Talk:Southern Television broadcast interruption/Archive 1

Question
This is also a religious "cult", anyone care to fill out the article?

The damn things right! There is no God! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.184.219.171 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reformatting
I have done some editing work on the main entry. I reformatted some of the text to improve readability, added a section for inline citations per WP:MOS, provided a few extra source citations and finally, reformatted the External links section. Cheers.

-- Labyrinth13 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever pulled this prank was a genius
Yeah. So when does the statute of limitations run out such that the person/people who did this could say they did it without fear of being arrested? Or has it already ended? Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Genius? it was only a minor regional station... There is no Statute of limitations in the UK (except in contract law), but I can't see the police being interested in a 30-year-old minor broadcasting offence. It's safe to come out now guys! unless it really was Vrillon... :) Totnesmartin 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

no other channels
The assertion that there are sounds from other channels picked up towards the end is incorrect. The whole thing is ITV (Southern TV franchise area) from beginning to end. The sounds after the news are various adverts and then you hear the Southern TV ident music (a short acoustic guitar riff) and then the Looney Tunes theme. Southern TV was merely showing a cartoon after the news. It was quite common for these old cartoons to be shown as filler on British TV at the time. There are no other channels being picked up. The fact that the ident music is played before an old cartoon which would have been a non-networked programme confirms it. Lots of the American youtube commenters erroneously assume this to be a radio broadcast because there are no visuals, which is irritating. Probably no version with the visuals exists as most people did not have video recorders in 1977. A pity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.157.165 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthurvasey (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, other than minor unnoticeable disturbance of picture in the outlying areas of the transmitter served, the picture itself was not affected by the alien (?) transmission. Viewers saw Southern Television pictures normally - news, local news, local sport, ads and the cartoon - the sound was this voice, wherever it came from.

Somehow, somebody has managed to not only capture, in sound only, ITN newsreader Andrew Gardner (some people reckon it was Ivor Mills, but I remember seeing the item on the late news read by Andrew Gardner), then he is faded out, the interference cuts in like a radio tuning in, the strange beats, "Vrillon"'s message, then, towards the end, Southern tries to cut back in - you can hear bits of news, sport, ads and the Southern music in the background, then the cartoon - but also they have captured the end of the cartoon, and the announcer's apologies for interference on sound.

A few seconds later, we hear, in audio only, Andrew Gardner's account of what happened earlier on - that is later replaced by the midnight news from IRN (Independent Radio News) and their account.

