Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Carter UFO incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interview with President Carter About the Incident

[edit]

President Carter clears up some things about the incident in a newly recorded (July 2007) interview on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, a science podcast. Anyone willing to incorporate the information from the interview in this article is welcome to do so. The particular show which contains the interview can be found on the following address: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=105 195.38.3.185 12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I can give a couple more references, if needed. It is mentioned in the Jimmy Carter article. In fact, that article used to explain how it was identified as the planet Venus, but that has been removed from the article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see if it survives the AfD. Not much sense in putting in the references if the whole article is going to be deleted in a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 17:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, putting in the references could help it survive the AfD - I've helped articles survive that way. If you care about this article, Bubba73, help it! Totnesmartin 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't voted one way or the other, because I haven't decided. Other people can do research too. Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy disputed

[edit]

There is a factual inaccuracy in the article, and many facts are omitted. Bubba73 (talk), 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the date is wrong. Bubba73 (talk), 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that is the date on the report, but that is not the correct date of the sighting. Bubba73 (talk), 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What IS the correct date, and why haven't you added it on. Please stop tagging and just fix the page. - perfectblue 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed the page because I don't think it should be changed while it is up for deletion. People have voted on kee[/delete based on a particular version of the article. It has been known for 30 years that October isn't the correct month. Bubba73 (talk), 13:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the correct date. FYI, it's perfectly normal to edit a page up for Afd. In fact over Afd is often one of the periods that pages see the most radical expansions in some cases. You improve things in order to get people to vote to keep the page. Unless you can find a reliable source pronto, I'm taking that tag down and using the date that Carter gave on the original document - perfectblue 14:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the "January" date, I have found nothing other than rumor/hearsay/anecdotal accounts to support it. I am detagging accordingly, if you wish to dispute this, please provide evidence that there is a realistic dispute.
perfectblue 10:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript

[edit]

Is there a typed transcript of the report? The text on the pages is hard to read, and not all of us are used to reading cursive western scripts or English.

perfectblue 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have one. It is in a book though. Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be a copyright violation. In fact, the current scan of Carter's form may be a copytight violation. The info on those images says that it is OK because he was a government employee, or something like that. However, he didn't do that in his official capacity, so I think it may be a copyright violation. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright. Note: This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." (emphasis added). He was doing at as individual, and he was not even in the federal government until four years later. Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The info on the scans in the article now says that it was the work of the federal government, but it wasn't. Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There must be some way to supress it - can't we just remove it? Duck! Fisent 04:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • why would we remove the pictures? the pictures help add significance to the article by showing the subject at hand with more clarity of description. he released it to the public, the scans come from his library (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The documents are now officially part of the state maintained Jimmy Carter Library collection, I was under the impression that this meant that they had been released as a government documents for he purposes of copyright, and if even a single FOIA request has been made they are PD - perfectblue 07:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been a contender?

[edit]

The article says "then a contender for the governorship of Georgia". The sighting was in early Jan 1969 and the Jimmy Carter article speaks of his 1970 campaign for governor (fall 1970 election, Jan 1971 take office). Therefore I'm not sure if he was a contender for governor at the time. The stated reason of his speech at the meeting was to boost the Lion's Club, not a political speech. Therefore I'm changing the wording of the sentence. If there is a WP:RS saying that he was a contender then, it can be changed back. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other references

[edit]

While I have them assembled, I decided to list other references that aren't used in the article. I saw no need to use them as a reference, because it might seem like overkill. I didn't list them under "further reading" because they don't add anything not in the references used (two books by Scheaffer, plus Peebles and Story). The other references are:

  • Robert Bartholomew and George Howard, UFOs & Alien Contact, page 194
  • Philip J. Klass, UFOs: The Public Deceived, pages 79 and 297
  • Paul Kurtz, Skeptical Odysseys, pages 136-37
  • Moseley, James W.; Pflock, Karl T. (2002), Shockingly Close to the Truth!: Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1-57392-991-3 page 232

And the following two books mention the sighting but don;t give the details of the date, location, or idintification:

  • The UFO Magazine UFO Encyclopedia, by William Birnes, Pocket Books, 2004, ISBN 0-7434-6674-8
[edit]
  • Sheaffer has text from several articles. This used to be a reference in the article.
  • Carter library interview - this is an interview with someone from the Carter Library. In it, they mention that it was identified as a "planet or something".

