Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Churchill Accused of Sealing UFO Files, Fearing Public Panic

Posted by samzenpus on from the truth-is-out-there-in-that-filing-cabinet dept.

Newly released secret files show that Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber because he feared public panic. From the article: "Mr Churchill is reported to have made a declaration to the effect of the following: 'This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.'"

55 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. blah by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FTFS:

    This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.

    One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

    1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

    Or

    2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:blah by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Read Genesis. God created the heavens, the Earth, Man and assorted other critters and varmints. God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind. And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith. Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:blah by kalirion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Or

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      "Belief in God" is quite different from "Belief in what the Church tells you."

    3. Re:blah by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith."

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      "Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums."

      Suffering is the human condition. Religion is merely one of the 'causes', and perhaps not the most common or greatest.

      And some believers find solace and comfort, even relief, from their religion.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:blah by rgviza · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Darwin's theory of evolution is a conclusion based on a collection of empirical observations. Darwin never theorized why or how it occurred. He never theorized about it beyond "evolution happens, here's what I've observed that makes me think so". Knowledge of DNA and mutations were still quite a way off in the future.

      So in reality there's a lot of truth to it. He didn't make up his observations. They can still be observed today. Selective breeding artificially creates evolution every day. Has been for thousands of years since man domesticated the dog. Evolution can be demonstrated. If you own a dog you own a product of experimental evolution since without man that dog would still be a wolf.

      Why and how it occurs in nature is still relatively unknown.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    5. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, There is no god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is no such thing as a god.

      Regarding why anyone would deny evidence ... that's what religious people do. The only way to believe in a magic flying jew that is his own father is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    6. Re:blah by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that it matters much, but I am a highly-spiritual atheist...or at least, "atheist" is what most people label me as. My definition of god isn't the same as that of most religions' definition, hence the label.

      god to me isn't a discernable being, but rather an abstract idea. I don't refer to all objects as god (like most religious philosophy), but rather only the connection between them. My primary argument that I use against the common religious definition of god comes from, strangely enough, an extremely scientifically inaccurate movie:

      "god must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. god must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray god, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create god in their own image."

       

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    7. Re:blah by Alyred · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, it could also be that he was so ahead of his time he referred to himself as "The Church, yo".

    8. Re:blah by darien.train · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not that he didn't want her to hear the word. He didn't want her pledging to a god neither he nor she believed in. Apparently the religious are extremely ignorant in legal matters (see it sounds stupid the other way around too.)

      --
      I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
    9. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it is not "just a theory".

      You might question the specifics (For example, what species in particular do we come from, what methods are involved in evolution, or even if natural selection works at all the way it's been described). But there are NO DOUBTS about a very simple fact: Animals fuck, and their offspring is a combination of their DNA. After a long time, species change, new species are created, other disappear. That process eventually created us. That is the simple truth. And we can prove it any way. Just watch two dogs fuck, wait nine months, and tell me what you get. There you go, proof of evolution. Does your son look similar to you? bam! evolution. Kiwi is proof of evolution.

      You might question the specifics, and they might even be wrong, but that doesn't deny the principle behind evolution. "You don't have enough fossils, therefore god created adam and eve" is just plain stupid.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    10. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As to why evolution occurs, it is because the laws of nature are such that it must occur. Any deeper theological or philosophical reason is beyond the scope of science. I think a lot of people misinterpret evolution, I know I did until only a few years ago. For example the phrase "survival of the fittest" can be misinterpreted as though species "want" to survive or survival is a "good" thing. The correct intepretation, however, is that species/individuals with attributes that happen to be suited to survival (through random mutation) survive and thus those attributes are passed on while less "desirable" attributes die out. The only logic or reason behind it is in our own minds.

      As to how it occurs, this is well understood (it follows from natural law) until you get down to the mutation level. I am not a biologist so I am not sure how well the mechanisms involved in individual mutations are understood.

    11. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely. What I don't understand is why all the crackpots that believe in the invisible space-jew would actually care about aliens. Hell, the bible has been proved wrong so many fucking times we've lost count. Dinosaurs, for instance. They would just say "The devil created those aliens" or "god put those aliens there to test your faith", or some other bullshit, just like they do now with all the rest of the stuff they were wrong about.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    12. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disturbed spirituality is common in Atheists (for example, the guy that sued the school board because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the word "God" and he doesn't want his daughter to hear THAT WORD).

