![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Holon has restored the following segment which I contend should be removed: "In 1980, a survey of 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations by Gert Helb and astronomer J. Allen Hynek of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) found that 24% responded "yes" to the question "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?" [1]". There are several problems with this. The primary one is that there appears to be only one place this 'study' was printed, which was in a UFO magazine. This is clearly not a reliable third party source. Also, the 'citation' does not even give a link or any way to access the information, so there is no way to verify it. Between the two, this claim is unverifiable, unreliable, and because it does not make clear that it is from a biased source, it is also POV. To make it worse, the statement appears to be making an poorly supported claim about a possibly living person. It should be removed. Locke9k ( talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I am the one to originally provide this particular source (I have the copy of the CUFOS-published journal the poll results are in--it's quite real), some details about the poll:
I fail to see what is wrong with citing these poll results. Personal opinions of editors here about the journal or parent organization are irrelevant. This was a large survey conducted under scientific supervison with a good representative sample of the intended population. Care was taken in the phrasing of the primary polling question to avoid definition bias in the results. Attitudes were polled to detect possible respondee bias and the possibility of selection bias in the the respondees was noted and what that might mean in the percentages. It was also noted that the results didn't prove anything other than AAs, just like the general population, do see and report UFOs, whatever they might be.
It strikes me this is as close to a good statistical, unbiased, and scientific survey as you are going to get of AAs. There is no comparable poll in the skeptical camp to support various statements, such as by astronomer [Phil Plaitt]], that AAs literally never report UFOs. (Plaitt's "poll" seems to be that AAs never report UFOs personally to him--boy is that "scientific" polling! ;-) ) Dr Fil ( talk) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some anthropology about people who believe they have been abducted, also some psychiatric literature on them. There are conventions of believers and abductees, and sometimes, just of abductees or other contactees. It's quite interesting. Planet Flipside (www.planet-flipside.com, I think) tries to organize some of that information and has itself been the subject of a small amount of ethnographic research. If anyone knows of other online communities organized around UFO's, please try to post the links here or in the article itself. Levalley ( talk) 03:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley
is a super singer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.161.155 ( talk) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
ODES Other Demensional Eneties and TTTLRS Trans Time Travelers not mention in article. Recent Ufology research indicates that Beings from other demensions and even beings from future time may be involved with the UFO event! Thanks! (Dr. Edson Andrfe'J) Andreisme ( talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to make sure I am not breaking any Wikipedia policies by requesting an external link to http://ufo.dailysite.com/info -- this reference page contains articles on UFO and Paranormal Space activity. It is a not for profit resource that concentrates on documenting daily UFO reports.
The current editors of the requested external link are: a candidate PhD physics researcher from the University of California, Berkeley and a writer from The Examiner.
I would appreciated any feedback. I do not wish to add the link myself to make sure there is no conflict of interest concerns.
Thank you O.sadeghpour ( talk) 07:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Linked here [1] with no comment on veracity of film, except that the article needs a citation to infrared.
59.101.0.53 ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently I saw this thing called bob white object in History channel. seems noteworthy since there's actually an object. (what exactly the object is is pretty disputable. One testing say it's only some commercial alloy with but they got a few "scientists" on film saying that it's super advanced boohoo...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Note worthy enough to include in main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to summarize, mostly for the record, a key point concerning the rationale for the following statement in the intro:
The original statement was that Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged.
That previous statement was (a) vague and (b) constructed with a passive voice. Both commonly produce weasel wording. This was compounded by the conjunction of a vague statement about pseudosciences with a statement about the mainstream scientific status that made the sentence as a whole quite illogical. Why the form, although pseudosciences revolve around UFOs, there is no mainstream support? In what sense do the two parts of the statement have contrary implications?
Clearly we should use peer-reviewed literature where possible, particularly where scientific status is concerned. However, there is something of a double bind where it comes to emphasizing the peer-reviewed literature:
Wikipedia most fundamentally requires verifiable sources for conclusions and if the content can't be verified in verifiable sources, it has to be removed. The active expression of the point clarifies the issue: scientists either study and support, or study and reject. Verifiable sources are needed to include any conclusions about the posited reasons for lack of attention in peer-reviewed publications -- all that stands as verifiable (from database searches) is that there are very few publications, though there are some in which views are expressed that have not been referenced. Holon ( talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be mentioned? They've had quite a bit of news coverage in the UK recently, eg [2] - 86 hits in Google News complete archives. Dougweller ( talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The introduction does not seem to have a truly neutral point of view. It does not fully represent the possibility that UFOs could be explained in an unconventional manner. rouenpucelle ( talk) 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The 'See Also' section here is for lack of a better word bloated. Many of the topics in this section have articles that are stubs, violate npov or lack citations. 'See also' can not be an exhaustive list of every related topic and it should not be. Is there any way we can wittle this section down a little and remove some of the less relevent items? Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added by the observer to the opening sentence, as it seems obvious that this is a necessary qualification. There have been many cases, for example, where ordinary aircraft have been initially considered to be UFOs - but only by the observer(s); the pilots inside them were not confused by the identity of their craft. Obscurasky ( talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
More recnt UFO sightings as well as the "Experencer" phenomenon(Used for UFO abductees and contactees) Great article! ANDREMOIMOI ( talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
British government releases UFO documents; 6,000 pages of sightings This should be included in the article. Mohamed Magdy ( talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
A section on disclosures of UFO cases made public by governments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 ( talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
According to Google Maps, there is no such place as "Passoria, NJ." PhD ( talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
For a subject that has been studied for over 60 odd years, I think the readers of this article deserve some sort of conclusions, since enough is known about the subject to warrant this.
Perhaps the summarized conclusions should read something like this:
"Take out the occasional hoaxes, and the common misidentified items, and there is an extreme body of evidence for very complex objects of unknown origin and construct conducting intelligent observation of the earth. To then call these objects "alien" is of no stretch of imagination when all other possibilities are genuinely ruled out."
Or something along those lines.
-- 75.175.76.49 ( talk) 06:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall the design to me does look to good, or to normal, it looks like todays flying wings, (which where almost unknown in their time). Still I like to remind that in 1947 already flying wings where made, like the Northrop "YB-49". And it might be a captured German plane after WWII, then the plane might be a "Ho 2-29", or something in the range like such a thing. Even in German those new plane insights where militarily secrets, as they where by then testing anti radar stuff. Germany was testing bombers so also was aware of their weight lift ratio compared to normal planes. The new concepts never made it into the war since it ended. They where not ready for mass production yet, but they have been made and where designed, tested and improved. If the war would have taken longer those planes would have been mass produced. (we're lucky the war ended). Oh and just for the record Northrop Grumman had acquired this technology, and makes these days flying wings like the B2. This pilot might have seen a test version, or just a another Grumman blackproject version who was not to be published for the public. I think it is still an UFO, we still dont know the exact plane name, but its like there is German connection here. Its not something from outer space. The Germans scientist themselves where great engineers for their time 82.217.115.160 ( talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the article says the "UFO" is either a hoax and people are crazy OR that someone "out there" has found Earth. What of these other possibilities? I have a book about the Bermuda Triangle and it has a pix of a model of a jet plane, which looks like a Mirage or a US fighter plane, is made out of gold, found in a Mayan or Incan tomb that is several thousand years old. 65.173.105.131 ( talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, modern planes are based off of the best fliers on this planet (birds). The F-14 Tomcat design came from watching hawks in a speed dive (They fold their wings back). But I'm pretty sure, if it came from a Mayan temple, it didn't have a Cockpit and Turbo-thrust engine. You also have to realize, the Military keeps secrets because it gives us an advantage over those that would mean us harm. I don't think Sadam had any idea what a B-2 could do until the bombs were dropping on Bagdad in Desert Storm. Had he known, the sky would have been blanketed with AA Guns all night long (The golden BB theory - its what brought down the F117 in Southern Europe. Put enough lead in the air and you will hit something important). So I'd say that everything on your list is unproven, aside from Military Experimental Craft. Angels and Demons could be an explanation for the more religious (Mostly from the "Book" religions). Atlantis never existed, I have no clue what Lemuria is, and we are the most advanced civilization in this planet's history. Time travel is not possible, as by simply traveling to the past you change the present, thereby negating your need and/or desire to go to the past (Time Paradox Theory). You can't travel forward, as it has not happened yet. And as a note, Aliens from another Universe is the same as Extradimensional Aliens. In the mathimatical sense, it it physically impossible to travel in more than 4 dimensions (Height, Width, Depth and Time). Scientifically, it is possible, but it would be a one way trip, as once you leave your reality, it no longer exists for you (Multiverse Paradox Theory). SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is a much overlap between the two articles. The ufology one talks about the various studies and UFO organizations, while the UFO article should, IMO, mainly detail the history of strange aerial sightings and perhaps offer speculations on the possible causes of why the sightings have allegedly occurred: psychological reasons, misidentification of celestial and meteorological phenomena, hoaxes etc, and finally something about the ETH and other fringe theories. The 'UFOs in popular culture' should be changed to 'UFOs in modern culture' and expanded discuss the impact of UFOs in the media, entertainment industry, new age/religion etc.
That said, I suggest moving the relevant UFO investigation sections to the ufology article.
Any opinions? 80.221.43.22 ( talk) 10:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As I first time contributor here, I am finding it difficult to discuss improvements to the article without at least some general discussion of the topic. However, I also understand that this is not a discussion forum.
Overall, the main article is well-done and balanced. I offer a few observations below.
1. UAP is preferable to UFO for a couple of reasons absent from the article. In the context of the more credible incidents, only the term “unidentified” is accurate, or is not an assumption. Human beings and our sensors detect what appear to be objects, and there have been incidents in which evidence suggested physical reality, such as indentations in soil that suggested that an object with physical mass and weight came to rest on the surface of the Earth. But for the most part, there is a visual “sighting” and sometimes radar corroboration which suggests but does not prove the presence of a physical object. Our senses and sensors can easily be fooled, even by our own technology. While it may be that I am splitting hairs, what appears to be an object could also be, for example, a hologram. Therefore, the acronym UFO assumes the presence of an object.