    Every library gets investigations about unidentified flying objects from time to time. President Carter had, earlier in his career, before he was President, turned in an official report of having sighted something. That ended up in one of the tabloids, I think, when he was running for President or when he was President, and that drew attention to the fact that he turned in this report. Of course, since he was trained as a scientist, why, people felt that he would have great credibility on this issue. I think, as I recall, the scientists had studied it and decided it was a planet or something like that.

    Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

[edit]

CNN reported what Carter said. This is verifyable and CNN is a reliable source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the video and it's about 3:30 into it.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to think that Miles O'Brien made up the part about Carter's doubts. He is stating what Carter said that isn't in the few seconds that are in the final report. When a TV interview is done, only a small part of it make it on screen. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, if CNN reporter Miles O'Brien says on the air "President Obama is going to sign the bill", should the article say that Miles O'Brien said that the President said that? No, it should say that the President said that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. O'Brien simply states "Carter doubts what he saw was an alien craft". That doesn't necessarily mean that Carter had explicitly said he doubts what he saw was an alien craft but could simply be O'Brien's conclusion based upon what Carter did say. Unless Carter said, which we don't know, that he doubts what he was an alien craft, we should recognise that someone other than O'Brien might reach a different conclusion regarding Carter's comments and get the impression that Carter thought it might have been an alien craft. This is why I think we have to be careful not to imply that O'Brien's statement can be considered a direct quote of what Carter has said. Adambro (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the standard technique of a TV interview. My wife and father have been interviewed on TV a few times. They show only a tiny fraction of what they tape in the final on-screen report. They intermix clips of the person being interviewed with the reporter saying what the person said. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, rather than saying that it rained yesterday, we should say that the weatherman said that it rained yesterday? Or it is our opinion that the weatherman said that it rained yesterday? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless O'Brien can be proven to be an habitual liar, the notion that we have to qualify it by saying "O'Brien said Carter said" seems like hair-splitting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - what if everywhere in Wikipedia the articles said that the reporter said that so-and-so said something, rather what the person said (with a reference). The CNN report is a reference to what Carter said. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that O'Brien interviewed Carter - it was probably someone else. That needs to be in the article. We don't know who wrote the copy that O'Brien is reading - that needs to be in the article. We don't know who operated the camera when Carter was interviewed - that needs to be in the article. Sarcasm mode off. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on Jimmy Carter, "he does not believe it was an alien spacecraft, but rather believes it was likely some sort of military experiment being conducted from a nearby military base".[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm yet to be convinced that "Carter is quoted as doubting" or similar is accurate. If O'Brien is quoting Carter, where is the quote? All O'Brien said is that "Carter doubts what he saw was an alien craft". That isn't the same thing as saying "Carter said he doubts what he saw was an alien craft" which "Carter is quoted as doubting" or similar would imply. I am not suggesting at all that O'Brien is lying, rather that he perhaps isn't quoting directly what Carter said but his own assessment of Carter's comments. There is a difference between "Carter has said he doubts", and simply "Carter doubts". One is explicit that it was Carter who said he doubts something, the other might be a judgement of his comments that someone else made. Adambro (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is "paraphrasing" what Carter said. It is not O'Brien's opinion that Carter has those doubts - Carter must have said it. And O'Brien is just reading it. O'Brien is not making a judgment about Carter's beliefs. I didn't want to say that Carter was quoted, but the other editor put the words in O'Brien's mouth - not Carter's. I'd rather leave O'Brien out. Carter doubts that it was an alien spacecraft - period. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And WP is supposed to use secondary sources. CNN is the secondary source for this. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough, I've cut it back to the simple statement as it was pre the edits by Imagguk. Adambro (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply bull and I don't accept the rationale of Bubba73. We do not know if O'Brien is a liar or not- it's beside the point, another topic for discussion if you may. Neither does it matter that some reporters show only fractions of an interview . What I am saying is that by attributing O'Brien's statement (re: that Carter believes that the UFO was not an alien spacecraft) as Carter's when the latter did not say so in the video interview is incorrect. I think that if a transcript of the interview containing said quote cannot be provided, then this video is not a credible support for O'Brien's (and Bubba73's probably?) assertion. It should be removed if Wikipedia has to assert credibility in referencing.Imagguk (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the additional reference from the Skeptics' Guide (a very biased source on this topic, I may say), what Carter, in fact, was saying was that as a scientist by training he never thought of the existence of extraterrestrial beings on a ship from outer space when he saw that light..an object which flew..He didn't actually say that what he saw was not an alien spacecraft. He also said that they never heard anything..a helicopter.. resembling human aircraft..silence as the object flew..thus debunking the idea of a secret military aircraft. Funnier even when the host inserted the idea of Venus which he was quick enough to dispel, lol.Imagguk (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