      Yikes, so many ad-hominems, and so many attempts at mind-reading. I don't normally dignify such comments with replies, but I'll pinch my nose and make an exception this time.

      I'm not an athiest, and I don't want appeals to "God" or any other "higher power" in our Pledge of Allegiance; the fact that "under God" wasn't even a part of the pledge until 1954 underscores my belief that it doesn't belong there. I don't think "God" belongs on our currency, either, or any other piece of government officialdom. Attempts to retcon the religious belifefs, or lack thereof, of the Founding Fathers aside, I don't think religion or "spirituality" belong in the public sphere.

    13. Re:blah by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you said: Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a little faith.

      What that means: Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a few "harmless" lies told to the little incompetent bastards for their own good, and which coincidentally keepd them from rioting or rebelling against us, the ruling oligarchy.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    14. Re:blah by easterberry · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians.

      I was going to ask what gay people were trying to force down your throat. But I can't think of a way to word it that doesn't sound dirty.

    15. Re:blah by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you're going to quote Adams, at least quote the right bit:

      "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

      "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

      "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

      ---Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is a spoiler alert for all in cyber world and those that believe in tooth fairy like tales. I had complete electrical system heart failure a month & 1/2 ago. I died but kept alive through CPR and later revived. There is no light to "go to" as promoted through hollywood and hearsay. When the switch goes off, so do the lights. The dead know nothing. I know this for a fact, I went there ..

      It has to do with very specific stimulation of the brain. Some people experience it. Most do not. It can be readily created in the lab. Basically your testimony, in this regard, has no basis for commentary on anything as its scientifically proven the, "into the light", phenomenon exists. This is not to say you should believe one way or the other, but your experience proves nothing, one way or the other.

      P.S. Welcome back!

    17. Re:blah by adamstew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Non-religious and strict Atheists tend to have a strong aversion to anything that exists on "faith" and denies reason in strict scientific terms. These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs (really, how do you think medicine got invented? We noticed X + Y vegetable cures chronic pain, and 2000 years later some scientist isolated chemicals that he packaged into a pill as a pain killer...), won't believe that meditation helps reduce stress (non-scientific bullshit, you could just sleep...), etc; anything that doesn't sound like it came out of a lab coat is obvious bullshit.

      I identify myself as what you call a "Non-religious strict athiest" and I don't agree with your statement here.

      I do believe that herbs can provide limited healing powers, in the same way that other over-the-counter and prescription drugs can. As you said, herbs are where almost all drugs have their origins from. I, for one, find a hot cup of decaf tea to be very relaxing. What I don't believe in is snake-oil, miracle cures, and their like...

      It has also been proven that meditation can help with stress. The act of meditation causes your brain to release endorphins that cause your body to change. Meditation can also be healing in that the reduced stress levels help to boost your immune system.

      As an athiest, I do believe in spiritualism. Spiritualism in the sense that you can train your mind to have positive effects on your body, and train your mind to help achieve clarity of perception and understanding of your life, body and it's surroundings.

      As an athiest, I do NOT believe in a god(s), an afterlife, ghosts, or anything super natural. This includes: Faith healers, heaven/hell, vampires/werewolves, prayer, divine intervention, creationism, etc.

    18. Re:blah by EdZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs (really, how do you think medicine got invented? We noticed X + Y vegetable cures chronic pain, and 2000 years later some scientist isolated chemicals that he packaged into a pill as a pain killer...), won't believe that meditation helps reduce stress (non-scientific bullshit, you could just sleep...), etc; anything that doesn't sound like it came out of a lab coat is obvious bullshit.

      A gross misrepresentation and over-generalisation. I personally do not 'refuse to believe in the medicinal properties of herbs'. What I refuse to accept is that chewing on a leaf is somehow more effective than the refined medicine created from that leaf. I have no doubts that the brain'sstate can be affected by meditation, reading a book, playing a videogame, spending time on the firing range, or having a nap.

      Thus these people are ignorant to the portion of the world that has not yet been explained. These people would have been ignorant to the concept that the earth rotates around the sun 500 years ago-- I mean shit, look at the sky, the sun starts at one point in the sky and winds up on the exact opposite side. Obviously it goes around the Earth! And all contemporary reasoning has not explained how in the fuck the earth could be going around the sun, or spinning, so such claims are bullshit.

      I suspect that you may be trolling here. If not, you are demonstrating a remarkable level of ignorance about the basic tenets of scientific thinking.