Question
why did nobody come forward? And can they do it again? If they can, what is holding them back? Maybe they are expecting an answer....So what is holding us back to give one? Why don't we give an answer back with the same excact message directed to space? If somebody can answer some of these quesions. I hope you're it our somebody who thought about it our somebody who can make it so. Please feel free to give an answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.49.9 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Did this event ever happen or was it just made up one day?
After an extensive search on LexisNexis, I can find no newspaper or magazine articles that have ever reported this purported event. Consequently I suspect there was no such broadcast interruption and the event itself has been made up. If anyone can provide a verifiable newspaper report in a reliable unbiased source this would be helpful.—Ash (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After checking through all the crappy self-published sources and removing them one by one, this incident definitely never happened. All MP3 files and video relating to it are obvious fakes. Transcripts that have been reproduced on a couple of self published website have contradicted each other. No newspapers dating from 1977 reported any such incident. I have nominated this rubbish madeup article for deletion.—Ash (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No British newspapers from 1977 are on LexisNexis. The incident was covered extensively in local newspapers (get thee to Colindale!) and in the nationals. I'm afraid you can't have looked very far. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, with the dates given I have checked the articles in the Times (which mentions "Intergalactic Association") and the Guardian but neither of those mention "Vrillon" (I think I failed to find newspaper references originally as I was searching for "Vrillon" which no newspaper seems to mention). Do any of the other sources actually give this level of detail or does the name come from the fake versions published on the internet more recently? If there are no sources that actually confirm this detail then the article should probably be moved again.—Ash (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I wanted to have this article at Ashtar Galactic Command but others moved it around. It may be better placed at 1977 Southern Television alien hoax or some similar title. As it happens the contemporary sources are not particularly useful for the name used by the miscreant, because they would have been going on telephoned-in reports from people who heard the incident based on what they remember hearing - rather than comparing with an actual recording. The nature of this incident justifies a brief trip into ignoring rules to use the non-contemporaneous and normally unreliable sources including the genuine recording to confirm exactly what was said. (Is it unfair to notice that you've come some way from 11:26 this morning when you said "this incident definitely never happened"?) Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No it's not unfair, I'm happy to admit that I failed to find sources from 1977 that mentioned "Vrillon", particularly as they don't exist. I'm happy to see that a similar incident did happen in 1977, reliable sources exist for that incident and a Wikipedia article can be written based on these sources (I agree that 1977 Southern Television alien hoax sounds like a much more accurate name). At the moment this article just has the wrong name and includes details that are not supported by the sources as people are still confusing the 1977 event and later fake videos and audio recordings available on the internet.—Ash (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ash, I believe the problem in your initial search was that you were overly focused on viewing the term "Vrillon" as being the most important keyword in finding material, although the fault isn't entirely your own. I've been doing some poking around on this topic myself and although I've managed to dredge up a few interesting things, the majority of them in all likelihood wouldn't pass muster as WP:RELY here in the encyclopedia. That being said, I thought some of them had enough contextual merit to at least warrant a mention. I'm in total agreement with the idea that the easily found video material on Youtube and other sites that purport to be actual recordings of the original event are themselves hoaxes or at best an attempt at a "re-creation" of the event being presented as original. A few even appear to contain original recordings of the 'news presenter' and other aspects of portions of the original broadcast, which heightens their believability a little IMO. The give away in the Youtube et al material IMO is the the voice of the 'entity' and related effects, which sound 'tacked on' using post 1970's technology to me; but let's get back to our source location problem. As Sam Blacketer rightfully points out above, in determining appropriate keywords for searching, the real difficulty appears to be knowing exactly what was said on the original broadcast, because it was spoken word, we're reliant on phonetics alone to make that determination. Small wonder there's confusion, even after a brief search I've encountered terms as widely divergent as "Vrillon", "Asteron" and "Gramaha" given as the name of the 'entity' speaking, with occurrences of "Asta","Ashtar" occasionally being given as alternative names for the "galactic command". One source I found kind of interesting is purported to be recorded excerpts from the audio of the original broadcast itself (Quicktime audio only), although it might be good to keep in mind that the actual host site for that material appears to be that of one of a number of groups who incorporate these sorts of concepts within their own 'New Age' type belief system. Despite that obvious shortcoming, again in my opinion, these excerpts appear to me to bear a much more plausible resemblance to 70's audio technology than what what we're presented with in the more recent "video" versions. It's also could be a quick lesson in what constitutes a believable 'alien voice' now as compared to 32 years ago.:) If this audio is in fact recorded excerpts from the original broadcast, it immediately becomes apparent why there are so many differing versions of the purported terms out there; it's simply very difficult to understand exactly what's being said because of problems with the phase shifting effect being used to alter the voice, in particular, at the very beginning of the recording when the character's name is being introduced. Small wonder that people hearing it once live in '77 were at a loss. After looking at a few different sources, I have a sneaking suspicion that "Vrillon", as the name of the supposed 'entity', is of fairly recent vintage, and perhaps was tacked on over the past few years when the more recent videos were produced. Because of all the variants and the likely more recent provenance of the term, I'd agree with the suggestion that "Vrillon hoax incident" is not the best primary name for this article, although it might be a good redirect. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good summary. I would however have to disagree about the audio file on ashtarcommand.se. The special effects on the recording (such as the electronic "heartbeat" and other background noises) are far too clear to be a recording of a TV broadcast interference signal, there is no general white noise (apart from that which seems to be faded in as a special effect) and the dynamic range of the recording seems too wide to be realistic. A real recording would probably have had to have been on either VHS tape or (more likely) cassette tape and audio would have been abysmal (particularly considering magnetic tape degradation over time). Note that Southern Television would not have an archived recording as they would only have tapes of their broadcast rather than any pirate broadcast. The likelihood of anyone at the time writing down an accurate transcript of the live broadcast is so low that any detailed transcript made available should be treated with significant scepticism and WP:RS should be applied.—Ash (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Point taken; by the way, the Los Angeles Times article confirms "Intergalactic Association". I don't believe we should be automatically dismissive of the possibility of an original recording of this event still existing. Given the relative level of technical prowess required to pull this off in the first place, I wouldn't think it particularly hard to believe if it was discovered that the perpetrator(s) had created a decent copy at the time in order to afford themselves 'bragging rights' and then preserved generational copies over time. However, I may have to revise my suggestion that the variant "Vrillon" is a recent addition to the mythos. I've come across this 1981 mention (footnote pgs.179-180) that indicates an earlier origin. Take note that that particular source also mentions a New York Times article and one other that I have so far been unable to dig up. By the way; wouldn't your suggestion that a true copy of the original broadcast would have to include higher 'noise' levels be dependent on the relative strength of the hoaxers transmitter and its proximity to the Southern Television 'repeating' transmitter. The closer they were to each other and the higher the hoaxers wattage output was, the clearer the resulting signal available to the public would be. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the question of noise, we're in CSI territory here and probably would fall foul of WP:OR to make decisions independent of sources if this were the justification for inclusion. However, this was 1977, comparing with my old but more modern VHS tapes from the late 1980's, the theoretically best audio on VHS was still poor (see VHS for technical information) and all of my recordings of live TV have quite noticeable levels of background white noise even when the recording was made perfectly on a strong signal. It would seem rather doubtful that of the few TV viewers that did have VHS recorders in 1977 any would have happened to be recording live TV at that point (the first video cassette recorder went on sale at Dixons in 1978, according to the BBC, so there would have been few about in 1977). If a recording were on cassette tape (again why would someone be randomly recording the audio of Southern Television, supposedly during a news report) then the audio is likely to be just as bad, if not a lot worse if a microphone were used rather than using a headphone socket. As for the perpetrator having a recording, this would still need firm reliable sources to verify, particularly considering the desirable kudos of being able to claim to be this original "pirate" and the current demonstrable existence of a number of fakes.—Ash (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we presently have any supporting references at all for the details being offered in the final paragraph regarding the specific Southern Television content that was allegedly broadcast during and after the event? Or, is all of that based on an interpretation of what's being presented as genuine on the purported recordings? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None, it may be completely based on previously removed and suspect self published sources.—Ash (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this source has previously been included in the article and then removed, or never discussed, but has anyone considered the apparent recording of the incident at [] ? This does appear to be a genuine off-air recording of the event (agreed that the version at ashtarcommand.se is certainly not as broadcast) and is followed by audio of both an ITN and IRN news report on the incident. The video's captions aside, the audio appears genuine, and certainly the subsequent news reports would be hard to duplicate. Bonusballs (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the identical audio to the one previously discussed. Liveleak.com is not a reliable source. The audio is certainly a recent fake as discussed above, you have only to compare real audio from television at the time and the fake audio overlaid on the recorded TV news parts of the audio file to realize that this has been synthesized later (listen to the bass through an amplifier). The later parts of the audio repeating what sounds like real news reporting the 1977 interruption may be real but we need a reliable source to confirm it. The news elements about Smith and Rhodesia are correct for 1977, though again it is not possible to verify that this was the exact broadcast interrupted on live TV.—Ash (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree about the audio - as I say, I agree that the MP3 on ashtarcommand.se is certainly not an off-air recording, because as you say the bass is much too good and it's completely hiss-free. The version on Liveleak is hissy but the frequency range of the interruption is not out of line with the contemporaneous audio. In any case it's mostly the subsequent news reports - the ITN announcer in particular, and obviously the Independent Radio News bulletin also, which I think are of value here on their own. Understood that "liveleak is not a reliable source", etc, but there are few "reliable" digital sources of things which happened more than 30 years ago. Certainly the Times Archive backs this up, there's no question that it happened. Is it worth incorporating the audio (of the subsequent reports only) into the article? Bonusballs (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's a fake not a recording of the original broadcast. Wikipedia does not exist to promote websites with fictional fake records of events, it would fail WP:MADEUP, WP:ELNO, WP:SPAM and WP:RS. Unless you can point to a reliable source don't waste your time.—Ash (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt over the recording of the interruption, but there's nothing to indicate that the news reports are a fake. I don't think you can unilaterally decide "it's a fake not a recording of the original broadcast" given that you started out by saying "This incident definitely never happened", something which is demonstrably wrong. Bonusballs (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's cool. Just produce a reliable source and you'll prove me wrong again. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong.—Ash (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It does raise an interesting question - given that recordings of the interruption could only ever be from an individual's home recordings (and hence immediately not a "reliable source"), and that the news reports can only have been recorded in the same manner (same problem again), how do you go about proving actuality? I wonder if ITN or IRN might have copies of their news broadcasts from the time. Problem is, such things almost certainly won't be available to the general public (at least not for free), access to such material wouldn't be made available for anything other than personal use, and in any case this would almost certainly count as original research - WP:OR - and hence be out of the scope of Wikipedia. In the absence of "reliable source" digital copies, can one just cite "Independent Radio News, 00.02am, 27th September 1977" as a source? While accurate, it seems that would be less reliable still, as it would be challenging to verify. Bonusballs (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The newspaper reports of the time do exist and describe the incident including some of the words from the transmission and the facts about the date and time of interruption. The text of the article will probably have to stick to that level of verifiable detail. Everything without such sources is suspect and very likely (considering that fakes exist) to be made up more recently (such as all the guff about Vrillon and Ashtar Command). As for the records of original TV broadcasts, this would not, of course, have a record of the interruption (as it would be a recording of the intended broadcast, not the signal received by viewers in some areas that was interrupted). The only benefit of examining these would be to potentially debunk later fakes. You will note that the audio file you discussed earlier does not actually use the words quoted in The Times or other newspapers of the time...—Ash (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * True enough, although even ITN's subsequent report of the hijack claimed the words "Earthlings, lay down your arms. This is a message from outer space" which have not been reported in any transcript or recording either. You do have to consider the possibility of misreporting. The Times article quotes "All your weapons of evil must be destroyed." - audio says "All your weapons of evil must be removed". Times says "You have only a short time to learn to live together in peace", audio says "You have but a short time to learn to live together in peace and goodwill.". Since neither ITN nor The Times would have had a recording of the interruption, they will have been re-reporting what people told them. As I say, I'm willing to put the recording of the interruption aside, but have you definitely listened to the news reports at the end of the Liveleak file? As I say, ignore the wingnut captions - I think we can both agree that the source of this interruption is wholly terrestrial and fully explained - but what is your view as to the authenticity of the ITN report and IRN reports which follow, from 06:50 onwards in the Liveleak file? Bonusballs (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * These are just as likely to be the audio from the "It's A Mystery" 1990s recreation as mentioned below. Again without reliable sources any such information is original research and suspect.—Ash (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See your point, although not sure I'd agree. 'It's A Mystery' is a children's programme from the late 1990s and they wouldn't have covered anything at such depth or length. Any recreations for the purposes of that programme would have been far shorter and snappier. Interesting point, though, and something else to explore. (Although purely as a point of interest, is there a reliable source that documents this recreation ever having taken place? Without a reliable source, technically you shouldn't be using that information to exclude other information.) All good fun, eh. :) Bonusballs (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any way of proving the existance of this recreation, other than that it was broadcast from 1996-1999. Interestingly, it was made by the successors to Southern Television, Meridian.IIRC, the fake TV bulletin was shown a mix of fullscrren and cutaways with a family at teatime. On another point, I have a 1980s book from the "World's Greatest" series, with an apparant transcript of the event, so there is another 'source'Nea10086 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.181.7 (talk)


