Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Moved pending specific citations

This waffling paragraph seems out of place in an encyclopedia - let's say specifically who has made the claim (preferably the first person to make it) and report their words, briefly, before reporting a specific rebuttal: There is an unproven contention that incontrovertible proof probably does exist but is being withheld from the public by world governments, perhaps out of fear of widespread panic and social disruption that might result from disclosure of such information. Such allegations have been made by Ufologists as well as notable high-ranking military officers, government officials, astronauts, scientists, and other notable ETH supporters. However, similar groups of notables are equally skeptical and often dismiss such statements as conspiracy theories, maintaining that the evidence is unconvincing and that the subject in general is pseudoscience. Adhib 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed superfluous material

'A fuller definition was given by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, late astronomer, U.S. Air Force consultant and UFO proponent, as "the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behaviour of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."
The U.S. Air Force adopted a similar official definition in 1954, saying a UFO is "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object." In addition, investigation was stated to be for the purposes of national security and to ascertain "technical aspects." (USAF document)
By the stricter definitions, something must remain unidentified and have anomalous characteristics to be classified as a UFO. Such characteristics, as noted by early Air Force studies dating back to 1947, might include unconventional shape, high speed and/or acceleration, high maneuverability, extreme rate of climb, absence of sound and/or trail, formation flying, and/or evasion upon pursuit. (USAF document)
A number of conventional and unconventional theories have been proposed to explain UFOs. However, the original working term UFO has largely become popularized in the public mind with the notion that UFOs might be extraterrestrial spacecraft (the ETH or Extraterrestrial hypothesis). However, no incontrovertible physical evidence of the existence of such spacecraft has been presented, though many forms of disputed physical evidence do exist in the public domain'.

Please be patient. The core of this material will return to the main article as my edits (b) --> (d) specified above are completed. Adhib 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More superfluous material

On January 25, 1878, The Denison Daily News wrote that John Martin, a local farmer, the previous day had reported seeing a large, dark, circular flying object resembling a balloon flying "at wonderful speed," and also used the word "saucer" in describing it. [1] This may be the first known use of the word "saucer" to describe an unidentified flying object. Some seventy years later in 1947, the media used the term "flying saucers" to describe Kenneth Arnold's sighting.
The nine objects Kenneth Arnold reported were not strictly saucer-shaped. Arnold initially described and drew a picture of eight of the objects as being thin and flat, circular in the front but truncated in the back and coming to a point. (See Kenneth Arnold for drawing and verbal descriptions.) Another drawing was of a ninth, somewhat larger object with a boomerang or crescent shape, resembling a flying wing aircraft. However, several years later Arnold said he had described their movement as a kind of skipping, like a saucer skimming over water. He complained that the press misquoted him, picking up the "like a saucer" phrase, and reported it as a "flying saucer".
"Flying disks" was another term commonly used by the media to describe the objects in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
By mid-1950, a Gallup poll revealed that the term "flying saucer" had become so deeply ingrained in the American vernacular that 94% of those polled were familiar with it, making it the best-known term appearing in the news, easily beating out others like "universal military training" (75%), "bookie" (67%), or "cold war" (58%).
Hollywood science fiction movies in the 1950s, such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Forbidden Planet (1956), and Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956), depicting flying saucer-like craft, further entrenched the term as a cultural icon. So did popular books on the subject such as Frank Scully's Behind the Flying Saucers (1950), Donald Keyhoe's The Flying Saucers Are Real (1950) and Flying Saucers From Outer Space (1953), and "contactee"-oriented books, such as George Adamski's Flying Saucers Have Landed (1953).
"Flying Saucer" was the preferred term for most unidentified aerial sightings from the late 1940s to the 1960s, even for those that were not actually saucer-shaped. The term "UFO" was more commonly used by the late 1960s.

In an article this massive, we can't indulge in six paragraphs of etymology for a different term - saucers. Should go into an etymological wiktionary. Adhib 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

spare some of the facts

Others claimed that the main role of the supposed craft was to supervise. This was the case with the UFO encounter reported by police sergeant Lonnie Zamora just outside the town of Socorro in New Mexico, which is perhaps the best documented encounter.
NASA astronaut Gordon Cooper has claimed, (including in his book Leap of Faith), that a classic saucer-shaped aircraft landed at Edwards Air Force Base on May 3, 1957 when he was stationed there, and was photographed by a technical film crew. Cooper said he viewed prints of the object before the film was shipped back to Washington. Project Blue Book claimed it was a weather balloon distorted by desert heat. The incident was Dr. James E. McDonald’s Case 41 in his 1968 Congressional testimony discussing his list of the best UFO evidence. McDonald said the incident evidently happened; besides talking to Cooper, he had interviewed the two photographers involved, who corroborated Cooper’s basic story.[2] In 1985 Cooper addressed a United Nations Panel Discussion on UFOs and ETs chaired by then Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim. Cooper stated, "I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets which obviously are a little more technically advanced than we are here on Earth. ...For many years I have lived with a secret, in a secrecy imposed on all specialists and astronauts. I can now reveal that every day, in the USA, our radar instruments capture objects of form and composition unknown to us." [3]

An encyclopedia article does not contain every fact and speculation known to man about a subject - just those which are necessary to form a coherent and comprehensive narrative treating the main facts and theories. Readability, people! Adhib 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Foreign versions of term: In Spanish, Portuguese, and French, the acronym for UFO is OVNI (in Spanish, Objeto Volador No Identificado, in Portuguese, Objeto Voador Não Identificado, in French, Objet Volant Non Identifié). In Russian, the term is NLO or "Neopoznannyi Letaushschii Ob'ekt" (Неопознанный Летающий Объект). In Finnish the acronym for UFO is TLK ("Tunnistamaton Lentävä Kohde"). In Italian, German and Japanese, UFO is an acronym instead of an initialism.

There are ample companion articles in foreign editions of the article listed in the LeftNav. No need for this duplication. Adhib 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Physicist Edward Condon suggested the word should be pronounced "ooh-foe", but this seems to have largely been ignored.

Any good reason we shouldn't do likewise? Adhib 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

UFO topics were amongst the most popular on early computer Bulletin board systems (Bullard writes that "Only sex Web sites outscore UFOs for popularity on the internet." (Bullard, 141), and millions of people have some degree of interest in the subject. There have also been notable hoaxes involving UFO reports, some of which have received substantial press attention (see the list below).

Superfluous evidence for a case already adequately made. Adhib 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Gallup poll in 2001 found that 33% of respondents "believe that extraterrestrials have visited the Earth sometime in the past." [4] These two poll results may seem confusing or contradictory if one considers only the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) as an explanation for UFOs. The poll results may also simply suggest that a greater percentage of those polled believe that the U.S. government has been less than forthright in regard to UFOs than accept the ETH.

Straying into alien - let's stick with the article topic. Adhib 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One established non-military station, which has seriously monitored UFOs, including anomalous lights, is project Hessdalen AMS in Norway....Challenged to explain sightings of unidentified lights and luminous phenomena in the hills around Piedmont, Missouri, Dr. Harley Rutledge established Project Identification in 1973 to gather scientific data...In the early 1950s, Project Magnet was created to investigate the possibility of discs powered by magnetic propulsion. The equipment was designed to detect gamma rays, magnetic fluctuations, radio noises and gravity or mass changes in the atmosphere.

It is not necessary for an encyclopedia article to detail every single investigation that there has ever been into a phenomenon.

France

  • GEPAN (Group d'Etude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-Identifiés) was the official French UFO study agency, started in 1977. In 1988 it was reorganized into SEPRA (the Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées Atmosphériques) and discontinued in 2004. GEPAN/SEPRA was a unit of the national space agency of France (CNES) and was based at the CNES technical center in Toulouse. It was set up to help civilian and military authorities understand the precise nature of the UFO phenomenon. It devised a precise analytical methodology and accumulated a database of more than 2200 different cases, with some 6000 eyewitness accounts and approximately 100 sightings from aircraft. (description and links) A 1979 GEPAN report stated that about a quarter of over 1600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, echoing results from the USAF's initial UFO studies from 1947 to about 1954. (see Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
  • COMETA (in English, "Committee for in-depth studies") was a high-level but unofficial committee that began investigation into UFOs in 1995 and issued a final report in July 1999, titled "UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for?" Before its public release, the report was sent to French President Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. Neither confirmed any official interest, though one of the study's originators, four-star Air Force general Bernard Norlain, was Jospin's military advisor. The study was carried out primarily by an independent group of former "auditors" at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN (the same group that recommended the formation of GEPAN two decades before), and by experts from various fields. The report was prefaced by Gen. Norlain, former Director of IHEDN, and began with a preamble by André Lebeau, former President of CNES. Other contributors included several generals, an admiral, aerospace scientists (including from SEPRA), weapons engineers, and the national police superintendent. Nearly 500 international aeronautical sightings and radar/visual cases were studied. In its conclusion, COMETA claimed that the physical reality of UFOs, under control of intelligent beings, was almost certain. The extraterrestrial hypothesis was the best explanation for the data; although not categorically proven, "strong presumptions exist in its favor and if it is correct, it is loaded with significant consequences." COMETA urged international cooperation and diplomatic action from the European Union on the U.S. government, which they accused of following a policy of disinformation and suppression on the subject. Summary, Full report & links

Fascinating. Why not initiate separate articles to tell these stories? They are of limited interest within the general topic. Adhib 20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Need to go easy on the lists. The explanatory paragraphs do this job better. Adhib 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Politics
Former American president Jimmy Carter claimed to have seen a UFO in 1969 and later filed a report with NICAP in 1973. (text of report) This led directly to a Presidential campaign promise in 1976 to release UFO information to the public and an attempt to investigate the issue when he was elected President. [5] However, some skeptics like Robert Sheaffer claim Carter misidentified the planet Venus.
Former American president Ronald Reagan reported seeing two UFOs, one from an aircraft around 1974 when Governor of California. The pilot corroborated the sighting. As President, Reagan publicly spoke about the world uniting against a hypothetical alien threat on three different occasions. For example, in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly in 1987, Reagan said, "I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside of this world. And yet I ask — is not an alien force already among us?"
Also in 1987, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev mentioned another such comment by Reagan at a conference in Moscow on the "Survival of Humanity." Gorbachev said, "At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestrials, the United States and the Soviet Union would join forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis, although I think it’s early yet to worry about such an intrusion." In May 1990, Gorbachev made a more direct statement about UFOs: "The phenomenon of UFOs does exist and it must be treated seriously." [6]
Former American president Bill Clinton is also known to have an interest in UFOs and the 1947 Roswell UFO incident. Webster Hubbell, Associate Attorney General under Clinton, reported in his memoirs that Clinton instructed him to find out if UFOs were real. In a speech in Northern Ireland in 1995, Clinton criticized the Air Force for its failure to deal with the question of alien bodies at Roswell soon after the Air Force had released an earlier report claiming the crash was caused by a top-secret balloon.
On many occasions, the American senator Barry Goldwater, a former Republican Presidential nominee, stated his belief that UFOs were real and described how his friend General Curtis LeMay profanely thwarted his attempt to gain access to alien artifacts rumored to be kept in a special facility at Wright-Patterson AFB. Goldwater said the subject of UFOs was so secret it was "above top secret."
In Canada, a former Minister of National Defence publicly stated in September 2005 that UFOs were real [7]. Mr. Hellyer also endorsed Alfred Webre's book "Exopolitics" (2005).
The king of Belgium is the only head of state who has publicly expressed a belief in the existence of ETs. [citation needed]
In Peru, the local government has put highway signs on certain places where they feel there is the best chance to see a UFO, based on the many reported sightings in the area.

'Famous people who mentioned the topic once or twice' is not a great category heading for any encyclopedia article - would we do it for muons? In this article, it looks suspiciously like smuggling authority in through the back door in a rather desperate way. Adhib 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

aliens are not UFOs

The cover of the paperback edition of Communion introduced a standard "grey" alien-head appearance charactierized by a large lozenge-shaped head sharpening to a pointed chin, a small slit for the mouth and large pointed lozenge-shaped eyes canted downwards towards the nose (this was later satirized in Schwa). Both Strieber and Vallee were led to doubt that these beings were "extraterrestrials" as the term is ordinarily understood, and see more of a connection to elf and fairy lore. (Cf. Jung's comparison with angelic visions in his article Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies.)

All fine, but peripheral to the article subject, which must be, resolutely, UFOs. Adhib 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

reserving this material for a 'controversies' section

An unforeseen difficulty with the term "UFO" is that it often leads to semantic debates between skeptics and advocates. Skeptics often argue that UFO simply means that the object was "unidentified" by those making the sighting and doesn't mean the object is unexplainable, much less extraterrestrial. In contrast, researchers like Hynek have argued that the term should be strictly limited to those sightings that have been intensively investigated and still defy conventional explanation, which was the actual definition adopted by the Air Force in official directives in the 1950s.

