![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
UFO's do exist because the saucer resonates on a higher frequency, one that is even above the dimmest sound perceivable by human ears. That is why to many witnesses, the jet does not produce any sound and moves at unconceivable speeds. The saucer can indeed perform space travels through the conversion of bodily mass (the pilot and the jet) to hyper-energy, E=MC4. This is done through the emission of will energy of the soul of the pilot. It is controled and manuvered by the pilot's psychic ability. In other words, the saucer is a result of a cybernetic invention, where the brain of the pilot mingles with the will of the jet through an exogenous brain wave that is attainable only with the help of superior spiritual knowledge. Humanity is unconceivable of such psychic ability in its current stage of evolution. It lacks the knowledge of the immaterial power over the material physics. But in the future, should humanity survive the upcoming chaos, it will overcome the test of inventing its own saucer craft. China and India are most likely the cradle for such a revolutionary technological discovery. However, it is much easiers to embrace our space brothers from Venus and Mars and let them catalyze our effort, only if we pass their tests first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.229.128 ( talk) 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
THE FIRST CONFIRMED UFO WAS ON 5 MARCH 2009 IN BULGARIA, NOW WE HAVE PROOF THEY EXIST! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.13.95 ( talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Given the probabilities, it is reasonable to assume that "a certain fraction of stars have sufficient lifespans, and one or more planets in the right region" to develop life as we would recognise it, at least some of which will be sentient. The issue is - is it possible for "a reasonable means of physical travel or other form of communication to be developed for intersteller travel or networking in a meaningful sense" to occur.
Has any explanation been given for the number of aliens/UFOs who state they have come from Venus, when it is manifestly hostile to most life (barring, possibly, some very hardy "bacteria and other beasties"?
Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(NB long talk page)
"UFO science"? That odd phrase again. This is clearly not a science. kwami ( talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"It is likely" that there is sentient life (however defined) elsewhere in the universe and that some of such species will be more technologically advanced. 120 years ago the possibility of powered flight was not considered feasible - so there may be mechanisms for space travel we do not presently know.
An article on "parallels between encounters with UFOs and their inhabitants and contemporary knowledge of astronomical bodies/science fiction themes" could be developed for Wikinfo. In the historical context there are many stories of encounters with gods/elves/angels/other strange creatures - so such events seem to be part of human nature - and the expectation that we are not alone in the universe.
Perhaps if we say that Aliens-if-they-exist-and-visit-us may well simplify their story to help human understanding "many points of view will be catered for."
Why did the ancient-visitors not teach the locals "useful things" (health and hygiene, basic technology etc) rather than go in for fancy displays?
My position on the subject can be deduced. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggest the "proverbial someone(s)" develop one or several relevant articles on the subject on Wikinfo. Jackiespeel ( talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm begining to have more faith in people after reading this. I remember watching a video of an old man telling how "Aliens" took him to their home planet (Saturn) and showed him wonderful cities of silvery metal that swayed. UFOlogists (I can't believe thats being accepted as a real term) disregard these earlier claims completely, and focus on the now. The Ummo letters, which stated that came from Wolf 224 (244?) were wrong (Saying it was only 3.4 light years when its really 14). They explained it as Being different due to the theory of reletivity. Funny how these "Aliens" know so much about our society (Like what we named their solar system). And our written language(s). And our unproven (but believable) theories. And how such an advanced species decided to communicate through our postal service rather than send a global radio broadcast. And of course comes the arguments, but you cannot prove a negative by not proving the positive. You MUST prove the negative to disprove the positive. Thats how the Scientific Process Works (Theory, Experiment, Experiment, Experiment, Conclusion, Experiment, etc...) SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Venus in general deserves much greater examination, in all scientific and other contexts. The scientific estimation of temperatures & pressures, e.g., is poorly documented, not the subject of open scientific discussion, and not recently confirmed by (paucity of) modern probes. Few of the so-called "experts" are willing to even causally share data, sources of that data, or the calculations used to make final determinations as to the atmosphere and environment of Venus. The nearly-complete converse is true as to the study of the desert planet Mars. The most distressing aspect of the supposed public study of Venus is that there is no real active study, discussion, or scientific work in the PD concerning the conditions on Venus, other than the "standard line." Even if conditions are extreme on Venus, a logical thinker would still believe the planet to be of enormous interest. Is that the case? Draw your own conclusions as to the study of our closest planetary neighbor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.196.117 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 February 2009
Hi, tonight (25-12-09) me and my family witnessed what looked like fire balls all going on the same path in the sky and traveling faster than any plane i ve ever seen then they all stoped in a triangle shape if anybody has seen anything like this please write back on this site thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.123.156 ( talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Pine Bush and his neighbourhood is the center of the UFO activiy. Unusual lights, huge dark objects with brillant flashing colored lights and amall gray aliens. Triangle, qaudrangle, diamond, manta ray and boomerang shaped objects. These objects and lights hover or move above the fields, in the altitude of the tree crowns, with incredible manoeuvres on Pine Bush neighbourhood.
Anybody may observe these objects, who visits onto the fields on Pine Bush neighbourhood! The Best UFO hotspot in the world!
External links:
[http://www.strangeactivity.co.cc Pine Bush UFO watch]
What is this nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryonu ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, actually the UFO Hotspot in the world is around the Nevada Test Sight. Hmmmm...I seem to recall a base there...Groom Lake? Where the U2, F117, Blackbird and B2 were developed and tested? Wow! Aliens must love our Military Technology! I bet they learned a lot from us! Next someone will say that the Wright Brothers learned to fly from watching a UFO. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
Did you know that a UFO got over the Bush Residence, i.e. "The Texas White House"? Its in the MUFON report. This is the second time that a UFO has paid the President of the US a visit. The first time was in 1952, in which a UFO fleet was seen over Washington DC, and Truman was prez at the time. Maybe the aliens gave Bush a anal probe. 65.163.117.135 ( talk) 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe UFO's attacked the World Trade Center and made holograms to make it look like planes? Yeah, and I'm running with Palin in 2012 as the VP. If another species of intelligent life traveled across the Galaxy to get here on technology we couldn't fathom, wouldn't they be a little more "stealthy"? We're a few years away from the "Predator Suit" (Which makes you hard to see) and we haven't even been to the closest planet in our solar system. If they were here, and they didn't want us to know, you wouldn't. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
Ok, maybe some UFO sightings are genuine UFOs, but most can be explained away. Here's a few theories I like to hold dear:
o Most UFO sightings didn't occur until the modern era, after the creation of the USSR and CIA/KGB. If "Aliens" were visiting us, why not come sooner?
o The first "Stealth" program started as early as 1940's, when the Allies discovered the British Mosquito plane had little to no radar signature due to its unique construction. Right around the time mentioned above.
o The Original Have Blue Aircraft (Pre-F117) was so classified only a dozen or so people outside the project knew about it at any given time. The Aircraft was unsuccessful, and did crash. It was later redesigned into the F117 Nighthawk.