 * It'd be really fantastic if you've got a full title, author name or ISBN number for that book. The more information the merrier. Bonusballs (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess to say that the recreations of the event come from an ITV kids show from the 1990s called "It's A Mystery", which recreated the interupted news bulletin in a filmed insert, complete with newsreader and Southern TV logo above him. As this was done for children and dramatic effect, I would say the accuracy was obviously not high. Nea10086 (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Using strangeattractor.co.uk as a source
This is a personal website registered to "John Lundberg" in the UK. It cannot be considered a reliable source as it fails WP:SPS.—Ash (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's wrong analysis. The source being linked is an article published in the Fortean Times in 1977, and it is not being used as a source but as an external link under category 3 of things that can be linked ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues") Probably not all the Fortean Times can correctly be described as neutral and accurate but some of it is. For instance the article correctly describes a letter in The Times (from Michael Rubinstein) on 30 November. It is a useful link in describing some of the contemporary press coverage and as such adds useful background to the article. It is the appropriateness of the Fortean Times which is the relevant factor, not where it immediately appears. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The website fails to meet WP:RS. The fact that it claims to have an extract of Fortean Times does not mean that the extract has been reproduced accurately and it is not possible to verify. A reference to the 1977 copy of Fortean Times is a valid reference but linking to a self published website is not appropriate and is unnecessary when the reference can be made directly to the original document. The article has been prone to endless linking to self published rubbish and I am keen to ensure these spam links do not get back in.—Ash (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS doesn't matter because it's not a source. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have said WP:ELNO #2 & #11 as it is an external link.—Ash (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Using labyrinth13.com as a source or link
This site fails WP:SPS and WP:ELNO as it is a book promotion website and cannot be considered a third party source.—Ash (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

answer to research
If you go to the website of the Times newspaper. You can see that the event really happend. Here is the link: http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/searchOnDay.arc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.49.9 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