The term “flying” is also problematic. Granted, the word “flying” is used to describe the movement of lighter than air vehicles, but “flying” usually refers to heavier than air craft which use air moving past an airfoil to create lift. Again, I may be splitting hairs, but it is difficult to reconcile the non-ballistic movements at impossibly high speeds described in many incidents with what we would define as “flying”. If a UAP was a heavier than air object that remained above the Earth’s surface by use of a science and technology that defied gravity, is it flying? If the UAP is not a physical object but we perceive movement through our atmosphere, is it flying?
2. The last sentence of the second full paragraph of the main article is “Only between 5% to 20% of anomalous sightings can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense (see below for some studies).” “Only” is a minimizing term, similar to “merely”. The subjective decision to use it here is more argumentative than informative. Consider how inappropriate the use of “only” is with the exact same percentages, but applied to different topics:
Only between 5% to 20% of domestic airline flights are crashing shortly after takeoff.
Only between 5% to 20% of this car model are exploding violently after a rear impact.
Only between 5% to 20% of test subjects suffered a fatal brain hemorrhage after taking this drug.
I would delete the word “only”. Further, there is no frame of reference to justify “only” anymore than there would be to substitute the word “incredibly”, although the latter arguably makes more sense. The high end of the range, 20%, is a higher percentage than many people might expect, and certainly doesn’t justify the word only:
Twenty percent of anomalous sightings can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense.
Really? One in five anomalous sightings are unidentified?
I offer my observations because the quality of the main article is better than I expected, and because the topic overall suffers from assumptions, imprecise use of terms and ridicule. Those who ridicule the topic exhibit intellectual cowardice, and the best weapon against ridicule is accurate use of terms, eliminating or at least acknowledging assumptions, and as much objectivity as possible. Duncanives ( talk) 03:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
i seen several times in sky in night times a star like a witch is moving in high speed . but i didn't think that could be a universal dead particle[any star ,stone , similar ones] hence i think why should this could be ufo. pleas repeat to dis message . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.206.100 ( talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
They're going to come for you now.... :) McCaster ( talk) 03:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The airline pilots who reported high flying objects probably saw U2 spy aircraft.
Take a look at the Stealth bomber from directly in front and it has a classic saucer shape. I reckon somebody saw such a plane on a test flight and reported it as a UFO.
Most of these UFO nuts can't accept that we are probably alone in the galaxy at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone's messed around with this article. The lead image shows a debunking of an apparent UFO sighting from a space craft. It should not be the main image for this article. A more traditional UFO image should be used. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that, but why two of the images of the collage are from Billy Meier? Considering the story he told, I think less popular footage but still showing UFO taken by anonymous people should be used. I will consider changing that collage if nobody has something against that decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.109.229 ( talk) 08:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
My fault, there are not two from Billy Meier, they are 2/3 of the total! It definitively needs more variety —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.109.229 ( talk) 09:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Entire page requires grammatical and syntax clean-up.
109.152.153.134 ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Thanks for the observation. The edit semi-protected template is used to request specific changes. If you want to detail some of the changes in a 'please change X to Y' manner, please start another edit request. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
21:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Please merge section from "1561 Nuremberg event" in the Sun dog article. -- 79.168.10.241 ( talk) 20:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone who hates the idea of UFOs edited this. I've fixed a few things at the beginning but, in general, a rewrite of the article might be of help. Some of the sources cited seem unreliable and there is a slant... and not a slight one... that the whole phenomenon is just stupid. This is the kind of problem one has when people who are not scientists pretend that they are. It isn't enough that research is done. It has to be good research based on good sources (and you have to know what a good source is). Also, neutrality doesn't mean "being polite." It means neutral. Gingermint ( talk) 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Some astronomers and biologists believe that there may be extraterrestrial life in the universe. Assuming that there may be intelligent extraterrestrial life in the universe(SETI) is a long, long way from saying that said life has visited earth and I don't see any reliable scholarship saying otherwise. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that there are many people editing this article who are not scientists yet believe they can, I guess, pretend they are scientists and edit away with arguments that "there is virtually no good scholarship" and other such things. Frankly, one should be qualified to form such an opinion. Gingermint ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"An influential scientifically skeptical group that has for many years offered critical analysis of UFO claims is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)." Who says they are influential? And are they not a controversial group, often being accused of making things up and even rejected by many in the scientific community? So I changed it to "A scientifically skeptical group..." and "claim to offer critical analysis." Sometimes the articles in their magazine are really good, well thought-out but that is not always the case. It is not a peer reviewed magazine so we may not expect they always live up to their press. Gingermint ( talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The skeptic argument is rather obviously becoming more POV than the rest of the article, and I've boldly removed such WP:weasel words as i saw in the lead, but they should all be summarily removed. Where necessary I suggest terms such as "alleged"- NPOV- in preference to "supposed", which implies suppositions not evident in the present article. I do hope the skeptic community can do better. Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've done quite a bit of tidying up of the article, primarily the Investigations section - whose subsections & headings were jumbled - and the intro. I haven't attempted work on the lengthy start of the Investigations section which needs careful attention, I suggest by moving bits of it elsewhere and/or deleting bits that are repeated elsewhere. Ben Finn ( talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There is some footage of the stealth bomber being trundled out of the hanger for the first time in front of an admiring crowd.
As soon as the front view was fully revealed the first thought that crossed my mind was, "There's the UFO". Looks uncannily like the model of a UFO that Patrick Moore thought a great joke on one of his "Sky at Night" programmes.
I think that a lot of UFO sightings must have been the secret flying tests of the stealth bomber where somebody caught a brief glimpse and reported it as a UFO. Even the triangular UFO could have been a glimpse of the rear of a stealth bomber AT Kunene ( talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There is more than one "Air Force" in the world, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.22.23 ( talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so I just made some edits to the page, mostly just simply minor grammatical corrections (in my opinion they were corrections). However, I did feel that some of the language could have been written a little more "encyclopedic" in style, which in a sense goes a litter further than changing grammar by itself, but to some extent the general format of how the sentences read. In addition, I did also add a quick link to the foo fighter page, just after the reference to World War II, and immediately after that a quick mention of the Roswell incident and the Kenneth Arnold coinage of the term flying saucer, but I kept them quite short & to the point, as Kenneth Arnold at least has a mention & short section later in the article. I felt that these were worthwhile edits to make. All of what I have mentioned so far has only been edits to the first paragraph of the first section/heading.
The only other thing I changed was adding the term " mystery airships" just prior to the discussion about the flying saucer term under the Terminology heading, as the term did exist at least five decades prior to the K. Arnold sighting and whatnot, and its common use persisted well into the 20th century. No where else in the article was I able to find a mention of that particular term, but the mention I made was again, short & to the point.
So if anybody has any issues with any of these edits, please feel free (neigh, feel encouraged!) to further discuss it here and see if we can come to a consensus/compromise. I personally feel that the page has been improved upon in useful but non-redundant ways, but if your opinion differs, please do share your views. Thanks guys.
Also, would it hurt to have a little mention of like, say, The Disclosure Project/Steven Greer/CSETI on this page? What do you all think?
Psychonaut25 ( 13375p34k!) 4:30 AM EST, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Made a couple other small changes. Added "foo fighters" to the Terminology heading.
Also I think I would add to the Steven Greer question, if you do agree that at least a mention of him & Disclosure Project are worthwhile, which heading do you think it would be best under? If I were to add such a mention, I would be sure to include that him & every other member of the Disclosure Project (and CSETI if it were also mentioned...I think TDP is actually part of CSETI but I might be incorrect) are all proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, hence their name & their mission.
Psychonaut25 ( 13375p34k!) 6:05 AM EST, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
UFO's were a mainstay test for intelligence agents in America for a number of years. The creation of a distinctive story, provision of intelligence reports to the agent and thenstory is analysed the source of the bogus intelligence is identified, the agent is downgraded or dismissed. There are no UFO's only fa== Books categorized ==
I see there are books that are listed as General, and some listed as Skeptical, Philosophy, Tech ect... How is this decided? Several of the general books are skeptically minded. Maybe we should remove the general category and force each book into a more specific category? Or maybe it could be in more than one category? Or remove all categories and just make it books? Putting them in categories seems so POV. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is the first photograph in this article of an IFO? Surely a better illustration of the subject matter would be something that remains unidentified. -- taras ( talk) 00:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second picture is NOT of a UFO, though the original research of some Wikipedia author has indicated to him or her otherwise. Remove the picture and find one that is painting of a real UFO. I promise you, there are plenty to be found in various five-and-dimes around the United States.
128.59.171.194 ( talk) 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about you guys but I pronounce it "you-foe" not U.F.O 94.4.72.212 ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The pronounciation "yoo-foe" is the way it was intended to be sounded by the person who created the word. It is perfectly legitimate and I tend to use both depending on circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 ( talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Why does the 'White House position' place so highly on the page? Likewise, why are Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book given such prominence? There are other parts relating to the US throughout the article, without the need to swamp this Wikipedia article with North American material - unless it really is the intention of the community to present UFOs as being almost exclusively a form of American folklore. One would assume that (with more eyes to look skywards) there ought to be more unidentified flying objects seen in China or India. Or does all this boil down to interest in 'Independence Day', 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and so on? -- Singe_onion ( talk) 10:10, February 26th 2012 (GMT)
You're right in principle. However I would imagine that most of the english sources related to UFOs focus on the phenomenon as it exists in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.90.132 ( talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The statement that, "... technically a UFO refers to any unidentified flying object ..." is not accurate. That is simply the literal full form of the acronym. Technically the word had very specific uses by the people who created it. Official definitions went through several stages of evolution culminating in AFR 200-2, February 05, 1958.
2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:
a.Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).
b.Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation. (2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO. (3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.
c. Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.
