Talk:Antônio Vilas-Boas

Credibility?

I'm concerned about this article's credibility. It's pretty far from NPOV, and leaves the reader with the impression that Boas might actually have been abducted by aliens... despite the fact that there's no evidence of it ever happening; essentially, as far as I can tell, he's just a guy with a story who became somewhat famous because he happened to tell his story at a time when such stories weren't very common. Admittedly, the article does use the word "alleged" quite a bit, but it seems like lip service instead of any admission that Boas might have been deluded, hallucinating or simply lying.

I quote the following bits as examples:

"Unusually for cases of alleged alien abduction, Boas was able to recall every detail of his experience without the need for hypnotic regression." That's great, but I don't see how that's relevant. I get the feeling that this sentence implies that Boas' story is somehow particularly credible, when essentially you might as well say "Unusually for cases of alleged alien abudction, Boas told a made-up story without the need for hypnotic regression".

"The great majority of UFO researchers have declared Boas' story to be genuine[.]" I suppose this may be the case, but I'd love to see some kind of a reference on that. Furthermore, that doesn't really mean anything either, as it's more than a little likely that most UFO researchers are not serious scientists and/or objective observers. Again, this doesn't lend any real credibility to Boas' claim, but phrasing it like that does give the impression that Boas' story is credible. While the rest of the paragraph does add the "however, no definite answer either way can be given, due to the lack of concrete evidence and the fact that the main body of evidence for this case is one man's story" disclaimer, it still implies that Boas could very well be telling the truth and that, indeed, he has not been proven wrong. Yet all we have is a man who tells an outlandish story that he cannot back up with any kind of proof.

The only bit of concrete evidence offered in this article is the case of alleged radiation burn, apparently confirmed by a doctor, but a quick Google search didn't really yield any even remotely credible information about that (all I got was (an admittedly entertaining) collection of articles by people who believe that UFO abductions are happening left and right; I was unable to find anything that would qualify as NPOV). Also, all of the external links in the article point to "believer" sites that are notably lacking in any degree of objectivity and the kind of verifiability usually expected of scientific research - I don't think an article titled Alien Babes in UFOs quite qualifies...

Now, I'm not really at all familiar with the Boas case, and my research on the net wasn't at all fruitful, so I'm hesitant to start editing this. That said, I'd be surprised if no one anywhere had ever conducted any kind of credible, well-documented research on Boas, considering that he was pretty famous for a while. Right now the article gives the impression that there is a decent possibility Boas was not, in fact, making it up, even though there is no evidence that Boas was abducted by anyone (let alone aliens), or, indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no credible evidence that anyone anywhere has ever been abducted by extraterrestial beings. Nothing in the article implies that there might be any serious dispute about Boas' credibility; the closest we get is the admission that Boas has no concrete evidene, but even that is softened by the final statement that no one can definitely say that Boas was not abducted either.

All this strikes me as pretty far removed from NPOV. -- Captain Disdain 01:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't read the earlier article, but from what you say it was rather POV. Yet, the radiation burns are cited in the source literature, and I haven't seen a rebuttal of them in any source. There indeed appears to be an unexplained or incompletely explained element here. Alexander 007 02:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it still is rather POV; no one has really edited the content of the article since I added the POV banner. It's possible that there really were radiation burns (like I said, I was unable to find credible articles on the subject through Google, though I did find a bunch that questioned Dr. Olavo Fontes' credibility), but even if he had them, they would only be evidence of exposure to radiation. If there's no concrete proof of an abduction by aliens -- and there isn't -- all Boas has is a good story. (Yet a "great majority" of UFO researchers have proclaimed that Boas' story is true. What's that based on? There are no witnesses and no evidence. Yeah, there are those radiation burns, but they certainly don't prove that Boas porked an alien.)

None of this is really our problem, unless the story's treated as fact in an encyclopedia article, and I'd say it pretty much is. Now, this article goes out of its way to point out that no one can conclusively prove that Boas really wasn't abducted (instead of describing the details of Boas' story and the following events in a neutral manner) -- hell, no one can conclusively prove that I haven't been abducted twice during the time it took me to write this reply, either, but that doesn't make such a claim any more credible. It just obfuscates the actual issue. It's just disingenuous.