True, a search on the Times Archive for 'Southern Television Hoax' turns up the story referenced in this article (3), and a subsequent 'letter to the editor' a few days later. Direct linking not possible as the Times archive is a paid service, but you can see that the article exists from the (free) search results. Bonusballs (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Using transdiffusion.org as a source
This site is a fansite or forum and so fails WP:RS. In particular the site takes free email submissions from anyone and is not responsible for the veracity of such postings. Refer to the site's joining page http://www.transdiffusion.org/today/join.htm for more information.—Ash (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ash, I think you're wrong about Transdiffusion - they have a published accuracy policy [] and don't accept material from just anyone. They do invite you to get in touch if you wish to submit an article but they certainly won't print just anything. Similarly, I think it's unreasonable to demand sources for the other names by which this hoax is often MIS-REPORTED (e.g. Grahama) but then remove the link for that source because it is not reliable. By definition the source is unreliable, that is why it is being linked to as an indication of misreporting. If you make a claim like "Some people wrongly believe that man never landed on the moon" then you need a reference to back up the claim (that some people believe that) but you can't then remove the reference because the content is unreliable in what it says. Or at least, it seems highly counter-intuitive to me. Well and good to want quality references and no pages from solo UFO wingnuts, totally agreed, but you have to recognise that there will be few "big media" sources which reported this in the detail which it is being discussed here. As such, I think Transdiffusion is a broadly "reliable enough" source, and 'the church of ufoology' is indeed not - which backs up the "often wrongly reported as..." reference in the article. Bonusballs (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, the article is not about articles based on fake and deliberate mis-reports of the 1977 incident but about the incident itself. Consequently I would push for such material to be removed anyway (you are of course free to create the List of hoax articles about the 1977 Southern Broadcast interruption hoax if you think it would be encyclopaedic). The 2004 article at transdiffusion is obviously poorly researched as Robertson seems to have got his quotes from other (fake) websites rather than referring to real news sources from 1977. If Robertson's article had been properly reviewed before posting on the website then this should have been spotted rather than allowing his article to only be sourced from other dubious and hoax websites. If you seriously think I'm misjudging transdiffusion as a potential reliable source then feel free to get some third opinions from the experienced Wikipedians at WP:RSN. As for including a blog as a source because you want to have a section on "wrong reports", well that's pretty lame and I think you know it.—Ash (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to have a section on "wrong reports" - but you're the one who added tags to the article because you wanted a source for the fact that this hoax is often misreported under other names. As far as Transdiffusion goes, I maintain that you're wrong. Transdiffusion is an established and respected website whose contributors have been involved in a number of television projects in the United Kingdom, and who have contributed to and been credited on a number of broadcast television programmes about British broadcasting history. I am by no means claiming that they are perfect, but they are easily "reliable enough" for the purposes of this article. Bonusballs (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, considering the demonstrably poorly researched article by an amateur writer that you want to add, it fails WP:RS. I would be prepared to re-consider other articles on the site in different scenarios for their usage (for example an interview with a TV personality or as a source for a public domain photo it may be okay). If you want an alternative view then try WP:RSN as I suggested above. I'm happy to be proved wrong so long as the logic is clear. Nothing you have added here, so far, appears to provide a valid exception to WP:RS for the sources in question.—Ash (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree, but sure, let's see what else turns up. Bonusballs (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence for "Vrillon"
We have three reliable sources that state the name used in the broadcast was "Asteron" not "Vrillon", which is why I'm quite dubious about how unequivocal the claim for the latter name is in the first sentence of the article, and why I believe that the current title is likely inappropriate. IMO the opening sentence should be re-written to reflect the apparent confusion and the article itself should be renamed to reflect our uncertainty based on the references at hand. We can't simply pick and choose which particular name appeals to us the most, we have to accommodate what the references are telling us. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(Paulu's book) A number of good sources for the event have been added over the last few days including a number of excellent newspaper reports published the same week as the event occurred. From what I have seen of the sources, the earliest the name "Vrillon" appears is in a description of the event in Paulu's book published in 1981 (4 years later). Unfortunately the entry in Paulu's book is a footnote rather than an article and the date that Paulu quotes is incorrect (he uses 27th November rather than Saturday 26th November as reported in newspapers of the time). This is the first source to use "Ashtar Galactic Command" in relation to the event and the footnote does not use the words "Intergalactic Association" as used in The Times and The Guardian reports. Note that "Ashtar" as a name for an alien existed prior to 1977 and Paulu may have confused or made assumptions about the details of the event. For these reasons, I suggest less weight is given to Paulu's footnote, written some years after the event, as a source for the details of the event (not getting the right date is a significant error) than to sources of the time. Other more contemporary reports of the event may well appear to validate the words "Vrillon" or "Ashtar" but Paulu's book, unfortunately, is likely to stay debatable due to the error it contains.

