Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 3

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

Objective, factual article

I would like to contribute on the subject of UFOs, trim and even break-up the current article, but I would like to co-ordinate things with other editors genuinely interested in the subject, so there is some "consensus" on how to approach this (unfortunately, due to 50+yrs of officialdom psy-ops, very controversial) subject.

The current article uses words like "claimed", "alleged", "hypothetical", "supposed" in every other sentence. Meanwhile (from MUFON Fast Facts according to a Roper poll conducted in 2002 for the SciFi channel, one in seven Americans say they or someone they know has had an experience involving a UFO source and a CNN 1997 poll showed that 80% of Americans think government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms .

On objectivity, one need look no further than e.g. Wikipedia categorising UFO in the paranormal category, a/k/a supernatural (definition: "forces and phenomena which are are not observed in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement"). This contradicts the abudance of physical evidence (50yrs of countless visual sighting reports by credible witnesses, some with close-up photos, airborne and ground radar, testimonies from 100+ of former government and military witnesses in DisclosureProject in 2001, etc)

So, do we want to "[pull a Condon]" i.e. pretend to be factual and scientific? Incidentally, the "Condon Report" has been the last "official" UFO study (in US) since 1969! The psy-ops have resulted in practically no mainstream scientists touching the subject. In addition, the modern computer photo and video editing capabilities render any recent photo/video taken by "mere mortals" open to authenticity criticism. As a result, the most recent "authoritative" (officialdom, to be acceptable to the pseudo-skeptics) sources we cite on the Wikipedia UFO page are 40yrs old photos, whereas new UFO photos and videos get published every day!

To open minded skeptics (vs pseudo-skeptics) and agnostics: in ancient Greece, they said "μηδενί δίκην δικάσεις πριν αμφοίν μύθον ακούσεις" (as a judge in a trial, never reach an conclusion until hearing both sides), so at the risk of repeating myself I'd like to once again suggest watching the videos

  • Out Of The Blue video documentary of the UFO Phenomenon (2003), 1.5hr 353MB (GoogleVideo)
  • The Disclosure Project Witness Testimony video (2hrs), part 1 of 2 (59min 230MB) and part 2 of 2 (1hr 240MB). Two hours long video distillation from 400hrs of raw video footage of dozens of government and military persons testimonies on the subject of UFO (2001)

and looking at the photos, reading the stories1 or stories2 (unfiltered, most are probably identifiable). Dhatz 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html have prepared a list of websites which can be sourced to add new material. Current article is sorely lacking VISUAL info (photos, drawings etc). Since there were concerns about using Maj12 SOM and uforth.com UFO shapes, there's the chart of UFO shapes presented during the Symposium on UFOs (1968) Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics of US Congress 29-Jul-1968, by all the "heavy-weight" scientists of that time. Dhatz 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Links section and sources

There are some rather hostile comments about not adding external links to this page, but I think there are many infos still missing, which would allow the interested visitor to Wikipedia to form an INFORMED opinion about UFO. I've added a few links which offer IMO the most "bang-for-the-buck", i.e. most info in the least time. There are also the videos from Dr Greer's Disclosure Project (now available from Google Video). The "Out of the Blue" video documentary is also very good to get started.

Anyway, here are the links I added, I've found them all quite interesting.

I'd also like to add that it's clear that governments (esp. USA) are trying very hard to "explain away" the phenomenon and suppress it by ridiculing and discrediting anyone who dared to report sightings in past decades. Perhaps they are correct, if they think that it'll result into panic of the masses, and the media and "scientific community" mostly play along (as one member of US Congress put it, "at some point you have to decide your soul or your job and I guess to many people their job is more important"), but I'm not so sure that a really free Internet medium like Wikipedia should adopt the position of pseudo-skeptics (a/k/a "Flat Earth Society" members).

Yet, not all governments adopt the "black-is-white" orwelian Ministry of Truth position. E.g. Belgian and Mexican AirForce shared the radar videos with the public. The French COMETA report (1999) prepared by high level officials has been very close to supporting the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and was released into the public as a precaution to "preclude it from disappearing into a government black-hole" (per its editors' own wording).