Adhib 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

reserving this material for somewhere other than UFO types

Skeptics argue this diversity of shapes, size and configurations points to a socio-psychological explanation. Other researchers argue that the large diversity of UFO shapes points to a possible paraphysical origin. Still others argue that there is a large diversity in the shapes and sizes of human flying craft, reflecting different origins, propulsion systems, and purposes, so such diversity in UFOs is not necessarily unexpected or inexplicable.
Another argument is that the true underlying shape may, in some cases, be concealed or distorted by the ionization of air around the objects, believed by some researchers, such as NASA engineers Paul Hill and James McCampbell or rocketry pioneer Hermann Oberth, to be a characteristic of the propulsion system. Air ionization could also partly explain the diversity of colors reported, as different air molecules are excited at different energy levels, as well as the electric, neon-like glow around the objects often reported, similar to what happens with polar auroras. Another view is that the shape may be concealed or distorted by space-time distortions arising from an anti-gravity propulsion system. However, some feel that such speculation is overly premature because the very actuality of UFOs as alien craft is itself problematic.
Other advocates, arguing for the non-conventional interpretation, reply that the volume of impressive sightings reported by witnesses, from commercial airline pilots to United States presidents, and occasionally captured on film and radar, possesses strong consistency and cannot be explained away simply as mundane phenomena (weather balloons, aircraft, Venus, etc.).
One writer contends that UFO mass sightings — sometimes called "flaps" — are "a hard core of genuinely unusual sightings ... surrounded by a great deal more misidentification, wishful thinking and general flakiness." [8]
Other researchers, such as Jacques Vallee, argue that if UFO sightings are motivated by some mechanism through which the public can release hidden fears and satisfy a psychological need for fantasies, why did "UFO waves" not coincide with such science-fiction feats such as Orson Welles' radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds in 1938, or the motion-picture versions of Flash Gordon (1936-37)? Vallee points out that the theory regarding how the general public generates and propagates UFO reports as a way of releasing psychological tensions, is denied by the absence of correlation between notable periods of interest in science fiction and major peaks of UFO activity. No single and comprehensive "psychological" theory to explain UFO reports has yet been proposed. A notable attempt on the basis of his theory of archetypes was made by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung in his book Flying Saucers (1959). Jung, however, also felt that at least some UFOs were "nuts and bolts" craft, based on physical evidence such as simultaneous radar contact.

Chickenfat nearly burnt-off

The article is still flabby in parts, but the worst of the excess lard is burned-off, above. I'm pausing here for an isotonic drink and to give consensus a chance to come panting up to the finish line. Back in week or two to see what y'all make of 'er. Adhib 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

UFO videos

You people have got to see these tapes. Link is:UFO Videos of 2005. Warning: Some of these tapes may have language issues. Martial Law 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've ran into similar matter that did have language issues. Martial Law 02:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

French COMETA Report censorship by Wiki skeptics

The Wiki skeptics seemingly can't stand to see one of the major conclusions of the COMETA report in this article, namely the accusation that the U.S. government is engaged in a major coverup. They also apparently don't want it included that this was indeed a high-level study, even if not officially sanctioned by the French government, though done with the blessing and cooperation of the French military strategic defense institute, IHEDN, and French space agency, CNES. Further, one the study's originators, 4-star General Norlain, had headed IHEDN, and was military advisor to the French prime minister. Norlain obviously had the ear of the French P.M. Instead of keeping this in, there is this ridiculous quibbling over whether the wording should be that only a "copy" of the report instead of just the report was sent to the French president and prime minister. What difference does it make? Did the "copy" say something different than the "original"? Other problems with the skeptic revisionist version is editorial boldfacing that COMETA said their ETH conclusion was unproven. There is also no need to quote from a Net summary of the report, while making it sound like it was a quote from the report itself. Dr Fil 15 February 2006

Sci Fi Channel Show

On 2-15-06 @ 15:34:00, the Sci-Fi Channel show aired a program called In Search Of..... this one featured alien abduction, animal and human mutilation. This show featured a report in which a US Army Sgt. was abducted by aliens ans his mutilated remains were found by another non-com( PFC to a sergeant). The same non-com had seen the UFO that picked up the now mutilated sergeant. A Jim Hickman had cited this case, his book called 5,000 Years of UFOs on the show. Had to speed input this here, since Wikipedia is a bit buggy: It has a Data Loss bug. Can this book be checked ? Martial Law 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The website is www.scifi.com. All pertainable info. may be found there. Martial Law 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The human mutilation case took place on the White Sands Missile Testing Facility/Ft. Bliss which is located in New Mexico, USA. Martial Law 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

SciFi was a source of a popular ufo video at the world trade centre back in 2000 i guess, that video is considered one of the most important video evidence.

Recent additions

I removed the following rambling prose from the preamble:

When UFOs gained widespread publicity in the summer of 1947 – called "flying saucers" then – citizens besieged the government to answer the question, what they were. Soon they found out that the government would not or could not solve the puzzle and confused them with contradictory explanations: the flying objects in the skies were a serious matter, and again, the sightings were altogether hysteria, misinterpretations and hoaxes. The established UFO investigations group of the Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton/Ohio turned out to generally be a low-key undertaking. Citizens felt cheated and began to investigate on their own. Not before long, private organizations were established by engineers, scientists, high ranking officials, journalists, authors, etc. in order to gather information on the objects – treating the discriminated observers with dignity -, to make the results of their investigations available to the public. Their main goal was to urge the government to establish a genuinely scientific UFO research agency and to appropriately prepare the public to something of seemingly greater order than the Copernican revolution.
The private investigators' books, articles and public appearances in the media aroused widespread interest, and the subject matter increasingly became the talk of the day, especially in times of UFO flaps, for example, in 1952, when for a week UFOs buzzed even Washington. The government strengthened their efforts to minimize or eliminate public interest in the matter. By and by the efforts of the private investigators and UFO organizations were also counteracted by a small number of academic "debunkers" and a growing number of other authors calling themselves "skeptics" who engaged themselves in supporting rationalism and fighting pseudoscience. Unfortunately for the UFO researchers, the "skeptics" propagate the debunking UFO explanations of the government. Nevertheless, the majority of Americans meanwhile take UFOs as a matter of fact. The government terminated Project Blue Book in 1969: there was no need to further pursue the matter. Since then there is the amazing spectacle of a nation, still thought of as a super might, that leaves the most spectacular issue – intelligent beings in other worlds of the universe, long foreseen by scientists like von Weizsäcker – to other lands, like maybe Europe or China, the dragon that begins to spread its wings - to accept and tackle the not only military but especially cultural challenge of a future of our world within many worlds, some of them surely behind us, others apparently far ahead.

I will do likewise with any further witless opining. Adhib 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Adhib: I do not think it in agreement with the Wikipedia rules to delete an entry on the justification of "UNWELCOME". Maybe my preface – dedicated to the reader who wants to know some more than the explanation of "UFO" but does not necessarily want or have the time to read the whole article – is not in line with your opinion, that, for example, "the best known study was Project Blue Book" (it certainly was NOT as three INSIDERS familiar with the subject revealed) - but your feeling "unwelcome" is no REASON to delete what you do not like, is it? And it is surely by no means appropriate to carry out the deletion with such a DICTATORIAL behavior as you do as if you were the absolute owner of Wikipedia. -- Bwilcke 23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bwilcke, I regret I lack the spare time to alert you to the full scale of the problem with your contribution, erudite as it may seem to you, hence my abrupt manner. Feel free to refer to other editors if you honestly believe my edit to be without foundation. Adhib 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Adhib, you are THREATENING, again your DICTATORIAL behaviour. I am afraid, you should go to a psychiatrist. -- Bwilcke 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


ghost rockets

Fair enough, but that's really enough. The article has already crept back up to 40k. We don't need chapter and verse here - if ghost rockets are a story that matters, they can have their own article. Well. will ya lookit that? They do already. Adhib 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

UFO in ancient paintings?

Alright I saw this on the DISCOVERY chanell, so they would not bs us about this..But I remember them showing the viewers how in old paintings they would paint a UFO in the background....Should we include this in the article?

A lot of what is on the Discovery channel is not true (same thing for the History channel). There are old paintings that look like what we would think of as a UFO, but who knows if it depicts a UFO they saw. Bubba73 (talk), 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo needs justifying, or removal

The top photo in this article is captioned "Amateur photograph of alleged UFO, Passoria, New Jersey, 1952". No supporting explanation, no references. So I clicked on the image for source info and info about the content. The source was given as the CIA in this article. However, that article has no mention of this except for a sub-heading "Passiforia, New Jersey, 31 July 1952". When you click on that heading it takes you to the image which appears in our UFO article!. A circular route, with no info whatsoever. Unless someone can post details/references about this image to justify its inclusion it should be removed from Wiki IMMHO. Moriori 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the image [9] in that article unavailable to you? Adhib 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I wrote "When you click on that heading it takes you to the image which appears in our UFO article!. A circular route, with no info whatsoever." Moriori 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still not understanding you. You can't be concerned that Wikimedia's copy of the image and its original are the same image? Which aspect of the usage needs to be corrected? I'll do it if I can. Adhib 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No Adhib, I am not concerned that they are the same image. I am concerned that neither image has source info to provide details/references such as who took the photo, how we know it was an amateur photographer, etc. When you try to find information about the photo on the Wiki page you are taken to a site where you are in turn taken to the very same image which also has no details/references. This circular route means that the Wiki photo which has no source description is being justified by the very same photo (elsewhere) which also has no source description. I hope that is clearer. Moriori 19:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience - I think I get it now. Better than the disclaimer caption, which does somewhat beg the question why it's our first choice, let's find a better image to replace this one entirely. Adhib 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The photo in question has appeared in numerous pieces of UFO literature over my 40 years of researching them. The photo is one of others taken by George Stock in Passaic, New Jersey (not Passaforia). I have a magazine issue that presents the other fourphotos that were taken in sequence. The case was listed as Unidentified and he photos could not be proven fake. Another set of photos taken in McMinnville, Oregon by Paul Trent on May 11, 1950 represent one of the best researched UFO photos remaining as an Unidentified Flying Object that is approximately 70 foot in diameter and apparently metallic was reserached by a friend of mine from Ground Saucer Watch at JPL. These photos and others can be provided if you desire them. Rich 03:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Plait quote

I have repeatedly deleted the Phil Plait quotes by Bubba73 because it doesn't meet even the minimal standards for an encyclopedia article. First of all, if Bubba thinks Plait is making a valid point, a lengthy quote isn't necessary. It can be summarized. It should be inserted somewhere in the article where it is actually relevant. But instead Bubba just plopped it in the article disconnected from everything else after tons of so-called "chickenfat" (and a lot of meat) was recently butchered out. This unnecessary (and nonfactual--see below) quote is classic chicken fat. The REAL reason Bubba stuck it in there is to get on a soapbox and give a skeptical _opinion_ as if it was incontestable fact, as is typical of him.

The real question, however, is whether Plait's statement in his book, that amateur astronomer never report UFOs, has any basis in fact. This is an encyclopedia people. Shouldn't the material pass some sort of minimal factual test?

Bubba argues that Plait is a professional astronomer, has a Wiki bio, and Bubba gives a definite reference, therefore the quote is OK. But that's beside the point. Again is it factual? Where did Plait get his statement? Was it perhaps based on a scientific survey?

No, it is nothing but Plait ASSERTING this as a fact without backing it with anything of substance. Plait says he once saw a flock of ducks and was momentarily confused until they got closer. Therefore, he implies, if a professional astronomer can be confused by something very prosaic, then all UFO reports could probably be similarly explained. Plait's anecdote followed by non sequitor reasoning doesn't carry much scientific weight. Then Plait adds that amateurs don't tell him about UFO sightings, therefore they almost never have them, but should be seeing them more often than the average person because of all their sky observation. This is again merely anecdotal, Plait's say-so, and worthless as evidence.

But what do REAL surveys of amateur and professional astronomers reveal? Here are the ones I know about:

  • A survey of about 2000 amateur astronomers in 1969 by Gert Herb, about 500 responding, resulted in ***22%*** answering "yes" to the question, "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?" A smaller group, 8%, responded positively to a subdivision of "high strangeness" including, "the observation of point sources or extended objects in abrupt discontinuous motion, or objects observed from sufficiently close distances to leave no doubt in the mind of the individual about their unconventional nature." These percentages are _higher_, not vastly lower, as Plait _asserts_, than the general population as a whole (though possibly somewhat skewed by self-selection of those returning the survey).
  • Astronomer J. Allen Hynek in 1952 surveyed 45 fellow professional astronomers at an astronomy convention. 5 (11%) admitted to having a sighting. One of these was Clyde Tombaugh, who admitted to 3, and later admitted to 6. Tombaugh supported the Extraterrestrial hypothesis. (Why not give his quote that scientists were being unscientific by rejecting the ETH out of hand?)
  • In 1975, astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock did an internal poll of 2600+ members of the American Astronomical Society (1300+ responded). 5% admitted to UFO sightings. [An earlier, smaller survey in 1973 by Sturrock of 400+ members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (mostly aeronautical engineers, not astronomers) again found about 5% reporting UFO sightings.]

None of these surveys support Plait. Plait's completely unsupported assertion/opinion doesn't belong in a Wikipedia encyclopedia article on UFOs. (It's kind of ironic, because Plait on his Bad Astronomy website also says argument by assertion is pseudoscientific, yet he is guilty of it here.)