o The CIA invested a lot of time and effort into keeping out nations secrets secret. Declassified in 1994: One project was designed to perpetuate the UFO / Alien theory to keep the Stealth and other "Black" projects out of the public eye as Military. By keeping the Military out of the loop, it forced them to investigate and deny this, making them seem to have a "cover up".
o Most modern technology has come from military research (Microwaves, Computers, Commercial Aircraft, Cell Phones, GPS, Color Television, etc.). It can be safely assumed that for every piece of technology that comes out, there is at least two more that are classified. This is why great technological leaps usually come from Wars.
o Our government is not evil. Medical technology is released as soon as it is discovered (Quick Clot being a good example, Hospitals had it before us Combat Soldiers). If the government / military has a new secret weapon that is undetectable by normal means, who does it hurt by keeping it a secret? Only those that wish to bring harm to our country.
o Out of all the "Alien" theories, not one piece of concrete proof has stood up to scientific examination. I especially love the "Alien Autopsy" video that was disputed to be "real". I have seen autopsy videos of Humans and Animals, and in each one, the camera is on a stable platform and follow's the examining doctor's instruction. Plus, the doctor does not use kitchen gloves, painter's suit, exacto hobby knife or a dust mask for protection, even in the most backwater town. If the military, which is has access to some of the best doctors in the world, were to do an autopsy on a being from another planet, doesn't it make sense to do it properly? And lets not forget the depressions in the ground, "higher" levels of radiation, and strange burn patterns. Three easy solutions: Metal Templates, Radon Gas (Found naturally) and rubbing Alcohol (Or even moonshine).
o During times of National Crisis or War, sightings seem to drop. Might just be my calculations, but I'm pretty sure its due to a lack of intrest, since there are more important things going on. What would change our society more, a war with another country, or contacting a race of aliens from another Solar System? Maybe if Aliens WERE really here, they would be more important. But they're not. And no, its not a ploy by the government to keep the common person under their control.
o Our need to understand the greater picture drives us. Some to religion, and others to science (Or pseudo-science). It drives people to discover great things in this world (Martin Luthor, Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, etc.). Our lives are short in the cosmic scheme, and we need to understand there is something more out there. Don't worry, we'll all find out when we get there.
That about covers the basics. It just drives me crazy when people take lack of proof as proof of its opposite. If you cannot prove it, then its not real and not fact until it is. I do believe that we are not alone in the Universe, but I'm pretty sure they have left us alone, if they have indeed discovered how to get here.
SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is all over the news. The Brits have "secured" the area. 98.19.47.171 ( talk) 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the nearly infinite sources are:
See http://www.allnewsweb.com/page1901903.php
This website indicates that the media in The West deliberately censors UFO and other reports of this nature. Another article reports cheveron shaped UFOs in New Mexico as well. Att. Admins: See the website itself and the statement in the article there about this claim. Thanks. Powerzilla ( talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
UFOs are made by cathode rays that line the outer hull. A Ufo can easily be made within the magnetic field by simple vacuum technology. The etheric matter, or electricity from the sun present is not substantial yet for mass public uses. If people would just use this technology by distributing electrons via outside the hull using a simple engineering feat I like to call solar energy to distribute power to the vacuum accelerator it would be creditable. -- 66.81.43.89 ( talk) 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So many opinions... cannot delete them all... *faints*
Has anyone read the tag on the top that says please do not post opinions, things merely 'about' the subject, etc.? Seriously. The talk pages are for improving the article.
I have an answer to people posting stuff about UFO accidents by the way... request or create an article about it. Don't just post it here.
That's all, thank you very much.
7h3 3L173 ( talk) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So someone has saw fit to remove my list template message "The inclusion of items in this list is disputed" but not bothered to respond to my objection (on this talk page, under "UFO hypotheses") or correct the list.
Frankly, if there were a Wikipedia tag "This list makes no sense at all" I'd have used that.
I'm restoring the warning tag. If anyone sees fit to remove it, first look at and respond to my objection please.--
77.44.77.44 (
talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just came back to this article after a hiatus. What a piece of awful! I have tagged the article with the appropriate tags. Luckily Jay Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko's Astronomy text has two pages on UFOs that we can use as the basis for this article's structure. We have proposals in other places too. There was a lot of original research in the Venus section that I just removed, by the way.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am a professional astronomer, and I too do not understand the focus on astronomers. To remove the heat from the discussion, suppose Botswana's military were secretly flying highly advanced craft around the USA. Would you look to astronomers to verify or discredit this? I hope not! Richard Conn Henry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.146.222 ( talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Astronomers are one of a number of important sources regarding UFOs. However, to reinforce the points made above, the UK UFO files from the DoD, the French UFO files, and various reports cited in the article constitute evidence that a vast number of UFO sightings are "fielded" by people who are most not astronomers. Unless extraordinary evidence is provided, as requested Anarwan above, that astronomers field the "vast majority of UFO reports from the public", the overwhelming weight of evidence against this assertion speaks for itself. Holon ( talk) 10:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me there is greater justification for plastering of the article with multiple tags than "Luckily Jay Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko's Astronomy text has two pages on UFOs". Nice to have an astronomer put that one to bed immediately. There are more sources per word in this article (about 7.5 sources per 100 words) than for the entry for Special Relativity (about 5.6 sources per 100 words). A reminder to us all, Editors are STRONGLY encouraged to try and perform clean-up themselves before posting articles to the list before requesting cleanup. A couple of minutes work was enough to remove content that requested verification. This calls into question the full array/assortment of apparently indiscriminate tagging. Specific issues should be raised. At a minimum, provide examples that are not readily dealt with on the spot. I'm not saying the request can't be justified, but it most certainly has not been justified in this case. If there is a justification in the history, please let me know so I can evaluate the specific points and which remain relevant. This kind of tagging is simply not conducive to constructive development of articles. If we read a tag, let alone multiple tags, we should be able to determine what the specific issues are. Holon ( talk) 09:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is over a 100kb. Per WP:LENGTH, the preferred article size is 32kb. (Personally, I think 32kb is too small - but over 100kb is certainly too big.) Per Wikipedia:LENGTH#A_rule_of_thumb, this article should almost certainly be divided. We should probably consider WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
All are from Pasachoff, Jay M and Alex Filippenko (2004). The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium. Brooks/Cole div. of Thomson Learning. pp. 428–430.
ISBN
053439550. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help).