There were also other official definitions but virtually all of them were intended to screen out known manmade objects or phenomena from UFOs, leaving only extraordinary and mystifying objects for further investigation. The USAF was reluctant to simply say they were looking for alien craft, but it amounted to the same thing and there were those inside the USAF who openly advocated the ETH.
The other issue with regard to the definition is that of usage. The word UFO in the context of a UFO report refers to the object that is the subject of a UFO report, and it may not be anything extraordinary. UFOs themselves however are, and the word has always been synonymous with alien craft. Never has the word been intended to "technically" designate some distant light or object that is merely "unidentified". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 ( talk) 02:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
USER RESPONSE: Oh, balls! Who told you that? UFO has been used many times for simply objects on radar by the military or air-traffic-controllers that - temporarily or not - are not identified. Tinfoil off, please!
HammerFilmFan ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
REBUTTAL: Excuse me but the statement, "Oh, Balls" doesn't address the fact that the official USAF definition, an independent source from the very people who created the word UFO itself differs from your seemingly biased opinion, one that downplays UFOs by making them seem as mundane as possible right from the start. Which is exactly the opposite of what the USAF reporting procedures indicate they were looking for. As for your opinion on usage, you are confusing the two main forms of usage, the first being to convey the idea of an alien craft and the second to convey the type of report or investigation. Objects reported on radar or are the subject of an investigation may or may not turn out to be UFOs ( alien craft ). There is a difference between a UFO report and a report of a UFO.
In addition to the official USAF definition already cited we also have the following quote from the person who actually created the word in the first place, Edward Ruppelt, Captain, USAF:
“I know the full story about flying saucers and I know that it has never before been told because I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to investigate and analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO, reports. ( UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words 'flying saucers.' )"
The above clearly indicates that the word UFO is an official USAF euphemism for the phrase "flying saucer", widely believed to be craft of alien origin and usually extraterrestrial. Add to this that a Google search during Feruary 2012 for images of UFOs turned up over 80 million results, the vast majority depicting an alien craft. Add to this the following quote from the USAF on the meaning of the word "unidentified" in the context of UFO investigations:
"A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena."
What becomes increasingly evident from official documentation ( and not merely opinion ) is that as UFO investigative protocols evolved, the word UFO was not meant to convey something as simplistic as the word “unidentified” implies. UFOs aren’t some vague light or shape in the distance, but something which is observed well enough to determine that it doesn't correspond to any natural or manmade object or phenomenon known to investigators. In the case of USAF investigators, we’re talking about highly qualified people in official positions who carried Top Secret clearance. It's time to face the fact that the phrase Unidentified flying Object and its short form UFO are meant to convey the idea of an alien craft and are actually used that way today by the vast majority people who use the English language. So if we are going to manufacture definitions, as the opening definition does, then let's at least use one that is accurate:
UFO or ufo ( plural UFOs of ufos ) noun
1. A craft of alien origin.
2. The object or phenomenon that is the focus of a UFO report or investigation.
Word Origin: [ Mid-20th century (1952) acronym formed from the words unidentified flying object. ]
Synonyms: flying saucer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 ( talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
kids say: please edit this to make it more understandable.(no offense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.38.73 ( talk) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Remove: ( first line ) An unidentified flying object, often abbreviated UFO or U.F.O., is an unusual apparent anomaly in the sky that is not readily identifiable to the observer as any known object.
And Replace With: The phrase "unidentified flying object" was created by the United States Air Force during the late 1940s as an official internal reference to what were then being referred to by the public as flying saucers, believed by some USAF investigators at the time to have been craft of extraterrestrial origin.
1. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Chapter 1:
2. A routing and record sheet used for inter-office correspondence at Air Materiel Command dated February 13, 1948. Source NARA Archives:
3. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Introduction:
4. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books:
5. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Chapter 1:
Further Considerations: There is no doubt that Captain Edward J. Ruppelt was head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs known as Project Blue Book. Also note that these references are not intended to prove UFOs are alien, only that as stated in the requested changes that some officials believed they were. Also, further records go on to make it very clear that UFOs were not to be considered as merely some vague shape or unusual anomaly that was not readily unidentifiable. Special efforts were made when screening UFO reports to eliminate as many known natural or manmade objects as possible all the way down to blowing bits of paper. This makes the existing opening statement very misleading and it hints at a typical bias by skeptics who willfully ignore the independent objective information above. Some of this is also covered in the Talk section, the only objection being one of offhanded dismissal rather than a response to the evidence.
70.72.83.184 ( talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Given that this request substantially alters the first line, generally considered one of the most important parts of an article, I'd prefer to see some outside feedback before making a change like this.
elektrik
SHOOS (
talk)
05:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Not only is the section heavily POV biased, it also lacks reliable sources entirely and seems to be a way for the UFO-believer crowd to garner attention. That is not what Wikipedia is for. In addition, the section is but two sentences, and could easily be incorporated under the L2 heading "Conspiracy theories" without its own L3 heading. In short, the L3 heading only draws attention to those believing in the "evidence" for unidentified flying objects being alien spacecraft. Wer900 talk essay on the definition of consensus 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Can a sysop PLEASE fix the first image caption? You know, the one that says "alleged UFO"? If you don't know what it is, it's a UFO. UNIDENTIFIED. FLYING. OBJECT. Please change it to either "a UFO spotted" or "an alleged spacecraft spotted". TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 04:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been noticing some deletions and suggestions for deletions of various pages related to UFOlogy.
And just as we find during times of sightings, we might be seeing some examples of misrepresentations, misinformation, or disinformation. I find this disturbing, and would like investigators and students of UFOlogy/ Ufology to keep watch. I suggest/propose that this be an organized watch.
Examples of deletions (selected):
Example of misrepresentations/misinformation/disinformation (selected):
Please LIST other examples in your comments just below this. Thanks.
I want to see the facts and various hypotheses kept intact!
Is there UFO Portal page? Would it be advisable?
How can people organize a watch by students and investigators of these phenomena, rather than seeing skeptics and "debunkers" pick off or diminish articles one by one? If they do so, it would typically and likely be done quietly/silently. Therefore, there MUST be a watch kept. (If I had more time, and more experience here, I might spearhead it.)
Please don't edit my comments above. Please comment below this. Thank you!
Misty MH ( talk) 03:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On July 2 of each year World UFO Day is held. World UFO Day is a day in which individuals and groups are encouraged to gather together to watch the skies for unidentified flying objects. Draek ( talk) 23:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it should have a subject of it's own called: World UFO Day
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. It probably would be more appropriate for the article
Ufology, which is prominently linked from this article. (Incidentally, a brief glance at
World UFO Day suggests it needs more sources.)
Rivertorch (
talk)
10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)The World UFO Day has been updated with sources. Thank you for your time. Draek ( talk) 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello wikipedians. I've trying to reorganize this page into a coherent structure. This article did not flow in any logical manner, and contains extensive redundancies and contradictions of terminology. Thus far I've made three major starting changes:
Obviously this is a contentious subject, so I'm going to see how people react before going forward with fixing up this entry. But I suggest the following areas for improvement:
Clotten ( talk) 18:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Because the article introduction has already been reverted, I think a discussion is warranted. The phrase "often associated with extraterrestrial life." should be removed. While it is true that UFOs are often associated with ET life, they are often associated with many things! The article could just as well say "often associated with conspiracy theories" or "often associated with photographic evidence" or "often investigated by local military or intelligence agencies" or "often associated with psychological conditions" or even "often associated with science fiction". These are all true statements. But Why should we pick any one of the things that UFOs are often associated with and include it at the beinning of the article?
Can someone provide a good source or argument to support this idea that UFOs should be associated with the ETH? Because if the consensus is that I'm wrong, surely we should find a source to support the claim. Clotten ( talk) 18:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
there used to be a favorite website i could go to to be able to study psychic phenomena or parapsychology i could ask it anything like can i make something move with my mind telekinesis will what i think really happen to this person happen before it happens and it does e.s.p. but the most interesting thing i ever asked it was whether i was capable of sending an unidentified flying object down from space to prove to me that they exist and at 4 a.m.i heard a loud rotating disk outside my bedroom window and then fly off! does this sound immposible? it isn't. it's just really interesting a lot of fun and kinda scarry too. i don't know what i'm messing with but someday if time permits i might be able to test my psychic abilities to the max and do somemore. does anybody have any comments? don 139.173.54.11 ( talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the UK, it is the Ministry of Defence (with a C, not an S) Jfkthe2nd ( talk) 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This section features a showcased quote by Colonel Ariel Sanchez who is an activist in Steven M. Greer's fringe "disclosure project". One problem is that it's sourced to a single Latin American news outlet. Another is that Uruguay is only one among numerous countries that have recently released their old UFO report files into the public domain [4]. UFOlogists may interpret this stuff as significant, however, I'd like to see multiple reliable sources discussing it before we give Uruguay and Sanchez's quote such weight in the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a section on the decline of UFO sightings in recent years; I dunno how much more there is to say about it, but it could possibly be fleshed out. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been proved that this was a rubbish from USA Air Force. Just because they fears that some is attacking them this phobia is in their lives and they see such type of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.216.221 ( talk) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
http://eviltocancer.blogspot.kr/2013/11/toroid-mechanism-of-ufokorean-inertial.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.35.144.226 ( talk) 03:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 'when a man wrote the government' to 'when a man wrote to the government' because the event that the article refers to happened in the UK and it would not be grammatically correct in the current form for UK users.
Niccity ( talk) 08:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am very new to Wikipedia and I am not sure how this works so please be patient with me. I have noticed that just about every section of this "UFO" page contains glaring factual, scientific and historical errors. I am not sure what I can do about it becuase there are simply so many factual errors that it beggars belief.
The definition of UFO:
An unidentified flying object, or UFO, in its most general definition, is any apparent anomaly in the sky (or near or on the ground, but observed hovering, landing, or departing into the sky) that is not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon by visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar.