    19. Re:blah by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FTFS:

      This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.

      One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Or

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      Frankly, I don't buy it that Churchill actually made the church quote. Until someone proves differently, I think someone pulled that out of their ass.

      "The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards, an RAF officer who overheard the discussion, who wrote to the Ministry of Defence in 1999 inquiring about the incident after his grandfather disclosed details to his family."

      So what we have is a story passed down over three generations, related third-hand that Churchill said this. Considering the British public's fear of V-weapon atacks, I can see the panic angle. But the religion angle? That sounds like it made its way into the story over the years. It doesn't sound like something Churchill would say.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    20. Re:blah by tixxit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yet I'm still more than just a complicated chemical reaction, billions of years in the making. Our "self awareness" is not something that can be explained away with current science. Yes, as an outside observer looking in at everyone else, it makes perfect sense; humans (and all animals) are just complicated machines, a bunch of inputs and outputs controlled by a lump of grey matter. But, there is still something there that disconnects you from everyone else; trapped in your head for your ~80 years. I'm not saying this is a soul, but calling people childish, who are merely trying to name something we clearly don't understand, is silly.

    21. Re:blah by Kagura · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note to all readers who are looking for comments about UFOs on this story:

      Scroll down. And I mean WAAAY down, because half of the fucking comments are arguments about religion that have NOTHING to do with this story, regardless of a Churchill one-liner. Seriously, 50% of the comments below are stupid side-bars about religion.

    22. Re:blah by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Belief in God" is quite different from "Belief in what the Church tells you."

      Here's a two-thousand year old quote for you:

      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC -AD 65)

      Churchill was a ruler.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:blah by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time.

      Or, more likely, when confronted by a Christian "forcing their beliefs down your throat," you just don't notice, because it doesn't bother you as much as one of those damn gays trying to force you to not persecute or discriminate against them.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    24. Re:blah by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you are obviously either Christian or an explicit sympathizer, why should we expect Christians to harass you? They are too busy harassing people who don't bow to their religion. I have yet to experience a Vegan knocking on my door asking me to join. In fact, here in the heart of vegan country, I have never been harassed by a vegan. I'm pretty sure you're just making up harassment stories to support your point. You aren't Bill O'Reilly are you?

      --
      Support SETI@home
    25. Re:blah by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > I get harassed for eating meat by vegans 50 times for every one time I get harassed by a Christian.

      The way to shut the Vegans up is to ask "Say, could you tell me what happens if a human baby isn't breastfed or doesn't have milk in the first few months?"

      Any time you take any ideology to its logical conclusion, you end up with fanaticism. Pity that the vocal Vegans are too blind to see this...

    26. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians.

      Really? How so? I can't see how this can be possible. Gays, for example, just want to live normal lives like you and me. Christians wants to force their superstition on gay people by forcing them to live along those superstitious lines. Thankfully people a lot smarter than you have understood that you are not allowed to force your religious views on anybody, and have now told the nutcases in California that everybody is equal, and that consenting adults can marry anybody they wish.

      Remember, when gays demand equal rights, they are not forcing anything at all on you. They are only trying to stop you forcing your superstition on them.

      Please note, when I call your religious views superstition it is not to be mean. They are superstition. All religious views are. By definition.

    27. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder what the Christian nutcases would say if, for example, Hindus started demanding that the federal government protected their particular superstition. I would love to see the proposition in California that banned the eating of beef.

    28. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Atheists" are highly religious--

      Sigh. This comes up every now and then and it is, as what most religious nuts say, pure and utter rubbish. Atheism is religion in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. An atheist doesn't deny the existence of God, he simply refuses to generate a belief system around random ideas. The number of things that are unlikely to exist is exactly infinite. An atheist fails to believe in all of them, God has no special place in that lack of belief. I do not believe in blue midgets that go invisible if you try to look at them. I assume you do not believe in them either. Is that lack of belief of yours a religion?

      Now, to what is often named "strong" atheism, the active denial of the existence of a particular God with a particular set of properties. Once someone gives me a testable hypothesis of "God" and I have falsified it, I will of course know that this particular form of "God" doesn't exist. I do, for example, know that "The God who created the world 6000 years or so ago" does not exist simply because the property "who created the world 6000 years or so ago" has been falsified, the earth is significantly older and the proof is incontrovertible. That particular God I know for sure does not exist. U can't say that about the little blue men in the forest who go invisible when you look at them. I can not say that they do not exist, I just fail to believe in them. As I fail to collect stamps.