I've been avoiding touching this article because I'm not really all that familiar with the subject, but I suppose if I want to see it improved, I'm gonna have to do it myself, since no one claiming to be better informed has stepped up... I really wish I could find a credible, well-documented source for information here, since most of the stuff I can look up is either too vague, obviously biased or just a retelling of anecdotes and whatnot, which is inherently POV. -- Captain Disdain 21:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've also avoided cleaning it up, because the best references that I've read on this subject are at the library, while the ones I have are not as complete (I don't stock up on UFOlogy books generally, but have a few). I haven't studied this case since like three years ago, but I remember some of the details, etc.

And I admit I didn't read this Wikipedia article at all, I just glanced at it, recognized the case, saw the NPOV dispute, then read some of this talk page. I'll read the Wikipedia article soon and see what should be fixed.

I found one of my own books that discuss the case. It confirmed that Villas Boas had (according to the doctor, etc.) shown symptoms of radiation poisoning over the months after his alleged encounter. He also had a "hypochromatic lesion" on his chin where blood was allegedly drawn by the aliens, and the skin there was thinner & smoother. The Brazilian military intelligence interviewed him soon afterwards, according to my source, and they apparently judged that he had gone through some sort of actual experience.

Okay, read the article. It may be slightly POV, but its facts are taken from the source literature, not just from crank websites. Some changes need to be done, some tweaks here & there & some more detail. And more references. Alexander 007 02:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're making progress here. I would be interested to hear the name of the book you have on the subject. Also -- I feel I should stress this -- I would like to point out that just because something is taken from source literature doesn't necessarily mean that it's NPOV (or true, for that matter). I mean, if the article is to state or imply that Boas' story is anything more than a story, that's going to have to be something that needs to be backed up with pretty damn solid references, since he makes some fairly outlandish claims. If we can't find any such evidence, then the article should explain that this is the famous abduction story that Boas told, and that even though many people interested in the topic believe it, there's absolutely no evidence that he was taken into a flying saucer and forced to have sex with a female alien. -- Captain Disdain 00:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. What I wanted to emphasize is that the info in the article is taken from the source literature on the topic (in other words, it wasn't made up by the Wikipedia contributor and it wasn't taken solely from trash websites). Now, there is still the problem of the POV he/she wrote it in, and there will always be the problem of determining the reliability of the data, even from the primary sources. Alexander 007 21:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, good. Looks like we're on the same page here. =) -- Captain Disdain 11:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Made some changes

Amazingly enough, the article didn't fix itself after about six months or so, so I went ahead and injected some NPOV by simply removing or toning down some of the more outrageous claims, working with the phrasing and throwing a couple of instances of {{Fact}} in there. I still wish someone who was actually familiar with the subject could work on this one... -- Captain Disdain 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The people most likely to be "familiar with the subject" are also most likely to be crackpots, and their sources are likely to be disreputable. Not to put too fine a point on it, the "incident" isn't merely implausible, not merely "outlandish". No, as related by the protagonist, it's patently absurd. If visits to earth from extra-terrestrial aliens occur, I can say with impunity that they don't occur like this. TheScotch (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

If you're looking for sources on this case, look for The Unexplained: Mysteries of Mind Space, & Time, a collection of articles on the paranormal-covering 8 to 24 volumes, depending on your edition, or Out of this world: Mysteries of... which contains excerpts from the Unexplained series. I find it trutsworthy, because while it sometimes agrees with outlandish theories, it tries to be neutral and debunks many 'paranormal' subjects (such as the Bermuda Triangle). Many of its answers actually make sense. It also mentions the Villas Boas case, and elaborates it a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.74.104 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Trying to be neutral" is not sufficient ground to consider a source valid. What are the author's credentials? How was the book received by scholars? TheScotch (talk)