Bubba73 is committing vandalism to this entry. He doesn't argue convincingly of his reasons for his reverts and edits and his purported links can't be found.Imagguk (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

Bubba73 is continuing vandalism by reverting my edits without clarification. I question his impartiality in making edits on this page. He is even reporting that I'm the one committing vandalism without warning me. It's funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagguk (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism according to Wikipedia: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited.

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing.

Upon their discovery, revert vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing user. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing. When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning.

Bubba73's action of labeling me as a vandal is incorrect. As clearly said above, "edit warring is not vandalism". I appeal to Wikipedia to look carefully into this and instead review the merits of my argument concerning my edits. Imagguk (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Bubba73 need to stop describing each others edits as vandalism, they're not, and start trying to reach an agreement here instead of just undoing each others edits. Edit warring may not be vandalism but you both risk getting blocked for doing it. Since I don't want that to happen, I've instead protected this page to encourage you to discuss any issues here. Adambro (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

problem with sentence

[edit]

There are two problems with the last sentence of the introduction: "As a scientist by training, Carter did not think of it as an extraterrestrial spacecraft. However, he also dispelled the idea that it was a secret military aircraft or the planet Venus as skeptics had suggested."

  1. In the interview, Carter says that he does think it was a military aircraft
  2. It needs to be made clear that "as a scientist by training" are Carter's words, since he was trained as an engineer, not a scientist. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting somebody is different from trying to put words in her/his mouth. If you listen closely to the intervew, Carter did not say anything to the effect that he thought the UFO was a military aircraft, despite the deterministic questioning of his interviewers. In fact, he negated this claim by saying that while the object was so close, it did not produce any sound like any human aircraft would do.

On your second point, a scientist is defined broadly as someone who uses systematic means to acquire knowledge. If he was an engineer as you say, he surely qualifies as a scientist. By the way, he trained also in nuclear physics so that may qualify him as a scientist in the strictest sense of the word.