As for the title of the article I suggest a name for the "alien" is avoided (as most reliable sources describe it as a hoax anyway) and give it a name like 1977 Southern Television broadcast interruption hoax (or something a bit snappier).—Ash (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest something like Southern Television broadcast interruption hoax 1977, so as not to prefix it with numbers, and would suggest redirects for "Vrillon" and "Asteron" when setting up the change. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think renaming is out of the question, but I think we should be cautious about moving too soon here. We have three REPORTS of 'Asteron' but not three sources, since they are all US papers re-reporting the same material fed from the UPI press agency. The third source is really more of a comment piece in the LA Times, which itself is obviously commenting on the previous report run by the LA Times, so not a true 'third source', and I think that's my fault. To avoid confusion I've moved this reference into the 'the incident was reported around the world' para instead. I'm currently looking into a number of further sources, which are split between 'Asteron' and 'Vrillon'. There seem to be two distinct lines of reporting and it appears that in the heat of the moment, everyone was re-reporting everyone else, the full facts of the incident not coming out until later. It's a fascinating thing - there's still more to be found, definitely. Personally I think we should hold fire for a short while. Bonusballs (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the issue for renaming is the claimed name of the "alien" then the suggested titles that don't have the name of the alien in them should be okay. The conflict in sources is not going to disappear so this seems the safest sort of page name. I would have thought if there are no specific objections then Southern Television broadcast interruption hoax (1977) would be the best bet with alternatives (such as the current page title) as redirects. There's nothing to stop redirects of Asteron hoax and Ashtar hoax being created if enough sources support them.—Ash (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, on reflection I agree. What's notable is the hoax rather than the comparatively fine detail of the speaker name - and with redirects in place that seems like the best solution. For a new article name, maybe something shorter like Southern Television hijack (1977)? But I think just about anything would do the job, really. Bonusballs (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, moved with redirects for the most obvious alternates. Happy to move again if we reach a consensus on a shorter version as I'm not totally in love with this name but at least it's not tied to a specific alien name which is not definitively sourced.—Ash (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The title is a little unwieldy lengthwise when you really look at it on the page, but it's accurate and to the point. Good job overall so far, in my opinion. Could we have some specifics on what constitutes the potential "factuality" and "weasel word" issues that are being alleged here by the placement of the template; perhaps we can go to work on that next? If someone wants to start a new section here on the talk page when addressing those issues, it'll probably cut down on confusion in the long run. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcripts
Is there any reason to think that Fortean Times (as FT asserts) is more accurate that newspaper reports published the same week as the event? I don't believe we have any way of testing it. Reprinting transcripts that are conflicting seems unnecessary when we can just say the sources are conflicting and reference them, saying much else appears against WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and reprinting all the transcripts unnecessarily may fail to meet WP:QUOTE.—Ash (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No indication that it's more accurate but it is more complete than most reports from the time - although it's near identical to other cited references (e.g. the [|Eugene Register-Guard]). The Fortean piece is included as a reference more because it goes on to talk about the reporting of the event in other newspapers ("Gillon" of the "Ashdown Galactic Command") which was not previously known. I don't think the transcripts included in this particular wiki article include anything conflicting, only the points where there is common concensus between sources. (Unlike the original 'Vrillon' transcript, which does have many points of conflict with the published reports, but is hard to cite from a 'reputable source' at present.) Perhaps the comparisons/reasoning for why the transcript should appear spoken by a character in an unrelated fiction book is "thinking aloud" too much and out of place, although I think it's an important point of interest that it occured. Can you think of a better way to handle that? Bonusballs (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting it doesn't make a useful reliable source, just that pasting in all the transcripts fails to meet the guidance stated above and I'm not sure there is a case for this to be an exception.—Ash (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't explicitly have a problem with Fortean Times as a source for potential leads to other sources, but I'm very wary of utilizing material directly from the magazine itself, unless it's attributed to a more substantial source; in which case I'd go with that one instead. In my opinion the magazine's dedication to verification of its material has been spotty and intermittent over the decades, on occasion they've put out some very interesting bibliographical material, but their approach to "fact checking" has consistently varied not only from article to article, but from issue to issue over the years as the publication has changed hands. Although offering a more 'thoughtful' approach to these subject matters from the onset, Bob Rickard didn't exactly ever promise anyone a peer reviewed scientific journal either. I'd like to bring up the subject of how we're using the name "Vrillon" in the article. Presently we're going with "[s]ome reports called the person Vrillon, others "Asteron"." As far as I can determine, we appear to have only one instance in support of the use of "Vrillon" in a book from 1981, four years after the incident, in a general book outlining the history of British broadcasting. In my opinion we need, at least, a shift in emphasis in the structure of the sentence away from some form of an implied preeminent claim for "Vrillon" as the name for the figure. Eventually, I'd like to see further support for its use at all, something in the late 70's around the time of the incident itself would be useful here. The present material in the article contrasting and comparing the purported hoax contents with material in a novel, although interesting, strike me as OR. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair to the Fortean Times, their 1977 report mentions about twelve different sources, but they're mostly newspapers which do not have online archives, so it's difficult to easily verify them online. Again, in the search for good contemporary sources, we have the problem that the most prolific reporters of this story tended to be enthusiast or fringe publications - e.g. New Life, Xenolog, Viewpoint Aquarius, etc - who of course don't have significant online archives, and who tend to be quoted only on blogs and forums, etc. There's quite a decent collection of quotes and text from the time in the 2003 publication "Out Of The Stars" (helpfully available, barring one important page, on Google Books [|here] - but much of the linking material is plagued by obvious factual errors (e.g. references to the "Bennington" transmitter) to the extent that I'm not sure how much of it - if anything - can be relied upon. (Particularly since it opens the door to the majority of the 'Vrillon' recording transcript which I think Ash strongly believes is fake - although even this transcript deviates from the recording in part.) Bonusballs (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio interview with Sir John Whitmore
Sir John Whitmore is not a great source to quote here. He had a vested interest in generating discussion on UFOs for his own publications and to support his own claims that he was in 'communication' with extraterrestrials. Unfortunately the entertaining radio broadcast does not actually play back the claimed recording of the actual event so I'm not sure that this interview is either useful to add (at least not in this much detail) or counts as a reliable source and instead adds a sense of validity to certain transcripts where perhaps this should not be given.—Ash (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true, he does go on to mention his book. I think the point of interest in the interview is that it does refer to a recording being available (excerpts of which were played on the station in question, although of course as it was 32 years ago, is a considerable stretch to prove definitively). Quite understand if it's felt better to remove it - no biggie. Bonusballs (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good reference and the reader can follow the archive link, but it probably should be left as an entertaining interview of the time and, as you say, it suggests that a recording was available but we have no other source referencing an "official" recording. Let's hope it does still exist in an audio archive and someone can dig it up.—Ash (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Being able to confirm that a recording of this incident actually still existed would be interesting indeed; but I'm unsure on the use of the Sir John Whitmore quote. U.K. editors are probably much more familiar with this gentleman than I am. After a cursory jaunt into LexisNexis I've noticed a bit of a 'gap' in the newspaper coverage of this individual in the late 70's. After a successful spate of automobile racing in the 60's, in the material I looked at, he was said to have sold his substantial real estate holdings in Essex and then to have gone abroad in the early 70's. In the coverage I looked at, he pops up again in the early 80's as some sort of "creative visualization" expert in the area of sports. Was Sir John involved in advancing ideas regarding UFOs in the interim? On a personal note, I appear to have caught a mild case of influenza and ask for your indulgence in terms of potentially slow responses here and elsewhere over the next several days. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
I for one highly disagree that this page should be deleted. It is a notable incident in both pirate television and ufology. The mere fact that someone was able to do this in 1977, by taking over several transmitters, made it newsworthy both then and now

