Talk:Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience/sr

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Mister, prepare to receive the message you've been waiting for in 2 terrestrian days. [^0^]

I originally started to research the original posting about the radio show. As I researched it more, gathering links and sources, I discovered no Wiki entries on the topic. So I thought to start the article, and see if others want to contribute too. :)

Have at it..... good luck. :)

--Iain 23:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any information that links this with MJ-12? Justin Alvarez Jr. 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some rumors from abovetopsecret.com that it may in fact be a viral marketing attempt of some sort for an upcoming video game, or maybe movie. "Heated Debate" doesn't quite even explain what's going on. This thing is getting a lot of attention in some circles. Even worse, I'm seeing now on there that it may be a Scientology related attention scam! 206.103.66.134 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved this article from

You'll find some relation to MJ12 papers in the background material about Richard Doty and William Moore located here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread196912/pg1'

As you can see ATS was very thorough in testing the material. Garyo1954 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the page. For what it's worth I think this page should remain. Wikipedia is at its best when all topics are covered. James Frankcom

"Bill Ryan believes that the story has credibility partially because some of the physics don't add up, and if someone was fabricating it all, they would have presented more consistent details." I had the best all-by-myself laugh I've had an a while at this sentence :). Marskell 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Classic featherheaded pseudo-scientific thinking. I also liked "to date, no hoax has been proven..." so therefore it must be all true. What rot. Canonblack 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill Ryan as the main culprit of the entire hoax may well want people to believe whatever he wants, even if it defies the most basic laws of science, common decency and society. Shame on you, Bill Ryan!!!201.19.150.100 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the wikipedia editors please ban Bill Ryan, the primary hoaxer involved with Project Serpo, from continually editing-out true, verified information about project Serpo? It's getting ridiculous that he keeps removing content on the page relating to the participation of known UFO personna such as Kit Green and Hal Puthoff. The guy is simply trying to use wikipedia as a source of publicity for his nonsensical story. Bill Ryan has his own website (Serpo.org) -- let him post his skewed and intellectually dishonest version of this hoax on HIS site, not here in a source where verification and neutrality are required for every entry in the Wikipedia namespace.

• • • • User Warning -- I've asked the person posting from 75.18.188.89 to STOP removing other editors entries into this namespace. This is violation of the NPOV policy and is bordering on Vandalism.

• • • • I confirmed that the person posting from this IP address is Bill Ryan, the webmaster of the Project Serpo website. This clearly shows that this "anonymous" editor is attempting to skew the bias of the article away from the true perception of the editors. Please take appropriate action.

July 13, 2006 - I have now edited this page once again as Bill Ryan continues to ignore the rules, and warnings given to him. Please take appropriate action now.

I found this page to confirm that Bill Ryan, the "anonymous" posting from 75.18.188.89, is selling a DVD about Project Serpo. That explains why he's so adamant about violating the rules here and revising other editors comments. See the following: http://www.ufocongressstore.com/servlet/the-260/Bill-Ryan-%28U.K.%29-Presents/Detail Nomoreserpo 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, all - this is Bill Ryan here, and it's my first contribution to the talk page, written on 28 July. This is actually the first time I've visited this page as well; I'm only just learning how Wikipedia works, or is meant to work.

I need to make some clear statements.

1) It's my purpose to present the Serpo claims and counter-claims in a balanced light. What I advocate is that the story should be heard and considered. My understanding is that that's what Wiki is for, as others have mentioned.

2) I'm NOT selling DVDs. More than five seconds' look at the site Nomoreserpo cited makes it clear that this DVD is being sold by the UFO Congress which hosted the event at which I spoke. I've never sven seen the DVD, didn't know it was being sold, was unaware of that page till it was cited here, and haven't received anything from any sales. You'll also see, if you look through their menu, that they are also selling the DVDs of every other presenter as well. For goodness sakes!!! Get the facts right. That poor degree of attention to detail belies the degree to which the criticizer(s) may be understanding or correctly following the details of the story.

3) I deleted the sentences, and in one case, I believe, a paragraph, which were untrue and malicious. My editing was a response to the vandalism of others. It's not vandalism to clean up unpleasant graffiti.

If one cannot do that, it's a weakness of Wiki as that leads the door open to anyone being able to write anything at all, no matter how crass or unfounded... and then it has to stand indelibly. That can't be the right way to go. Wiki is not (or should not be) a cheap-and-easy bulletin board for anyone to say anything they like at any time about anyone, without malicious sections being able to be removed by those who are offended or slurred. Appropriate deletion is an integral part of editing. You can't edit without it. (Ask any editor..)