To be objective is to reveal what a person really meant to say and not to select some parts because they fit your version of the truth. It is up to the readers to discern for themselves given the evidence.Imagguk (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft can be far enough away that you don't hear anything. Carter says that Fort Benning was in the direction of what he saw. And he "...surmised that it might be something being tested..." Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewee's question was: "Have you any idea of what you may have seen?" Carter replied, "I don't really know." He said that while Fort Benning was nearby which would imply some military testing, he said that "we never heard anything (2x)" which would suggest it to be some form of human aircraft like a helicopter (because the object came very close to them). He concluded by saying, "I never have been able to assess.. even all the years that have passed, exactly what it might have been."Imagguk (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right - he says that he doesn't know exactly what it was. An aircraft can be so far away that you can't hear it. Carter says that he surmised that it was something being tested [from Fort Benning]. "Surmised" means that is what he thinks it was, even though he doesn't have proof. As the person on the podcast said, Carter chooses his words carefully. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mapquest, it is about 87 miles from where Carter was to Ft. Benning. So any aircraft near Ft. Benning would be many miles from Carter. (Also Venus doesn't make any sound.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are not being sensible or you have not carefully listened to your source. We are quoting Carter here not the skeptics, not me, not you nor anyone else. He concluded that part of the interview by saying that "I never have been able to assess.. even all the years that have passed, exactly what it might have been." Not a human vehicle from Benning or wherever nor the planet Venus.Imagguk (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listened carefully several times. Of course he doesn't know exactly what it was - all he saw was a light in the sky. His on words said that he "surmised" that it was a military aircraft. The word "surmised" means that you think that it is true, but you don't have proof. Let's quote Carter in the sentence and and use his wording about what he surmised, and readers will understand what he said. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be dense. When he said he or they "surmised", he meant that on the context of prior knowledge of a possible explanation (Fort Benning which is a far 87 miles away as you've said) . However, he and his fellow witnesses quickly dispelled this initial explanation when the UFO approached at a proximate distance (meaning very close) and "made no sound at all". That's why he said, in the end, he never knew what it was. Listen carefully to your source again. Imagguk (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your edit shows your bias towards the skeptics' explanations and not Carter's own words. Quote him but don't put words in his mouth. You ignore my intellectual dissection of the interview. Your reasoning is faulty. Therefore, I reverse it.Imagguk (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagguk doesn't seem to quite understand how things work around here. Where there are disagreements then we don't edit war, disagreements should be resolved through discussion. When, as seems to be the case here, agreement can't be reached, then you shouldn't continue to impose your view of how the article should be, it should be left alone. On the expiry of the page protection, Bubba73 seems to have made an attempt to address the concerns raised by rewording. Imagguk's response is just to revert that back. We don't seem to really be making any progress. Adambro (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put words in Carter's mouth. There are about three sentences in the introduction that summarize exactly what he said in the interviews. You can transcribe the entire thing in the body of the article if you want to. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fine line between understanding what's been said and pretending to understand what's been said. Having said that, allow me to elaborate on my position. If any of the moderators really care about what's being written here, they should try to check the references that people put. I listened to the interview of Carter and this is the gist of what he said: It was a UFO and he did not know what it was. It wasn't Venus nor a military aircraft. Now, Bubba quotes Carter as if the latter is dumb. Read his text: Carter said that he thinks that it is not possible that it was an alien spacecraft. He also does not think it was the planet Venus as has been suggested. He surmised that it might have been a military aircraft but says that he doesn't know exactly what it was. The first sentence is a blooper: Carter said that he thinks. Carter said or CArter thinks is better. And I still insist that he thought of it, as he explicitly said, as a scientist by training. That's why this line should be included. On the second sentence, who suggested that it was Venus? Skeptics. That's why it should be also added. Now the third sentence really makes Carter look like dumb. I'm sure he will not be pleased reading this. As I've said before, he and his companions surmised it probably came from Benning but when it came very close (proximate) to them, it made no sound like any aircraft would do. Therefore, ergo, he did not think it was a human aircraft. In the end, he said, he does not know what it was. If moderators really care about the veracity of what's being written here then they should look at our arguments and investigate instead of merely relying on technicalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagguk (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Third opinion. You both seem to interpret the interview differently and both put forward more than was said explicitly. If you cannot agree on the interpretation of a primary source, defer to secondary sources that discuss it. If no secondary sources discuss it, neither should we. --Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree on what the primary source said. The only secondary source for it that I know is the discussion on the rest of the podcast. There they say that Carter said that he thought it was a military aircraft. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imagguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been created specifically to argue this minor matter. That does not strike me as a good-faith situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Single-purpose account. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There goes the classic smearing method of labeling. I am a person who just wanted to contribute something, not a robot 'created' to argue a 'minor matter'. Just because I am only editing this entry doesn't mean that I am a 'single-purpose account'. I am new to Wikipedia. FYI, I'm a student doing my MSc.

Let me offer another perspective: what if the original editors of this entry, e.g. Bubba, specifically worked on this topic to present a "single point of view" since he or they insist on maintaining wording that goes beyond what was said in the interview. This violates the second pillar of Wikipedia which is neutrality.

Vassyana, have you listened to the podcast? Please do and you will understand why I insist on my points of argument. I am not arguing for arguments' sake.Imagguk (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put in those extra sentences in the lead section to try to appease you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find a secondary source for what Carter said in the interviews, so I'm going to follow the advice in the third opinion above and remove the contentious material. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

[edit]

Why would his "knowledge of physics had meant he had not believed himself to be witnessing an alien spacecraft"?203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the theory of Relativity - and the enormous, beyond-the-understanding-of-amateurs amount of energy required to accelerate even one gram of matter to relativistic speeds, let alone a spacecraft (and the incredible problems of STOPPING such a vehicle) ... the gulf between the stars is beyond any conventional idea of travel, without resorting to science-fiction type speculation.50.111.15.21 (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is (or was) this Bureau?

[edit]

As near as I can tell, this article and small sections on other pages about this incident are the only times this "International UFO Bureau" is mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Is there any verifiable information that this group actually existed? The only thing I can find that's close is Albert K. Bender's International Flying Saucer Bureau, which only lasted from 1952 to 1953. Was this group that existed in 1969 known for taking record of similar incidents? Or were they just some group out of a guy's basement somewhere in Georgia that claimed to be legit? Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Carter_UFO_incident&oldid=1234719303"