Theartandsound (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Second that - not an alien transmission (fairly obvious from the pat phrases of the time used throughout), but notable.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should we assume that "aliens" don't or wouldn't use your so called "pat" phrases?67.175.142.237 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Students?
Following the 'See also' link to writer Nelson Algren, we find a claim (plus source) that students were responsible for the hoax. This is not mentioned on this page at all. Now, I'm hoping someone else with more experience of actual editing can find a suitable place for this fact Glesga mick (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The book that is referenced in that article, Television and radio in the United Kingdom by Burton Paulu, is in a library I have access to. I'll take a look at it soon to see what it says about the Vrillon broadcast.  Robert Ham (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the first reference in this very article - see http://books.google.com/books?id=_lv7awDml10C&pg=PA179&dq=Vrillon&lr=#v=onepage&q=Vrillon&f=false Bonusballs (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got the journal article referred to in the book (Broadcasting, 19 December 1977, p.56) being sent to me through my university's inter-library loan facility. Hopefully it should provide some proper information.  Robert Ham (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax
Just wondering, why is this article called the Southern Television broadcast interruption hoax? When according to oxford dixtionary, the definition of hoax is "a humorous or malicious deception". I dont see the article or the sources providing any proof of it being that. 88.193.85.128 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are numerous dixtionaries each offering numerous definitions of the word, but it is commonly used and understood to mean 'an act intended to deceive or trick' and it's reasonably fair to say that someone taking to the airwaves claiming to be an alien from another planet would fall within such a definition. Bonusballs (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you know that it was someone taking to the airwaves claiming to be an alien from another planet, rather than an actual alien from another planet taking to the airwaves? Robert Ham (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Robert, if you can provide a couple of reliable references, as per WP:RS, that categorically state that this is in fact a case of an "actual alien from another planet taking to the airwaves", please feel free to add it to the article; but it's important to remember that in Wikipedia, it's not what we "know" or what's "possible"; it's what can be "verified" according to our policies. See WP:VERIFY. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an odd response. I haven't claimed that an "actual alien from another planet took to the airwaves".  I simply asked how Bonusballs knows that one didn't.  Robert Ham (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Robert, I thought you were making a general inquiry regarding the potential appropriateness of material that might contain a counter position to the one held forth in the current version of this article. This now sounds more like a basic epistemological question related to the validity of the basis of human "knowledge" in general and as such isn't appropriate content for the talk page of this article. An article's talk page is restricted to discussing improvements to the specific article itself; questions about many subjects can be posted to our Reference Desk WP:RD. General conversations should be conducted on our personal talk pages. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm.. I don't think the basis of human knowledge has any relevance to this except in the sense that all questions have epistemological assumptions. If someone says "the concert starts at 8pm" and I ask "how do you know that?" then one could avoid answering the question by saying "yeah man.. that's deep.. how do we know anything?"  Of course, such a response would be ludicrous.  I just want to know where the person is getting their information.  Within the context of wikipedia articles' talk pages, questioning where an editor is getting information about an article's subject is appropriate and relevant.  Robert Ham (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When you have an event which can be - and is - fully explainable, and explained, by human activity, there is little need to start reaching for intergalactic explanations which require the implicit acceptance of the wholly unproven premise that there is intelligent, English-speaking life on other planets with a fondness for broadcasting exclusively to the people of Basingstoke. Could there be life on other planets? Yes. Has it been detected yet? No. Therefore, good reasons for assuming "aliens did it!" when humans could also have done it? None. I think the alternate point of view is given good representation in this article too (e.g. the letters in The Times asking "How can anyone be sure that it was a hoax?", and the references to Ufology and Ashtar Galactic Command) but ultimately all contemporary reports of this event call it a 'hoax' and it can be fully explained as being of earthly origin. There is little credit to be had from reaching for less plausible explanations. Bonusballs (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This response is a reasoning about your beliefs on the existence of extraterrestrial life. This is wikipedia.  I don't care what you believe, I just care about what you have reliable sources for.  It seems that you have no reliable sources demonstrating with fact, rather than reason, that the 1977 incident was a hoax.  There are many sources that have labelled the incident a hoax.  There are some sources that have reasoned that it was a hoax.  However, as of yet there seem to be no sources which have demonstrated that it was a hoax, for example by presenting the report of an IBA or police investigation based on physical evidence or testimony of the perpetrators.  The latter type of source is of interest.  Robert Ham (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're arguing for "truth" over "verifiability"; which is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:V. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "verifiability" over "truth": is that ALWAYS how Wikipedia works? In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle it states that Bower and Chorley made numerous crop circles, without any indepedent verification (e.g. eyewitness testimony) of their claim to have done so. 86.179.132.88 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm.. I'm really confused about how I could have miscommunicated so badly. Arguing for truth over verifiability is what I was criticising Bonusballs for.  Robert Ham (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can share the frustration about 'verifiability over truth' as there are elements of this story which I believe to be truthful and/or of value, from sources which I consider reliable but which don't meet the standards of Wikipedia. I believe that the Fortean Times transcript is far from complete or accurate [but it's clearly the best account from the time] and the much-circulated audio file of the interruption is more likely to be genuine (since I had heard it some years earlier before wingnuts began circulating it around the internet as 'evidence' of the first alien broadcast on BBC Radio, etc - wrong three times there.) But although I believe that to be the case, I can't prove it to a Wiki standard, and even attempting to try would probably count as 'original research' which is also not allowed. Yes, that's intensely frustrating but it's how Wikipedia works - it only echoes what "reliable sources" have said, even when we know that is incomplete or wrong. Either way, that's getting away from the crux of the issue. Verifiability states that 'reliable sources' have almost unilaterally pronounced this to be a 'hoax'. Common sense indicates that they're probably right. Either way, the opposing viewpoint - the extraordinary claim - gets considerable time in this article too. But a viewpoint isn't enough to change the accounts of what happened, and they all say 'hoax' which is probably why this article's title does, and should, too. In my humble opinion anyway - your mileage may vary and that's fine too. Bonusballs (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've stated that reliable sources have "almost unilaterally pronounced this to be a 'hoax'" but I can only see one source that has explicitly claimed the incident was a "hoax"; The Daily Collegian. On inspection, it appears that the majority of reliable sources have actually refrained from pronouncing the incident as a 'hoax' and left it open to judgement; specifically, the Ellensburg Daily Record, the Rome News-Tribune, and the Eugene Register-Guard. Robert Ham (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus Reference 7, "Source of HOAX space broadcast stays a mystery" from The Times of London, and the articles in the LA Times, which also made the same point. The article itself refers to the letter The Times received from someone asking "How can anyone be sure it was a hoax?", referring to the labelling of it as such in The Times and other contemporaenous media reports. Bonusballs (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed; and I believe any reasonable individual looking at the evidence available in this case, in my opinion, is safely within the realm of rationality in concluding likewise. As you point out, the article already offers proper due weight in the fringe direction; anything beyond that in my opinion would be an 'extraordinary claim' requiring correspondingly extraordinary evidence. I wasn't trying to be "deep" or pedantic; the subject of the article is reliably sourced and labelled as a hoax in several spots; because of that I think I misinterpreted the intent of Robert's original question simply because the answer appeared to me to be so contextually self evident that I believed he had to be talking about 'something else'. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA and its editors should not be the ones deciding if this is a hoax or not and so the word hoax should be removed from the title. The sources listed claiming it is a hoax have not demonstrated it as a hoax and neither are they authorities on the methods that would be used to determine if it were a hoax. Even if it were debunkable as a hoax based on the technology available at the time, if it was never debunked as a hoax as in never proven or provable that the hoaxes used the methods that would make it possible to pull the prank, then the message should be either reported by wikipedia as what it claims to be in the message, or reported as an wikipedia article describing the opinions of the sources about the incident and only if they are notable enough to warrant such an article. It might be argued that its called a hoax becuase of the IBA "immediately declared it a hoax, but if a criminal robs a bank and the police declare that its a hoax and nothing was really stolen to save face, does wikipedia still enter into the database as a hoax? no we cal it an incident and simply state that the police called it a hoax at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.193.157 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, first of all, "Wikipedia and its editors" aren't calling it a 'hoax', the Reliable Sources and references cited in the article are calling it that. They called it a hoax because the alternative preaccepts that alien life is real, is here, and is interfering with TV transmitters. WP:DUCK applies here. Nothing on Wikipedia is a "report", it is exclusively and entirely summarising what was reported by reliable sources at the time and subsequently. Your robbery scenario would indeed be summarised on Wikipedia as a 'hoax' until RELIABLE SOURCES report otherwise. You might as well argue that the assasination of JFK was actually undertaken by Zing Blattdingdong of the Planet Thaarg, and that therefore since this has never been debunked, it is wrong for Wikipedia or anyone to refer to the 'Assassination of JFK'. Doesn't hold water. The events of the 1977 hoax are, and were, fully explained and explainable with the technology of the time. You might want to Google 'Cosmic Cowboy Vrillon' for further unreliable explanation of the entirely earth-bound nature of the transmission. Bonusballs (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

