Churchill Accused of Sealing UFO Files, Fearing Public Panic

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.'"

Comments

blah

[Pojut]

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?

Re:blah

[kalirion]

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."

Re:blah

[Pojut]

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."

 

Re:blah

[Alyred]

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

Re:blah

[darien.train]

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.)

Re:blah

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

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.

Re:blah

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

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.

Re:blah

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:blah

[gestalt_n_pepper]

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.

Re:blah

[easterberry]

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.

Re:blah

[EdZ]

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.

Re:blah

[DesScorp]

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.

Re:blah

[Kagura]

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.

Re:blah

[bill_mcgonigle]

"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.

Re:blah

[scot4875]

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

Re:blah

[terjeber]

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.

Re:blah

[Walkingshark]

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.

Re:blah

[terjeber]

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.

Re:blah

[x2A]

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

Re:blah

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

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.

Bad summary

[Jay L]

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.

Re:Bad summary

[Runefox]

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"

He saves the human race time and time again . . .

[rev_sanchez]

and still the doctor never gets any credit.

It's probably the safe thing to do

[joeflies]

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.

Re:It's probably the safe thing to do

[timholman]

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.

Consider that...

[minogully]

Winston probably called himself "the Church".

Panic

[ADRA]

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.

Authoritative Sources

[Jodka]

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”...

Re:He saves the human race time and time again . .

[romu]

Doctor who ?

Re:He saves the human race time and time again . .

[frank_adrian314159]

Yes.