      These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs

      Please stop making stuff up. Lying just isn't a good way to conduct a debate. There is not a single atheist in the world who won't believe in something that has well documented effects. Honestly, you are just being childish.

      Thus these people are ignorant to the portion of the world that has not yet been explained.

      Pure and utter rubbish. You really do not know anything at all about science. Anything where there is a viable hypothesis is debated within science, and if you can postulate a theory on it you are golden. The problem is that some people insist on believing stuff that has been proven wrong. Lots of herbs have very good medicinal value, and science makes use of this by detecting what in the specific herb has the actual effect, and then scientists will try to isolate said substance and improve upon it.

      Example - a scientist finds a plant that in some cases prevents the body from rejecting implants (found while walking in the mountains of Norway). He doesn't discover this fact until he gets back to the lab of course, but decades later, hundreds of thousands of implants have succeeded where they would otherwise fail. The plant as such had a moderate effect, when the drug was refined from the plant it had a significantly higher success rate. The scientist would have been an idiot to ignore the real result, and he would have been an even bigger idiot if he had not refined the active ingredient and made it into a pill.

      Because these people have no tolerance for anything that isn't physical, proven, and accepted by hard reasoning, they have no spirituality.

      Ignorant rubbish. Thanks to the people you apparently despise so you are alive and you will grow old. If it wasn't for them you would be dying in your cave waiting for someone to come back with some fire harvested from a lightening strike.

    29. Re:blah by Walkingshark · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very few people consider hearsay alone as credible evidence, especially when all concrete evidence leads to a different conclusion AND the hearsay contains multiple self contradictions.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    30. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      Not to religious faith, there is no evidence. Not a single piece. There isn't even a valid hypothesis let alone a theory.

    31. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah, you just feel more threatened by an atheists disbelief than a theists belief so it seems that way to you.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    32. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh I can answer that easily. They'd say "those goddamn muslims, they're all the same".

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    33. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "their views are based on cold, hard, bloody, rotting, diseased evidence..."

      So - where's this evidence? Do vegans live ten years longer, on average? Twenty years? Maybe they live twice as long as meat eaters? If there are any credible citations, I might consider converting.

      I do know from study and from experience that hard working men, especially in cold climates, need the condensed energy found in meats and meat products. A guy can eat two tons of vegetables, and not have the energy and stamina needed to get through a day's work. Add four to eight ounces of meat to his two tons of vegetables, and he's a new man! In fact, he won't need those two tons of veggies at all - he'll opt for a couple of sensible servings, along with a slice of bread and a piece of pie.

      Of course, I don't expect an audience of nerds and geeks to appreciate that. I know that SOME of the nerds and geeks have worked hard sometime during their lives, but many of you have spent your lives in offices, classrooms, and other sheltered areas, seldom lifting anything heavier than a can of Mountain Dew.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    34. Re:blah by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable - and the gays are demanding that we accept them as equals.

      [Citation needed] on your demographics, first of all.

      Second, I assume what you mean by demand is that they leave no room for refusal, that they are overbearing in their attempts to get you to acknowledge them. If they are being overbearing, or violent, then they are bad people, just as you, or any homophobe, would be wrong in being overbearing or violent to them. Moral issues must always and explicitly go both ways. If they are violent, they are a criminal; if you are, you are. Those who are not being a bad person in any way who are also homosexual (and they are out there; I'd suspect they're the majority) should not be lumped in with the criminals any more than all black people or all businessmen or all {FOREIGN NATIONAL}s should be assumed to be criminals.

      Because it's not actually all that hard to identify criminals. There are some, scammers and the like, that are probably hard to track down, but when you come across someone who likes hurting people, you're going to have an inkling. If the cops in your area are understaffed, corrupt, or stupid, or the jails become nothing more than catch-and-release, then identifying criminals doesn't help, but it's not that hard to tell someone who actually is a decent human being from someone who isn't.

      And because it's not all that hard to tell who the actual bad people are, let me say clearly and distinctly that we don't need people making up rules where if you break those rules "you are a bad person." There are bad people out there. You don't have to pretend. Go out there and go looking; you will find them. It's not hard to tell the difference. If you think gays are bad, go spend a week living with rapists or arsonists or something like that. Those sort of people are not a myth. You do not need to imply that "maybe that gay person is one of those mythical rapists I hear so much about" just because you don't see that side of life. Go find people that have actually been in those terrible situations, and understand through them that there are plenty of bad guys without making more by means of moral statute.