“ | The most common UFO is a light that appears in the sky that seems to the observer unlike anything made by humans or any commonly understood natural phenomenon | ” |
“ | [O]bservations [of UFOs] are usually anecdotal, are not controlled in a scientific experiment, and are not accessible to study by sophisticated instruments | ” |
“ | It is not well known that a bright star or a planet low on the horizon can seem to flash red or green because of atmospheric refraction. | ” |
“ | Atmospheric effects can effect radar as well as visible light. | ” |
“ | One should not accept explanations that UFOs are flying saucers from other planets before more mundane explanations-including hozes, exaggeration, and fraud-are exhausted. | ” |
“ | For many of the effects that have ben reported, the UFOs would have been defying well-established laws of physics. | ” |
“ | UFOs can be so completely explained by natural phenomena that they are not worthy of more of our time. | ” |
“ | Although most of us (astronomers) do not categorically deny the possibility that UFOs exist (after all, the Voyager spacecraft might someday pass by a planet orbiting another star), the standard of evidence expected of all claims in science has not yet been met. | ” |
“ | Scientists have assessed the probability of UFOs being flying saucers from other worlds, and most have decided that the probability is so low that we have better things to do with our time and with our national resources. We have so many other, simpler explanations of the phenomena that are reported as UFOs that when we apply Occam's Razor, we call the identifications of UFOs with extraterrestrial visitation "false". | ” |
“ | Evidence that UFOs visit us is not convincing; most of the reports can be easily explained by atmospheric and other natural phenoman. Although it is possible that some of the sightings are of actual UFOs, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise, until the evidence becomes much stronger. | ” |
I'd like to see these concepts elucidated on this page, and will work to do so.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh... maybe the pre-modern bit (the title) should be reworded. Maybe.
7h3 3L173 ( talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed, at least for now, an unsourced description of a hypothesis that flying saucers are fallen angels. It can be put back if and when correctly sourced to show that it is a hypothesis seriously entertained such as to merit inclusion here.. -- TS 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The unofficial French COMETA report is misplaced in the "Supporters of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis" section, because COMETA concluded that the ETH was "far from the best scientific hypothesis" ( see bottom of p71 in the Conclusions). I have removed it. -- TS 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this here because it seems to lack balance. By and large the scientific conclusion to date is that the ETH is unsupported by the empirical evidence. This collection of assorted supporters for the ETH gives the false impression that, to the contrary, the ETH is considered to be a strong hypothesis.
There's a lot of "top secret" stuff whizzing around, most of it speculative intelligence, primary source, unassessed for quality in the form presented, and then dug up by ufologists who lack the perspective to distinguish it from fact.
A good example of this kind of digging, which has clearly influenced the writing of this article, is Timothy Good's Above Top Secret. Good digs out internal memos written by members of the military and government agencies who say "golly, we don't know what it is, maybe it's aliens" and presents them to our marvelling eyes. Another thing Good's book lacks is empirical evidence.
Towards Good, in particular, I would be inclined to adopt a "less is more" approach. He has for the most part dug out documents that, because of their obscurity, cannot be said to have influenced thinking on UFOs in a big way. His magnum opus is relevant solely in the context that it shows that the US government and many other governments have historically had as little clue about the nature of some UFO sightings as the general public.
There are some works that have been neglected. Condon in particular has been so thoroughly denigrated by ufologists that the devastating effect that study had on the scientific study of unidentified flying objects is not brought out in this article. Some works have been misrpresented (I removed one of the most egregious examples, above, a French study that purportedly held the extraterrestrial hypothesis up as the most satisfactory one for the evidence, when in fact it said the exact opposite.) There's a lot of work to do before this article can be considered remotely neutral. -- TS 03:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this one here for discussion too. It doesn't seem to have come to anything, though at the time it might have seemed significant simply because an ex-governor was involved.
The number of references given here for a simple press conference seems grossly excessive. I just don't know whether this belongs in the article at all, and if so, where. -- TS 06:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We're not making enough use of US, British and French government sources. I mention these three governments because they've been the most forthcoming with information about their investigations of UFOs. We have an immense amount of dubious material from various amateur organizations, but not much from the Air Force and the CIA which have put a large amount online. Large scale studies such as the Condon study are neglected and, to some extent, even seem to be deprecated. We should change this. -- TS 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I've again removed this section. There is very, very little support in the scientific community for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, it represents a fringe view. To include a large section on support is a glaring abuse of our Neutral point of view policy. -- TS 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As I have remarked elsewhere, there is little or no support in the scientific community for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, mainly due to lack of empirical evidence. I suggest that the long section on support for the ETH, which mostly relies on Timothy Good's digging in US and UK former secret documents, can be summarised as something like "Timothy Good has found, through Freedom of Information requests, that there there was formerly some interest in the hypothesis." There are some other studies that have provisionally supported the hypothesis (COMETA, for instance) but few peer reviewed scientific studies if any exist in support of the hypothesis and we really should make that clear in my opinion. Giving undue weight to Good misleads the reader as to the credibility of the hypothesis. -- TS 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
how about something like this: "Other private or governmental studies, some secret, have concluded in favor of the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), or have had members who disagreed with the official conclusions. These include a Manhattan Project scientist, Top Secret USAF documents, FBI, high-ranking members of the USAF and CIA, amd the governments of West Germany and France." then it should link to the whole list in its own article. untwirl ( talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like there is a reasonable consensus to at least move this material to Extraterrestrial hypothesis and just give a summary here. I'll move on doing that and then the details of any edits to the list itself can get hashed out on that page. Locke9k ( talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I am with-drawing from this project. I have had some health issues take me away from Wiki for a long time and I feel I have been gone too long to be of any good for it. Good luck Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
For the purpose of ref'ing a requested fact I dropped in a paper written by Josef Hynek's that contrasted the Condon Reports usage of UFO (based off Dr. William K. Hartman's definition) to Hynek's own definition of UFO. These are both accepted authorities on the subject.
However there's a great deal more literature discussing the many usages of the acronym. For a much more detailed treatise on the subject I recommend reading this article. Ultimately I think that particular source represents a more current view of the subject and might make for a better ref than this one. [1] -- Xtraeme ( talk) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
UFO:
Acronym for Unidentified Flying Object, originally pronounced yoo-foe as a short form in speech, but more often sounded out like the names of the individual letters U - F - O. The term was coined in 1951 by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt of the United States Air Force for the purpose of providing an official designation for what were then loosely being referred to as flying saucers. and was subsequently defined by the U.S.A.F. as "any airborne object that by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known type of aircraft or missile, or which can not be identified as a known object or phenomenon."
Later, the U.S.A.F. also used the acronyms UFOB ( Unidentified Flying Objects ) and UAO ( Unidentified Aerial Objects ), both synonymous with the original definition of UFO.
PRIMARY REFERENCE:
The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects
Copyright 1956 by Edward J. Ruppelt ( Former Head of USAF Project Blue Book )
Ace Books Inc.
Chapter One, Page 7.
Begin Quote:
"I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO reports (UFO is the official term I created to replace the words "flying saucers")"
End Quote
COMMENT:
The above is the factual history of the word UFO directly from the person who coined the term and the agency that originally ( and officially ) defined it. To loosely define it as something that "cannot be easily or immediately determined" is not accurate. Additionally, the Wikipedia article as it existed at the time of this discussion entry, goes on to confirm the validity of the above. Please consider amending the introduction of the article to provide consistency, or provide me with proper access so that I can cleanly integrate the necessary changes.