Can you explain why Hynek's 1952 survey and Sturrock's 1975 survey did not support Plait? Moriori 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess I don't completely understand the question. Are you asking me or Bubba, who keeps wanting to insert Plait's unscientific statement? The short answer is Plait made it up (that amateur astronomer's never see UFOs), whereas Hynek, Sturrock, and others were compiling actual data by polling the astronomers instead of relying on psychic powers, like Plait, to somehow deduce that they never saw UFOs.
Also consider the numbers. Even 100,000 amateur U.S. astronomers is like only .04% of the population over 12 years old (lots of amateurs are teens, so let's include them). So roughly 1 in every 2500 people is an amateur astronomer. If A.A.'s reported UFOs at only the same frequency of the general population, we would expect only 1 in 2500 reports to be from A.A.'s. Probably only 1 in 100,000 people is a professional astronomer. Therefore only 1 in 100,000 reports should from a P.A., etc.
But if you check collections of sightings reports, such as the ~1500 by Brad Sparks of Project Blue Book cases (see e.g. [10]), both A.A.'s and P.A.'s are there in much larger numbers than one would expect from their representation in the population. Sparks list, e.g., lists 4 amateur sightings and 3 professional (search list using "astronomer"). One of these sightings (May 13, 1952) involved four A.A.'s, thus 7 total A.A. and 3 P.A. witnesses. At best you might expect around 1 sighting total from the combined "astronomer" group.
If you expand the search with "telescope", 10 more cases pop up, not specifically identified as A.A.'s (though 2 or 3 of them seem to be from the descriptions). Other cases are from people who use telescopes in their line of work, like prospectors, surveyors, weather observers, missile and balloon trackers, etc. So again, far more astronomers and telescope observers in general than one would expect by pure chance.
The point is, again, Plait made up his "fact." If he had even done a tiny bit of investigation using Google on the Net, he would have quickly discovered his assertion was wrong, wrong, wrong. But he didn't even do that--thus Bad Astronomy and Bad Science. Dr Fil 04:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Plait's book, also inserted by Bubba, is also a lousy choice for a UFO reference in this article. If you want an infinitely superior skeptical book about UFO misidentification, based on actual extensive research (Plait doesn't know a damn thing about UFOs), try Alan Hendry's "UFO Handbook." He studied 1300+ reports for CUFOS over a period of a year. Plait has studied 0. Dr Fil 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

More Plait nonsense

I've moved the Plait book reference over to a new section on Identified Flying Objects (IFOs). In his book, Plait further claims that Venus causes a "majority" of UFO reports. This is another of Plait's made-up "facts." Two major studies detailed in the IFO article, (Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 and Alan Hendry's more skeptical results) prove that Plait's claim is just more skeptical garbage, unsupported by the actual data. Dr Fil 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the Plait reference, which I think clearly belongs in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Right - it is a reference, as in the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Citing sources, as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Bubba73 (talk), 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
As long as it is still being referenced directly from within the article, it is a legitimate reference. That is a lot different from Plait's book being a source of legitimate UFO information or Plait being the least bit knowledgeable about the subject. Neither is true. Read the above comments, if you dare, which completely disprove Plait's statement that amateur astronomers (or professional ones for that matter) never see or report UFOs. Plait made it up, hardly material for a legitimate scientific article. If you leave Plait's bogus statement in there, I am obliged to shoot it down with the posted information above proving it total garbage. Dr Fil 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Dr Fil

Here's a comment from Dr Fil that I'm moving from my talk page, in case anyone else has thoughts:

There are excellent reasons to remove the Plait book as a UFO book that have nothing to do with POV. Plait's book is not about UFO's. It's about what he thinks are misconceptions that have some relation to astronomy. There is one chapter on UFOs. OK, but the problem is the two items already cited from this chapter turn out to be phony arguments, things that Plait made up. They're not supported by the actual literature or scientific studies.
Plait claimed that amateur astronomers literally never report UFOs. Where did he get that--a scientific study perhaps? No, he made it up. Actual surveys show that astronomers, amateur and professional, have sighted UFOs in roughly the same proportions as the general public. In a 1969 survey, 22% of the amateur sample reported UFOs, actually greater than the population as a whole. Surveys of professionals reveal about 5-10% reporting UFOs. The other made up fact cited was Plait's statement that Venus accounted for a majority of UFO reports. Actual exhaustive scientific studies put it at more like 10-20%. No study has ever come remotely near Plait's >50% number.
Thus Plait's UFO "facts" are fabricated and misinformation. Wiki is an encyclopedia. Why should such a deeply flawed, erroneous book be used as a reference? Let's compile a GOOD list of UFO references. There are infinitely better UFO reference books out there. E.g., a good skeptical look at UFO misidentification is Allan Hendry's "UFO Handbook", a detailed statistical look at over 1300 cases personally investigated by Hendry for CUFOS.
BTW, while I deleted Plait's book over on the UFO article, it was moved over to the new IFO article where his erroneous Venus "fact" is again cited (as it was in the UFO article). Plait's statement is then contrasted with what actual studies show. This is an appropriate use of the reference. Dr Fil 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison Talk 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my error

Sorry, I messed up the nion-English links when I took the whole article to an external text editor for editing. I'll be more careful in the future. Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have that problem with my text editor too. I can't use it if the work involves any non-English characters. I have to cut and paste from one edit window to the other. If you figure out how to get your text editor to handle it, please let me know. Tom Harrison Talk 18:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is "Identified Flying Objects (IFOs)" a good idea?

I'm concerned that Identified Flying Objects (IFOs) may develop as a POV fork from this article, with all 'favorable' information going into one and 'unfavorable' into another. I think it's important to present the reader with a balanced factual account. I'm afraid that may be harder to do if the articles are seperate. Does anyone else have thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I share your concerns. Bubba73 (talk), 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There were concerns expressed about the UFO article being way too long, followed by a massive "chickfat" editing-out of material. It was also suggested that various lengthy topics might best be dealt with in separate Wiki articles. Even after the chickenfat editing, the IFO section was still extremely long. It was also filled with various factual inaccuracies (some, as usual, inserted by Bubba, such as the Plait garbage about Venus explaining most UFO reports). A separate, expanded IFO section seemed the way to go, enabling expansion of statistics and more detailed comparison of studies, also a way to expand discussion of questionable assertions such as Plait's. This shortened the UFO article considerably, with the IFO material now quickly summarized and the new article linked to. Dr Fil 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I originally tried to put in the Plait material as a direct quote, to emphasize that it was his take on the matter. Although Venus accounts for more UFO sightings than anything else, it is not true that it accounts for more than 50% (a majority). That is why I first put it in as a direct quote (which was deleted multiple times), and then put it in clearly as something Plait said, based on his own experience. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What was your defense before? It was something about Plait being a well-known astronomer with his own Wiki bio, therefore anything quoted from him was a legitimate reference and not to be questioned. Now, by your own admission, what Plait said is a garbage "fact", and seemingly you've known it all along. If it was something "based on his own experience" (whatever that means), then it is simple hearsay and still not legitimate to represent it as fact. Quoting somebody's opinion would be legitimate if data was ambiguous and many interpretations were possible, where experts were divided in their opinion, and where it is clear the person is giving an opinion. But that's not the case here. It is a simple fact, based on actual scientific studies (not Plait's "own experience"), that Venus does NOT cause a majority of UFO sightings, not even close. That you would repeatedly insert a known false statement is plain dishonesty on your part and an obvious attempt to editorialize and debunk. Really, anybody who would deliberately insert a false statement (not the first time you've done it either) should be banned from contributing to Wiki articles. Stick to real facts please, not made-up ones. 66.117.135.19 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Any Abductions

I am gathering stories for a project and want to know who's seen the supernatural any UFO, Ghost ect. ect. (I CAN HELP!)--Dr. Mahogany 16:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a Robertson Panel psychiatrist ? If not, I'll relate some UFO experiences. While travelling the US as a prospector, people (polite) told me that IF there is any alien contact, they'll revolt, some, for religious reasons, some, out of revenge for being ridiculed as persuant to the Robertson Panel protocol. You imagine having a experience like that, only for someone to call you a liar, "insane", worse ? Martial Law 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Reason for that question is this: the Robertson Panel uses psychiatrists to "diagnose 'mental disorders' " in people who have had encounters with UFOs, aliens, are interested in these "forbidden" matters, so that these people can be ridiculed and discredited. Martial Law 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I was "Out West" looking for gold when the above happened. Its amazing concerning the people you meet. Martial Law 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The Robertson Panel was initiated by the CIA in 1952 or 1953 to "reduce" all interest in this matter after Washington D.C. was involved in a major UFO incident. Martial Law 00:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Now that the air is cleared, my experiences were this: While I was living in Texas, as a kid at the time, in a rural area, UFOs and aliens were landing on the property, tearing up the trees as they landed and lifted off, aliens were crawling all over the property, and as if a warning were issued, a orange sphere of light (or so it seemed at the time) flew between two LARGE oak trees, ripping them out of the ground, throwing them aside, one to the port side, the other went to the starboard side as it was hurtling back towards the sky. I do not recall any abductions @ this time. Since then, I've seen at least 30 of these things in AR,TX,AZ,NM,FL, incl. two "fleets", and have CE-1s from time to time. This has caused me to become a paranormal investigator, among other things. One of the FL. UFOs I've seen was that I've seen a light (the classic light) while I was in Panama City,FL., which is near Gulf Breeze,FL. This thing came out of a nearby bay, hovered in one spot for hours, then, like when you flip a light off, this thing done that when a civilian plane got too close to it. I've also seen a black sphere in said area, and it was hovering over a major highway during daylight hours. During the TX incident, I had to deal with trigger happy idiots. In Texas, all intruders are shot, especially in rural areas. I've had some police and military contacts that have told me about the Robertson Panel and the Brookings Report, and got pointed to Wikipedia by some people that I have dealt with. Martial Law 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

One other thing, I've also dealt with ghosts, all were the "Casper" type, none hostile at all. Martial Law 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

One of the things left imprints that were 12'x3'x18" each, in a triangular pattern that was far from each other, with what appeared to be a massive burn mark in the center of the landing site. Martial Law 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The only "supernatural" matter that I have dealt with are the ghosts. Martial Law 08:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I am not a Robertson Panel psychiatrist in fact i'm almost the opposite I am a personal investigator while not working. I have been interested in the unknown since a small child. My two theories, one is a sceptic's view Alien abduction happens from memory of childbirth the other is alien's are trying to colonize the Earth.(The year 2012 is the key point) But I also crave stories of the supernatural. Being that I have not encountered one myself I'm unsure. One thing for sure none of the stories I have heard can be explained easily or at all!-Dr. Mahogany 13:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You can put the "childbirth theory" to rest, since childbirth does not explain the scoop marks, other bizarre matter associated with alien abductions, such as foreign objects the size of BBs being inserted into people via the sinuses by the aliens. According to people, such as Budd Hopkins, some people have repeated abductions by aliens and it is a multi-generational matter as well, happens to both sexes. Contact just may happen in 2012. How people will react to it, well, I discussed a possibility that is plausible. Martial Law 23:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Do you believe in the hybrid theory? and here's a weird theory Aetherius Society that I can't tell if it's a hoax--Dr. Mahogany 16:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Given what Budd Hopkins and others have said, its possible that aliens are interbreeding with humans, maybe to adapt to this planet. Martial Law 19:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Just checked out the latter, check out Malevolent Alien Abduction Research Homepage. This says that aliens are pushing a extremely deceptive agenda and explains the hostile UFO/alien encounters. The History Channel is right now (as of 3-14-06) broadcasting UFO related material. I have yet to see a "friendly" alien. Most encounters I've had, incl. the horrific one in TX could be considered indifferent to hostile. Martial Law 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Watched the UFO history channel thing last night, I'm still wondering what the aliens real plan is?--Dr. Mahogany 13:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

It would be useful to have inline cititions and footnotes about, for example, "The army of Alexander the Great in 329 BC saw "two silver shields" in the sky." That way the reader has a place to go to read the account. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule explained, two words

Robertson Panel

This should explain the ridicule, the "Giggle Factor". Martial Law 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Totally disputed tag

The section on Astronomers and other scientists reads like it was written from the perspective of a reverse debunker. There are a number of problems with it.

  1. It assumes that all information regarding UFO sightings can be gleaned from 30 year old polls. This is ridiculous. UFOs as cultural artifacts have changed over history. In particular, ETUFOs are what Plait is talking about.
  2. It makes argumentative statements regarding Plait's work that are not even factual.
  3. It is definitely a violation of original research policy to have unpublished criticism of a published work as prose at Wikipedia. Effectively this is what this section does.