4) To the debunkers: Why are you so virulent in your attacks? Why are you hiding behind anonymous usernames? Contact me personally, meet me or phone me (...but I bet you won't). The only reason I edit anonymously is beause one doesn't have to log in to make corrections and logging in is a hassle. Everything I say or write is out in the open. I do not post on forums anonymously or using false multiple usernames.

5) I'm grateful that the page has been stubbed. It may even be best as it stands. At least the sole statement there is true and is one with which everyone will agree! I really don't mind too much leaving it like that at all. I'm willing to rewrite the article, and have ample information with which to do so, but it all takes time.

Best wishes to all, Bill

Worst wishes and good riddance!

I have nominated this article to be reviewed and checked for neutrality. Some of the editors are of the belief that Project Serpo is a hoax. This has not been proven yet. Therefore one can't simply label it a hoax without proof. Since Project Serpo hasn't been proven to be true or hoaxed, unbiased neutrality must be used when editing this page. Shawnna Connolly and Nomoreserpo obviously have lost all neutrality concerning this article. if they persist, I recommend that they be banned from Wikipedia.

COMMENT FROM NOMORESERPO: Nonsense! The POV and Verification apply to the STORY. Show proof that Serpo isn't just some science fiction story being told by Kit Green, Rick Doty, and Bill Ryan. The burden is on YOU to bring forth proof, not the researchers.

COMMENT FROM SUESS: Serpo is an outlandish story being presented by an anonymous source. Just because you think it is a hoax doesn't mean the story can't be told. Where is proof of a hoax. Try neutrality, my friend. Wikipedia is not the place for de-bunkers. And your name implies as much. Go back to your forum and leave this to the Administrators.

COMMENT FROM PAUL: What's with you debunkers? It's pathetic, truly. You're just as guilty of perpetuating your own agenda by trying desperately to have this info removed as you claim Bill Ryan is for making this information available, REGARDLESS of its accuracy. The point is, its VALIDITY is worth something. In my years of research, one thing all debunkers have in common is a passion-fueled effort to nay-say information without providing any proof that there are any falsities present. Hey, even the theory of evolution is a THEORY, yet to be fully proven (still waiting on that fossil record to fill in those blanks)... but hey, there's info there, there's curiosity, there's enough to make one think. Project Serpo makes for a very interesting story, and as of right now, you can't prove its truth one way or another. It's the idea behind freedom... what good is censorship going to prove here? In truth, it is you who is afraid (perhaps unready to mentally accept) the outcome of something like this ultimately proving to be true. They're psychological issues on your part, not issues revolving around the sinister plots of Mr.Ryan, who, despite your best efforts to make it seem otherwise, is only reporting information he believes we have a right to know. What's wrong with that? Ignorance is bliss? I disagree. Bring on the truth, regardless of how scary it may or may not be. Yay "Suess", Booo "Nomoreserpo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.105.247 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Shawnna Connolly and nomoreserpo are utilizing this page to promulgate their own agenda and propaganda regarding Serpo. They have gone beyond the realm of stating opinion into the arena of creating fiction. They do not reference their statements to any articles, publications or publicly accepted discussion of the subject matter.

Their one obscure reference is to RealityUncovered, which is a miniscule and biased website designed to bash the Serpo subject matter through innuendo, misrepresentations and coincidental information portrayed as fact. Miss Connolly is a self-described co-owner at this web site and nomoreserpo is believed to be in the employ of Mark Allin (aka - "Springer) a backer of the site and co-owner of another anti-Serpo web site, ATS.

I request the editors of Wikipedia to address this very serious breach of protocol of the edit and content rules for posting here at Wikipedia.

=========================================

I nominate this article for deletion. Serpo is pure nonsense. Just because some people want to claim their story about visiting an alien planet is true, doesn't make it so. They need to prove it. They have not. All of the evidence points to a hoax. Nomoreserpo 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Serpo is trash.

