Talk:Men in black/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Police

Should this page make a reference to legitimate and public Police agencies of similar appearance to MiBs? In the UK "Man in Black" often is taken to mean a member of SOCA or previously, Special Branch, as they wear black suits and drive unmarked black vehicles. If this is what readers were looking for there may be some confusion. -Yasha80.41.48.212 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Special Branch dress in black suits, drive black automobiles? What Special Branch are you talking about?Johnwrd (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bunch Of BS

This is the biggest BS I have found on Wikipedia so far.

Witnesses who report MIB sightings often describe "foreign looking" men with exotic features; it's as if they're "from elsewhere." They look "Oriental" or "Indian" and have "deeply tanned" skin, although sometimes their complexions are extremely pale and speak in monotonous machine-like voice. The eyes of the MIB or usually described as slanted or "bulging," as if from a thyroid condition. Their noses and chins are often "point," and their cheekbones are set high on their faces. Though some are tall and thin, with naturally long fingers, others are short or stout. They may or may not have fingernails or fingerprints.

I would love to know how they determined these people have no finger prints. Guess they just noticed it while they were busy being "roughed" up. I would put up a tag for this article, but since it's "alleged secret government organizations" no need for it. Still pretty ridiculous--Elysianfields 07:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I find "roughed up" a change choice of words, slang-esque even. Changed to assaulted. Also rewrote part of the sentence to make it flow better. And I agree with Elysianfields, they also may or may not have green hair and orange lips.... Intinn 11:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If something like green hair and orange lips was speculated instead of observed, it wouldn't belong. If the lack of fingernails or fingerprints was reported by a witness, it should have a place in the article, though one should question how the lack of fingerprints was established. The lack of fingernails can be observed. It should be mentioned, however, that both can be explained by GLOVES. Gentaur 17:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fact. Elysian Fields = Working for US Government.

I think Elysianfields is the victim here, having themselves been warned by foreign-looking, menacing Orientals not to let Wikipedians find out the Truth.

But in all seriousness, Wikipedia's inclusion of information does not imply endorsement of its moral or factual verity. Pretty much all of the bizarre-sounding elements described in this article are straight from the mouths of witnesses documented in the Mothman Prophecies. In case you're not familiar, the book covered events in rural West Virginia in the mid 20th Century, so the odd-sounding and most certainly un-PC language herein should be read in that context. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By 'covered events' you mean 'largely fabricated' I should think. 68.231.208.53 (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Say a man comes to your car, telling you you didn't see what you thought you saw, to prevent you from calling him a fool or driving off (which you would do being a rural west virginia man who doesn't take crap from anyone) He places his hand on your car. Say you're walking along and he places his hand on a glass storefront to block your path while talking to you. Later you examine the surface where his hand was placed and find no fingerprints. You'd come to the conclusion he has none. As for the other language, wormwoodpoppies has explained it quite well.--74.131.91.57 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You can say a lot of things but they may not necessarily be true (nor true in the context of being an accurate relaying of the legendary accounts.) 68.231.208.53 (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Stranglers "obsessed"

someone removed the phrased "by their own admission" from the little paragraph on The Stranglers. I presume they felt that this was unnecessary PoV - however, I think it's the other way round - to claim some pop stars are "obsessed" with something is quite a subjective PoV thing to say - however the 4 members of the band have repeatedly stated in interviews, over many years, that they were literally "obsessed" by the MIB. Of course, you may note they were all off their faces on heroin and cocaine at the time as well, but that's another matter... ;-)--feline1 08:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No info about this paragraph !!!

Hello! I read the Men In Black article and I would like to have more info about this statement : "On a separate note, deceased Irish journalist, P. O'keefe, two days before his death reported that his wife was making claims that aliens had impregnated her. When he saw strange markings, resembling scars, but not risen, in circles around her pelvic area, he tried to admite her. He filed a report with local authorities, then died two days later. His wife, Mary-lynn, went missing 7 months later. No leads were ever found. Her mother, Victoria Toby, whom she was living with at the time, had no recollection of her leaving. Upon interview she stated that "she never heard her leave". (United Kingdom Press)" I think the author should give some references about this "fact"... I tried looking on google but I didnt find ANYTHING about "P. O'Keefe" and his unlucky wife.... gee it sounds difficult to believe. Goodbye :) Arleigh Burke

I agree. That kind of claim most certainly requires a good solid source. Jonas Liljeström 11:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs to be more careful about what it reports as fact vs. what it reports as claims of fact. -- Beland 22:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole article sounds very speculative. I support adding an NPOV tag at the top. Tronno (talk | contribs) 03:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Me too (82.170.100.222 14:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

Wasn't there a pic before?