I have removed the woodcut image in history (
). Since the mainstream view is that this has nothing to do with UFOs, the only place it could even concievably go is in a section on fringe views. As it is it is non-NPOV. Also the caption is problematic. "Some say" without a citation is pretty much unacceptable. Locke9k ( talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following section on Edward Maunder. The essential reason is that based on the longer explanation on his webpage, he actually was not reporting a UFO. According to that description, "he assumed it was some extraordinary auroral phenomenon", which suggests that he used the phrase "a strange celestial visitor" metaphorically. The section in this article appears to misrepresent the event in a way that makes it appear that he actually was claiming to have seen some sort of vehicle. Its also not correctly cited, so even though I know the report was in "the Observatory", which I have access to, there is no way to find the article for further clarification. As the above information suggests that this is not actually about a UFO, I am removing it from the article as being unrelated.
On November 17, 1882, a UFO was observed by astronomer Edward Walter Maunder of the Greenwich Royal Observatory and some other European astronomers. Maunder in The Observatory reported "a strange celestial visitor" that was "disc-shaped", " torpedo-shaped", " spindle-shaped", or "just like a Zeppelin" dirigible (as he described it in 1916). It moved rapidly from horizon to horizon. The sighting was during high auroral activity; therefore Maunder assumed it was some extraordinary auroral phenomenon never before seen and called it an "auroral beam".
Locke9k ( talk) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's one more. The following section describes a sighting of "objects" but the cited reference clearly identifies them as meteors. According to the reference, they were not unidentified. This segment is therefore not relevant to this article. Locke9k ( talk) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this item from the UFO hypotheses list. It is unreferenced, and nowhere in the article is any information provided to establish that this is a notable or significant fringe view. For all we know, it is just the view of one guy who wrote it. That UFOs are time machines or vehicles from a future Earth, perhaps made by our descendants. Locke9k ( talk) 13:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Its not clear what this has to do with either UFO's or with evidence suppression, since it does not mention a UFO and the photos were eventually returned. * In 1965, Rex Heflin took four Polaroid photos of a hat-shaped object. Two years later (1967), two men posing as NORAD agents confiscated three prints. Just as mysteriously, the photos were returned to his mailbox in 1993. [3] Locke9k ( talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced and apparently unrelated to UFOs: * In 1996, the CIA revealed an instance from 1964 where two CIA agents posed as USAF representatives in order to recover a film canister from a Corona spy satellite that had accidentally come down in Venezuela. The event was then publicly dismissed as an unsuccessful NASA space experiment. Locke9k ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that this entire section should be moved to the ufo conspiracy theory article. It really is describing various conspiracy theory beliefs and not UFO's in general. Given that there is already a page on this there should just be a short summary of UFO conspiracy theories that is sufficient for the reader to understand what they are and how they relate to the overall picture of UFO's in general. I'm soliciting comment before making this move since it is a large change. Locke9k ( talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add the point that the conspiracy is really given undue weight in this article due to its length, and removing this section would help quite a lot. Locke9k ( talk) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The green fireballs already have an article, just like the black triangles do, I would think green fireballs should be linked from this article as well.
206.16.215.129 ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the intro because it cites only fringe POV sources w/o attribution. It clearly doesnt belong there. Perhaps it could be readded in one of the fringe sections, but right now there is no clear place for it. ...and tens of thousands of such reports have been catalogued. [5] Locke9k ( talk) 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some contention over this line in the intro: "Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged." Holon has asserted that this line requires citation. However the main point for this statement is that there is no current mainstream scientific publication on this, because its not taken seriously enough by the scientific community to warrant serious investigation. I will quote from the arbcom decision on this topic: " Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals." Thus the burden is on proponents of this subject to provide citations. The present line simply states that there is a lack of such sources. If someone can produce a current body of scientific publication that falls into the lines delineated above, the statement could then be removed. Until then, it is required for NPOV and should stay. Locke9k ( talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I have abbreviated the intro considerably, with a view to retaining the original statement about lack of mainstream support, with reference to verifiable sources. Let me know what you think: the more debate the better, as far as I'm concerned. I moved the content I had added to the intro to the beginning of the investigations section. On that latter, a limitation is that it is quite anglo/americocentric, but this is hard to avoid without input from relevant editors. I appreciate some may perceive it to express a POV, and invite opposing POVs using cited material.
My overriding concern is that there are several problems with the original statement in the intro: "Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged."
1. It is a strong POV statement that was unsourced. The stonger the POV, the more important it is to verify the statement. 2. The seamless connection with conspiracy theories and pseudosciences ignores the serious attention the topic received at a certain time, and the fact that the historical events leading to the current status are ignored
I don't want to get into it in the intro, but I defny anyone to demonstrate there is a consensus on the subject among scientists. The lack of attention does imply lack of support, but it does not imply a consensus that scientific study is unwarranted. Historical facts demonstrate no such consensus was reached before the Condon report was published, and polls indicate there was no consensus afterward (certainly not in the strong sense of the word). This is the reason the context needs to be there to avoid speculative inferences, implicit or explicit, about the reasons for lack of mainstream scientific study and reports. It is also the reason I am asking that statments that might be taken by a reader to imply consensus are verified, so the reader can properly evaluate them in context. Holon ( talk) 10:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I forgot an important point -- people like to argue this is ancient history. The problem is that if no scientific consensus was reached by 1969, and no serious attention has been paid to the topic, there is no basis for inferring contemporary consensus that can't be contested to some extent. Yes, things have changed, etc. etc. but that is as good a reason to re-visit data as it is for the usual inferences. Cheers. Holon ( talk) 10:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is another example of the above. Halon has added: "Nevertheless, historically there has been controversy among prominent scientists, including members of the AAAS, regarding whether UFOs warrant serious scientific investigation. [6] [7] [8] " These references are totally inadequate to make this statement. You simply cannot use references to websites that promote fringe views of UFOs to support the contention that there is scientific debate. As per the above guideline, its totally unacceptable. Wikipedia requires meainstream sources to establish the level of acceptance and notability of a fringe theory or pseudoscience. This is totally unambiguous in the relevant policies and guidelines as I have linked above. Locke9k ( talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be sufficient context for a reader of the article regarding the scientific status of the problem and how that status came to be. The statement in the intro regarding Science was:
"Emerge" from where? Outside of science? Within? If the latter, did scientists look at empirical data? If not, why not? If so, did scientists unamimously declare that the question did not merit study on the basis of specific studies? If so, where is the verified source to say so? If not, did they ignore the question? Was there any debate about whether the topic deserved investigation?