Please fix this problem in a factual and NPOV way. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oddly ScienceApologist does not note the Plait's statement is itself nonfactual. It is strictly an anecdotal comment from Plait. He says in his book he has never been told of a UFO sighting by an amateur astronomer, therefore he concludes they never have sightings. How is this factual or scientific? It's a classic argument by assertion, which Plait himself on his Bad Astronomy website says is "pseudoscientific" reasoning.
Can ScienceApologist list specifically what is actually "nonfactual" about the counterarguments against Plait's comment? If he can't, then he has no right to slap a "nonfactual" label on it.
It is perfectly legitimate to use cited counter-evidence to Plait in an argument. All the references are given. The reader can go there and verify the information for themselves. This is very different from simply claiming that such counter-evidence exists.
In contrast, can ScienceApologist list actual evidence, such as polling data, that would back up Plait? Can he demonstrate from extensive compilations of sighting reports, such as those of Project Blue Book, that astronomers, amateur or professional, never report UFO sightings? He can't, because supporting evidence for Plait's comment doesn't exist. At best, all he can present is the feeble argument that the polling data is now old. That doesn't exactly wash either since amateur astronomer UFO reports continue to come in.
You can read Plait's equally feeble defense of his statement at his website [11], in which he also engages in a little backpedaling. Well maybe he shouldn't have used the word "never" and instead used "very rarely." But he still doesn't back that up, and again merely asserts that amateurs hardly ever report UFOs, and when they do it is in far fewer numbers than would be expected. He cites the criticism of Chris Rutkowski, a Canadian UFO researcher who compiles contemporary Canadian UFO reports. In Rutkowski's criticism, he notes that in 2002, there were 2 amateur astronomer reports. Plait says that's not much, but adds he doesn't know the total number of reports (and doesn't try to find out). It wouldn't have been that hard for Plait to figure this out. Rutkowski's research is readily available on the Net, or Plait could have contacted him directly. E.g., a compilation of Canadian reports through 2001 shows 259 in 1999, 263 in 2000, and 374 in 2001 [12]. The 2001 survey shows two more "astronomer" reports, or about .5% of the total. The two amateur reports in 2002 mentioned by Rutkowski would be about the same percentage judging by the trend in reports. Since, by Plait's figures, amateur astronomers represent maybe .04% of the adult/teen population in the U.S., this might suggest that amateur astronomers actually report UFOs in a much higher proportion than the general population as a whole, a result in good agreement with the one already mentioned in the allegedly "nonfactual" argument about the older Project Blue Book "astronomer" sightings of all types (which were roughly 1% of the total sightings).
Again I ask ScienceApologist to back up his assertion that the arguments in the article against Plait are "nonfactual". Dr Fil 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is neither neutral nor supported by good citations. For example,

"Documents prove that Army counter-intelligence confiscated all prints and the original negatives. One of the agents posed as an FBI agent so that Rhodes would be less alarmed when approached."

Clearly Wikipedia cannot reasonably say that documents prove any such thing, or that an agent posed as an FBI agent. We could say, "According to Reputable Reporter, writing in Reputable Publication [citation], the documents that he saw proved..." but we can't say that becuase there is no citation.Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Below is a rewritten and more accurate account with citations including actual documents. There is a lot more than just these few citations, if you browse through the neighboring documents. Project Blue Book had a lengthy file on the Rhodes affair, including going to the Phoenix paper and getting the photos, the agents getting Rhodes to hand over the negatives, running background checks on Rhodes, and Rhodes later trying to get the negatives back and getting the run-around. A good narrative source is Kevin Randle, Project Blue Book Exposed (also cited).
I did make a mistake in the account of two Army CIC agents approaching Rhodes and one posing as an FBI agent (corrected below). What actually happened is that one CIC and one FBI agent approached Rhodes. The CIC guy instucted the FBI guy not to tell Rhodes who he really represented (read the document for yourself). The FBI agent said he thought the request peculiar, but complied. Thus Rhodes was left with the impression that both men were from the FBI. The next day, when Rhodes handed over the negatives to the FBI agent, he was informed that agent #2 was really with Army intelligence (not strictly true either since he was with counterintelligence). Also when the men were first talking with Rhodes, Rhodes said he would turn over the negatives but he wanted them back. The document says the CIC agent gave no reply. When Rhodes went to the FBI office the next day to hand them in, he was then told he wouldn't be getting them back. Rhodes by this time was no longer on his home turf and probably a bit intimidated. The point is, he was deliberately deceived, he handed over the negatives, and never got them back. This is indeed proven by the documents. Dr Fil 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Other citations for some of the other items are also provided.
  • On July 7, 1947, William Rhodes took photos of an unusual object over Phoenix, Arizona.(photos) The photos appeared in a Phoenix newspaper and a few other papers. Documents prove that an Army counter-intelligence (CIC) agent and an FBI agent interviewed Rhodes on August 29 and convinced him to surrender the negatives. The CIC agent deliberately concealed his true identity, leaving Rhodes to believe both men were from the FBI. Rhodes said he wanted the negatives back, but when he turned them into the FBI the next day, he was informed he wouldn't be getting them back, though Rhodes later tried unsuccessfully. [13]2 relevant documents The photos were extensively analyzed and would eventually show up in some classified Air Force UFO intelligence reports. (Randle, 34-45, full account)
Thank you, I think that's a big improvement. I made a few other changes, and added a request for citation to 'There is some evidence that the photographer did in fact meet with Air Force intelligence (or counterintelligence) and the film confiscated (it was never seen again)' Tom Harrison Talk 16:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like the current Project BLACK Book. All I know of this new program is that the UFO report is taken, then the personnel reporting said UFO/alien contact is made out to be fools and idiots. Other than this it is similar to Project Blue Book. I've heard about this during an investigation. This is supposed to be a hyper-secret program. Martial Law 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :)
IF there is evidence, it is confiscated, thus these suspicions. Martial Law 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :)
And there you have the alternative explanation for the "Giggle factor". This debate doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Anyone have specific objections to removing the tag? Adhib 22:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have objections. This article is so unbalanced that it would need hours and hours to improve it. Rather than spend that time in editing, and risk reversion by a conspiracy theorist such as Martial Law, it is pragmatic to have the tag there to advise visitors to Wikipedia that the article has shortcomings. (Apologies for not signing. Unintentional) Moriori 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned comments above ("Yes, I have objections..."). Bubba73 (talk), 00:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
As many of the more stolid UFO promoters have a hard time including criticism in their article and make hay by putting in their own unreferenced and unverified criticisms of criticism, it is absolutely necessary we keep the tag on. We're nowhere near a neutral article (or one that is factually accurate). --ScienceApologist 13:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Me, a Conspiracy Theorist? I have investigated the really famous and the not so famous UFO and/or paranormal matters, and I have had police and military contacts who have told me things that they don't tell civilians. Some of what I've found were hoaxes, while some are not hoaxes. People has told me flat out that (can't state most here, due to Wikipedia:Profanity ) that if there is any alien contact, even if we(NASA,ESA and the like) find it, they'll revolt, some, for religious reasons, such as,"Satan is here to eat our souls and the world's governments are assissting this monster!", while some will rebel out of revenge for being ridiculed as persuant to the Robertson Panel protocol, related protocol. I have met some of these people while travelling as a prospector. I've also seen a few inexplicable things myself. One guy charged that the "skeptical" organizations, such as CISCOP are fronts for the CIA and/or other "alphabet agencies" to make sure that the people are ridiculed, discredited. Martial Law 18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)
ML, I suggest you re-read that paragraph and then read Conspiracy theory. Moriori 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Read both, I was "Out West", in the SW area of the U.S. In that area, one does'nt accuse people of lying, since I was NOT looking to get shot or gutted. Most, if not, all the people there are armed. Even the bugs carry weapons out there. Currently, I am located in a rural area of the U.S. and these people will shoot intruders, and are short tempered, and some do drink. I did not mean to offend you at all, I'm only stating the truth. Martial Law 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)
By the way, what do you think of this "Commander X" ? This guy has made some interesting claims. Go to www.paranormalnews.com and look up this
"Commander X". Again, did not mean to offend you Moriori. Martial Law 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The guy who made that crack about CISCOP being a Alphabet Agency front claimed to have been in military intelligence and does'nt like "spooks", was near Deming, New Mexico. Martial Law 22:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Its amazing considering the type of people one meets when one is prospecting for gold, and I did find some gold in NM.,AZ.,CA.,TX. Most of the people I've met were aged 50 to 90 years in age, and were not senile, etc. since this is a dangerous undertaking. Martial Law 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :D

You don't offend me ML. Amaze me, yes. Amuse me too. ):- Moriori 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Weapons Use...

When people see these things, they often fire on them. I have seen case after case concerning this matter. I am in a rural area of the U.S. and these people will shoot at anything that they believe is a threat to them. Why is it that people can't comprehend the fact that people in rural areas of the US and some other nations will shoot to kill anything they consider a threat ? I've came accross many a incident report in which people have actually shot at these things, with no effect. In one incident report, the military helicopters and some civilian helicopters had to be grounded because ranchers and farmers were shooting at"Black Helicopters", strange lights, saucers and the like while a animal mutilation incident was going on. Who wants to tell a ticked off rancher that lost a $500,000 stud horse or bull that they're "full of it", or a ticked off farmer that had his farm ruined by radiation the same thing ? Everytime a UFO incident is going on, the rural people, especially the ranchers and farmers either buy new weapons and/or fix and oil their old ones, get a lot of ammo and sit up waiting for something to come by, so they'll shoot at it, and/or shoot the skeptics that will accuse them of lying, worse. Too bad I can't state any of this, due to WP:NOR and/or WP:V. One guy I ran into in AR., stated that his uncle had fired on a UFO with a .410 or a 12 guage shotgun, using deer slugs, only the ship had a "deflector shield" up, so that the ammo could'nt harm the vessel. He said you could see where the ammo had hit the shields, but not the ship. Martial Law 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) :)

A good case is the Sutton UFO Incident,a.k.a., the Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter mentioned in the list of major UFO incidents. These people spotted a UFO, then aliens and they have shot them with no effect at all, they were later ridiculed as persuant to the Robertson Panel as being drunk hillbillies, religious nuts and the like. Martial Law 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Revert of Physical evidence section

I do not mind people editting my work for bias. I freely admit that my prose may not be as balanced as possible, but the blatant reverting of this section was terribly eggregious, especially because verifiable criticism was removed. I reverted back, but encourage the editor who reverted my changes to edit for NPOV while keeping the content. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "verifiable criticisms." I think you mean the opinions of fellow uniformed skeptics, as opposed to actual data. Hence the following soapbox comment by you:

"Scientists and skeptics alike dismiss the claims that UFO citings represent evidence for extraterrestrial craft visiting Earth. Astronomers such as Carl Sagan and Phil Plait have made it part of their careers to debunk such advocacy."

Not only is this blatant soapbox POV writing, it's completely off-topic. This is a section on purported physical evidence, not your personal _opinion_ or Sagan's or Plait's whether there there is any evidence that UFOs represent extraterrestrial craft. This paragraph definitely goes out.

Now let's look at this paragraph:

"Some of these cases have been shown to be deliberate hoaxes. Others have been shown to be explainable as natural or manmade phenomena. The remaining smaller fraction have been labeled unidentified or unexplainable, including those researched by governmental and military authorities of various countries. Analyses of such cases have results that are usually ambiguous or inconclusive."

I've tried to indicate, which you keep changing, that very few cases have been shown to be hoaxes. Studies, such as by the USAF, typically show hoaxing at a level of around 1%. If you can provide "verifiable" studies, not more debunking opinions, to show otherwise, please present it. Otherwise cut the nonsense through the indefinite wording that some very large fraction of cases are hoaxes. That's not the case. At this point, as a compromise, I'm leaving the indefinite "some of the cases are hoaxes", even though it is somewhat misleading.

The paragraph is already so watered down and vague, that it doesn't tell the reader much at all. It could be completely tossed without any loss at all. In a sense it is already pushing a skeptical POV. Cases are hoaxes or explainable, and the remaining unidentified physical cases are ambiguous and inconclusive. Certainly not all studies feel that way. Some, e.g., feel that unexplained radar contacts, particularly from multiple stations, are very powerful independent corroboration of physical reality for UFOs also sighted visually.

"Ufologists rely on Hynek's scale to define indirect physical evidence as data obtained from afar from radar/visual or CE1 cases, such as radar contact and photographs. More direct physical evidence is claimed to come from CE2 and CE3 cases, interactions at close range, which include so-called "landing traces," "electromagnetic interference", and physiological/biological effects."
"A list of cases proported by ufologists includes":

You have repeatedly resorted to rewording to suggest that physical evidence cases are purely the imagination of "Ufologists". There is no need to put "electromagnetic interference" in quotes, like it's some new phenomenon associated with UFO cases dreamt up by Ufologists. A number of these EM interference cases are military cases, a classic one being the jet intercept of a UFO over Tehran in 1976 where the plane's communications and weapons systems were lost, the latter just as the plane was about to launch a missile. This case shows up in previously classified CIA and DIA files. It wasn't created by "Ufologists".

The same is true of a large number of other physical evidence cases. They come from military and government investigations of various countries, a point you keep trying to deemphasize. I suggest you read some of the linked-to material in the bulleted list of physical evidence cases to maybe familiarize yourself with the actual evidence more, particularly some of the classic cases like Socorro, Belgium, Trans-en-Provence, Rendlesham, Washington D.C., and the like.

Just to keep you happy, I've thrown in an "alleged" and "purported" in my rewritten version, though there is nothing alleged or purported about the strictly military or government-investigated cases, where those civilian "Ufologists" had nothing to do with it. Dr Fil 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Russians Open UFO School

According to this LINK, the Russians have opened a UFO School. What do you think of this development ? Dr Fil ? Anyone else ? Martial Law 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Great site eh! Notice how they demonstrate how to take authentic photos of UFOs. Moriori 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Seen that. The pix was a joke, the article is'nt. Martial Law 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The intent is to teach people what to do if they encounter a UFO and/or a alien, other than running off, shooting at it, etc., all the above in some cases. Martial Law 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I'd tell you what the "Etc." was, only that'll violate Wikipedia:Profanity if I did. Cheers. Martial Law 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC) :)

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Billy Meier article needs some attention!