Dhatz 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some links because they are not in line with Wikipedia's external link policy. Please don't add them back. Mushroom (Talk) 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just re-read Wikipedia's external link policy, so perhaps you can try to explain to me why e.g. www.ufoevidence.org (which IMHO happens to be one of the richest and most user-friendly UFO site I've found sofar, with the downside of pop-under banner -- and is #1 position in Google for the keyword "ufo") somehow is "not in line" (sic) and you just delete it, yet keep e.g. http://www.ufocasebook.com/ or www.unknowncountry.com or www.earthfiles.com which somehow are "in line" (when the other sites you kept AREN'T EVEN ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT OF UFO!). So, please don't vandalise other people's hard work. Dhatz 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not at all about the content, it's about the sites themselves and the people who run them. WP:EL says that we should not include:
Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
I kept some sites (like earthfiles.com) because they are linked to Wikipedia articles (Linda Moulton Howe in this case). My reasoning is that if these people, sites or organizations have Wikipedia articles it means they are notable. If they are notable, they could be considered reliable sources as "experts in the field" (see WP:RS, this is the only exception to the rule that self-published web sites can't be considered reliable sources). I just wanted to do the minimum possible damage, and that's why I kept them. However, if you don't think they are reliable/notable/relevant, please remove them. But don't add back the other ones. Mushroom (Talk) 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with the view that the deleted sites contain "contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". Now what? By the way, I don't wish to remove the other 3 sites (www.ufocasebook.com, www.unknowncountry.com, www.earthfiles.com), I just gave those as an example of less "eligible" sites; IMO they're still useful to the Wikipedia visitor, although less useful than others you removed (e.g. ufoskeptic.org, which btw wasn't an addition of mine). Dhatz 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Include reference to Disclosure Project

The Disclosure Project at www.disclosureproject.org presents a range of evidence that is most relevant to this article, yet remains unmentioned, a serious omission.

Agreed. Audio (and audio-video) interviews, are sources of quotable and citeable data for historical subjects and research. The Disclosure Project has an excellent repository.--Michaelsayers 05:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New Evidence

This site has some great UFO Video Evidence. --Arltomem 05:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Video shows astronauts Faking moon landing

Here is a video that shows the apollo 11 astronauts faking their voyage using trick photography. Classified Nasa Video

This video has since been released by NASA in 2002 after it had been leaked into the public domain.

Photos of Apollo 'test' studio.

Movie shows how moon landings were faked with life size props and models.

--Arltomem 08:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Go, you chickenfat, go.

The article now runs to 80Kb, with no clear categorisation or prioritisation of content. I propose a total overhaul, synopsizing excessively detailed sections, and providing more navigational cues by proper use of the heading/subheading structure. As a rough sketch of works I propose to undertake:

  • (a) Prelim debates to move below the wire to an intro section, or other appropriate subsections, leaving a simple paragraph or two explaining the basic meaning of the term.
  • (b) Explanatory efforts - amateurish, scientific, empirical, theoretical, sociohistorical, etc, in one hierarchy with concise tours of the key players/concepts from each.
  • (c) Integrate all historical entities/events into a sociohistorical section with proper subsections
  • (d) Integrate all current organizations, civil, military and howsyerfather into one Organizations section
  • (e) Popular culture and fictional links
  • (f) references, etc

Comments, please? Adhib 21:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I like your propostion of an organized article, but with an article the size of this, that would be pretty hard to do and deleting things might not make people happy either. Oyo321 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No objections? None? Well, .... OK. Adhib 13:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The references needed a serious overhaul. I have now listed all the references using the < ref > < / ref > tagging method. This gives a clear indication of where the references are coming from without cluttering the article. Marjor problem is the amount of web sites being used as references. The article practically does not exist. (Simonapro 09:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Reference section is very bad and needs editing

The reference section is useless. There is no way of knowing which reference is being cited. This is going to need a clean up. If people here can not match the references properly then the whole article might have to come down.

The way to do this is as follows.