I am 90% sure that there was a pic of a "supposed" MIB in this article. If it wasn't posted directly on this topic there was at least a link to the pic. I vaguely remember seeing it and it creeping the hell out of me. I want to find it again so if anyone has removed it or knows where it is i'd appreciate the info.

Please sign your statements. Martial Law 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It was likely destroyed by the CIA as well as all other evidence of the spooks (MIB)Avianmosquito 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)avianmosquito

---

Here's another movie for the Adaptations section:

The Shadow Men, 1998

UFO Casebook and Malevolent Alien Abduction Research

Also go to www.maar.us for more info. on these aliens. It may be suggested that these aliens and/or the human counterparts function as "enforcers". Also, the article UFO Casebook may also have more info. on these personnel/creatures as well. See, and use the "Search" icon on the UFO Casebook Homepage to examine the different alien entities. Type:Alien Races" to get the known list of aliens that people has claimed to have been in contact with. Martial Law 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) :)

On the Malevolent Alien Abduction Research website, click either on "Alien Species" or "Alien Races".

Also, on the UFO Casebook website, go to the "Alien Contact" Files, and find on these, classified by the year, reports of alien contact that includes MIB encounters, Bigfoot-like creature and other creature encounters. Martial Law 08:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Robot/ Android

If these creatures were robots, one had malfunctioned. If they're not robots/ androids, then one has made a error. See RE.:"Peter Rojceicz" about the MIB that got him interested in UFOs and flying saucers, aliens. Martial Law 09:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

"Robert McNeill founded it in 1997"

Founded what? Does this mean "Robert McNeill coined the term in 1997"? Katr67 06:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. Katr67 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sherwood hoax

Added a reference and link to John Sherwood's article in which he admits that he and Gray Barker made up the "men in black" out of whole cloth. Cactus Wren 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Murphy

I'm pretty sure this is made up. I can't find more info about this anywhere else on the net.

Actuality

I removed the second paragraph:

"On the other hand, as noted in Col. Freeman's statement quoted above, the U.S. Air Force seemed interested in the phenomenon, and seemed to accept some reports as genuine, or at least as intriguing."

There is no statement from "Col. Freeman" anywhere on the page. Kakashi64 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

BS?!

how could any one call this article "BS", they (the men in black) have been accounted by to many separate individuals to simply be written off as "BS" or hallucinations, it is likely if the government or a separate organizations recognizes the existence of extra terrestrial life then they could act as E.T. police, and with that i have completely lost where i was going. HHS.student

This is a much more rational theory. I mean a massive government conspiracy spanning over literally decades with out so much of a single word being leaked to the public ever, keeping back information about a inconceivably advance alien race who has mastered faster than light travel and found an inconceivably small (in comparison to the entire universe)rock in the middle on no where for nothing more than "mysterious purposes". I mean, besides, no one could afford a black suit unless they worked for a top secret government organization that is older than the CIA and the USAF. All this because some people saw a few "purdy lights in da sky". (HHS.student, I fixed your spelling for you while I was in here. Spell check dude, seriously) --Tim--

Merge Black Hat and Mirror Shades into Men in Black

I've proposed the merge of Black Hat and Mirror Shades into here on what I think is a pretty obvious bit of redundancy. Most of Black Hat & Mirror Shades seems to be unattributed speculation on a sort of "G-man" archetype. I've proposed a merge, but considered proposing a deletion of it & a redirect; I don't even know how much of BH&MS is worth saving. Thoughts? --mordicai. 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• No Merge - from what I read, It is not quite synonymous with the closely-related term Men in Black, as it implies that they can 1) not be men, and 2) not necessarily wear all black, and 3) still be sinister. which notes that the two are not related and that these black hat peronal do not have to be dressed in black yet is that not the characteristic of Men in Black? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: well, I'm not suggesting they are the same thing, just that the articles should be combined into one- the overlap is such that I think Men in Black makes a better heading for both. --mordicai. 13:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - this article seems like a stub. It'd look better as another paragraph in Men in Black. Although I'm not sure on the overall heading - perhaps a change of name is in order. Conspiracy Theorists maybe? EvokeNZ 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF. Didn't this article used to be bigger and much more interesting? I'm looking at you, Mr. US Government.