Anyone here know much about Billy Meier? The article right now is in need of balance and an attention to presentation. I do not know much about the subject and don't personally want to spend much time on it, but it is not a good representative of Wikipedia at present. I hope someone will be interested in giving it some attention. Phiwum 07:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed intro

I changed the intro to:

A UFO or unidentified flying object is an object observed in the sky which has the appearance of motility or impermanence and is not readily identifiable. Many people claim UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft but the majority of scientists say there is no definitive evidence to support that supposition.

from:

A UFO or unidentified flying object is any object or optical phenomenon observed in the sky which cannot be identified, even after being thoroughly investigated by qualified people.
I strongly object to "ScienceApologist", a person who obviously has almost zero knowledge of the subject matter, now trying to write his own definition of something he is profoundly ignorant of. Furthermore, his definition is extremely vague and deliberately slips in his personal anti-POV. E.g., wording such as "appearance of motility" and "impermanence" have implications of illusion and lack of physical substance. The definition should be closer to the one the Air Force adopted as it's official one in 1953:
"any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object." Their definition also stated they were to be studied for their "technical aspects" and possible national security implications.
This definition more clearly indicates some form of physical reality plus anomalous characteristics that set UFOs apart from ordinary aircraft or other mundane objects. That is why the Air Force was studying them plus being concerned about their true nature.
In principle, there's nothing wrong with the airforce's definition except that not all UFOs are actually "airborne objects" (see below). The US Air Force was anticipating a certain set of phenomena when they set out, in 1953, to study the reports and were only interested in those reports of actual airborne objects. Since 1953, the term "UFO" has come to be applied to many more observations. This is worthy of discussion somewhere in the article, but not in the intro. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the rationale:

1) to state that a UFO is an "optical phenomenon" belies many of the proported UFOs that weren't optical.

"Optical phenomenon" opens up the possibility of something other than a solid object being responsible (such as some form of mirage, ball lightning, anomalous propagation etc.). I don't understand your objection to it. However, I have suggested "aerial phenomenon" in its place below.
Aerial and optical are both problematic because there are some UFOs which are celestial and some which are non-optical. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I also have no idea what is meant by the statement of cases of UFOs not being optical, unless you mean UFOs not strictly detectable in the visible spectrum, but in infrared, on radar, or by other means such as radiation spiking, gravimetric disturbances, electromagnetic interference, and the like. BTW, the proper word is "purported", not "proported." (Yes, I know, a cheap shot.)
Yes, indeed, "optical" means emitting or reflecting in the optical. --01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2) "even after being thoroughly investigated" is a POV statement regarding the thoroughness of a hypothetical investigation. Who decides what a thorough investigation is? Also, which people are "qualified" to do such an investigation? Unless a citation can be given for this claim, it doesn't belong in the lead-off.

Everything is POV with you even when it is not particularly POV. "Qualified people" are just like in any other discipline--people well-trained and experienced in what they are investigating. "Thoroughly investigated" means witnesses were interviewed and evaluated in detail by the qualified people, other evidence collected and evaluated (e.g., radar recordings, photographs, soil samples). Examples of such people and investigations might include the Air Force's original Project Sign, with personnel from air intelligence and engineering at Wright-Patterson plus a few civilian scientists. Another would be the Battelle Memorial Institute statistical evaluation of Air Force cases between 1952-1954. The investigators were four Battelle scientists, ALL of whom had to agree that a case had no conventional explanation for the case to be listed as "unidentified" (whereas only two had to agree on an explanation to list it as "identified"). Yet another was the official French UFO investigations GEPAN/SEPRA run out of the French space agency. Investigators included aerospace engineers, scientists, astronomers, military experts, etc. Is this "qualified" enough for your tastes?
It is best to leave out this point because the "qualifications" of the investigators are a matter of dispute. Especially considering that UFOlogy does not represent an academic program (wouldn't be admitted as an expert in court, for example). --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of the original definition, that "UFOs" were what remained after being thoroughly investigated by qualified people, was to indicate that they weren't merely "unidentified" because the average Joe filing a report couldn't figure it out. They remained unidentified despite the best efforts to do so, often by very skeptical and well-trained people from various government agencies (not just those gullible and evil "Ufologists" you seem to think who are the only ones arriving at cases being unexplained).
I understand the point of the original definition, but there is obviously a better way to state it that doesn't suffer the same problems. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3) The movement and the temporary nature of UFOs are important to their definition. There isn't a single UFO which does not have one or both of these conditions and as such I think this is an important and defining feature.

Actually you used "appearance of motility" and "impermanence" which have different nuances of meaning implying nothing at all being there (isn't that your REAL reason for writing the definition this way?).
I disagree. The phenomenon must move and lack permanence in order to remain "unidentified" and to be "flying". Let's put it this way, can you name one UFO which doesn't conform to one or both of these descriptions? --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what to you mean by "appearance of motility" anyway? Remember the Air Force definition above which is more specific, talking about anomalous "performance" and "aerodynamic characteristics". The "Twining memo" of Sept. 23, 1947, was even more specific about the anomalous nature of UFO motion and performance (based on evaluations of sightings by Air Force engineers and technical intelligence divisions, not "Ufologists"). See [14]text version Twining first stated that, "The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious." As to unusual motion he wrote the "discs" exhibited "extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar..." Twining also mentions "Absence of trail, except in a few instances when the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions" and "Several reports of well kept formation flights..." Other unusual characteristics were general absence of sound and and unusual shape, "Circular or elliptical... flat on bottom and domed on top."
Also what you call "temporary nature" or "impermanence" is not a defining characteristic, any more than it would define a jet aircraft flying overhead or a shooting star. In fact, one of the results of the 1950s Battelle statistical study was that sightings classified as "unidentified" typically lasted LONGER, not shorter, than those listed as "identified". When they applied a Chi-Square test to the known and unknown distributions of durations, they found that they were statistically different at much less than a 1% level of chance. Even when they finagled the data by throwing out the large number of short duration "knowns" (mostly meteors), the two distributions still remained different at about the 5% level. They stated that "the greater proportion of UNKNOWNS in the 31-60 second and 61-second to 5-minute groups cannot be explained."
This clearly undercuts your argument that short duration is an important characteristic of a UFO. It is not.
Your arguments show nothing in the way of distinguishing a basic introductory statement about what UFOs are. Rather you are, for better or worse, disputing the implications which are not germane to the discussion. The article clarifies the issues you raise later on, but these issues have nothing to do with the stylistic introduction. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

4) To claim that UFOs "cannot be identified" is to inappropriately parse IFO and UFO which is a novel neologistic enterprise. UFOs are not "readily identifiable" but to claim that they "cannot" be identified makes it seem as though identification is outright impossible.

Ah, on with the semantic wars. It could likewise be argued that "not readily identifiable" implies that they are actually identifiable, just give it a little time and thought. The original definition indicated correctly that they remain unidentified even after you give it time and thought, i.e., after being thoroughly investigated by qualified people, what you chopped out. Again your rewording seems deliberately aimed at implying there is nothing to it, whereas actual experts realize that there is something very different or anomalous about the "unidentifieds" that clearly sets them apart from conventional manmade objects or natural phenomena. That's why they remain unexplained and unidentified.
This statement that "acutal experts realize that there is something very different or anomalous..." is not verifiable since a) "experts" in the subject have disputed qualifications and b) there is considerable controversy over whether there is a phenomenological uniqueness to UFOlogist claims. NPOV demands that we make no judgements on the matter (especially not in the introduction). --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

5) Definitions and opening sentences should be of the form "A is a B that is C" where you take the term (A), declare what the most relevant superset includes the term (B) and distinguish it from all other elements in the superset with conditions (C). With the current rewritten sentence, we do that. It was not adequately done before (since, for example, there are many optical phenomena which are unexplained which are not UFOs). I hope that we can improve on the superset (B) which is right now "object". I am not happy about saying that a UFO is necessarily an "object", but I'm not sure what to do about this. UFOs are certainly "coherent" phenomena for the most part, though there are reported "sightings" that were not coherent (E.g. "I saw bright lights"). If anyone has some suggestions for improving this, please make them.

--ScienceApologist 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that "there are many optical phenomena which are unexplained which are not UFOs?" This indicates, for one, that you somehow know with certainty what the true nature of "UFOs" is and how to clearly distinguish them from your unspecified optical phenomena. Perhaps you can enlighten us about these unexplained optical phenomena (name us a few) and your rules for separating them from your equally badly defined "UFOs".
An unexplained optical phenomenon might be a ghost, for example. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Your conditions "C", "appearance of motility or impermanence", are totally inadequate and inaccurate in explaining why something is ultimately classified as a "UFO." UFOs have various anomalous characteristics that set them apart from conventional man-made objects or known natural phenomena ("impermanence" is not one of them) including (but not limited to) unusual shape, color, brightness, flight dynamics/performance, maneuverability, speed, acceleration, absence of sound, absence of trail, formation flying, evasion upon pursuit, and/or physical effects on the environment. It is because of having one or more such characteristics that they remain unidentified. This doesn't necessarily imply that they are alien spacecraft, only that they are distinctly different from known things, hence they can't be identified even after being throughly checked out (to rule out conventional possibilities). The fact that they can't presently be identified also does not rule out that at least some might be presently unknown natural phenomena or perhaps some presently unknown experimental craft.
In order to make a definition you need to distinguish it from all other objects which are not it. What are the characteristics that all UFOs share? We need a definition that defines them exactly, not just one that has a list of properties that they may or may not possess. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
As for your conundrum about "object" and "optical phenomenon", how about going back to something close to the original definition:
"A UFO is any aerial object or aerial phenomenon exhibiting one or more unusual characteristics which remains unidentified even after investigation by well-qualified persons."
Before someone took a meat hatchet to this article in the name of cutting out chickenfat, the opening section also had the more detailed definitions of Hynek and the USAF plus a listing of some of the anomalous characteristics given by Twining back in 1947. That gave the uninformed reader a much better grasp about what made for something being a UFO rather than saying all that characterized them was an indefinite "appearance of motility" and "impermanence". Jeez. 66.117.135.19 23:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
1) Get an account. 2) If you have more issues with the NPOV process, take it up at WP:NPOV. You are going to have to work with others and, frankly, you're going to have to give up your attempts to evaluate people's familiarity with subjects as the threshhold for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is verifiability and not truth. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Paranormal Watchers

I recently made this project Wikipedia: Paranormal Watchers and would like some members or at least some tips to make it better Mahogany-wanna chat?

Sources about scientists who "believe in" UFOs

Culled from the article:

Polling of American Astronomical Society (AAS) colleagues by astrophysicist Peter Sturrock in 1975 found strong interest in investigating the subject. A solid majority (53%) felt the subject deserving of further scientific study; only a small minority (20%) clearly opposed such study. Antagonism to studying UFOs was found to correlate directly with ignorance of the subject matter. Over 80% of respondents expressed a willingness to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem. However, only 10% thought the solution would be extraterrestrial. 5% reported UFO sightings. survey results Sturrock also assembled his own scientific panel in 1998 for an independent review of the evidence. The panel concluded the physical evidence linked to some sightings deserved additional scientific study[15]
Similarly, the UFO subcomittee of the AIAA in 1970 deemed the subject definitely worthy of further scientific study after reviewing the 1969 Condon Report and its large percentage of unknowns (thus directly contradicting Edward Condon's conclusions).[16] Sturrock also surveyed the AIAA in 1973 and found a higher level of skepticism toward the subject than in his 1975 AAS survey. Nonetheless, as in the AAS survey, 5% of members reported UFO sightings.[17]
Other surveys reporting keen interest among scientists were published by Industrial Research and Development magazine, who surveyed their 100,000 member readership in 1971 and 1979 (more than half of whom held post-graduate degrees). In the 1971 survey, 54% thought UFOs definitely or probably existed, vs. 31% who disagreed. 32% thought they came from space. 8% reported a UFO sighting while 14% reported "perhaps." 76% thought the government was concealing evidence but 49% still favored further government research. In the 1979 survey, 61% now felt UFOs definitely or probably existed; 28% disagreed. 8% said they had a UFO sighting; 10% answered "perhaps". 51% favored further government research. [18][19]

These paragraphs need to be cleaned up before they are presented in this encyclopedia. Here are the reasons:

  1. The Sturrock poll was informal and not well-administered. The results are reported on the website article but the poll's format cannot be verified nor are the conclusions that this article came to neutral interpretations even given the controversial nature of the poll. In particular, claims such as "80% of respondents expressed a willingness to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem" assumes a few things that are very problematic: 1) that everyone admits there is a "UFO problem", 2) that everything but the most negative of responses indicates a "willingness", 3) that a "contribution to the resolution..." is somehow an endorsement of UFOlogy by professional astronomers, 4) the poll was issued way to far in the past when the "controversy" was of a different character than today. We need to be up-to-date if we are truly going to cite the opinions of current scientists. Obviously, these three problems need to be addressed before reporting on the Sturrock poll can be included neutrally in the article.
  2. The 1998 panel might be relevant to the article, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether scientists/astronomers perceive a "UFO problem" beyond the problem that there are various weirdos who think "the truth is out there".
  3. A 1970 report of the AIAA hardly reports on the nature of the controversy accurately in 2006. The conclusions drawn from the report are not neutral: informal panel reviews express neither endorsement nor rejection of a subject -- so this is irrelevant and the commentary written about it is far from NPOV
  4. Sturrock's poll of AIAA is also rightly excluded until the points about the AAS poll are addressed similarly for this organization.
  5. A magazine poll is not indicative of the opinions of the scientific community, in particular, it's hard to know what the background of the readers who responded to the poll were. Maybe scientists were less likely to respond than laymen readers. We don't know, because the information isn't found in the source. Thus, this poll is rightly excluded until better context/data can be provided.