The scientific status has a history and context, and it needs to be provided. By all means, include reference to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory, but the above statement was terribly inadequate for providing the reader with sufficient context in an encyclopaedic article. Holon ( talk) 07:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
UFO's do exist because the saucer resonates on a higher frequency, one that is even above the dimmest sound perceivable by human ears. That is why to many witnesses, the jet does not produce any sound and moves at unconceivable speeds. The saucer can indeed perform space travels through the conversion of bodily mass (the pilot and the jet) to hyper-energy, E=MC4. This is done through the emission of will energy of the soul of the pilot. It is controled and manuvered by the pilot's psychic ability. In other words, the saucer is a result of a cybernetic invention, where the brain of the pilot mingles with the will of the jet through an exogenous brain wave that is attainable only with the help of superior spiritual knowledge. Humanity is unconceivable of such psychic ability in its current stage of evolution. It lacks the knowledge of the immaterial power over the material physics. But in the future, should humanity survive the upcoming chaos, it will overcome the test of inventing its own saucer craft. China and India are most likely the cradle for such a revolutionary technological discovery. However, it is much easiers to embrace our space brothers from Venus and Mars and let them catalyze our effort, only if we pass their tests first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.229.128 ( talk) 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
THE FIRST CONFIRMED UFO WAS ON 5 MARCH 2009 IN BULGARIA, NOW WE HAVE PROOF THEY EXIST! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.13.95 ( talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Given the probabilities, it is reasonable to assume that "a certain fraction of stars have sufficient lifespans, and one or more planets in the right region" to develop life as we would recognise it, at least some of which will be sentient. The issue is - is it possible for "a reasonable means of physical travel or other form of communication to be developed for intersteller travel or networking in a meaningful sense" to occur.
Has any explanation been given for the number of aliens/UFOs who state they have come from Venus, when it is manifestly hostile to most life (barring, possibly, some very hardy "bacteria and other beasties"?
Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(NB long talk page)
"UFO science"? That odd phrase again. This is clearly not a science. kwami ( talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"It is likely" that there is sentient life (however defined) elsewhere in the universe and that some of such species will be more technologically advanced. 120 years ago the possibility of powered flight was not considered feasible - so there may be mechanisms for space travel we do not presently know.
An article on "parallels between encounters with UFOs and their inhabitants and contemporary knowledge of astronomical bodies/science fiction themes" could be developed for Wikinfo. In the historical context there are many stories of encounters with gods/elves/angels/other strange creatures - so such events seem to be part of human nature - and the expectation that we are not alone in the universe.
Perhaps if we say that Aliens-if-they-exist-and-visit-us may well simplify their story to help human understanding "many points of view will be catered for."
Why did the ancient-visitors not teach the locals "useful things" (health and hygiene, basic technology etc) rather than go in for fancy displays?
My position on the subject can be deduced. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggest the "proverbial someone(s)" develop one or several relevant articles on the subject on Wikinfo. Jackiespeel ( talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm begining to have more faith in people after reading this. I remember watching a video of an old man telling how "Aliens" took him to their home planet (Saturn) and showed him wonderful cities of silvery metal that swayed. UFOlogists (I can't believe thats being accepted as a real term) disregard these earlier claims completely, and focus on the now. The Ummo letters, which stated that came from Wolf 224 (244?) were wrong (Saying it was only 3.4 light years when its really 14). They explained it as Being different due to the theory of reletivity. Funny how these "Aliens" know so much about our society (Like what we named their solar system). And our written language(s). And our unproven (but believable) theories. And how such an advanced species decided to communicate through our postal service rather than send a global radio broadcast. And of course comes the arguments, but you cannot prove a negative by not proving the positive. You MUST prove the negative to disprove the positive. Thats how the Scientific Process Works (Theory, Experiment, Experiment, Experiment, Conclusion, Experiment, etc...) SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Venus in general deserves much greater examination, in all scientific and other contexts. The scientific estimation of temperatures & pressures, e.g., is poorly documented, not the subject of open scientific discussion, and not recently confirmed by (paucity of) modern probes. Few of the so-called "experts" are willing to even causally share data, sources of that data, or the calculations used to make final determinations as to the atmosphere and environment of Venus. The nearly-complete converse is true as to the study of the desert planet Mars. The most distressing aspect of the supposed public study of Venus is that there is no real active study, discussion, or scientific work in the PD concerning the conditions on Venus, other than the "standard line." Even if conditions are extreme on Venus, a logical thinker would still believe the planet to be of enormous interest. Is that the case? Draw your own conclusions as to the study of our closest planetary neighbor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.196.117 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 February 2009
Hi, tonight (25-12-09) me and my family witnessed what looked like fire balls all going on the same path in the sky and traveling faster than any plane i ve ever seen then they all stoped in a triangle shape if anybody has seen anything like this please write back on this site thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.123.156 ( talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Pine Bush and his neighbourhood is the center of the UFO activiy. Unusual lights, huge dark objects with brillant flashing colored lights and amall gray aliens. Triangle, qaudrangle, diamond, manta ray and boomerang shaped objects. These objects and lights hover or move above the fields, in the altitude of the tree crowns, with incredible manoeuvres on Pine Bush neighbourhood.
Anybody may observe these objects, who visits onto the fields on Pine Bush neighbourhood! The Best UFO hotspot in the world!
External links:
[http://www.strangeactivity.co.cc Pine Bush UFO watch]
What is this nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryonu ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, actually the UFO Hotspot in the world is around the Nevada Test Sight. Hmmmm...I seem to recall a base there...Groom Lake? Where the U2, F117, Blackbird and B2 were developed and tested? Wow! Aliens must love our Military Technology! I bet they learned a lot from us! Next someone will say that the Wright Brothers learned to fly from watching a UFO. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
Did you know that a UFO got over the Bush Residence, i.e. "The Texas White House"? Its in the MUFON report. This is the second time that a UFO has paid the President of the US a visit. The first time was in 1952, in which a UFO fleet was seen over Washington DC, and Truman was prez at the time. Maybe the aliens gave Bush a anal probe. 65.163.117.135 ( talk) 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe UFO's attacked the World Trade Center and made holograms to make it look like planes? Yeah, and I'm running with Palin in 2012 as the VP. If another species of intelligent life traveled across the Galaxy to get here on technology we couldn't fathom, wouldn't they be a little more "stealthy"? We're a few years away from the "Predator Suit" (Which makes you hard to see) and we haven't even been to the closest planet in our solar system. If they were here, and they didn't want us to know, you wouldn't. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
Ok, maybe some UFO sightings are genuine UFOs, but most can be explained away. Here's a few theories I like to hold dear:
o Most UFO sightings didn't occur until the modern era, after the creation of the USSR and CIA/KGB. If "Aliens" were visiting us, why not come sooner?
o The first "Stealth" program started as early as 1940's, when the Allies discovered the British Mosquito plane had little to no radar signature due to its unique construction. Right around the time mentioned above.
o The Original Have Blue Aircraft (Pre-F117) was so classified only a dozen or so people outside the project knew about it at any given time. The Aircraft was unsuccessful, and did crash. It was later redesigned into the F117 Nighthawk.