Oh noes, govt conspiracy expands into Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.80.165 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I was just thinking so myself. Any group with the ability to cover up alien conspiracies obviously has the ability to edit Wikipedia... 86.146.174.75 13:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Having had a hunt through the history, the main change seems to be the near-removal of the popular culture section made on the 7th March 2007. I would suggest that, rather than losing the information, it might be better to create a separate article entitled "Men In Black in popular culture" or some such. Darth Fanboy 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it water rather queer too...--142.68.49.87 06:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia NOT accepting edits !

I've placed two edits. Only place they're in are in the History section. What the hell is going on ? Vandalisim ? One edit was in response to a citation request. 205.240.146.147 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just seen it. Looks like some kind of bug is fouling things up - AGAIN. 205.240.146.147 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

Why is The Brother from Another Planet at the Internet Movie Database in the External links? 192.88.212.68 14:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CIA

These people are CIA operatives, i ought to know. the first thing they do is threaten, threaten, and threaten you again. they are there to eliminate any leak, any breach of secrecy, not just UFO sightings. And i must add, the sunglasses and the surprisingly not noted extreme amount of makeup is to hide facial features, and the suits are just to add to intimidation, they also try to slip truth serum IE Ethanol into your food if they meet you at diners, whitch will always be totally empty. how do i know? i was a 'victim' Anonymous

Why this paranoid obsession with the C.I.A.? John Keal in his book 'Our Haunted Planet' states that the C.I.A. was interested in such sightings as Phantom Cats, and Strange Reptiles. In the 1950s and 1960s they would send Staff to investigate reported sightings. Today they probably use Satellites to check out places of interest like that. Like everyone else they were just interested, not covering up activities.Johnwrd (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll see this sort of behavior a lot around these topics, Johnwrd. I'll be completely charitable and say I understand the impulse to feel passionate about something you believe in personally, but it does rather get in the way of allowing argumentation. People who have a firm belief in the Men in Black conspiracy or similar ones feel threatened when they're challenged, in short, partially because of the spoken or unspoken charge of being crazy, and they tend to respond aggressively. 68.231.208.53 (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

MIB image

The black and white image of the "look" of a man in black is hokey. I'm sure someone can come up with something less hokey looking and more professional. If you'd like, I can do up a MS Paint image to go along with that one. And when I remove it, it's not vandalism. There was a reason given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.195.9 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Security issue

Mcafee Site Advisor says this link www.maxpages.com/mapit/Men_In_Black tries to load a browser exploit of some sort. I didn't have any noticeable problems -- just a head's-up. --72.95.197.90 08:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Longetivity

Please lock the page, so that the CIA soesn't erase more informative sections, particularly tha ones that blatently point out their involvement. leave the talk page open to edits though. please give you're opinoin.--Avianmosquito (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have proof to back that claim up? TyVulpine (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I particularly like how he thinks that locking a wikipedia page would protect it from hypothetical government super-agents. 68.231.208.53 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sector Seven Reference

The reference to sector seven in the movie Transformers (2007), links to the punk rock band sector seven which does not pertain to a government organization.