Until these points are addressed, these paragraphs need to be removed from the article.

I should point out that survey research is a professional field. We should not be cavalier in our reporting of polls, especially when they are done by nonprofessionals and suffer shoddy design (such as those done by Sturrock or the magazine).

Thanks

--ScienceApologist 19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Combating Plait's assertions

There were a number of points that were included in the section outlining Phil Plait's assertions regarding UFOs that had to be removed for various reasons. The affected prose is reproduced below along with explanations for their culling and suggestions for what could be done to include such information in the article in a neutral fashion:

various surveys and compendiums of sightings indicate that astronomers do indeed have UFO sightings in numbers comparable to the general population (about 10%), and also seem to report them more frequently. For example,
These various studies I assume refer to Sturrock's informal polling. This is not a verifiable indication and is therefore removed. The points about Tombaugh are included since those are verifiable opinions (though citations of them are needed).\
It sort of depends on how we approach it. We need to make it clear that this is what Sturrock claims and is not an independent study. But, under that context, it is relevant to the topic. But then again, we need sources anyway... can someone backtrack and find the original contributor and ask? ---J.Smith 18:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A survey of about 500 amateur astronomers in 1969 resulted in 22% answering "yes" to the question, "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?" A smaller group, 8%, responded positively to a subdivision of "high strangeness" including, "the observation of point sources or extended objects in abrupt discontinuous motion, or objects observed from sufficiently close distances to leave no doubt in the mind of the individual about their unconventional nature."
We need a source for this and we need to make sure the poll conforms to the standards required for proper survey research. In particular, this is not a statement as to whether these objects conform to the definition of UFOs. Some of these objects might be spy satellites, for example. Without further information, the inferences and conclusions this paragraph draws are unjustified. The rather wordy statement involving "discontinuous motion" and "unconventional nature" suffers from problems of a snow job and would be considered a leading question by neutral survey creators.
I agree on the sourcing issue... not even the name of the poll is listed. :( If a source can be presented and the group conducting the poll is identified then I'm a-ok with it being there. ---J.Smith 18:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dr. J. Allen Hynek in 1952 surveyed 45 fellow professional astronomers at an astronomy convention. 5 (11%) admitted to having a sighting. One of these was
Aside from being uncited, the poll is definitely informal and therefore the proportions reported are not indicative of a population.
Agreed... the percent should be stripped and the phrasing should indicate that it was an informal poll. (interesting in it's own right, but unscientific) ---J.Smith 18:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


In 1975, astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock did a much larger internal poll of 2600+ members of the AAS or American Astronomical Society (1300+ responded). 5% admitted to UFO sightings. An earlier, smaller survey in 1973 by Sturrock of 400+ members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) again found about 5% reporting UFO sightings.
Repeat of content culled above. See previous section for rationale.

--ScienceApologist 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ufology

There is a huge amount of this article that would be better off merged into the Ufology section. (or, alternatively, Ufology article should be merged here.) As it is now there is quite a bit of duplication. I'd do it myself, but merging looks like it's going to be a huge mess. Does anyone have the time to take this task on? ---J.Smith 18:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Military Intercepts

The documentary channels have ran programming in which not only military planes have been chasing UFOs, they have shot some down, and the UFOs have also shot down some of the military planes. Martial Law 20:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC) :)


Astronauts FORBIDDEN to report UFOs, aliens

These two links state this matter. They are Astronauts FORBIDDEN to report UFOs and the source link sent to Jeff Rense is (link sent to Jeff Rense ) which states that Astronauts have been and are still forbidden to report UFOs, aliens. Martial Law 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Mainstream Newspaper reports UFO Ignorance - w/o the Giggle Factor

The newspaper doing this is the American Chronicle. since this is a two part article, two links are presented.

Mainstream newspaper still running UFO material

UFO Betwix & Between

Can someone keep a eye on this newspaper ? Martial Law 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)
Use http://www.americanchronicle.com/notices/search.asp and search for "UFO". 121 links as of this date. -72.74.23.108 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Skewed presentation

In a recent edit, "Despite this, it is often alleged..." is followed by, "However, proponents note that..."

Language like this inappropriately favors one side in the argument it describes. "Say" is often a simpler and better choice. Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it was inappropriate to simply revert ALL of those changes you reverted. I'd like an explanation for it. ---J.Smith 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I considered trying to rewrite and remove the note that.../some argue... language, but what would have been left would have repeated what was already there. Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I looked carefully at the edits and determined that even those that were neutral did not add anything to the verifiable content of the article (e.g. stating that "other studies" confirmed that many of the UFO instances were explainable did not add anything to the prose of the text). --ScienceApologist 21:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The reader who inserted "counterarguments" might be served in including any points that are verifiable in the part of the text that actually discusses those points. Pre-empting the controversy is the best way to avoid tit-for-tat, back-and-forth editting. No one is saying that UFO-proponents' opinions shouldn't be reported, only that the debate style of writing a quick diatribe response to prose you dislike is to be eschewed. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes the presentation was "skewed", but to the skeptical side. What I wrote is hardly a "diatribe" but a legitimate counterpoint to the flagrantly POV skeptical argument. The skeptical argument presented is full of faulty reasoning, unverifiable statements, and arguments by assertion. For example, can ScienceApologist provide an actually legitimate source to the statement that "the general opinion of the mainstream scientific community is that no UFO sighting requires extraordinary explanations." I want an actual survey of scientists, not another of your made-up "facts." And to be consistent, since you demand only current surveys in another section, I similarly demand a current survey to back up this statement. To my knowledge, their are no such surveys, just assertions by skeptics that this is the prevailing opinion of scientists. Unverifiable say-so such as this should be deleted, which I rightfully did.

Here is another example of unverifiable statements, just more of your say-so:

"On the contrary, such sightings can be explained by the following prosaic explanations: ordinary misidentification of natural and man-made phenomena, deliberate hoaxes, psychological phenomena such as optical illusions or dreaming/sleep paralysis (often given as an explanation for purported alien abductions)"

Again, this is argument by assertion, a flagrantly POV statement, and also self-contradictory. What defines a UFO as a UFO is that it is NOT explained by any of the above. All of the cited conventional explanations have already been ruled out. That's already made clear in the first two paragraphs--most sightings have prosaic explanations such as misidentification, hoax, psychological, etc. However, those that aren't are unexplained or unidentified, i.e., UFOs. After this widely accepted argument and definition has been given, you then turn around and assert, "Yes, but the UFOs are also explainable by misidentification, hoax, psychological, etc."

This is truly amazing illogical reasoning.

Now added to this mess is the previously uncontested POV skeptical argument:

"Skeptics point out that most "evidence" is ultimately derived from notoriously unreliable eyewitness accounts. Very little in the way of solid physical evidence has been reported, and because UFO sightings are transitory events, there is no opportunity for the repeat testing called for by scientific method. Ockham's razor is invoked by such skeptics since it is considered less incredible for the explanations to be the result of scientifically verified phenomena rather than resulting from novel mechanisms (e.g. the extraterrestrial hypothesis)."

The only change I made to this was to modify the statement about eyewitness accounts being "notoriously unreliable." I toned this sweeping (and unsupported) assertion down and said they were often unreliable. But it is equally true that eyewitness accounts are often reliable, certainly reliable enough for investigators to make a determination. Truly unreliable reports and cases usually have a separate junk bin reserved for them, such as done by the French GEPAN/SEPRA scientific studies or the Battelle Memorial Institute USAF study back in the early 1950s.

What I did do is challenge these various points while leaving them intact. (It's called scientific debate, guys.) I didn't censor them, as you are doing to my points(then denying that you are doing it). It is simply NOT true that the scientific method demands that individual events be repeatable. In fact many well-recognized phenomena because of their transitory and individually nonrepeatable nature cannot be studied this way. I gave ball lighting and gamma ray bursters as examples. What is done instead is to collect multiple similar events and statistically analyze the results. Studying UFOs is no different. Likewise, eyewitness accounts, even if often individually unreliable, can be collectively studied by similar statistical methods, as is done in a number of well-recognized scientific disciplines, epidemiology being one example I gave. It is also not true that the scientific method requires hard physical evidence. Many scientific disciplines depend on indirect physical evidence augmented by theoretical argument. E.g., composition of stars is determined from spectra, not actual samples. Finally, I noted the simple fact that "Ockham's razor" is not some immutable law (as often represented by skeptics) but a rough guideline or "rule of thumb." It depends on individual judgment and cannot by itself tell us what theory is necessarily correct or whether currently well-recognized phenomena necessarily explain new, unexplained ones. If that were the case, there would never be anything new ever added to our knowledge, now would there? We would still be back in caves chipping stone tools.

Sorry to point out these actual facts. Stop the censorship and cut the disingenuous and hypocritical crap about how you trying to make the article NPOV and fully verifiable. All of the statements I challenged were transparent soap-box editorializing and none of them were verifiable. 66.117.135.19 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with you including any of the points that you think are verifiably fit to include in the article at the appropriate sections. However, a "response to criticism" section is not only problematic, it runs the risk of encouraging a rambling and unhelpful article. Should we include a "response to response" section? And then a "response to response to response" section? Where does the infinite regression stop? It should stop at the point of contact. Criticism is included in the article because it verifiably exists. Critical approaches to the study of UFOs the oppose such criticism should be included in the article at the points of contact. Editting to pre-empt controversy rather than expanding an already sprawling article as a tit-for-tat response is a much better solution. I encourage the anonymous editor to do this (and to get an account). --ScienceApologist 12:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebellion

First and foremost, I am NOT stepping on anyone's toes, etc. at all.

While I was travelling "Out West", really all over the US, I was told in no uncertain terma that IF there is alien contact, the whole planet will erupt into rebellion for these reasons:
  1. alien contact itself.
  2. religious reasons, such as "Satan" is here to kill us all, and the planetary govt.s are working for this monster.
  3. vengeance for being ridiculed as persuant to the Robertson Panel, Project Grudge, related protocol. these protocol are still followed, such as calling witnesses
delusional,declaring people AS true believer syndrome cases, paranoid,"skitzoid" and the like, such as being drunk, on drugs, worse. I have ran into ex-military personnel who worked with material that could get them killed, same with police in some places, like Phoenix, Arizona and Gulf Breeze, Florida. The military has The Uniform Code of Justice to keep soldiers in line, along with the famous Section 8 protocol, while civilians get ridiculed, abused, threatened, even sent to a nut house, loony bin to, as one ex-officer had stated, "to shut them the fucking hell up - or else." I've met a guy near Deming, NM. long ago who said that that CISCOP, and related organizations were govt. ( Mainly CIA ) fronts set up to make sure that the civilians remained compliant and controllable. Martial Law 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Section "Astronomers and other scientists"

I think this whole section should be deleted from the article, for the following reasons:

It starts out with a quote with astronomer P. Plait saying that he hasn't personally heard from any astronomers who have seen something they couldn't identify. This is obviously a non-scientific statement with no particular value. Then it goes on to name some astronomers, or users of astronomical instruments, who have reported UFOs, demonstrating that Plait's obviously meaningless observation is meaningless. Then it goes on to list... something. A random collection of studies, or alleged studies, or investigations of studies, or statements by organizations or individuals, or alleged statements my organizations or individuals, in which the consensus conclusion, or the conclusion of a minority, or the alleged conclusion of one or more persons, is that there is or may be some credence to the ET hypothesis.

Note that I'm not objecting to this section because it's too pro-ETH. I object to it because it is utterly disorganized, makes no meaningful statement, and adds a lot of worthless bulk to an already over-long article. Comments? KarlBunker 16:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In the article, List of major UFO sightings, there are references of astronomers reporting UFOs. The reason a astronomer will not report a UFO is that his/her career will suddenly take a header into the proverbial toilet, "go down the drain", go into the tank, down the crapper, end their careers, that sort of thing, all due to certain protocol forbidding astronomers from reporting UFOs. I have found a article in which astronauts are actually forbidden from reporting UFOs. Its ABOVE this discussion. You report one and see what happens to YOU. Martial Law 20:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Yeah but... even if that's true (re astronomers, I don't particularly doubt it re astronauts)... A) who cares? B) what does it have to do with the article? C) What does it have to do with the edit that I propose above? KarlBunker 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree. A little history will clarify what happened. This section was inserted by one of the resident debunkers Bubba73. Bubba quoted Plait's statement in order to insert his own little soapbox UFO debunking commentary. I immediately deleted Plait's quote, saying it was nothing but an anecdotal opinion and also contradicted by actual UFO reports and polls of astronomers, i.e., Plait's comment was totally nonfactual and had no place in an encyclopedia article. This drew howls of protest from Bubba and others who absolutely insisted the Plait comment remain. I then proceeded to add the studies that contradicted it, including some of the astronomer sighting reports, such as Tombaugh's. As opposed to the Plait comment, this was actual factual material. Another resident debunker, "ScienceApologist", then proceeded to delete most of this material, calling it "controversial" with the self-serving and arbitrary rationalizations that the contradictory astronomer polls (showing that astronomers did indeed report UFOs) were, in his personal opinion only, flawed and too old to be valid. Again, Plait's nonfactual (as you say, "meaningless") statement remained, now largely unchallenged (the whole real point of ScienceApologist's censorship).