He should not be called "Boas"

Villas Boas is ONE name with two words; so he should not be called "Boas", but Villas Boas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelorvb (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Villas Boas" (variants: Vilas-Boas, Villas-Boas, Vilas-Bôas, Villasboas etc.) is one of several compound surnames in the Portuguese language. Like Castelo Branco (also Castelbranco, Castelo-Branco), Santa Rita (also Santarrita) and others. By the way, the surname means "Good Villages" and evokes a region in Portugal that was taken from Spain during one of the earliest mediaeval struggles for Portuguese independence (that is, this is a surname with a noble origin!). 189.13.13.10 (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Isn't it "Boas's story" since Boas is his name? You don't exclude the "s" in names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.235.245 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antônio Vilas Boas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060427053131/http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk:80/arc/90/revis01.html to http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/revis01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-evaluated as early as possible. Here's why

.ما تالله ,إِلَى هُنَا

Heigh, ye dear Wikipedians!

The researcher ta'en mention at the end of English's Wikipedia article, claimed that Boas' abduction allegation was inspired by an article published by Brazilian newspaper O Cruzeiro, regarding Adamski's famed abduction case, quite briefly. However, one should remark, the newspaper's article was released in November, 1957, as displayed by French Wikipedia article in a footnote about (indeed, one really ought to be screwed up, being poor victim, from such $keptic's Sagetrieb!), and Boas' documented abduction had befallen in October, 1957. (Thou behold'st; O Cruzeiro's article was released one month later!)

Wherefore, his conclusions, as we have ascertained, are unreliable and woebegonely wrong!

In the Portuguese version of this issue, it is also ta'en into account a reported Serbian CIA agent who informed an investigator (as 'a eyely alleged), about the Operation Mirage, plotted by the intelligence agency, on Brazil's ground, to hallucinate lede (and by and large rabble, why not?) envisanging faux abductions' allegations thereafter. First of all, in order to pinpoint and make sure of the accuracy thereof, we must have, by any sort of investigative demand, another sources to corroborate and be in line with such allegation, including other people who partaked of such off-the-wall covert operation and also victimed of. Is there one? Secondly, are there some CIA documents, journalistic and scholarly intelligence's news and report(s), other books about CIA (and eke related to), addressing on this set of events, affirming uncontroversially such stuff? As far as the author tells us, pretty etically (and 'a contrives as well), there is no other source, acessory background, whistleblowing or any investigation holding these claims up. Regarding as a whole, these assertions are also totally flawed and cannot be believed whatsoe'er.

Notwithstanding, as everything hitherto remaining controversial (pardon des paroles, c'est mon avis, съеби́сь вы разоблачения!, promoters of "clear-cut" explanations; id est, sophistry!), I shall attend to, while I have recked the situation stoop and roop, further discussions on this same subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMTHESAVIOROFMANKIND (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So here we have, apparently, input from an actual extraterrestrial alien on the matter. TheScotch (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, in the earth language known as "English", the archaic term "wherefore" doesn't mean "therefore"; it means "why". TheScotch (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Belaboring the obvious

1. The science of astronomy tells us that interstellar distances are vast, and the science of physics tells us that the speed of light is an absolute limiting factor (various tenuous and highly speculative and otherwise problemetical work-arounds have been proposed, but I'm referring to the state of current determined knowledge). This necessarily makes regular visits to earth from advanced exterrestrial species highly unlikely.

2. The science of evolutionary biology tells us that the chance of exterrestrial species completely independently developing closely humanoid characteristics, so closely that the protagonist in the story finds himself intensely sexually attracted to a female specimen, is vanishingly small.

3. The science of biology tells us that the chance of humans being able to interbreed with an independent autonomous extraterrestrial species is so small as to be essentially non-existent.

Is it POV then for editors to approach the story detailed in this article as if it were a work of fantasy fiction? (I qualify "fiction" with "fantasy" because non-fantasy fiction describes events that didn't happen but conceivably could happen). We have to draw a line somewhere, don't we? TheScotch (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)