'From another plane'
In the first paragraph was the line 'The transmission itself claimed to be from another plane.'

I can't see anything in the transcript that mentions other planes (esoteric or otherwise) - unless I've missed something, I think this sentence should be removed, and have done so. Please revert if I'm wrong; but if you do, please explain here what I've missed! --90.245.63.93 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Weasel busting
Weasel-ish language depends on context and sourcing... but the article currently uses "some" in several places where we could probably just remove these uses and just make a statement about the reports. Similarly "many" is used and again the particular reported fact could be used. "Observers noted" is rather weasel-ish as it's not clear who this is. I was tempted to use the weasel-inline tag but the article seems tag heavy already.—Ash (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Have moved some things around in an attempt at cleaning up and avoiding the 'observers noted..' with a more neutral explanation. Bonusballs (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think re-stating it as a hoax broadcast is adopting the POV of the media personnel of the time, and the subsequent POV of those who are skeptical of the implied claims of the broadcast pirate. If we have established through reliable sources that this event happened and happened when it did and where it did, then that should be the focus of the article, not upon verifying the claims of this speaker in the interrupt signal, or its detractors speaking of which,..in the audio recordings and transcripts I DON'T RECALL the speaker outright claiming to be from another world, or to be an alien. Its just as reasonable as assuming this is an "extra terrestrial" as to assume that the Ashtar Galactic Command could be a person or faction of TV signal pirates from Earth. It seems to me that the only thing anyone knows about this event for sure is that it did indeed happen and that it happened as an act of piracy, and that it is a mystery how it was achieved given the presumed limitations of TV pirate technology at the time. I for one am glad that the authenticity and citation reliability of this incident is being scrutinized heavily here and not just submerged in the POV of skeptics and believers.67.175.142.237 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find one single reliable source that backs you up in your claim that [...] "[i]ts just as reasonable as assuming this is an "extra terrestrial" as to assume that the Ashtar Galactic Command could be a person or faction of TV signal pirates from Earth" [...] you'll have much better luck convincing people to listen to your argument. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "it is a mystery how it was achieved given the presumed limitations of TV pirate technology at the time." - This is absolutely not true. There is no mystery whatsoever. Day-in, day-out, the Hannington transmitter worked by receiving and rebroadcasting a UHF television signal which it received off-air from the Rowridge transmitter. The hoaxer merely broadcast an audio signal on the same frequency, from a location close to the transmitter. Hannington continued to rebroadcast whatever it received - but as the hoaxer's audio signal was closer (and therefore stronger in comparison to the received signal from Rowridge) then that is the signal that was rebroadcast. Similar to how if you've got one of those iPod FM transmitters that you can broadcast on another station's frequency as long as it's very very close to your radio. (It won't go any distance.) There's nothing about this broadcast which is not absolutely 100% technically explainable, either now, or previously. There was talk about such a hoaxer having to over-ride complex 'anti-hijacking' procedures but generally (a) those were not in place at the time because something like this had not been done previously, and (b) even where such measures were in place, they monitored the validity of the video signal, not the audio. Obviously things have moved on since then, but either way, there is no mystery at all about this event - it can be fully explained with the technology of the time. Bonusballs (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely Bonusballs. The perpetrator needed to know only three things: the frequency of the link (possibly published since reception was taken from an actual transmission to viewers), the modulation mode (presumably the PAL system's wideband FM with 150KHz deviation), and the receiving station's location. As for technology not being available at the time - nonsense. It was technically feasible decades before, if such TV transmissions had existed that far back. I speak as a radio amateur licensed since 1967. On the other hand, technicians routinely perform tests on standby links and it's possible a technician plugged his microphone into what he thought was the standby link and spoke a nonsensical test message that went out on the in-service link. Much more likely, and hushed up to save him embarrassment. Akld guy (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Eviction Notice
"Leave the galaxy," huh? That would be a good trick. :-) Just another example of why this msg was nothing but someone's idea of humor, and why the R.S.'s citing it as a hoax are, well, reliable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Southern Television broadcast interruption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720092642/http://newspapers.umsystem.edu/default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?BaseHRef=CMN/1985/03/21&EntityId=Ar00403&Skin=Google&ViewMode=GIF to http://newspapers.umsystem.edu/default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?BaseHRef=CMN/1985/03/21&EntityId=Ar00403&Skin=Google&ViewMode=GIF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Are spacemen hippies?
So aliens happen to have cliche science fiction names, and spout the middle class New Age platitudes of the time? (Did they watch the original "Day the Earth Stood Still''?) --MacRusgail (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why there is any prevailing reason to assume that "aliens" wouldn't "speak" that way, especially if "they" were making an attempt to communicate..why would they not attempt to use the terms,accents, and observed "slang" of the people they were trying to communicate with?