"In the 2007 movie Transformers, agents of Sector Seven -- a secret organization of the United States government -- are portrayed as MIB's." --24.46.97.106 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculation and rumors

This article is full of them. The whole thing reads like a conspiracy theory website. I see there are some books referenced at the bottom; can they be matched up with the statements they support? The whole thing is presented like fact: "Men in Black always seem to have detailed information on the persons they contact, as if the individual had been under surveillance for a prolonged amount of time". Says who? If the article is really about "alleged secret government departments", as it says in the hat note, it should not be presented like verified facts. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alien Explanation

Some of the External Links in the article indicate that the "Men In Black" are aliens. Please see the links in the External Links section in this article. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

These links should be removed, due to WP:OR, WP:RS concerns. Talked to Lomn about this matter. I'd remove them myself, but a bot would hollar VANDALISM!. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Air Force Special Activities Center AFSAC

Instead of getting directly to the AFSAC information, I was lead to an intelligence agency. This could be improved.--Dale S. Satre (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because the AFSAC has been merged into the Air Intelligence Office.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This author had me do his homework for him!!!!

I did the "supposedly" author's work. The Air Force Special Activities Center not only leads to the wrong page, but now it is under a new name: the 696^th Intelligence Group. This is under the 696^th Information Warfare Center in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale S. Satre (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for context as to what you are talking about? FlamingSilmaril (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting on that Image

I would very much like to see someone of the supposed MIB you all keep talking about or at least post a link. Thank You.

Sign you statements, please.

Anyways here you are: http://web.archive.org/web/20070809000056/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MiB.svg

And more! http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black

Take your pick as to what version you want to compile, combine, and such info from and then re-write the article and lock it. Also, the Internet Archive doesn't cooperate with any form of the United States Government, as stated on a TWiT episode from 2008. Coffee4binky (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case, another posting of the links.

Here are the links to the Man in Black creepy picture and to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine back-up of the article since 2004:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070809000056/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/MiB.svg/602px-MiB.svg.png

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black

Coffee4binky (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-urgent rewrite suggested.

This article ought to be re-written into a more general, streamlined article, with links and points to other articles of the specific sub-topics or branches thereof. This isn't urgent, but compare the versions stored at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and see if some compilation could be created in the future. Whenever somebody feels like it. Because I'm busy so I can't right now. Coffee4binky (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. And for such an interesting and controversial topic, this is a pretty boring page. All we have in the way of images is a simple caricature, and from what I've read someone actually had a photograph of one. What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentJRH (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request On End of Second Paragraph

Re: the last sentence of the second paragraph (I think it's under the heading of Origins if I remember correctly): "Hilary Evans...telephone call." This sentence is awkward or grammatically incorrect in such a way that it's meaning is obscured. 'All 3 events is' (paraphrased) perhaps should be 'All 3 events are' but that depends on what meaning was intended. I will not edit it as I don't know what the actual content/meaning was intended to be. (I haven't got time to research/consult the source.) Missy2468 (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That film with Will Smith

Just so we're clear, we appear to be saying that the Men in Black concept predates the film Men in Black with Will Smith as Agent J. Is that right? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, the film was based on the concept. --McGeddon (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, then! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

MiB in popular culture

Why does this section keep getting removed? Especially by User:BrendanFrye? I move that we keep it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Then source it and distribute it across the article. It has been tagged since September of 2008. Wikipedia does not need unsourced trivia sections. So fix it or it stays out. Thanks! BrendanFrye (talk)

Wow! So that's it then, is it?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to source the information? BrendanFrye (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep --209.213.220.227 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I added it back in and the information I added is SOURCED. Which seems to be what the hangup was.No hazmats (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

the section added does not appear top improve article... your edits have been challenged, please try to reach a consensus and provide some ref's as opposed to edit warring. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does it not improve the article? Please clarify. User:MikeWazowski? removed it as vandalism. It is not vandalism! If the films 'Men In Black' and 'Men in Black II' are relevant, then please explain why the film 'Brother From Another Plan't is not relevant? If it does not belong in a 'popular culture' section then perhaps rather than deleting a relevant piece of information, you could suggest where it should go or move it your self. it seems you are participating in edit warring yourself. No hazmats (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed it was vandalism -it was removed because pop culture sections are strongly discouraged and the information provided does not appear to improve the article. Also, your addition is sourced to Sayles' own website, which is a primary reference for that film, another thing to also be avoided. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Using the Talk page is also recommended. I appreciate it. So, if using a primary source is to be avoided, and 'Popular Culture' sections are strongly discouraged, I get that. Thanks. I do not understand however, why the material is thought to not improve the article when the information on the MIB films is? TBFAP predates the MIB film by 15 years, and is the original film representation of MIB in general. I still submit that it is the information on the MIB films that does not improve the article. But I would never remove those references.