...is not right at all (it is factually incorrect and highly misleading...)That is:
1. First, Wikipedia’s phraseology “in its most general definition” is not only grammatically incorrect, it misleadingly suggests there is more than one definition for UFO. It also begs the question: What is a concise definition of UFO and why has such a definition not been presented? The reality is of course that concise definitions do exist and a single concise definition of UFO is sufficient for most purposes (and the example that follows is as good as any). That is:
An Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) may be defined as an aerial phenomenon for which no orthodox scientific or mundane explanation can be found.
2. Second, it is demonstrably false to assert that a UFO is “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. There are many anomalies in the sky that are not classified as UFOs. For example certain types of light phenomena, electrical discharge phenomena, various illusions, temperature inversion effects, mirages, strange cloud formations, even the moon illusion, and so on. All these types of phenomena may be considered “anomalous” (irregular or abnormal), but not classed as UFOs. Clearly then a UFO simply cannot be “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. Nor can a UFO be “an apparent anomaly”. The term “apparently anomalous” is entirely subjective because it depends on the observer to define it. Just as a car should remain a car no matter who observes it, similarly a UFO should remain a UFO no matter who observes it. Moreover, UFOs comprise just one class of aerial phenomenon (i.e. the class of unknown aerial phenomenon – or aerial phenomenon for which we have no orthodox scientific, or otherwise mundane, explanation – notice the definitions here…) among two other classes (i.e. known aerial phenomenon – we know of the orthodox scientific or mundane explanation – another definition - and aerial phenomenon where there is insufficient information to determine whether we may class the phenomena as known or unknown – the insufficient information classification). It is therefore false to assert that UFOs comprise “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. UFOs are literally (and simply) an “aerial phenomenon” which may be classified according to the above rules (Known, Unknown and Insufficient Information). To say anything more or less is misleading.
3. Nor is the next term in Wikipedia’s definition - “or near or on the ground” - definitive of UFOs (or one would also be required to include “or in, on, or above bodies of water, in earth, moon or planetary orbit, coming or going from the earth’s atmosphere, landed on or near the surface of the moon or other planets…” & so on) Such characterisations may apply to some UFOs, but certainly not necessarily, and certainly not all, therefore such characterisations cannot be definitive of UFOs. For example, one does not include the observational characteristic “parked by the roadside” in a definition of cars because it does not apply to all cars and is therefore not definitive of cars (despite many cars, if not all at one time or other being observed in such a state), likewise “near or on the ground” should be rejected as definitive of UFOs. Perhaps in later descriptive or characterising paragraphs one might clarify such distinctions (e.g. that some cars may be found parked by the roadside, just as some UFOs may be found on or near the ground) but such statements do not belong in a definition of a class of objects.
4. Likewise the term “observed hovering”. Again (for example) one simply cannot include the particular brand characteristic of one type of car “observed to have an automatic reverse parking facility” in a definition of cars because it is simply not definitive of cars. Similarly “observed hovering” does not belong in a definition of UFOs because it is not definitive of UFOs. Otherwise people might legitimately argue for the inclusion of characteristics such as “observed undertaking right angle turns at speed” or “disappearing into thin air” or “shooting beams of light” and so on. Needless to say it would make a mockery of any definition to allow any such characterisations (including “observed hovering”) to form part of the definition- where does one stop?
5. Of course the term “landing, or departing into the sky” suffers similarly. In fact none of the above terminology (points 3, 4 & 5 here) are definitive of UFOs. The inclusion of such characteristics can only serve to inappropriately bias a reader’s concept of what UFOs are (or might possibly be). Sure we can describe particular or common UFO characteristics (e.g. X% observed hovering, Y% observed doing right angled turns, Z% exhibit no discernable noise, etc.), but such characterisations simply do not belong in a definition of UFOs. A definition is required to be definitive of a class of objects (or phenomena) as a whole, not to include selective characteristics that may or may not apply to (perhaps) a minority of that class, if any at all.
6. Next we encounter the phrase “…not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon…” But what does that actually mean? By whose criteria is it (the potential UFO) “not readily identifiable”? The term “not readily identifiable” is entirely subjective. It is erroneous to define an external object or phenomenon by who is doing the observing: What is “not readily identifiable” to you might be instantly recognisable to me. Similarly the term “any known object” is subjective (known to whom - Scientists? English teachers? Mandarin speakers? My dog?). Such subjective statements simply do not belong in any definition. Quite simply a UFO qualifies as a UFO because it cannot be identified as anything mundane by anyone at any time. That is what defines a UFO as a UFO. Moreover, Wikipedia’s “not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon…” would allow a UFO to remain a UFO even after a difficult, complex scientific analysis proved it to be something mundane (it was really difficult to identify, but we did it, yet it remains not readily identifiable (go on, try it!), so by definition it remains a UFO?). Any definition that allows a UFO to be proved not to be a UFO and yet remain a UFO by definition (even as an unintended consequence) is a nonsense definition.
7. Next we encounter the final illegitimate attempt to define UFOs, this time by the method of observation. No other ostensibly objective phenomenon is defined either by who observes it (see previous point) or by its method of observation. The observer and the method of observation are essentially irrelevant to any definition of any objective phenomenon (including in quantum physics). Yet Wikipedia’s definition holds that something is a UFO if it cannot be (“readily” – whatever that means – another weasel word) identified by “visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar”. That is obviously nonsense. There are many things that cannot be identified visually or by radar… Does a snowflake become a UFO at night? Does a raindrop? A cloud? Do we define an atom of oxygen as a UFO merely because it is something that cannot be identified “as any known object or phenomenon by visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar”? Of course we don’t. The phrase is obviously not definitive of UFOs - and so it should not be included in a definition of UFOs. Moreover, how does radar distinguish between a UFO and an ordinary airplane if travelling at the same speed? Then there is also the small inconvenience of the existence of other detecting and identifying mechanisms; FLIR cameras for example (do they turn into UFOs in the dark?), Geiger counters, EMF meters, radio-telescopes, hearing, smell, touch, perhaps even extrasensory perception or telepathy… Do we list all these (and more as we think of, or invent, them) in the definition too? No, it would not make sense to do so. A UFO is something that cannot be verifiably identified as something mundane by any methodology - as applied by anyone at any time. If just one observational methodology verifiably identified (by conforming to the scientific method) a potential UFO as something mundane – then mundane it is - and not a UFO! Moreover:
Even current (Jan 2014) dictionary definitions of UFO can also be misleading. For example the Oxford Dictionaries Online defines UFO as “…a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.” Unfortunately this does not constitute a true definition of UFO. First, the term “it is claimed” is misleading because it is the simple fact that a UFO is a phenomenon for which “no orthodox scientific explanations can be found” – that defines UFOs. Second, (and for example) the fact that tomatoes are “often supposed to be” vegetables, correctly defines neither tomatoes nor vegetables. In fact tomatoes are classed as fruit. Similarly “…often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials …” has no place in a formal definition of UFOs because it is not definitive of UFOs and has a definite probability of being false (one might state that UFOs have become popularly synonymous with extraterrestrial spacecraft in a separate characterisation, but not in a definition – UFOs are “often supposed to be entirely mundane phenomena”, but that is not in the definition for the same reasons). Another reason such characterisations simply cannot be included in definitions because they may be entirely contradictory! The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines UFO as “…an object seen in the sky that is thought to be a spacecraft from another planet.” Here Cambridge’s definition constitutes a demonstrably false statement, and that is simply because a significant proportion of the population do not think UFOs are “spacecraft from another planet”.
No….
An Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) may be defined as an aerial phenomenon for which no orthodox scientific or mundane explanation can be found.
Then...
The term UFO was NOT created in 1953 by the USAF to "replace" other terms (nor BTW was it coined by Ruppelt!)
The first official use of the term “Unidentified Flying Object” can be found in a US Air Training Corp (ATC) “Extract From Weekly Intelligence Summary” document dated 16 July 1947: “The following is a digest of the only current reports that have been received through the Intelligence system of this Command concerning unidentified flying objects” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?pagecode=NARA-PBB2-37&tab=2, 7 Jan 2014). The term was in regular use from that date.
The first recorded use of “UFO” (as a noun in its own right) appears on the 03 November 1952 in a “Facts and Discussion” report titled “Trip to Los Alamos on 23 October 1952”. It states “On 23rd October 1952, Col D. L. Bower and Capt E. J. Ruppelt of ATIC presented a briefing at the Los Alomos Scientific Laboratory. After the briefing Col Bower and Capt Ruppelt met with seven people from the lab who were interested in the subject of UFO’s” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB7-936, 8 Jan 2014).
There are a number of other circumstantial clues to show Ruppelt did not coin the term UFO. One of them is a letter dated 03 November 1952 - precisely the same date as the briefing minutes cited above (and surely no coincidence) – in which Ruppelt wrote to a Mr Gittings of Los Alamos stating “When Col Bower and I were in Los Alomos giving the briefing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, we discussed the correlation between sightings of UAP and the detection of certain types of radiation.” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB7-934, 08 Jan 2014). Ruppelt’s use of the terms “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” and “UAP” demonstrates he was using alternate terminology in both the briefing he attended and also on the very day someone else was using the term “UFO”. That someone else was probably a junior in his office who wrote up the "minutes" of the breifing. Ruppelt however would have seen that use of the term UFO and perhaps later thought to make it his own… and there is a particular delicious irony in that, but that is for a later discussion…
Now, there are MANY other factual errors in just about every statement and line on this Wikipedia page. Someone has been allowed to write this page without doing the least bit of basic research. The factual, historical and scientific errors must be corrected. However there are so MANY of them that it would be quicker and easier to completely rewrite the page from scratch rather than try and fix it all as it stands (and the current structure is not very good either)
Of course I have written all the FACTS out and in doing so it looks like I have a good portion of the whole thing rewritten anyway...
would anyone like to see it?
So I have a question - how shall we proceed from here to remove all the errors and instate the facts of the matter?
As I say, I am very new to Wikipedia, so I will be guided by your preferences.