o The CIA invested a lot of time and effort into keeping out nations secrets secret. Declassified in 1994: One project was designed to perpetuate the UFO / Alien theory to keep the Stealth and other "Black" projects out of the public eye as Military. By keeping the Military out of the loop, it forced them to investigate and deny this, making them seem to have a "cover up".
o Most modern technology has come from military research (Microwaves, Computers, Commercial Aircraft, Cell Phones, GPS, Color Television, etc.). It can be safely assumed that for every piece of technology that comes out, there is at least two more that are classified. This is why great technological leaps usually come from Wars.
o Our government is not evil. Medical technology is released as soon as it is discovered (Quick Clot being a good example, Hospitals had it before us Combat Soldiers). If the government / military has a new secret weapon that is undetectable by normal means, who does it hurt by keeping it a secret? Only those that wish to bring harm to our country.
o Out of all the "Alien" theories, not one piece of concrete proof has stood up to scientific examination. I especially love the "Alien Autopsy" video that was disputed to be "real". I have seen autopsy videos of Humans and Animals, and in each one, the camera is on a stable platform and follow's the examining doctor's instruction. Plus, the doctor does not use kitchen gloves, painter's suit, exacto hobby knife or a dust mask for protection, even in the most backwater town. If the military, which is has access to some of the best doctors in the world, were to do an autopsy on a being from another planet, doesn't it make sense to do it properly? And lets not forget the depressions in the ground, "higher" levels of radiation, and strange burn patterns. Three easy solutions: Metal Templates, Radon Gas (Found naturally) and rubbing Alcohol (Or even moonshine).
o During times of National Crisis or War, sightings seem to drop. Might just be my calculations, but I'm pretty sure its due to a lack of intrest, since there are more important things going on. What would change our society more, a war with another country, or contacting a race of aliens from another Solar System? Maybe if Aliens WERE really here, they would be more important. But they're not. And no, its not a ploy by the government to keep the common person under their control.
o Our need to understand the greater picture drives us. Some to religion, and others to science (Or pseudo-science). It drives people to discover great things in this world (Martin Luthor, Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, etc.). Our lives are short in the cosmic scheme, and we need to understand there is something more out there. Don't worry, we'll all find out when we get there.
That about covers the basics. It just drives me crazy when people take lack of proof as proof of its opposite. If you cannot prove it, then its not real and not fact until it is. I do believe that we are not alone in the Universe, but I'm pretty sure they have left us alone, if they have indeed discovered how to get here.
SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is all over the news. The Brits have "secured" the area. 98.19.47.171 ( talk) 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the nearly infinite sources are:
See http://www.allnewsweb.com/page1901903.php
This website indicates that the media in The West deliberately censors UFO and other reports of this nature. Another article reports cheveron shaped UFOs in New Mexico as well. Att. Admins: See the website itself and the statement in the article there about this claim. Thanks. Powerzilla ( talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
UFOs are made by cathode rays that line the outer hull. A Ufo can easily be made within the magnetic field by simple vacuum technology. The etheric matter, or electricity from the sun present is not substantial yet for mass public uses. If people would just use this technology by distributing electrons via outside the hull using a simple engineering feat I like to call solar energy to distribute power to the vacuum accelerator it would be creditable. -- 66.81.43.89 ( talk) 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So many opinions... cannot delete them all... *faints*
Has anyone read the tag on the top that says please do not post opinions, things merely 'about' the subject, etc.? Seriously. The talk pages are for improving the article.
I have an answer to people posting stuff about UFO accidents by the way... request or create an article about it. Don't just post it here.
That's all, thank you very much.
7h3 3L173 ( talk) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So someone has saw fit to remove my list template message "The inclusion of items in this list is disputed" but not bothered to respond to my objection (on this talk page, under "UFO hypotheses") or correct the list.
Frankly, if there were a Wikipedia tag "This list makes no sense at all" I'd have used that.
I'm restoring the warning tag. If anyone sees fit to remove it, first look at and respond to my objection please.--
77.44.77.44 (
talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just came back to this article after a hiatus. What a piece of awful! I have tagged the article with the appropriate tags. Luckily Jay Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko's Astronomy text has two pages on UFOs that we can use as the basis for this article's structure. We have proposals in other places too. There was a lot of original research in the Venus section that I just removed, by the way.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am a professional astronomer, and I too do not understand the focus on astronomers. To remove the heat from the discussion, suppose Botswana's military were secretly flying highly advanced craft around the USA. Would you look to astronomers to verify or discredit this? I hope not! Richard Conn Henry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.146.222 ( talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Astronomers are one of a number of important sources regarding UFOs. However, to reinforce the points made above, the UK UFO files from the DoD, the French UFO files, and various reports cited in the article constitute evidence that a vast number of UFO sightings are "fielded" by people who are most not astronomers. Unless extraordinary evidence is provided, as requested Anarwan above, that astronomers field the "vast majority of UFO reports from the public", the overwhelming weight of evidence against this assertion speaks for itself. Holon ( talk) 10:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me there is greater justification for plastering of the article with multiple tags than "Luckily Jay Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko's Astronomy text has two pages on UFOs". Nice to have an astronomer put that one to bed immediately. There are more sources per word in this article (about 7.5 sources per 100 words) than for the entry for Special Relativity (about 5.6 sources per 100 words). A reminder to us all, Editors are STRONGLY encouraged to try and perform clean-up themselves before posting articles to the list before requesting cleanup. A couple of minutes work was enough to remove content that requested verification. This calls into question the full array/assortment of apparently indiscriminate tagging. Specific issues should be raised. At a minimum, provide examples that are not readily dealt with on the spot. I'm not saying the request can't be justified, but it most certainly has not been justified in this case. If there is a justification in the history, please let me know so I can evaluate the specific points and which remain relevant. This kind of tagging is simply not conducive to constructive development of articles. If we read a tag, let alone multiple tags, we should be able to determine what the specific issues are. Holon ( talk) 09:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is over a 100kb. Per WP:LENGTH, the preferred article size is 32kb. (Personally, I think 32kb is too small - but over 100kb is certainly too big.) Per Wikipedia:LENGTH#A_rule_of_thumb, this article should almost certainly be divided. We should probably consider WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
All are from Pasachoff, Jay M and Alex Filippenko (2004). The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium. Brooks/Cole div. of Thomson Learning. pp. 428–430.
ISBN
053439550. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help).