    35. Re:blah by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable

      Who does? You and your two redneck friends?

      Of people I personally know, none find homosexuality any more objectionable than porn.

      Oh, I guess you find porn objectionable, too. Poor guy.

  2. Bad summary by Jay+L · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary says:

    Newly released secret files show that Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber

    It should say:

    Newly released secret files show that the grandson of Winston Churchill once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber"

    Kinda different.

    1. Re:Bad summary by Runefox · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it should say:

      Newly released secret files show that the grandson of one of Winston Churchill's personal bodyguards once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber"

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
  3. He saves the human race time and time again . . . by rev_sanchez · · Score: 5, Funny

    and still the doctor never gets any credit.

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  4. Well, sure. by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    True, the nation might be responding to bitter human enemy's nighttime heavy bomber raids with a stiff upper lip, but I say! An extrasolar tourist on a sightseeing holiday? That is really terrifying.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. It's probably the safe thing to do by joeflies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The world is too caught up that the Earth is the one place for any type of life in the universe, we're not prepared to deal with other possibilities. I think that even the course that NASA is demonstrating now - proving that it's possible that there was water on Mars, opening up the possibility of a discovery of some type of life perhaps long extinct - is preparing the general public to slowly get ready to the idea that there's the existiance of extraterrestrial life. Tin foil hat time - Perhaps NASA already knows that this life exists, but they need to get the public ready for acceptance of it by slowly introducing more and more evidence so that society doesn't lose its marbles.

    1. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The world is too caught up that the Earth is the one place for any type of life in the universe, we're not prepared to deal with other possibilities. I think that even the course that NASA is demonstrating now - proving that it's possible that there was water on Mars, opening up the possibility of a discovery of some type of life perhaps long extinct - is preparing the general public to slowly get ready to the idea that there's the existiance of extraterrestrial life. Tin foil hat time - Perhaps NASA already knows that this life exists, but they need to get the public ready for acceptance of it by slowly introducing more and more evidence so that society doesn't lose its marbles.

      I would argue that the boom in popularity of science fiction/fantasy movies and TV (e.g. E.T., Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, etc.) over the past 40 years has done more to prepare people for the possibility of extraterrestrial life than any NASA press release.

    2. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by dpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll throw one simple belief into the fray:

      The sheer quantity of power required for interstellar flight is so tremendous that if members of a species have too much (How much is too much? I don't know, but I strongly suspect that we're well over the limit right now.) tendency to kill each other, that species will self-destruct before achieving interstellar flight.

      Therefore I suggest that any interstellar travelers that find us will be peaceful.

      One extra supposition is needed - that this is relatively independent of psychology. Some have proposed the rabidly xenophobic hive-mind as a way to be peaceful enough to achieve interstellar travel, yet remain warlike toward what they find out there. I would argue that before you achieve interstellar flight, you've got to get to interplanetary flight. Hive minds remain hive minds through close communication. The bigger supposition is that hive minds cannot remain intact at large (relative to C) distances - they lose the tight communication needed. You wind up with two hive minds talking to each other. What's more, you likely have two hive minds in radically different environments with attending radically different needs. At some point the xenophobia kicks in.

      This leads to a few more things...

      Once you have the technology for interstellar flight, you don't really need planets, or at least not habitable ones. You certainly need mass, and you certainly need metal, but those can come from comets, asteroids, and other uninhabitable places.

      Chances are very good that you're no longer biological. The demands, hazards, and logistics of moving a body around our own solar system are tough enough. Interstellar flight is that much tougher. Assuming we reach Ray's Singularity, we'll simply send Turing images of ourselves. Much simpler, plus you can either turn yourself off or slow your time perception during the boring parts of the trip.

      I also think that planets like ours would remain interesting to interstellar travelers. You don't get our there without curiosity, and there would be a kind of historical interest in planetary life. At the same time, when you study something you try not to interfere with it - you try to minimize our effect on the system, unless you're doing a deliberate cause-effect experiment.

      Perhaps one of the greatest hazards would be some primitive species getting technology that it's not psychologically ready to have. If we were to find and reverse-engineer a functional starship, we might get out there before we've learned to behave ourselves. This bunks my whole argument - give/stolen, as opposed to self-developed interstellar travel.