Thank you. Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatozofeverything ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Holon has restored the following segment which I contend should be removed: "In 1980, a survey of 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations by Gert Helb and astronomer J. Allen Hynek of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) found that 24% responded "yes" to the question "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?" [1]". There are several problems with this. The primary one is that there appears to be only one place this 'study' was printed, which was in a UFO magazine. This is clearly not a reliable third party source. Also, the 'citation' does not even give a link or any way to access the information, so there is no way to verify it. Between the two, this claim is unverifiable, unreliable, and because it does not make clear that it is from a biased source, it is also POV. To make it worse, the statement appears to be making an poorly supported claim about a possibly living person. It should be removed. Locke9k ( talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I am the one to originally provide this particular source (I have the copy of the CUFOS-published journal the poll results are in--it's quite real), some details about the poll:
I fail to see what is wrong with citing these poll results. Personal opinions of editors here about the journal or parent organization are irrelevant. This was a large survey conducted under scientific supervison with a good representative sample of the intended population. Care was taken in the phrasing of the primary polling question to avoid definition bias in the results. Attitudes were polled to detect possible respondee bias and the possibility of selection bias in the the respondees was noted and what that might mean in the percentages. It was also noted that the results didn't prove anything other than AAs, just like the general population, do see and report UFOs, whatever they might be.
It strikes me this is as close to a good statistical, unbiased, and scientific survey as you are going to get of AAs. There is no comparable poll in the skeptical camp to support various statements, such as by astronomer [Phil Plaitt]], that AAs literally never report UFOs. (Plaitt's "poll" seems to be that AAs never report UFOs personally to him--boy is that "scientific" polling! ;-) ) Dr Fil ( talk) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some anthropology about people who believe they have been abducted, also some psychiatric literature on them. There are conventions of believers and abductees, and sometimes, just of abductees or other contactees. It's quite interesting. Planet Flipside (www.planet-flipside.com, I think) tries to organize some of that information and has itself been the subject of a small amount of ethnographic research. If anyone knows of other online communities organized around UFO's, please try to post the links here or in the article itself. Levalley ( talk) 03:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley
is a super singer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.161.155 ( talk) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
ODES Other Demensional Eneties and TTTLRS Trans Time Travelers not mention in article. Recent Ufology research indicates that Beings from other demensions and even beings from future time may be involved with the UFO event! Thanks! (Dr. Edson Andrfe'J) Andreisme ( talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to make sure I am not breaking any Wikipedia policies by requesting an external link to http://ufo.dailysite.com/info -- this reference page contains articles on UFO and Paranormal Space activity. It is a not for profit resource that concentrates on documenting daily UFO reports.
The current editors of the requested external link are: a candidate PhD physics researcher from the University of California, Berkeley and a writer from The Examiner.
I would appreciated any feedback. I do not wish to add the link myself to make sure there is no conflict of interest concerns.
Thank you O.sadeghpour ( talk) 07:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Linked here [1] with no comment on veracity of film, except that the article needs a citation to infrared.
59.101.0.53 ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently I saw this thing called bob white object in History channel. seems noteworthy since there's actually an object. (what exactly the object is is pretty disputable. One testing say it's only some commercial alloy with but they got a few "scientists" on film saying that it's super advanced boohoo...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Note worthy enough to include in main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to summarize, mostly for the record, a key point concerning the rationale for the following statement in the intro:
The original statement was that Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged.
That previous statement was (a) vague and (b) constructed with a passive voice. Both commonly produce weasel wording. This was compounded by the conjunction of a vague statement about pseudosciences with a statement about the mainstream scientific status that made the sentence as a whole quite illogical. Why the form, although pseudosciences revolve around UFOs, there is no mainstream support? In what sense do the two parts of the statement have contrary implications?
Clearly we should use peer-reviewed literature where possible, particularly where scientific status is concerned. However, there is something of a double bind where it comes to emphasizing the peer-reviewed literature:
Wikipedia most fundamentally requires verifiable sources for conclusions and if the content can't be verified in verifiable sources, it has to be removed. The active expression of the point clarifies the issue: scientists either study and support, or study and reject. Verifiable sources are needed to include any conclusions about the posited reasons for lack of attention in peer-reviewed publications -- all that stands as verifiable (from database searches) is that there are very few publications, though there are some in which views are expressed that have not been referenced. Holon ( talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be mentioned? They've had quite a bit of news coverage in the UK recently, eg [2] - 86 hits in Google News complete archives. Dougweller ( talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The introduction does not seem to have a truly neutral point of view. It does not fully represent the possibility that UFOs could be explained in an unconventional manner. rouenpucelle ( talk) 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The 'See Also' section here is for lack of a better word bloated. Many of the topics in this section have articles that are stubs, violate npov or lack citations. 'See also' can not be an exhaustive list of every related topic and it should not be. Is there any way we can wittle this section down a little and remove some of the less relevent items? Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added by the observer to the opening sentence, as it seems obvious that this is a necessary qualification. There have been many cases, for example, where ordinary aircraft have been initially considered to be UFOs - but only by the observer(s); the pilots inside them were not confused by the identity of their craft. Obscurasky ( talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
More recnt UFO sightings as well as the "Experencer" phenomenon(Used for UFO abductees and contactees) Great article! ANDREMOIMOI ( talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
British government releases UFO documents; 6,000 pages of sightings This should be included in the article. Mohamed Magdy ( talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
A section on disclosures of UFO cases made public by governments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 ( talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
According to Google Maps, there is no such place as "Passoria, NJ." PhD ( talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
For a subject that has been studied for over 60 odd years, I think the readers of this article deserve some sort of conclusions, since enough is known about the subject to warrant this.
Perhaps the summarized conclusions should read something like this:
"Take out the occasional hoaxes, and the common misidentified items, and there is an extreme body of evidence for very complex objects of unknown origin and construct conducting intelligent observation of the earth. To then call these objects "alien" is of no stretch of imagination when all other possibilities are genuinely ruled out."
Or something along those lines.
-- 75.175.76.49 ( talk) 06:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall the design to me does look to good, or to normal, it looks like todays flying wings, (which where almost unknown in their time). Still I like to remind that in 1947 already flying wings where made, like the Northrop "YB-49". And it might be a captured German plane after WWII, then the plane might be a "Ho 2-29", or something in the range like such a thing. Even in German those new plane insights where militarily secrets, as they where by then testing anti radar stuff. Germany was testing bombers so also was aware of their weight lift ratio compared to normal planes. The new concepts never made it into the war since it ended. They where not ready for mass production yet, but they have been made and where designed, tested and improved. If the war would have taken longer those planes would have been mass produced. (we're lucky the war ended). Oh and just for the record Northrop Grumman had acquired this technology, and makes these days flying wings like the B2. This pilot might have seen a test version, or just a another Grumman blackproject version who was not to be published for the public. I think it is still an UFO, we still dont know the exact plane name, but its like there is German connection here. Its not something from outer space. The Germans scientist themselves where great engineers for their time 82.217.115.160 ( talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the article says the "UFO" is either a hoax and people are crazy OR that someone "out there" has found Earth. What of these other possibilities? I have a book about the Bermuda Triangle and it has a pix of a model of a jet plane, which looks like a Mirage or a US fighter plane, is made out of gold, found in a Mayan or Incan tomb that is several thousand years old. 65.173.105.131 ( talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, modern planes are based off of the best fliers on this planet (birds). The F-14 Tomcat design came from watching hawks in a speed dive (They fold their wings back). But I'm pretty sure, if it came from a Mayan temple, it didn't have a Cockpit and Turbo-thrust engine. You also have to realize, the Military keeps secrets because it gives us an advantage over those that would mean us harm. I don't think Sadam had any idea what a B-2 could do until the bombs were dropping on Bagdad in Desert Storm. Had he known, the sky would have been blanketed with AA Guns all night long (The golden BB theory - its what brought down the F117 in Southern Europe. Put enough lead in the air and you will hit something important). So I'd say that everything on your list is unproven, aside from Military Experimental Craft. Angels and Demons could be an explanation for the more religious (Mostly from the "Book" religions). Atlantis never existed, I have no clue what Lemuria is, and we are the most advanced civilization in this planet's history. Time travel is not possible, as by simply traveling to the past you change the present, thereby negating your need and/or desire to go to the past (Time Paradox Theory). You can't travel forward, as it has not happened yet. And as a note, Aliens from another Universe is the same as Extradimensional Aliens. In the mathimatical sense, it it physically impossible to travel in more than 4 dimensions (Height, Width, Depth and Time). Scientifically, it is possible, but it would be a one way trip, as once you leave your reality, it no longer exists for you (Multiverse Paradox Theory). SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is a much overlap between the two articles. The ufology one talks about the various studies and UFO organizations, while the UFO article should, IMO, mainly detail the history of strange aerial sightings and perhaps offer speculations on the possible causes of why the sightings have allegedly occurred: psychological reasons, misidentification of celestial and meteorological phenomena, hoaxes etc, and finally something about the ETH and other fringe theories. The 'UFOs in popular culture' should be changed to 'UFOs in modern culture' and expanded discuss the impact of UFOs in the media, entertainment industry, new age/religion etc.
That said, I suggest moving the relevant UFO investigation sections to the ufology article.
Any opinions? 80.221.43.22 ( talk) 10:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As I first time contributor here, I am finding it difficult to discuss improvements to the article without at least some general discussion of the topic. However, I also understand that this is not a discussion forum.
Overall, the main article is well-done and balanced. I offer a few observations below.
1. UAP is preferable to UFO for a couple of reasons absent from the article. In the context of the more credible incidents, only the term “unidentified” is accurate, or is not an assumption. Human beings and our sensors detect what appear to be objects, and there have been incidents in which evidence suggested physical reality, such as indentations in soil that suggested that an object with physical mass and weight came to rest on the surface of the Earth. But for the most part, there is a visual “sighting” and sometimes radar corroboration which suggests but does not prove the presence of a physical object. Our senses and sensors can easily be fooled, even by our own technology. While it may be that I am splitting hairs, what appears to be an object could also be, for example, a hologram. Therefore, the acronym UFO assumes the presence of an object.