Prove it! Prove that Serpo is trash. You can't. You're skeptics reacting to a complicated issue that presents an inherent fear in you, because you aren't mentally capable of dealing with such a thing being true. "Serpo is trash" - what kind of an opinionated, non-referenced, non-researched, ultimately NEGATIVE AND CLOSE-MINDED statement is that? I happen to be researching the Serpo incident independently, and right now, it's the word of former high ranking officials versus the fears of a skeptical, conservative, close-minded group of debunkers who, in their nature, strive to great lengths to disprove things like this. It's bias! How can you make such strong statements on something that others have spent hours, nay, days researching, based on..... an article on a debunker's website that took you 10 minutes to read? For shame!

Prove that God exists? Oh wait, we can't? Well, we'd better eliminate all posts on the site that refer to God too, because clearly those articles are only perpetuating false mythologies. I'm being sarcastic.

As human beings, have we uncovered every truth of the universe? Certainly not! So, what happens as we uncover more, piece by piece? Do we dismiss it immediately because it intrudes on what we had previously believed, or do we prepare ourselves for such changes? What was the world like before we believed in a helio-centric solar system, for example? What would happen if you told someone living in the year 1345 that you could build a craft that could fly like a bird and they told you to prove it? Of course, 600 plus years later, knowledge of how airplanes work is almost common place. Does that mean that for all intents and purposes that airplanes were an impossibility in 1345? No, the technology just wasn't there yet. Same could be said here. You demand proof that Serpo is true, but will only accept proof that perhaps isn't attainable yet. This isn't how one goes about finding the truth. It's how one perpetuates a selfish agenda for their own peace of mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.105.247 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Having previously reverted blanking of this article, I have looked the article over and it is in serious need of references and citations. I have removed the unnecessary statements about editors and others (that could have been construed as

My advice to the editors of this article is to discuss changes on this talk page before making them, as

Through collaboration and parties on both sides agreeing to changes before they are made should resolve the problems. By adding references and citations this article will improve somewhat. Obviously there are those that think it is real, those that think it is a hoax, and those that are involved in the off-wikipedia discussions of Project Serpo on forums, etc. Probably the best example of neutrally including all parties views in an article would be

Good luck, —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (I'm not going to be able to respond to messages as quickly as I have previously. This is because my laptop has been sent off for a major repair and I don't expect to have it back until late September).

I went ahead with several edits earlier today. The changes are all quite minor, though they may collectively look significant. The copy changes are, I think, quite trivial and purely for readability. I had a couple of bigger content changes I was going to make, but after reading TheJC's advice I decided to leave them for now.

So are there any reliable sources that can be cited for some of the claims made in this article? I searched via Google and found one or two which look fairly reputable (such as this American Chronicle article). But I'm not especially familiar with the politics of the ufology field. As with other UFO topics, Project Serpo reference material does seem to be quite thin on the ground. And I'm sure more knowledgeable people than me have tried to find such material before. --Careax 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some more changes. As you can see, these consist of a couple of references (including the one above) and an info box. I think the two references are fairly NPOV (or as close as one can get given the subject matter). The second one in particular raises some valid criticisms with regards to a leading source of the Project Serpo story, and these could be elaborated on in the 'Criticisms' section. --Careax 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have stubbed the article in response to complaints sent to

The second paragraph can reference the Mysteries Magazine article that I added to this page a few days ago. I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to 'take a side' on this topic, but just improve this article in as objective a way as possible. I've tried to keep my text as NPOV as possible. If anyone has constructive feedback it would be welcomed. --Careax 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now posted these additions to the article. --Careax 07:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article makes no mention of mainstream scientists' reactions. Have there been any? It seems that, if this story were true, it would be disproving special relativity, so I could imagine that there would be strong reactions from the scientific community. Nyttend 15:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a UFO conspiracy story. Why would mainstream scientists comment on it? - perfectblue (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add Reality Uncovered's Serpo page to the external links section. The page contains important information about those who disseminated this information in the first place. Reality Uncovered Serpo Investigation

I will also be making an edit to the Wiki article to reflect the information contained in the link at RU.

Thanks RealityUncovered (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Now let me start by saying that anyone that believes anything that Doty, et al says is completely mad (especially after poor old Bennewitz)- or a lover of 23 but that's another matter.

However, the criticism section; it is nothing but original research. Indeed, it reads like a rather weak essay. Can we get some quotes and sources in here? The "new" ufologists don't believe a word of this tripe so it shouldn't be difficult to get some authority to this argument. Indeed, the "older" generation must have said something? Friedman, etc? The7thdr (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe a word of it but I think it has at least as much right to be here as Sitchin's planets. Serendi^podous 08:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)