Besides how do we know it is not some "intergalactic" joke "they" are trying to fool us with? It might be a dangerous assumption to decide that "we" already know how,with whom, and with what level of social etiquette "they" would attempt to communicate with "us". Interesting you should mention "Day the Earth Stood Still" since in that story it seems such kinds of assumptions are very much challenged at least in the film, as Klaathu proceeds to acknowledge the hopes of a kid and a doctor over the demands of a leading government official.67.175.142.237 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping the aliens would have a little class. Actually, MacRusgail's post just solidifies the article's point about this being a (rather pathetic) hoax.104.169.28.113 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Existence of the tape
An earlier version claimed that it is uncertain whether a tape recording still exists. However on youtube a recording of the event (sound & video) can be found. I have changed this part of the article and also added a link to youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.83.175.187 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the video in question is an obvious forgery. You can tell immediately that the pictures and sound do not align - you're seeing footage of Cliff Michelmore reading the weekday Southern local regional news, but the audio is from a national weekend bulletin from ITN. The audio is /possibly/ genuine (what purports to be a recording from the time does exist) but the video is a very poor fake. I seem to remember The Independent also linked to it once, claiming it to be genuine, but it certainly is not. Bonusballs (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand your Argument. Since I am not a native speaker I cannot see it as a "poor fake". The fact that the Independent linked to it supports the argument that the situation might not be crystal clear. Are there any reliable sources dealing with the authenticity of the video? My view is that a link of the video should be included, nonetheless with a clear warning that it might be a fake.

Hacking incident
The rationales for deleting the sourced signal hijacking/Tomalski content are all invalid. The cited source is not Primary. See WP:PRIMARY. WP:N is a guideline for inclusion of content in Wikipedia and has nothing to do with sources. WP:TRIVIA is irrelevant on its face. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Identification cited to The Interruption
Some edit warring going on about the podcast The Interruption, which I guess said they've determined who did this. I don't agree that a podcast is necessarily an unreliable source, but I don't see any reason why this podcast should be considered reliable (per WP:RS). There's almost no coverage at all of this podcast that I can see. A search for '"the interruption" "Tommy Trelawny"' returns three hits: two press releases and the Apple Podcasts link. We need evidence for why this is a reliable source. Ideally, we'd also include a citation to another independent reliable source reporting on this particular fact from the podcast, too. Unless something can be found other than the podcast itself, I think we need to err on the side of omission per WP:RS. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for discussing. I've asked for more opinions regarding reliability at the RSN . - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternative phrasing of the findings by the Interuption
Having established that The Interuption may not conform under WP:RS, it may still be counted as one theory or explonation for the interruption - for reference to anyone in the future working. Is there a way to note the findings under "In popular culture" or "Theories" or something similar? -- The duke of now (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Has it received coverage in other media sources; newspapers etc? doktorb wordsdeeds 14:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We typically just don't include sources that aren't reliable. It's surprising this hasn't gotten any coverage anywhere, considering it's a fun bit of pop culture. I think we're probably just going to have to wait until a reliable source mentions it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a follow up to my response which I'll type here for want of anything else. If, by now, there has been no follow-up then the podcast couldn't have had that much reach, so if we keep our Wikipedia hats firmly on, the podcast can't be that important or notable so the findings can't be that notable either... doktorb wordsdeeds 21:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

On reliable sourcing
Hi! Discovered this discussion after listening to the podcast. It seems from what I've read that the main issue people have is whether the podcast comes from a reliable source. I checked out the website and though the journalist himself is a relative unknown, the company producing the show, Stak, is pretty noted. Stak is the current producer of The Football Ramble. They've collaborated with other noted personalities, such as Clive Anderson. They've won multiple British Podcast Awards. All evidence seems to indicate that it's a reputable publisher. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-interruption/

https://podbiblemag.com/who-or-what-was-behind-the-interruption/

EchetusXe 12:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 'They've collaborated with other noted personalities, such as Clive Anderson'. The podcaster in question himself isn't notable and most of their hosts/actors seem to be relative new-comers. They haven't actually won any British Podcast Awards - they are listed as nominees, not winners, and none of the podcast awards are for anything related to accuracy or journalism (there is a documentary category). One is for a fiction podcast, another for a football podcast. I think it's a large overstatement to say Stak is 'pretty noted'. They're pretty much unknown. I don't think this is evidence for the reliability of the podcast as a source. Endlesspumpkin (talk) Endlesspumpkin (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This sounds fake
The footage was probably edited using sony vegas since it’s use his tv effect on the software. 177.66.252.4 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)