The term “flying” is also problematic. Granted, the word “flying” is used to describe the movement of lighter than air vehicles, but “flying” usually refers to heavier than air craft which use air moving past an airfoil to create lift. Again, I may be splitting hairs, but it is difficult to reconcile the non-ballistic movements at impossibly high speeds described in many incidents with what we would define as “flying”. If a UAP was a heavier than air object that remained above the Earth’s surface by use of a science and technology that defied gravity, is it flying? If the UAP is not a physical object but we perceive movement through our atmosphere, is it flying?
2. The last sentence of the second full paragraph of the main article is “Only between 5% to 20% of anomalous sightings can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense (see below for some studies).” “Only” is a minimizing term, similar to “merely”. The subjective decision to use it here is more argumentative than informative. Consider how inappropriate the use of “only” is with the exact same percentages, but applied to different topics:
Only between 5% to 20% of domestic airline flights are crashing shortly after takeoff.
Only between 5% to 20% of this car model are exploding violently after a rear impact.
Only between 5% to 20% of test subjects suffered a fatal brain hemorrhage after taking this drug.
I would delete the word “only”. Further, there is no frame of reference to justify “only” anymore than there would be to substitute the word “incredibly”, although the latter arguably makes more sense. The high end of the range, 20%, is a higher percentage than many people might expect, and certainly doesn’t justify the word only:
Twenty percent of anomalous sightings can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense.
Really? One in five anomalous sightings are unidentified?
I offer my observations because the quality of the main article is better than I expected, and because the topic overall suffers from assumptions, imprecise use of terms and ridicule. Those who ridicule the topic exhibit intellectual cowardice, and the best weapon against ridicule is accurate use of terms, eliminating or at least acknowledging assumptions, and as much objectivity as possible. Duncanives ( talk) 03:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
i seen several times in sky in night times a star like a witch is moving in high speed . but i didn't think that could be a universal dead particle[any star ,stone , similar ones] hence i think why should this could be ufo. pleas repeat to dis message . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.206.100 ( talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
They're going to come for you now.... :) McCaster ( talk) 03:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The airline pilots who reported high flying objects probably saw U2 spy aircraft.
Take a look at the Stealth bomber from directly in front and it has a classic saucer shape. I reckon somebody saw such a plane on a test flight and reported it as a UFO.
Most of these UFO nuts can't accept that we are probably alone in the galaxy at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone's messed around with this article. The lead image shows a debunking of an apparent UFO sighting from a space craft. It should not be the main image for this article. A more traditional UFO image should be used. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that, but why two of the images of the collage are from Billy Meier? Considering the story he told, I think less popular footage but still showing UFO taken by anonymous people should be used. I will consider changing that collage if nobody has something against that decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.109.229 ( talk) 08:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
My fault, there are not two from Billy Meier, they are 2/3 of the total! It definitively needs more variety —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.109.229 ( talk) 09:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Entire page requires grammatical and syntax clean-up.
109.152.153.134 ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Thanks for the observation. The edit semi-protected template is used to request specific changes. If you want to detail some of the changes in a 'please change X to Y' manner, please start another edit request. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
21:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Please merge section from "1561 Nuremberg event" in the Sun dog article. -- 79.168.10.241 ( talk) 20:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone who hates the idea of UFOs edited this. I've fixed a few things at the beginning but, in general, a rewrite of the article might be of help. Some of the sources cited seem unreliable and there is a slant... and not a slight one... that the whole phenomenon is just stupid. This is the kind of problem one has when people who are not scientists pretend that they are. It isn't enough that research is done. It has to be good research based on good sources (and you have to know what a good source is). Also, neutrality doesn't mean "being polite." It means neutral. Gingermint ( talk) 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Some astronomers and biologists believe that there may be extraterrestrial life in the universe. Assuming that there may be intelligent extraterrestrial life in the universe(SETI) is a long, long way from saying that said life has visited earth and I don't see any reliable scholarship saying otherwise. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that there are many people editing this article who are not scientists yet believe they can, I guess, pretend they are scientists and edit away with arguments that "there is virtually no good scholarship" and other such things. Frankly, one should be qualified to form such an opinion. Gingermint ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"An influential scientifically skeptical group that has for many years offered critical analysis of UFO claims is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)." Who says they are influential? And are they not a controversial group, often being accused of making things up and even rejected by many in the scientific community? So I changed it to "A scientifically skeptical group..." and "claim to offer critical analysis." Sometimes the articles in their magazine are really good, well thought-out but that is not always the case. It is not a peer reviewed magazine so we may not expect they always live up to their press. Gingermint ( talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The skeptic argument is rather obviously becoming more POV than the rest of the article, and I've boldly removed such WP:weasel words as i saw in the lead, but they should all be summarily removed. Where necessary I suggest terms such as "alleged"- NPOV- in preference to "supposed", which implies suppositions not evident in the present article. I do hope the skeptic community can do better. Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've done quite a bit of tidying up of the article, primarily the Investigations section - whose subsections & headings were jumbled - and the intro. I haven't attempted work on the lengthy start of the Investigations section which needs careful attention, I suggest by moving bits of it elsewhere and/or deleting bits that are repeated elsewhere. Ben Finn ( talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There is some footage of the stealth bomber being trundled out of the hanger for the first time in front of an admiring crowd.
As soon as the front view was fully revealed the first thought that crossed my mind was, "There's the UFO". Looks uncannily like the model of a UFO that Patrick Moore thought a great joke on one of his "Sky at Night" programmes.
I think that a lot of UFO sightings must have been the secret flying tests of the stealth bomber where somebody caught a brief glimpse and reported it as a UFO. Even the triangular UFO could have been a glimpse of the rear of a stealth bomber AT Kunene ( talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There is more than one "Air Force" in the world, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.22.23 ( talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so I just made some edits to the page, mostly just simply minor grammatical corrections (in my opinion they were corrections). However, I did feel that some of the language could have been written a little more "encyclopedic" in style, which in a sense goes a litter further than changing grammar by itself, but to some extent the general format of how the sentences read. In addition, I did also add a quick link to the foo fighter page, just after the reference to World War II, and immediately after that a quick mention of the Roswell incident and the Kenneth Arnold coinage of the term flying saucer, but I kept them quite short & to the point, as Kenneth Arnold at least has a mention & short section later in the article. I felt that these were worthwhile edits to make. All of what I have mentioned so far has only been edits to the first paragraph of the first section/heading.
The only other thing I changed was adding the term " mystery airships" just prior to the discussion about the flying saucer term under the Terminology heading, as the term did exist at least five decades prior to the K. Arnold sighting and whatnot, and its common use persisted well into the 20th century. No where else in the article was I able to find a mention of that particular term, but the mention I made was again, short & to the point.
So if anybody has any issues with any of these edits, please feel free (neigh, feel encouraged!) to further discuss it here and see if we can come to a consensus/compromise. I personally feel that the page has been improved upon in useful but non-redundant ways, but if your opinion differs, please do share your views. Thanks guys.
Also, would it hurt to have a little mention of like, say, The Disclosure Project/Steven Greer/CSETI on this page? What do you all think?
Psychonaut25 ( 13375p34k!) 4:30 AM EST, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Made a couple other small changes. Added "foo fighters" to the Terminology heading.
Also I think I would add to the Steven Greer question, if you do agree that at least a mention of him & Disclosure Project are worthwhile, which heading do you think it would be best under? If I were to add such a mention, I would be sure to include that him & every other member of the Disclosure Project (and CSETI if it were also mentioned...I think TDP is actually part of CSETI but I might be incorrect) are all proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, hence their name & their mission.
Psychonaut25 ( 13375p34k!) 6:05 AM EST, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
UFO's were a mainstay test for intelligence agents in America for a number of years. The creation of a distinctive story, provision of intelligence reports to the agent and thenstory is analysed the source of the bogus intelligence is identified, the agent is downgraded or dismissed. There are no UFO's only fa== Books categorized ==
I see there are books that are listed as General, and some listed as Skeptical, Philosophy, Tech ect... How is this decided? Several of the general books are skeptically minded. Maybe we should remove the general category and force each book into a more specific category? Or maybe it could be in more than one category? Or remove all categories and just make it books? Putting them in categories seems so POV. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is the first photograph in this article of an IFO? Surely a better illustration of the subject matter would be something that remains unidentified. -- taras ( talk) 00:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second picture is NOT of a UFO, though the original research of some Wikipedia author has indicated to him or her otherwise. Remove the picture and find one that is painting of a real UFO. I promise you, there are plenty to be found in various five-and-dimes around the United States.
128.59.171.194 ( talk) 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about you guys but I pronounce it "you-foe" not U.F.O 94.4.72.212 ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The pronounciation "yoo-foe" is the way it was intended to be sounded by the person who created the word. It is perfectly legitimate and I tend to use both depending on circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 ( talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Why does the 'White House position' place so highly on the page? Likewise, why are Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book given such prominence? There are other parts relating to the US throughout the article, without the need to swamp this Wikipedia article with North American material - unless it really is the intention of the community to present UFOs as being almost exclusively a form of American folklore. One would assume that (with more eyes to look skywards) there ought to be more unidentified flying objects seen in China or India. Or does all this boil down to interest in 'Independence Day', 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and so on? -- Singe_onion ( talk) 10:10, February 26th 2012 (GMT)
You're right in principle. However I would imagine that most of the english sources related to UFOs focus on the phenomenon as it exists in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.90.132 ( talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The statement that, "... technically a UFO refers to any unidentified flying object ..." is not accurate. That is simply the literal full form of the acronym. Technically the word had very specific uses by the people who created it. Official definitions went through several stages of evolution culminating in AFR 200-2, February 05, 1958.
2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:
a.Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).
b.Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation. (2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO. (3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.
c. Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.