The parts about various official studies or individuals within those studies concluding there was something to the ETH explanation was added after the skeptics added another POV and nonfactual statement that no scientific study had ever shown any evidence that UFOs were alien spacecraft. That is simply untrue and again should have been deleted as nonfactual. But since the skeptics insist on retaining slanted material ridiculing the subject, no matter how nonfactual, the only other option is to counter it. Thus the material grows like a malignant tumor.

This, unfortunately, is one of the common problems with the Wikipedia model, particularly with highly controversial subjects like this one. Anybody can contribute, including highly biased nonexperts. One obvious solution is to chop out the initial malignancies, i.e., that the nonfactual soap-box comments of those obviously trying to push a personal agenda. Then counterarguments are not needed to balance things out. E.g., Plait's comment should never have been in there and should have immediately been deleted once the problems with it were pointed out. That seems like a no-brainer. I tried to do that, but met with a wall of opposition. So again, the only other option is to try to present factual evidence against it to balance things out.

If a section on astronomers was to remain, it would still be necessary to cite polling material and sighting reports to demonstrate that astronomers do indeed report UFOs, just like everybody else. You can't meaningfully discuss the subject of astronomers and UFOs without bringing up this material. This, however, contradicts standard skeptical dogma that astronomers never report UFOs (e.g. Plait). We would again hear the standard whine that the section is slanted to the pro-ETH side. The material would probably again be censored by guys like ScienceApologist. The whole mess would start all over again. It may be best just to delete the whole thing.Dr Fil 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest that we quote some introductory astronomy texts on the subject rather than referring to astronomers in particular. The current edition of the Cosmic Perspective has some prose on the opinions of the astronomical community on UFOs. They are, as you might imagine, fairly critical of the ETH. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Astronomers..." section and general comment on this article

It has often amazed me to see remarkably balanced and well-written articles in Wikipedia on controversial topics. Even when there are clearly "warring parties" on the part of editors to the article, the evidence of the conflict is only in the discussion page, not in the article itself. This article is largely an exception to that. The article consists largely of obvious instances of editors saying "oh yeah?!" "oh yeah?!" back and forth at each other. The section about astronomers is the worst example of that. This is kind of funny, because astronomers really don't have anything to do with UFOs. Astronomical instruments aren't designed for, and aren't much good at, looking at or looking for UFOs. Astronomers aren't trained in identifying flying objects or aerial phenomenon that might look like flying objects. The only justification for mentioning astronomers at all in this article is that some astronomers have done work in SETI, or have speculated about ETI, and that relates (vaguely) to the ET hypothesis of UFOs. I'm going to delete that section. If anyone objects, please state your reasons here. KarlBunker 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From Bennet et al. Cosmic Perspective

"Alleged disinterest on the part of the scientific community is an equally unimpressive claim. Scientists are constantly competing with one another to be the first with a great discovery, and clear evidence of alien visitors would certainly rank high on the all-time list. Countless researchers woudl work evening and weekends, without pay, if they could make such a discovery. The fact that few scientists are engaged in such study reflects not a lack of interest, but a lack of evidence worthy of study."

"Of course, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Most scientists are open to the possibility that we might someday find evidence of alien visits, and many would welcome aliens with open arms. So far, however, we have no hard evidence to support the belief that aliens are already here."

I would point out that this is from one of the most common introductory astronomy texts for non-science majors used in the country. Certainly a verifiable and useful source of information!

--ScienceApologist 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The author is expressing a personal opinion, nothing more. Can you "verify" he said it? Sure! Is it factual? That's another matter. Where's the verification for it? Even if factual, is it really "useful information"? Not really. It doesn't say much. The same argument could be applied to SETI, e.g. Why aren't there tens of thousands of scientists working "nights and weekends" looking for radio signals from distant alien civilizations? That would also certainly be a great discovery. If you want to find out why there aren't, you would need to delve into other topics such as lack of funding and lack of expectations of quick payback. In other words, simpleminded statements of opinion knocking absence of large numbers of scientist in SETI also are not really "useful information."

When it supports your personal agenda, you debunking guys seem to endlessly confuse "verification" of the expression of an opinion with actual verification of the factual content of the opinion itself. A perfect example is the Plait quote that amateur astronomers never report UFOs. That's a personal opinion of Plait's. That Plait made the statement can be verified, but the factual accuracy of it cannot. The reason it can't be verified is because it isn't true. Every study that's ever been done on this shows it isn't true. Astronomers, both amateur and professional, do indeed report UFOs, period. You, for some reason, can't handle that, and instead chose to censor this material while leaving Plait's erroneous and truly unverifiable statement untouched.

You seem to be a little unclear what what the word "verification" really means. Dr Fil 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, verification is a well-understood concept here at Wikipedia. You should read this and learn it well, because you are not correct in your formulation. --ScienceApologist 02:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
"Verification" does not mean trying to pass off some cited skeptics mere blog anecdotal opinion as fact, which is what you and Bubba73 seem to think it means. What you are really doing is trying to pervert the Wikipedia "Verifiability, not truth" policy in order to editorialize. It would probably be perfectly all right to say, "Many UFO skeptics often claim that astronomers never see UFOs and they should. Examples are Joe Schmoe and Phil Plait (citation)." That clearly indicates this is just an opinion. But instead the way it was written was "Phil Plait says he has never heard a UFO report from an amateur astronomer, therefore they never see UFOs when they should be seeing them, therefore there is nothing to UFOs," which is opinion masquerading as a fact being used to insert a very obvious slanted skeptical POV into the article. If you would bother to read the actual "verification" policy, you will see that Wikipedia also indicates that something like Plait's blog does not count as a valid source. If Plait had published an actual scientific study, say doing an actual poll of a thousand amateur astronomers and getting nary a UFO report from any of them, then that would be different. There would be some valid basis for Plait's comment. But Plait mouthing off in his "Bad Astronomy" blog just like a lot of other Net bloggers does not constitute a valid source. You would have to be pretty dense or dishonest to claim otherwise. Dr Fil 23:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Only way....

The only way that the Skeptics (in general) will believe anyone, the govt suppression protocol, such as the Robertson Panel, Project Grudge, related protocol is to be cancelled is that someone/something finds us as Ronald Reagan has stated in one of his speeches. When that happens is when the planet erupts in planetwide rebellion. See Re.:Rebellion above. I am NOT accusing,etc. anyone at all, only stating what may happen, should there be alien contact, no more, no less. Martial Law 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :)

"Crackpot"

Adamski was widely dismissed as a crackpot

Do you happen to have a source for that comment? Thanks, ---J.Smith 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1886 Scientific American physiological case

I must protest the continued deletion by KarlBunker of the 1886 Scientific American Venezuelan report of physiological injury. This case has been cited for months without problem. The reasons given for suddenly deleting it continue to seem arbitrary to me. Saying the case is too old to be of value is nonsense. No scholar of any subject automatically rejects old items as being useless just because they are old. How else are you supposed to gain a historical perspective if you arbitrarily throw out everything historical? The very fact that it is old is precisely why it is valuable in order to provide context. One argument often used by skeptics is that UFO reports are all contemporary and the result of cultural and media influences. Yet here is an example of something reported that sounds exactly like a modern UFO close encounters report, including the oft-reported bright lights and humming, long before anybody ever heard of any such things. But more remarkably, to my thinking, is the reported physiological symptoms of skin burns, lesions, and hair loss that sound exactly like symptoms of radiation poisoning, most likely exposure to intense microwave radiation. Yet this is at least 50 years before anything was known about such things. How could the letter writer be so prescient as to fake all these details? This is a strong argument against the letter being some form of hoax.

The argument that Scientific American back then wasn't a respected magazine is an extremely weak one. Even if one accepts this, it's beside the poiint. The citation is perfectly valid (I've looked up the item myself at the library) and the letter stands on its own merits because of all the included details that would have been almost impossible to fake at the time. Would you automatically reject 19th century reports of sizzling meteor sounds as being worthless just because they were reported in an old newspaper instead of Science magazine?

Finally the evidence for UFOs is in examination of case reports, particularly noteworthy ones. Let the reader decide whether the cases cited are worthwhile evidence or not. Trying to eliminate references to such important cases is cutting the meat out of the article while leaving in a lot of meaningless fat that provides the reader no useful information. E.g., the paragraph at the top of the section about the evidence being hoaxes, explainable, or unidentified but ambiguous is a sweeping generalization that doesn't tell the reader anything of substance about physical evidence cases (the topic of the section) and is also repeated elsewhere in the article in various ways such as in "Explanations and Opinions" and "Identified Flying Objects." How many times is it necessary for the same point to be made? If you are concerned about unnecessary repetition and article length, why not cut that paragraph out? It adds nothing to the article that isn't already there and wouldn't be missed in the slightest.Dr Fil 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ufology section

That section needs to be removed from this article. It is massively redundant to the ufology article. If no one else wants to volunteer to do it, I'll do it sometime this weekend. ---J.S (t|c) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. The material on UFO organizations isn't totally redundant, so it should be assimilated into the material in the Ufology article instead of just deleted. Links to the Ufology article should of course be included in the Ufology subsection. I could take care of this. Dr Fil 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm the org. list can probably moved into the list of ufologists. Or it's own list perhaps? ---J.S (t|c) 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro sentence

"A UFO or unidentified flying object is a real or apparent object in the sky..."
or
"A UFO or unidentified flying object an object or optical phenomenon in the sky..."

I think the second version is wide enough to encompass all the different possibilities, no? ---J.S (t|c) 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree but that User:KarlBunker continues to revert our ideas and has broken the 3rr by continuing it. Mahogany
Optical phenomenon is a problem because not all the phenomena are optical. Some of these reported UFOs are only observed on radar for example. --ScienceApologist 12:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
True, So how to word it so everyone will be happy Mahogany
Hmm good point SA. I never thought of that. Your current version looks acceptable. Unless we can think of something more elegant. :) ---J.S (t|c) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history, you'll see that I did not break the 3RR. Anyway, the current intro sentence isn't bad, but it's technically incorrect. "UFO" does not "refer to the observation" of anything. It refers to the thing that is observed or detected. And "real or apparent object" is preferable to just "apparent object" for stylistic reasons. Although "apparent" does not technically exclude "real," it does imply an exclusion of the real. "Real or apparent" is a commonly used linguistic construction. KarlBunker 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Karl, your edit summary to your recent revert perfectly illustrates what I am getting at. You say that "Ball lightning, to name one thing is an "unexplained phenomena seen moving about the sky", but not a UFO". Precisely. The name of this article is Unidentified flying object. If someone reports an odd light in the sky, and others say they saw it too and it was clearly ball lightning, then it is no longer unidentified and by definition can not be a UFO. I see it would be better to change unexplained to unidentified in the intro, and have done so.

I reverted back to a definition similar to one used in a much earlier Wiki intro. This pointed out that there is a simple, literal definition that UFO means anything aerial that is unidentified. Furthermore, I noted, as in many definitions, that the reason the thing can't be readily identified is because there is something unusual about it, usually the shape, type of motion, or brightness. E.g., this is why the USAF in its early investigations from 1947 stated in documents that they thought the phenomenon real and deserving of further, intense study. There were various anomalous characteristics that set these observations apart from prosaic flying objects. It is also along the lines of how the USAF officially defined UFOs in their Air Force Regulation 200-2 from 1954.

Then it contrasts this with Hynek's more complex definition, preferred by scientists and other serious researchers, that "UFO" should be applied only to those instances where what is observed continues to defy identification after careful investigation by techically experienced and well-qualified investigators. In other words, those things that can eventually be readily identified are merely "noise" whereas those things that continue to defy identification are related to actual "signal" or the heart of the phenomenon. ScienceApologist previously dumped this long-included Hynek definition with the rationalization that it was "POV". In his mind, claiming that something was thoroughly investigated was POV or that those investigating were experts was POV. Although this can conceivably be a problem, it is pretty clear what is meant by the Hynek definition. A UFO isn't just something mysterious to the great unwashed and unsophisticated masses who might report such things (leaving out the fact that those reporting are often already experts), but remains mysterious and unidentified even after intense effort has been expended by well-qualified people to come up with a plausible explanation, people like teams of scientists and engineers, aviation experts, and the like.

Another minor thing added is to point out that UFO and extraterrestrial spaceship are frequently equated in popular usage. This isn't my definition or observation, but is frequently found in dictionary definitions. E.g., Wiktionary gives a 2nd definition: of "(colloquial) An alien aircraft". The Oxford Compact Dictionary defines UFO as: "a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, popularly said to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials."