“ | The most common UFO is a light that appears in the sky that seems to the observer unlike anything made by humans or any commonly understood natural phenomenon | ” |
“ | [O]bservations [of UFOs] are usually anecdotal, are not controlled in a scientific experiment, and are not accessible to study by sophisticated instruments | ” |
“ | It is not well known that a bright star or a planet low on the horizon can seem to flash red or green because of atmospheric refraction. | ” |
“ | Atmospheric effects can effect radar as well as visible light. | ” |
“ | One should not accept explanations that UFOs are flying saucers from other planets before more mundane explanations-including hozes, exaggeration, and fraud-are exhausted. | ” |
“ | For many of the effects that have ben reported, the UFOs would have been defying well-established laws of physics. | ” |
“ | UFOs can be so completely explained by natural phenomena that they are not worthy of more of our time. | ” |
“ | Although most of us (astronomers) do not categorically deny the possibility that UFOs exist (after all, the Voyager spacecraft might someday pass by a planet orbiting another star), the standard of evidence expected of all claims in science has not yet been met. | ” |
“ | Scientists have assessed the probability of UFOs being flying saucers from other worlds, and most have decided that the probability is so low that we have better things to do with our time and with our national resources. We have so many other, simpler explanations of the phenomena that are reported as UFOs that when we apply Occam's Razor, we call the identifications of UFOs with extraterrestrial visitation "false". | ” |
“ | Evidence that UFOs visit us is not convincing; most of the reports can be easily explained by atmospheric and other natural phenoman. Although it is possible that some of the sightings are of actual UFOs, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise, until the evidence becomes much stronger. | ” |
I'd like to see these concepts elucidated on this page, and will work to do so.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh... maybe the pre-modern bit (the title) should be reworded. Maybe.
7h3 3L173 ( talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed, at least for now, an unsourced description of a hypothesis that flying saucers are fallen angels. It can be put back if and when correctly sourced to show that it is a hypothesis seriously entertained such as to merit inclusion here.. -- TS 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The unofficial French COMETA report is misplaced in the "Supporters of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis" section, because COMETA concluded that the ETH was "far from the best scientific hypothesis" ( see bottom of p71 in the Conclusions). I have removed it. -- TS 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this here because it seems to lack balance. By and large the scientific conclusion to date is that the ETH is unsupported by the empirical evidence. This collection of assorted supporters for the ETH gives the false impression that, to the contrary, the ETH is considered to be a strong hypothesis.
There's a lot of "top secret" stuff whizzing around, most of it speculative intelligence, primary source, unassessed for quality in the form presented, and then dug up by ufologists who lack the perspective to distinguish it from fact.
A good example of this kind of digging, which has clearly influenced the writing of this article, is Timothy Good's Above Top Secret. Good digs out internal memos written by members of the military and government agencies who say "golly, we don't know what it is, maybe it's aliens" and presents them to our marvelling eyes. Another thing Good's book lacks is empirical evidence.
Towards Good, in particular, I would be inclined to adopt a "less is more" approach. He has for the most part dug out documents that, because of their obscurity, cannot be said to have influenced thinking on UFOs in a big way. His magnum opus is relevant solely in the context that it shows that the US government and many other governments have historically had as little clue about the nature of some UFO sightings as the general public.
There are some works that have been neglected. Condon in particular has been so thoroughly denigrated by ufologists that the devastating effect that study had on the scientific study of unidentified flying objects is not brought out in this article. Some works have been misrpresented (I removed one of the most egregious examples, above, a French study that purportedly held the extraterrestrial hypothesis up as the most satisfactory one for the evidence, when in fact it said the exact opposite.) There's a lot of work to do before this article can be considered remotely neutral. -- TS 03:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this one here for discussion too. It doesn't seem to have come to anything, though at the time it might have seemed significant simply because an ex-governor was involved.
The number of references given here for a simple press conference seems grossly excessive. I just don't know whether this belongs in the article at all, and if so, where. -- TS 06:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We're not making enough use of US, British and French government sources. I mention these three governments because they've been the most forthcoming with information about their investigations of UFOs. We have an immense amount of dubious material from various amateur organizations, but not much from the Air Force and the CIA which have put a large amount online. Large scale studies such as the Condon study are neglected and, to some extent, even seem to be deprecated. We should change this. -- TS 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I've again removed this section. There is very, very little support in the scientific community for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, it represents a fringe view. To include a large section on support is a glaring abuse of our Neutral point of view policy. -- TS 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As I have remarked elsewhere, there is little or no support in the scientific community for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, mainly due to lack of empirical evidence. I suggest that the long section on support for the ETH, which mostly relies on Timothy Good's digging in US and UK former secret documents, can be summarised as something like "Timothy Good has found, through Freedom of Information requests, that there there was formerly some interest in the hypothesis." There are some other studies that have provisionally supported the hypothesis (COMETA, for instance) but few peer reviewed scientific studies if any exist in support of the hypothesis and we really should make that clear in my opinion. Giving undue weight to Good misleads the reader as to the credibility of the hypothesis. -- TS 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
how about something like this: "Other private or governmental studies, some secret, have concluded in favor of the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), or have had members who disagreed with the official conclusions. These include a Manhattan Project scientist, Top Secret USAF documents, FBI, high-ranking members of the USAF and CIA, amd the governments of West Germany and France." then it should link to the whole list in its own article. untwirl ( talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like there is a reasonable consensus to at least move this material to Extraterrestrial hypothesis and just give a summary here. I'll move on doing that and then the details of any edits to the list itself can get hashed out on that page. Locke9k ( talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I am with-drawing from this project. I have had some health issues take me away from Wiki for a long time and I feel I have been gone too long to be of any good for it. Good luck Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
For the purpose of ref'ing a requested fact I dropped in a paper written by Josef Hynek's that contrasted the Condon Reports usage of UFO (based off Dr. William K. Hartman's definition) to Hynek's own definition of UFO. These are both accepted authorities on the subject.
However there's a great deal more literature discussing the many usages of the acronym. For a much more detailed treatise on the subject I recommend reading this article. Ultimately I think that particular source represents a more current view of the subject and might make for a better ref than this one. [1] -- Xtraeme ( talk) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
UFO:
Acronym for Unidentified Flying Object, originally pronounced yoo-foe as a short form in speech, but more often sounded out like the names of the individual letters U - F - O. The term was coined in 1951 by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt of the United States Air Force for the purpose of providing an official designation for what were then loosely being referred to as flying saucers. and was subsequently defined by the U.S.A.F. as "any airborne object that by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known type of aircraft or missile, or which can not be identified as a known object or phenomenon."
Later, the U.S.A.F. also used the acronyms UFOB ( Unidentified Flying Objects ) and UAO ( Unidentified Aerial Objects ), both synonymous with the original definition of UFO.
PRIMARY REFERENCE:
The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects
Copyright 1956 by Edward J. Ruppelt ( Former Head of USAF Project Blue Book )
Ace Books Inc.
Chapter One, Page 7.
Begin Quote:
"I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO reports (UFO is the official term I created to replace the words "flying saucers")"
End Quote
COMMENT:
The above is the factual history of the word UFO directly from the person who coined the term and the agency that originally ( and officially ) defined it. To loosely define it as something that "cannot be easily or immediately determined" is not accurate. Additionally, the Wikipedia article as it existed at the time of this discussion entry, goes on to confirm the validity of the above. Please consider amending the introduction of the article to provide consistency, or provide me with proper access so that I can cleanly integrate the necessary changes.