      Put this together, and you're likely to see interstellar travelers being very careful to avoid contact - something like the Prime Directive. The "test" of developing a warp drive as a requisite for first contact also makes sense in this light. Perhaps the Vulcans had the Right Stuff in their cargo bay to turn the Earth into a cinder had they been too disappointed in us.

      Given that we've been detecting extrasolar planets for a number of years, getting better by the year, it's easy to believe that an interstellar species could detect the Earth and tell that it has life, if they have a suitably clear (not obscured by too much dust or other stars) view.

      So imagine a mission out there in the asteroid belt, a loose association of Turing images from planets around other stars, watching us. They used to be closer, but as our technology has advanced, they've had to move further out. Of course listening to our communications has given still more information perhaps, than they could get before. Imagine for a moment that after hours, they wear their virtual bodies, gather in a virtual bar, and talk about us, perhaps taking bets on how long it'll take us to either destroy ourselves or overcome our juvenile impulses. Maybe they liked "Star Wars", and the virtual bar is straight out of the Mos Eisley Cantina.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  6. Consider that... by minogully · · Score: 5, Funny

    Winston probably called himself "the Church".

  7. Well by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They told the London populace that German V-2 impacts were 'gas pipe' explosions to keep panic down.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:Well by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and the germans had secret experimental jet and stealth aircraft at the time that were never produced in volume due to the allies bombing the germans' industrial capabilities. Northrop had test versions of what is now the B2 back before world war 2 but it had problems back then which is why it took so long to finally make a flying wing design.

  8. Panic by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This could be:
    a. Yet another part of the ever growing, ever large conspiracy to cover up the existence of seeming observational aliens
    b. A maneuver by Churchill to silence a few pilots who didn't want to fly the channel anymore and made up a story to get out of getting themselves blown up. If the story had gotten out (true or not), it would've caused possible panic and more importantly a good reasons for pilots to refuse to fly, this with the backdrop of the a truly catastrophic war.

    Read the article and find that the story is told by the grandson of a guard who overheard a conversation. Wow, that is just brilliant.

    --
    Bye!
  9. Authoritative Sources by Jodka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nope, no room for doubt here. From the article:

    The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards, an RAF officer who overheard the discussion

    Apart from telling his daughter – the scientist’s mother – about the incident when she was nine, the bodyguard, who was “greatly affected by his experience”, only disclosed the details to his wife on his deathbed in 1973.

    The scientist, also an expert in astronomy who said he developed software for use in "spacecraft thermal engineering", was told years later by his mother.

    Stressing he was not a “crackpot”...

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  10. Let's be clear by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even assuming this nth hand story is true, UFO aliens. It could just as easily be one of Hitler's various secret experiments or any number of less exciting things.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Let's be clear by easterberry · · Score: 3, Funny

      He was just covering for The Doctor when the Tardis went into space to destroy the Dalek ship.

  11. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by romu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doctor who ?

  12. Why the big fuss? by bcmm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    WWII produced quite a lot of UFO stories, and the event in the article sound pretty much like a foo fighter, which are a pretty well-documented, if unexplained, phenomenon. In other words, there are dozens of similar stories which nobody has made any effort to cover up.

    Also, the article annoys me greatly be implicitly equating UFOs with extraterrestrial spacecraft throughout:

    Another person at the meeting raised the possibility of a UFO

    Really? During a meeting discussing an unidentified flying object?

    The comment about the Church implies that the object was assumed to be extraterrestrial, which is perhaps the least plausible bit: why would a group of military experts assume such a thing?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  13. Re:First thing that comes to mind by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except that never happened, at least not at that scale, at all. Just fantasy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)#Public_reaction

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  14. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes.

    --
    That is all.
  15. UFO =! Alien Ship by muindaur · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's:

    1) Atmospheric reflection(hmm five lights moving really fast can't be a five fighter formation?)
    2) Many bombers encountered ball lightning in WWII but because of lack of science education classified them as UFOs
    3) Astronauts aren't seeing aliens.
    4) X Planes: Flying wings were classified as aliens but have been in development since WWII. Area 51 was just a base for testing classified military aircraft.
    5) Alien abductions are a) mass hysteria and b) usually involve some sort of dream or psychotic episode.
    6) Roswell was established as a military x-plane crash at a later date. (The aliens being test pilots in jump suits some drunken hick though were aliens.)