Words like "impermanence" are definitely out. Not only is it POV (suggesting nonexistence or insubstantiality just like the just-dumped POV "apparition"), it is also completely inaccurate. Words like "impermanence" have never been used to try to define UFO, for the simple reason that UFOs are no more "impermanent" than anything else that can be identified, like meteors or jet planes. In fact, when the duration of sightings was studied statistically by the Battelle Institute for the USAF back in 1952-54, they found that their UFO category tended to have somewhat longer durations than their IFO category. Saying that a defining characteristic of UFOs is "impermanence" is like saying a defining characteristic of humans is hunger.

I also dumped "motility," which is extreme vague and nondescriptive by itself. Noting that there is something unusual about the "motion" (instead of simple motility) as one of several possible unusual characteristics, better defines the characteristics and the scope of the phenomenon. "Unusual motion" covers a wide gamut of reported UFO anomalous characteristics, such as high speed, high acceleration, high maneuverability (90/180 degree turns, hairpin turns, tight circling, etc.), high rates of vertical climb or dive, hovering, zig-zagging, "falling leaf" motion, etc.

I'm still not terribly happy with the disclaimer that "most scientists" disagree (but have left the statement currently untouched). First of all, I know of no current study of scientific opinions on the subject. Furthermore, unless they have actually studied the existing data in some depth, I'm not sure how relevant such opinions are one way or the other. It's like saying, "most scientists" believe in the Big Bang," including everybody who calls themselves a "scientist", such as biologists, anthropologists, bacteriologists, M.D.'s and the like. Who cares? What counts are only the "scientists" with the necessary expertise, such as astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, etc., and who have also studied the relevant data and theories. Thus the statement that "most scientists" disagree is currently vague, unsupported, and I'm not sure particularly relevant. Its inclusion seems to be to insert a skeptical POV in the introduction using argument by authority. Perhaps it can be reworded to be more neutral or indicate that opinions among scientific experts vary widely though perhaps the majority are currently skeptical.Dr Fil 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you would talk about one topic at a time. It would make this so-so-so much easier to discuss. I also wish you would use the more typical way of indentint conversations. ---J.S (t|c) 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is taking so long?

The "totally disputed" tag has been on this page since the beginning of time. For a popular topic such as UFO's, one would think it would be cleared up by now. I've read through all the arguing/BS/etc. When is this going to finally be settled???? --JOK3R 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be a while. There are a lot of issues even with the first paragraph, let alone the rest of the article. If you want to help NPOV and verify points along the way, please do. --ScienceApologist 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the page and viewing past history, I really wouldn't know where to begin without pissing someone off. :( --JOK3R 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
How about reading the article and comprising a list of what you might think is wrong with it. 3rd party opinions are always useful. ---J.S (t|c) 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well after reading through the archives, the talk page here, and the article itself, it is very apparant here there are 2 groups going back and forth: "Believers" and "non-believers". A big problem I see just by looking at the page history is controversial edits with zero explanation. How can we really solve that problem, for one? I'm going to go through the article myself pretty heavily tonight and see if some NPOV issues can be worked out that haven't been yet. Out of all the articles on Wikipedia, I'd really like to see this one be a featured one at some point. --JOK3R 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing the following:

3 Research

3.1 UFO categorization
3.1.1 Hynek system
3.1.2 Vallee System
3.2 Physical evidence
3.2.1 Notable UFO-related sightings and events
3.3 Explanations and Opinions
3.3.1 Popular ideas for explaining UFOs
3.3.2 Identified flying objects (IFOs)
3.3.3 Hoaxes
3.3.4 Psychology
3.4 Conspiracy theories
3.4.1 Allegations of evidence suppression

4 Ufology - people and organizations

4.1 Organizations: U.S.

I'll be doing the pruning sometime tonight. Relevant info well be merged into the Ufology article, where it truly belongs (except for section 4, that will go to the list of ufologists). If anyone has any problem with this. Let me know and we can talk about it. ---J.S (t|c) 21:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. At first my reaction to this was "Wha? Wouldn't that reduce this article to nothing but some history and popular culture?" On second thought, I'm thinking that would be a good idea. I've looked briefly at the "Ufology" article, and it seems to be much better, and less disputed than this one. And there are also an existing article "List of major UFO sightings", List of major UFO movies/tv shows, etc., etc. Maybe the best role for this article would be for it to be largely a set of links to other articles. If you do do all that trimming, there's definitely material that should be moved to Ufology, IMO, such as the categorization systems. KarlBunker 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. UFOlogy should be the big article... ---J.S (t|c) 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a lot of problems with the proposed deletions. We've gone through this before in the name of "chickfat" elimination. I don't see how you can have an article about UFOs and not keep such things as studies, descriptions, classifications, evidence (including physical evidence), and proposed explanations in the article. What is being proposed is cutting much of the substance out of the article. The Ufology article is already a mess, and trying to merge some of this into it will make it an even bigger mess.Dr Fil 00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "deletion". I'm not eliminating anything. What I am doing is fixing a HUGE redundancy. Either the Ufology article needs to go or the redundant data needs to be pruned. This kind of redundancy is never positive. ---J.S (t|c) 20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent BBC coverage

"A confidential Ministry of Defence report on Unidentified Flying Objects has concluded that there is no proof of alien life forms."

Hynek portrayal and intro

First of all, mobility and impermanence need to be in the definition. That's an important feature of UFOs.

Secondly, the appeal to authority regarding Hynek was absurd. "Dr."? Who cares? Carl Sagan was a doctor. Do we refer to him as "Dr. Carl Sagan"? No! The appellation is an appeal to authority. So is his astronomical and air force careers: totally irrelevant to the introduction. The reason he should be quoted is because he studies UFOs. That's what makes him an expert worthy of citation. His astronomical and air force background are irrelevant. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "impermanence" has any clear meaning here, and consequently I don't think it's a particularly good word. OTOH, I don't suppose it does any harm.
"Cannot be identified" seems correct to me, since once it has been identified, it is presumably no longer a UFO.
I don't see anything absurd about mentioning some of Hynek's credentials. Insofar as any sort of resume credential applies to UFOs, being a consultant for the Air Force certainly seems to. Since he's only being used as the source of a useful definition, not to argue any point of view, there doesn't seem to be any "appeal to authority." Furthermore, referring to him as a "UFO enthusiast" sounds like a deliberate attempt to denigrate him.
The wording you use with regard to "extraordinary claims" reverts the sense of the introduction back to the invalid viewpoint that all scientists are somehow experts on UFO and extraterrestrials. The prior wording only posited that scientists have an understanding of how to approach a topic scientifically.
KarlBunker 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"Cannot be identified" implies an impossibility of identification. That's different from "Is not identified" which indicates that the identification has not taken place (it may be impossible, or it may be possible). This is a semantics issue, but I'm pretty sure that "is not identified" makes more sense in terms of the implications.
Hynek's credentials certainly can be mentioned in the section about Hynek, but the relevance in the intro is that he is familiar with UFOs. There's no reason to give a Hynek biography in the intro.
I'm surprised that you think that "UFO enthusiast" denigrates Hynek. It makes him uniquely qualified to offer a definition after all. Being an astronomer or an ex-Air Force employee certainly doesn't.
I understand the problem with the extraordinary claims point, but the issue is that final point about the "debate" regarding the "extraordinary claims" seems ludicrous. Find me one scientist who doesn't think that alien visits are extraordinary claims. Even those scientists who think that there might be alien visitors admit that this is somewhat "extraordinary". The real issue is with the "extraordinary evidence. To this end, an edit may be appropriate.
--ScienceApologist 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you re. "Is not identified" versus "Cannot be identified". For a while I wanted the wording "resists identification," (roughly meaning "is difficult to identify under any circumstances"), but decided that that phrase would be unfamiliar to too many people.
Regarding Hynek, I would advocate using "Ufologist" rather than "UFO enthusiast." Amusements have "enthusiasts"; subjects of scholarly study have "[fill in the blank]ists."
The "extraordinary claims" thing is tricky. Certainly most scientists--and most rational people, IMO--would consider alien visits to be an extraordinary claim. But I find it difficult to find a way to justify that philosophically. It's more something that arises out of common sense than something that arises out of a sound philosophy of science. I thought that the previous wording made that point pretty well. Just bringing up the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is enough to bring home to most people what a skeptical scientific attitude "looks like," even if they choose not to adopt such an attitude. But saying that "most scientists... generally contend..." is just an appeal to authority, as you put it.
KarlBunker 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Hynek: how about "UFO researcher". I think that's sufficiently neutral. My concern with "Ufologist" is its neologistic connotations. It's best to leave that to later in the article.
Regarding "extraordinary claims": if we omit the last sentence, maybe that will help issues.
--ScienceApologist 19:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Skeptical critique sentence?--

I tried to put in a connector sentence to the third intro paragraph. I think it's verifiable and will provide a citation if necessary. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the current version; good work, and thanks for listening to my comments.
KarlBunker 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "impermanent"

I've tried to look it up in Wikionary to no avail... perhaps it is too archaic/technical of a term? Can we find simpler wording, for simple folks like me? ---J.S (t|c) 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Impermanent" has NEVER been a defining characteristic of UFOs, no matter who has studied the phenomenon during the last 60 years. Now ScienceApologist personally decides that "impermanant" is a defining characteristic of UFOs. What is this based on other than his own personal biases and obvious ignorance of the subject matter? I would like to see a genuine reference to a study that shows that UFOs have less "permanence" than prosaic identified phenomena such as meteors or jet planes flying overhead. (You know, the "verifiability" thing.) You can't find such a study because it doesn't exist. In fact, UFOs are no more "impermanent" than the things that are considered to be identified. When Battelle Memorial Institute scientists investigated duration of sightings in the 1950s for the USAF (3200 cases), they found that, if anything, unidentified sightings tended to have slightly longer durations than the identifieds. This was a highly statistically signficant finding. There are sightings that go on for hours, even days, sometimes. No way should "impermance" or any similar word be part of the UFO definition. Dr Fil 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag still in place

The tag is still in place on the article because there is still a lot of work to be done to bring it to a neutral level and to verify information. In particular, much of the prose on modern UFO research needs to be balanced with the skeptical perspective. Until we finish this task, it is best to leave the tag in place. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, this article is written from a persepective that seems to imply that all UFO sightings are "little green men", a bit too easy to deride your apponents when you reduce their views to something so easyt to debunk? this article should expand on religous interpertations of these events, to show the spiritual signifigance of these events, not just imply "aliens"--F.O.E. 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Religious/spirital interpretations of UFO's? Such as? Jesus Christ cruising Earth in his modified "Heaven Craft"? --JOK3R 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Hank Wesselman, (author of Spiritwalker etc) for example, believes that UFOs and/or aliens are spiritual beings and not physical entities. Don't forget, christianity isn't the only religious perspective. ---J.S (t|c) 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the more fringe explanations for UFOs are already included and linked to in "Popular ideas for explaining UFOs." I don't see why every far-out "explanation" in existence needs to be mentioned or discussed, else we end up with truly screwball theories like the "Hollow Earth theory" or Nazi flying saucer bases in Antarctica (no kidding!)--Dr Fil 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Improper Use

Technically, a UFO is anything in the air that the government can't tell what it is, also, aliens? I find it highly improbable that earth is the ONLY planet that has life on it, but i doubt any other planets with (intellegent) life would be close enough to "pay a visit" this article is speculation, and should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.152.89 (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts, put new messages at the bottom of the page.... and you happen to be wrong. ---J.S (t|c) 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well you're kind, and I happen to know that for sure, get your facts straight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.152.89 (talk • contribs)
Are you the same 69.140.152.89 who said kids shouldn't be able to learn vulgar language from the internet if we can help it? Moriori 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Stalker...
Furthermore, if you are so interested in what i have to say, then why the hell do you contradict every single thing I write, i have no interest in arguing with you over an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.152.89 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedians are indeed interested in what other Wikipedians say. They get a bit tetchy when told to watch their manners by someone who promptly calls someone else A$$HOLE, and later tries to remove the evidence. Moriori 02:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove it because i felt guilty because he was right, and this discussion has gotten completely off track. A UFO is not necessarily a spaceship.

You may want to review WP:NPA. Personal attacks can get you banned from editing. ---J.S (t|c) 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
scientists do agree with you, it might be improvable that we are the only planet with life in it. BUT!, they dont seriously spect to find intelligent life elsewhere, what they do spect to find if micro organism at best. What happened on earth and life on it, after looking through all information is seriously just a big ass fluke all in all.
You misunderstand... when I said you were wrong it was in reference to "and should be deleted"
And actually, there are three major theories in regards to "life out there". One is the "common-earth" theory... (lots of planets like earth, lots of chances for intelligent life). The second is rare-earth theory. (Earth is super rare, chance for intelligent life is much less) The third is the only-earth theory. Each camp has it's supporters in main-stream respected science.
Then the wrinkle in common/rare-earth theories is the question: Is it possible for some life form to ever break the speed of light barrier? If the answer is no, then we will likely never be visited by more then robotic probes and even if we do get in contact with an alien race the communication delays would be decades or even centuries. If the answer is that yes, it is possible to break (or bypass) the SoL barrier (Steven Hawkings is open to the possibility) then it it doesnt matter where in the cosmos alians might be.
But such is life... and we have no answers yet. It would be foolish to dismiss any possibility. I'm getting off topic... oh yeah, sign your damn post or I will not respond to you further. ---J.S (t|c) 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)