If I use a non-primary source and don't put it in a popular culture section is the information acceptable to you?No hazmats (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case I think that the play on name -MiB Men in Black Would be a direct correlation to the Men in Black of the conspiracy nature. I believe it could be safely argued that the film is worth mentioning based on that alone. It's nothing personal and if you really think it should be included...explain further why and I'll listen. But as i see it now I do not think personally that a Popular culture section is appropriate for this article. It really does not improve the article at all. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will respond more fully on why I think it improves the article, and I now understand about popular culture sections and primary sources. But may ask the converse question: How then does the MiB movie & TV franchise, and Will Smith's song improve the article? How does the release date of MiB III improve the article?? Really. The characters in the Sayles film are alien slave chasers in the classic MiB form, operating as agents of their government, in chasing an escaped alien slave. They are depicted in a way similar to the other forms of MiB in media that are depicted. Have you seen The Brother From Another Planet? I hope you are not making judgement without having seen it! I added it (albeit in a wrong form re: pop culture) for the benefit of those who may not have been aware of this indy film. It won Best Actor and Best Screenplay in the 1984 Caixa de Catalunya, and was nominated for the grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. It's a fine film about the characters that this article is about. P.S. It is available for viewing on Netflix and I think I saw it on youtube as well. No hazmats (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again... The MIB movie and related songs, actors, etc are a direct play on the name of the "mythical" Men in Black. The film you are wanting to add may well be similar in nature and may even directly relate to the topic. But it just appears to be more clutter in an article that already explores the fan side. The X-Files, Hearts in Atlantis and many other films, books and stories also include depictions of the Men in Black and they would have no more place here than BFAP.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, delete those references to the films, song, etc! No hazmats (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no... You seem to be missing the point. The fact that they have a DIRECT correlation, by the play on name and obvious success within the MiB franchise would seem to justify inclusion. This is becoming circular now. You seem to be pushing this as though it is personal. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No,it's not personal - I genuinely do not understand. (I do understand the earlier comments about primary sources, and the popular culture section). What I do not understand is why it's seemingly okay to have a section on the media franchise which is in effect a popular culture section with a different name. And I do not understand the repeated comment I've received: "... does not improve the article." And by the way, it is not becoming circular by my acts, rather by your own. I asked a couple of specific questions in an earlier post which you didn't answer, yet you gave me essentially the same response (other than to say I'm missing the point). I think you are actually missing my point: In fact, TBFAP has as much of a DIRECT correlation to the the subject of this article, every bit as much as the MiB franchise. While not as commercially successful (another way of saying 'Popular'), as MiB, TBFAP predates them by 15 years, which is one of the primary reasons I believe it warrants inclusion. Also, the Men in Black Characters in TBFAP are considerably more authentic than the flashy characters as portrayed by Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. And another question (again,please answer if you are going to refute my point one more time), What does Will Smith's song have to do with anything? So, I'll ask my prior question more clearly this time: Are you arguing against the inclusion of this reference without actually having seen the film? - No hazmats (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Real? Any Facts at all?

Okay. It seems like that this article is full of beliefs, and fiction. Would anyone like to add facts?

70.107.82.234 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Rick Ace

then it woudlnt be conspiracy theory anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture

There was an "Unsolved Mysteries" episode about them, should an image be added to give readers an idea about what they may look like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.226 (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

coast to coast interview

There is a show, an interview with "Nick Redfern. Men in black. Coast to Coast am 06-22-2011" http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/06/22, and the author mentions the book "The Real Men In Black: Evidence, Famous Cases, and True Stories of These Mysterious Men and their Connection to UFO Phenomena", in that interview the author mentions that there are records obtained via the FOI requests that one MIB report was a visit from "British Royal Air Force's Provost & Security Services" which did visit one of the witnesses. James Michael DuPont (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible explanations

Actually there is an additional explanation not mentioned. In some cases, it's suggested that some MIB are actually undercover UFOlogists, who've adopted official clothing etc so that they can elicit information that they would not get as members of the public.--193.130.15.240 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)