I have removed the woodcut image in history (
). Since the mainstream view is that this has nothing to do with UFOs, the only place it could even concievably go is in a section on fringe views. As it is it is non-NPOV. Also the caption is problematic. "Some say" without a citation is pretty much unacceptable. Locke9k ( talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following section on Edward Maunder. The essential reason is that based on the longer explanation on his webpage, he actually was not reporting a UFO. According to that description, "he assumed it was some extraordinary auroral phenomenon", which suggests that he used the phrase "a strange celestial visitor" metaphorically. The section in this article appears to misrepresent the event in a way that makes it appear that he actually was claiming to have seen some sort of vehicle. Its also not correctly cited, so even though I know the report was in "the Observatory", which I have access to, there is no way to find the article for further clarification. As the above information suggests that this is not actually about a UFO, I am removing it from the article as being unrelated.
On November 17, 1882, a UFO was observed by astronomer Edward Walter Maunder of the Greenwich Royal Observatory and some other European astronomers. Maunder in The Observatory reported "a strange celestial visitor" that was "disc-shaped", " torpedo-shaped", " spindle-shaped", or "just like a Zeppelin" dirigible (as he described it in 1916). It moved rapidly from horizon to horizon. The sighting was during high auroral activity; therefore Maunder assumed it was some extraordinary auroral phenomenon never before seen and called it an "auroral beam".
Locke9k ( talk) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's one more. The following section describes a sighting of "objects" but the cited reference clearly identifies them as meteors. According to the reference, they were not unidentified. This segment is therefore not relevant to this article. Locke9k ( talk) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this item from the UFO hypotheses list. It is unreferenced, and nowhere in the article is any information provided to establish that this is a notable or significant fringe view. For all we know, it is just the view of one guy who wrote it. That UFOs are time machines or vehicles from a future Earth, perhaps made by our descendants. Locke9k ( talk) 13:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Its not clear what this has to do with either UFO's or with evidence suppression, since it does not mention a UFO and the photos were eventually returned. * In 1965, Rex Heflin took four Polaroid photos of a hat-shaped object. Two years later (1967), two men posing as NORAD agents confiscated three prints. Just as mysteriously, the photos were returned to his mailbox in 1993. [3] Locke9k ( talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced and apparently unrelated to UFOs: * In 1996, the CIA revealed an instance from 1964 where two CIA agents posed as USAF representatives in order to recover a film canister from a Corona spy satellite that had accidentally come down in Venezuela. The event was then publicly dismissed as an unsuccessful NASA space experiment. Locke9k ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that this entire section should be moved to the ufo conspiracy theory article. It really is describing various conspiracy theory beliefs and not UFO's in general. Given that there is already a page on this there should just be a short summary of UFO conspiracy theories that is sufficient for the reader to understand what they are and how they relate to the overall picture of UFO's in general. I'm soliciting comment before making this move since it is a large change. Locke9k ( talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add the point that the conspiracy is really given undue weight in this article due to its length, and removing this section would help quite a lot. Locke9k ( talk) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The green fireballs already have an article, just like the black triangles do, I would think green fireballs should be linked from this article as well.
206.16.215.129 ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the intro because it cites only fringe POV sources w/o attribution. It clearly doesnt belong there. Perhaps it could be readded in one of the fringe sections, but right now there is no clear place for it. ...and tens of thousands of such reports have been catalogued. [5] Locke9k ( talk) 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some contention over this line in the intro: "Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged." Holon has asserted that this line requires citation. However the main point for this statement is that there is no current mainstream scientific publication on this, because its not taken seriously enough by the scientific community to warrant serious investigation. I will quote from the arbcom decision on this topic: " Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals." Thus the burden is on proponents of this subject to provide citations. The present line simply states that there is a lack of such sources. If someone can produce a current body of scientific publication that falls into the lines delineated above, the statement could then be removed. Until then, it is required for NPOV and should stay. Locke9k ( talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I have abbreviated the intro considerably, with a view to retaining the original statement about lack of mainstream support, with reference to verifiable sources. Let me know what you think: the more debate the better, as far as I'm concerned. I moved the content I had added to the intro to the beginning of the investigations section. On that latter, a limitation is that it is quite anglo/americocentric, but this is hard to avoid without input from relevant editors. I appreciate some may perceive it to express a POV, and invite opposing POVs using cited material.
My overriding concern is that there are several problems with the original statement in the intro: "Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged."
1. It is a strong POV statement that was unsourced. The stonger the POV, the more important it is to verify the statement. 2. The seamless connection with conspiracy theories and pseudosciences ignores the serious attention the topic received at a certain time, and the fact that the historical events leading to the current status are ignored
I don't want to get into it in the intro, but I defny anyone to demonstrate there is a consensus on the subject among scientists. The lack of attention does imply lack of support, but it does not imply a consensus that scientific study is unwarranted. Historical facts demonstrate no such consensus was reached before the Condon report was published, and polls indicate there was no consensus afterward (certainly not in the strong sense of the word). This is the reason the context needs to be there to avoid speculative inferences, implicit or explicit, about the reasons for lack of mainstream scientific study and reports. It is also the reason I am asking that statments that might be taken by a reader to imply consensus are verified, so the reader can properly evaluate them in context. Holon ( talk) 10:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I forgot an important point -- people like to argue this is ancient history. The problem is that if no scientific consensus was reached by 1969, and no serious attention has been paid to the topic, there is no basis for inferring contemporary consensus that can't be contested to some extent. Yes, things have changed, etc. etc. but that is as good a reason to re-visit data as it is for the usual inferences. Cheers. Holon ( talk) 10:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is another example of the above. Halon has added: "Nevertheless, historically there has been controversy among prominent scientists, including members of the AAAS, regarding whether UFOs warrant serious scientific investigation. [6] [7] [8] " These references are totally inadequate to make this statement. You simply cannot use references to websites that promote fringe views of UFOs to support the contention that there is scientific debate. As per the above guideline, its totally unacceptable. Wikipedia requires meainstream sources to establish the level of acceptance and notability of a fringe theory or pseudoscience. This is totally unambiguous in the relevant policies and guidelines as I have linked above. Locke9k ( talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be sufficient context for a reader of the article regarding the scientific status of the problem and how that status came to be. The statement in the intro regarding Science was:
"Emerge" from where? Outside of science? Within? If the latter, did scientists look at empirical data? If not, why not? If so, did scientists unamimously declare that the question did not merit study on the basis of specific studies? If so, where is the verified source to say so? If not, did they ignore the question? Was there any debate about whether the topic deserved investigation?
The scientific status has a history and context, and it needs to be provided. By all means, include reference to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory, but the above statement was terribly inadequate for providing the reader with sufficient context in an encyclopaedic article. Holon ( talk) 07:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)