There were also other official definitions but virtually all of them were intended to screen out known manmade objects or phenomena from UFOs, leaving only extraordinary and mystifying objects for further investigation. The USAF was reluctant to simply say they were looking for alien craft, but it amounted to the same thing and there were those inside the USAF who openly advocated the ETH.
The other issue with regard to the definition is that of usage. The word UFO in the context of a UFO report refers to the object that is the subject of a UFO report, and it may not be anything extraordinary. UFOs themselves however are, and the word has always been synonymous with alien craft. Never has the word been intended to "technically" designate some distant light or object that is merely "unidentified". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 ( talk) 02:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
USER RESPONSE: Oh, balls! Who told you that? UFO has been used many times for simply objects on radar by the military or air-traffic-controllers that - temporarily or not - are not identified. Tinfoil off, please!
HammerFilmFan ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
REBUTTAL: Excuse me but the statement, "Oh, Balls" doesn't address the fact that the official USAF definition, an independent source from the very people who created the word UFO itself differs from your seemingly biased opinion, one that downplays UFOs by making them seem as mundane as possible right from the start. Which is exactly the opposite of what the USAF reporting procedures indicate they were looking for. As for your opinion on usage, you are confusing the two main forms of usage, the first being to convey the idea of an alien craft and the second to convey the type of report or investigation. Objects reported on radar or are the subject of an investigation may or may not turn out to be UFOs ( alien craft ). There is a difference between a UFO report and a report of a UFO.
In addition to the official USAF definition already cited we also have the following quote from the person who actually created the word in the first place, Edward Ruppelt, Captain, USAF:
“I know the full story about flying saucers and I know that it has never before been told because I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to investigate and analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO, reports. ( UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words 'flying saucers.' )"
The above clearly indicates that the word UFO is an official USAF euphemism for the phrase "flying saucer", widely believed to be craft of alien origin and usually extraterrestrial. Add to this that a Google search during Feruary 2012 for images of UFOs turned up over 80 million results, the vast majority depicting an alien craft. Add to this the following quote from the USAF on the meaning of the word "unidentified" in the context of UFO investigations:
"A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena."
What becomes increasingly evident from official documentation ( and not merely opinion ) is that as UFO investigative protocols evolved, the word UFO was not meant to convey something as simplistic as the word “unidentified” implies. UFOs aren’t some vague light or shape in the distance, but something which is observed well enough to determine that it doesn't correspond to any natural or manmade object or phenomenon known to investigators. In the case of USAF investigators, we’re talking about highly qualified people in official positions who carried Top Secret clearance. It's time to face the fact that the phrase Unidentified flying Object and its short form UFO are meant to convey the idea of an alien craft and are actually used that way today by the vast majority people who use the English language. So if we are going to manufacture definitions, as the opening definition does, then let's at least use one that is accurate:
UFO or ufo ( plural UFOs of ufos ) noun
1. A craft of alien origin.
2. The object or phenomenon that is the focus of a UFO report or investigation.
Word Origin: [ Mid-20th century (1952) acronym formed from the words unidentified flying object. ]
Synonyms: flying saucer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 ( talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
kids say: please edit this to make it more understandable.(no offense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.38.73 ( talk) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Remove: ( first line ) An unidentified flying object, often abbreviated UFO or U.F.O., is an unusual apparent anomaly in the sky that is not readily identifiable to the observer as any known object.
And Replace With: The phrase "unidentified flying object" was created by the United States Air Force during the late 1940s as an official internal reference to what were then being referred to by the public as flying saucers, believed by some USAF investigators at the time to have been craft of extraterrestrial origin.
1. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Chapter 1:
2. A routing and record sheet used for inter-office correspondence at Air Materiel Command dated February 13, 1948. Source NARA Archives:
3. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Introduction:
4. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books:
5. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Chapter 1:
Further Considerations: There is no doubt that Captain Edward J. Ruppelt was head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs known as Project Blue Book. Also note that these references are not intended to prove UFOs are alien, only that as stated in the requested changes that some officials believed they were. Also, further records go on to make it very clear that UFOs were not to be considered as merely some vague shape or unusual anomaly that was not readily unidentifiable. Special efforts were made when screening UFO reports to eliminate as many known natural or manmade objects as possible all the way down to blowing bits of paper. This makes the existing opening statement very misleading and it hints at a typical bias by skeptics who willfully ignore the independent objective information above. Some of this is also covered in the Talk section, the only objection being one of offhanded dismissal rather than a response to the evidence.
70.72.83.184 ( talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Given that this request substantially alters the first line, generally considered one of the most important parts of an article, I'd prefer to see some outside feedback before making a change like this.
elektrik
SHOOS (
talk)
05:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Not only is the section heavily POV biased, it also lacks reliable sources entirely and seems to be a way for the UFO-believer crowd to garner attention. That is not what Wikipedia is for. In addition, the section is but two sentences, and could easily be incorporated under the L2 heading "Conspiracy theories" without its own L3 heading. In short, the L3 heading only draws attention to those believing in the "evidence" for unidentified flying objects being alien spacecraft. Wer900 talk essay on the definition of consensus 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Can a sysop PLEASE fix the first image caption? You know, the one that says "alleged UFO"? If you don't know what it is, it's a UFO. UNIDENTIFIED. FLYING. OBJECT. Please change it to either "a UFO spotted" or "an alleged spacecraft spotted". TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 04:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been noticing some deletions and suggestions for deletions of various pages related to UFOlogy.
And just as we find during times of sightings, we might be seeing some examples of misrepresentations, misinformation, or disinformation. I find this disturbing, and would like investigators and students of UFOlogy/ Ufology to keep watch. I suggest/propose that this be an organized watch.
Examples of deletions (selected):
Example of misrepresentations/misinformation/disinformation (selected):
Please LIST other examples in your comments just below this. Thanks.
I want to see the facts and various hypotheses kept intact!
Is there UFO Portal page? Would it be advisable?
How can people organize a watch by students and investigators of these phenomena, rather than seeing skeptics and "debunkers" pick off or diminish articles one by one? If they do so, it would typically and likely be done quietly/silently. Therefore, there MUST be a watch kept. (If I had more time, and more experience here, I might spearhead it.)
Please don't edit my comments above. Please comment below this. Thank you!
Misty MH ( talk) 03:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On July 2 of each year World UFO Day is held. World UFO Day is a day in which individuals and groups are encouraged to gather together to watch the skies for unidentified flying objects. Draek ( talk) 23:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it should have a subject of it's own called: World UFO Day
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. It probably would be more appropriate for the article
Ufology, which is prominently linked from this article. (Incidentally, a brief glance at
World UFO Day suggests it needs more sources.)
Rivertorch (
talk)
10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)The World UFO Day has been updated with sources. Thank you for your time. Draek ( talk) 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello wikipedians. I've trying to reorganize this page into a coherent structure. This article did not flow in any logical manner, and contains extensive redundancies and contradictions of terminology. Thus far I've made three major starting changes:
Obviously this is a contentious subject, so I'm going to see how people react before going forward with fixing up this entry. But I suggest the following areas for improvement:
Clotten ( talk) 18:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Because the article introduction has already been reverted, I think a discussion is warranted. The phrase "often associated with extraterrestrial life." should be removed. While it is true that UFOs are often associated with ET life, they are often associated with many things! The article could just as well say "often associated with conspiracy theories" or "often associated with photographic evidence" or "often investigated by local military or intelligence agencies" or "often associated with psychological conditions" or even "often associated with science fiction". These are all true statements. But Why should we pick any one of the things that UFOs are often associated with and include it at the beinning of the article?
Can someone provide a good source or argument to support this idea that UFOs should be associated with the ETH? Because if the consensus is that I'm wrong, surely we should find a source to support the claim. Clotten ( talk) 18:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
there used to be a favorite website i could go to to be able to study psychic phenomena or parapsychology i could ask it anything like can i make something move with my mind telekinesis will what i think really happen to this person happen before it happens and it does e.s.p. but the most interesting thing i ever asked it was whether i was capable of sending an unidentified flying object down from space to prove to me that they exist and at 4 a.m.i heard a loud rotating disk outside my bedroom window and then fly off! does this sound immposible? it isn't. it's just really interesting a lot of fun and kinda scarry too. i don't know what i'm messing with but someday if time permits i might be able to test my psychic abilities to the max and do somemore. does anybody have any comments? don 139.173.54.11 ( talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the UK, it is the Ministry of Defence (with a C, not an S) Jfkthe2nd ( talk) 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This section features a showcased quote by Colonel Ariel Sanchez who is an activist in Steven M. Greer's fringe "disclosure project". One problem is that it's sourced to a single Latin American news outlet. Another is that Uruguay is only one among numerous countries that have recently released their old UFO report files into the public domain [4]. UFOlogists may interpret this stuff as significant, however, I'd like to see multiple reliable sources discussing it before we give Uruguay and Sanchez's quote such weight in the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a section on the decline of UFO sightings in recent years; I dunno how much more there is to say about it, but it could possibly be fleshed out. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been proved that this was a rubbish from USA Air Force. Just because they fears that some is attacking them this phobia is in their lives and they see such type of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.216.221 ( talk) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
http://eviltocancer.blogspot.kr/2013/11/toroid-mechanism-of-ufokorean-inertial.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.35.144.226 ( talk) 03:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 'when a man wrote the government' to 'when a man wrote to the government' because the event that the article refers to happened in the UK and it would not be grammatically correct in the current form for UK users.
Niccity ( talk) 08:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am very new to Wikipedia and I am not sure how this works so please be patient with me. I have noticed that just about every section of this "UFO" page contains glaring factual, scientific and historical errors. I am not sure what I can do about it becuase there are simply so many factual errors that it beggars belief.
The definition of UFO:
An unidentified flying object, or UFO, in its most general definition, is any apparent anomaly in the sky (or near or on the ground, but observed hovering, landing, or departing into the sky) that is not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon by visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar.
