This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?”:
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) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As I see it an Estimate of the Situation is not just something that applied to one UFO conspiracy theory. Nor do I think that anyone would associate it with UFO's outside the field of UFOlogy. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?”:
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) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As I see it an Estimate of the Situation is not just something that applied to one UFO conspiracy theory. Nor do I think that anyone would associate it with UFO's outside the field of UFOlogy. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)