making one up is a risk-free effort since the target audience is so gullible they'll never check.

But anyone offering an 'anti-UFO' quote, as I did, knows full well that somebody will object to it and try to discredit it, so it better be iron-clad and verifiable or one's reputation is ruined.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The pattern is pretty well established that pro-UFO quotes are rarely if ever validated, so making one up is a risk-free effort since the target audience is so gullible they'll never check.

But anyone offering an 'anti-UFO' quote, as I did, knows full well that somebody will object to it and try to discredit it, so it better be iron-clad and verifiable or one's reputation is ruined.

It rather depends on where you are posting...

Here on ATS, I'd agree the tendency is to question pro-UFO quotes less than anti-UFO quotes.

However, on some skeptical forums, I've seen quite a few inaccurate or incomplete anti-UFO quotes being posted with no objections.

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by JimOberg


Right you are, though I would suggest that the maintenance of a good reputation with some audiences is not really a worthwhile endeavor.

Originally posted by JimOberg
What you are doing is setting up a paradigm by which you are totally immune to inconvenient or objectionable testimony or evidence.

Thanks for your response, it took me a few moments to understand that first statement. I'm open to any and all possible explanations, and while I would consider myself a skeptical believer, I have no problem when it's pointed out that my reasoning or judgment is faulty...

...immune to inconvenient or objectionable testimony or evidence...

If you mean that I would reject things that go against a personal established belief system, then hopefully I can disagree. I am trying hard in this forum to not let that happen, to try and stay open to all sides of an issue. My point in the post above was to point out that we've seen many people change their minds or reverse their stance on issues or even on their own words, and we can never truly know why (take Ruppelt for example). Were they directly threatened and influenced through force, or was the attention and the "ridicule factor" enough. In most cases we'll never know...

I have little doubt that Carpenter's email was true, but we can never know if he's being truly honest about the statements he made. I get just as frustrated as you probably do when people of a certain belief system will try and shut down open discussion with the "it's all disinfo" and "of course you'd say that, you're one of them". That's just as bad as people who try and shut down open discussion with "it doesn't matter, they can't get here anyways" or "if they were here they'd land on the White House lawn". And yes, I may have been guilty of some of that in the past, but I allow myself to grow and change...

My only problem, Jim, is the apparent condescending "know it all" & "I have the only and final answer" type of responses I see from you occasionally. Intentional or not, I know it's hard sometimes to convey or understand true emotion and real sentiment properly on an internet forum...

A method to determine which version is accurate would be to track back the allegedly bogus quotation to its source, to the first time it was used in print or on the internet. Then look at the credibility of the person who made that first posting.

And, this is something I've learned in my short time around here. I try my best to research info whenever possible, especially before just typing a reaction and clicking send. I wish I had the time and resources that some of you do to fully seek out and research interesting topics...