...is not right at all (it is factually incorrect and highly misleading...)That is:
1. First, Wikipedia’s phraseology “in its most general definition” is not only grammatically incorrect, it misleadingly suggests there is more than one definition for UFO. It also begs the question: What is a concise definition of UFO and why has such a definition not been presented? The reality is of course that concise definitions do exist and a single concise definition of UFO is sufficient for most purposes (and the example that follows is as good as any). That is:
An Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) may be defined as an aerial phenomenon for which no orthodox scientific or mundane explanation can be found.
2. Second, it is demonstrably false to assert that a UFO is “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. There are many anomalies in the sky that are not classified as UFOs. For example certain types of light phenomena, electrical discharge phenomena, various illusions, temperature inversion effects, mirages, strange cloud formations, even the moon illusion, and so on. All these types of phenomena may be considered “anomalous” (irregular or abnormal), but not classed as UFOs. Clearly then a UFO simply cannot be “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. Nor can a UFO be “an apparent anomaly”. The term “apparently anomalous” is entirely subjective because it depends on the observer to define it. Just as a car should remain a car no matter who observes it, similarly a UFO should remain a UFO no matter who observes it. Moreover, UFOs comprise just one class of aerial phenomenon (i.e. the class of unknown aerial phenomenon – or aerial phenomenon for which we have no orthodox scientific, or otherwise mundane, explanation – notice the definitions here…) among two other classes (i.e. known aerial phenomenon – we know of the orthodox scientific or mundane explanation – another definition - and aerial phenomenon where there is insufficient information to determine whether we may class the phenomena as known or unknown – the insufficient information classification). It is therefore false to assert that UFOs comprise “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. UFOs are literally (and simply) an “aerial phenomenon” which may be classified according to the above rules (Known, Unknown and Insufficient Information). To say anything more or less is misleading.
3. Nor is the next term in Wikipedia’s definition - “or near or on the ground” - definitive of UFOs (or one would also be required to include “or in, on, or above bodies of water, in earth, moon or planetary orbit, coming or going from the earth’s atmosphere, landed on or near the surface of the moon or other planets…” & so on) Such characterisations may apply to some UFOs, but certainly not necessarily, and certainly not all, therefore such characterisations cannot be definitive of UFOs. For example, one does not include the observational characteristic “parked by the roadside” in a definition of cars because it does not apply to all cars and is therefore not definitive of cars (despite many cars, if not all at one time or other being observed in such a state), likewise “near or on the ground” should be rejected as definitive of UFOs. Perhaps in later descriptive or characterising paragraphs one might clarify such distinctions (e.g. that some cars may be found parked by the roadside, just as some UFOs may be found on or near the ground) but such statements do not belong in a definition of a class of objects.
4. Likewise the term “observed hovering”. Again (for example) one simply cannot include the particular brand characteristic of one type of car “observed to have an automatic reverse parking facility” in a definition of cars because it is simply not definitive of cars. Similarly “observed hovering” does not belong in a definition of UFOs because it is not definitive of UFOs. Otherwise people might legitimately argue for the inclusion of characteristics such as “observed undertaking right angle turns at speed” or “disappearing into thin air” or “shooting beams of light” and so on. Needless to say it would make a mockery of any definition to allow any such characterisations (including “observed hovering”) to form part of the definition- where does one stop?
5. Of course the term “landing, or departing into the sky” suffers similarly. In fact none of the above terminology (points 3, 4 & 5 here) are definitive of UFOs. The inclusion of such characteristics can only serve to inappropriately bias a reader’s concept of what UFOs are (or might possibly be). Sure we can describe particular or common UFO characteristics (e.g. X% observed hovering, Y% observed doing right angled turns, Z% exhibit no discernable noise, etc.), but such characterisations simply do not belong in a definition of UFOs. A definition is required to be definitive of a class of objects (or phenomena) as a whole, not to include selective characteristics that may or may not apply to (perhaps) a minority of that class, if any at all.
6. Next we encounter the phrase “…not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon…” But what does that actually mean? By whose criteria is it (the potential UFO) “not readily identifiable”? The term “not readily identifiable” is entirely subjective. It is erroneous to define an external object or phenomenon by who is doing the observing: What is “not readily identifiable” to you might be instantly recognisable to me. Similarly the term “any known object” is subjective (known to whom - Scientists? English teachers? Mandarin speakers? My dog?). Such subjective statements simply do not belong in any definition. Quite simply a UFO qualifies as a UFO because it cannot be identified as anything mundane by anyone at any time. That is what defines a UFO as a UFO. Moreover, Wikipedia’s “not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon…” would allow a UFO to remain a UFO even after a difficult, complex scientific analysis proved it to be something mundane (it was really difficult to identify, but we did it, yet it remains not readily identifiable (go on, try it!), so by definition it remains a UFO?). Any definition that allows a UFO to be proved not to be a UFO and yet remain a UFO by definition (even as an unintended consequence) is a nonsense definition.
7. Next we encounter the final illegitimate attempt to define UFOs, this time by the method of observation. No other ostensibly objective phenomenon is defined either by who observes it (see previous point) or by its method of observation. The observer and the method of observation are essentially irrelevant to any definition of any objective phenomenon (including in quantum physics). Yet Wikipedia’s definition holds that something is a UFO if it cannot be (“readily” – whatever that means – another weasel word) identified by “visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar”. That is obviously nonsense. There are many things that cannot be identified visually or by radar… Does a snowflake become a UFO at night? Does a raindrop? A cloud? Do we define an atom of oxygen as a UFO merely because it is something that cannot be identified “as any known object or phenomenon by visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar”? Of course we don’t. The phrase is obviously not definitive of UFOs - and so it should not be included in a definition of UFOs. Moreover, how does radar distinguish between a UFO and an ordinary airplane if travelling at the same speed? Then there is also the small inconvenience of the existence of other detecting and identifying mechanisms; FLIR cameras for example (do they turn into UFOs in the dark?), Geiger counters, EMF meters, radio-telescopes, hearing, smell, touch, perhaps even extrasensory perception or telepathy… Do we list all these (and more as we think of, or invent, them) in the definition too? No, it would not make sense to do so. A UFO is something that cannot be verifiably identified as something mundane by any methodology - as applied by anyone at any time. If just one observational methodology verifiably identified (by conforming to the scientific method) a potential UFO as something mundane – then mundane it is - and not a UFO! Moreover:
Even current (Jan 2014) dictionary definitions of UFO can also be misleading. For example the Oxford Dictionaries Online defines UFO as “…a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.” Unfortunately this does not constitute a true definition of UFO. First, the term “it is claimed” is misleading because it is the simple fact that a UFO is a phenomenon for which “no orthodox scientific explanations can be found” – that defines UFOs. Second, (and for example) the fact that tomatoes are “often supposed to be” vegetables, correctly defines neither tomatoes nor vegetables. In fact tomatoes are classed as fruit. Similarly “…often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials …” has no place in a formal definition of UFOs because it is not definitive of UFOs and has a definite probability of being false (one might state that UFOs have become popularly synonymous with extraterrestrial spacecraft in a separate characterisation, but not in a definition – UFOs are “often supposed to be entirely mundane phenomena”, but that is not in the definition for the same reasons). Another reason such characterisations simply cannot be included in definitions because they may be entirely contradictory! The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines UFO as “…an object seen in the sky that is thought to be a spacecraft from another planet.” Here Cambridge’s definition constitutes a demonstrably false statement, and that is simply because a significant proportion of the population do not think UFOs are “spacecraft from another planet”.
No….
An Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) may be defined as an aerial phenomenon for which no orthodox scientific or mundane explanation can be found.
Then...
The term UFO was NOT created in 1953 by the USAF to "replace" other terms (nor BTW was it coined by Ruppelt!)
The first official use of the term “Unidentified Flying Object” can be found in a US Air Training Corp (ATC) “Extract From Weekly Intelligence Summary” document dated 16 July 1947: “The following is a digest of the only current reports that have been received through the Intelligence system of this Command concerning unidentified flying objects” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?pagecode=NARA-PBB2-37&tab=2, 7 Jan 2014). The term was in regular use from that date.
The first recorded use of “UFO” (as a noun in its own right) appears on the 03 November 1952 in a “Facts and Discussion” report titled “Trip to Los Alamos on 23 October 1952”. It states “On 23rd October 1952, Col D. L. Bower and Capt E. J. Ruppelt of ATIC presented a briefing at the Los Alomos Scientific Laboratory. After the briefing Col Bower and Capt Ruppelt met with seven people from the lab who were interested in the subject of UFO’s” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB7-936, 8 Jan 2014).
There are a number of other circumstantial clues to show Ruppelt did not coin the term UFO. One of them is a letter dated 03 November 1952 - precisely the same date as the briefing minutes cited above (and surely no coincidence) – in which Ruppelt wrote to a Mr Gittings of Los Alamos stating “When Col Bower and I were in Los Alomos giving the briefing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, we discussed the correlation between sightings of UAP and the detection of certain types of radiation.” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB7-934, 08 Jan 2014). Ruppelt’s use of the terms “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” and “UAP” demonstrates he was using alternate terminology in both the briefing he attended and also on the very day someone else was using the term “UFO”. That someone else was probably a junior in his office who wrote up the "minutes" of the breifing. Ruppelt however would have seen that use of the term UFO and perhaps later thought to make it his own… and there is a particular delicious irony in that, but that is for a later discussion…
Now, there are MANY other factual errors in just about every statement and line on this Wikipedia page. Someone has been allowed to write this page without doing the least bit of basic research. The factual, historical and scientific errors must be corrected. However there are so MANY of them that it would be quicker and easier to completely rewrite the page from scratch rather than try and fix it all as it stands (and the current structure is not very good either)
Of course I have written all the FACTS out and in doing so it looks like I have a good portion of the whole thing rewritten anyway...
would anyone like to see it?
So I have a question - how shall we proceed from here to remove all the errors and instate the facts of the matter?
As I say, I am very new to Wikipedia, so I will be guided by your preferences.
Thank you. Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatozofeverything ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)