(1)Click edit page above and see what the text source for the next quote looks like.

"Dr. xxxxx and the editors of the Oxford & Harper Collins translations, contend that the number of Roman Emperor Nero is 92. [1], a view that is also supported by Elvis [2]."

This way the reference will automatically be given a number and entered into the notes section at the end of the article also automatically. I have prepared that notes section already. Whatever gets into that notes section stays in the article and whatever doesn't needs to be cited in the above manner or will eventually go. (Simonapro 07:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

As an additional note over 90% of citations where to web sites. (Simonapro 08:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Because most of the citations are to external websites, I don't see the big advantage in giving citations this way over giving them as already automatically numbered external links. If anything, now the reader needs to click twice instead of once to go to the reference. Also who are you to threaten to pull the whole article down if it isn't referenced strictly to your personal tastes? (I notice you did exactly the same over on the Roswell UFO incident).
Although I think you mean well, I also think you are overdoing this numbered citation list. Wikipedia gives several ways of providing citations, "your" way being only one. The other ways are not "useless" nor is there anything wrong with them. I think the numbered citation list should be reserved mostly for less accessible references that may not be on the Web, such as academic papers or quotations from periodicals and newspapers.--Dr Fil 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the article has some disputes so I came here to try and help after being asked to do so. The problems have already been listed before.

  • (1)The article had a history of violating WP:CITE, WP:NOR and probably many other policies.
  • (2)The references not linked in with the text, at the bottom are there because of WP:CITE but we have no way of knowing what content they are linked too.
  • (3)We have no idea what kind of sources had been used to build the article without listing them (as I have done).

The first thing to do would be to bring the unlinked references into context with the article using the numbering method. After that we can proceed to look at content that has not be varified. (Simonapro 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Actually people "report" seeing UFOs 1000s of times a year. How can there be no such thing as something thats "unidentified"? I don't understand the logic there. ---J.S (t|c) 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, people need to accept what the word identify means? It means establish the identity of something. If you can't establish the identify of something it remains UNidentified. Pretty straightforward logic actually. I think that in his own quaint way the unsigned poster was not denying reports of UFOs but identification of them. Moriori 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's sure sugar-coating the comments of a profane, incoherent, illiterate spamming moron. (But he was debunking, so I guess that makes it OK.)
In various scientific UFO studies, "unidentified" means more than than simply not being able to identify something. It means the event had characteristics so weird and off-the-chart that the experts analyzing the case, try as they might, could not conceive of any possible prosaic explanation. We're not talking poor data here, but cases where there was adequate information, but for which there was no explanation.
E.g., the French GEPAN/SEPRA, run out of the French space agency CNES, divided cases into multiple categories. There were a small minority of garbage cases with inadequate information to make an identification. Then there were the majority of cases with adequate information. These were either identified or not identified. These categories were further subdivided into identified with 100% certainty, probably identified but for which there was still some doubt, unidentified, but not so weird that conceivably there might be some prosaic explanation, and then there was the freaking weird category that were so "way out there" that the experts just throw up their hands in defeat. There seemed to be no possible prosaic explanation. In the GEPAN/SEPRA study over a quarter century, this amounted to about 14% of 5600 studied cases. Three different directors made public comments that the Extraterrestrial hypothesis would be the best explanation of such inexplicable cases.
If you just one example of such an inexplicable case, check out the recently written Wiki article, the 1976 Tehran UFO Incident. The UFO was sighted visually on the ground and in the air by multiple witnesses. It easily outflew two F-14s scrambled to intercept it (which can fly at up to Mach 2). It showed up on both F-14 radars; it knocked out the electronics on both F-14s when they got to close, one when it was about to launch a missile. The F-14s got their electronics back when they moved away and no longer posed a threat. A civilian plane in the area also lost its communications. The UFO knocked out the electronics in the control tower when it chased one of the F-14's back to base and overflew the airport. The object was so bright, that one set of pilots lost their night vision and had trouble landing. On two occasions, the object emitted balls of light, one of which coincided with the F-14 losing its communications, radar, and weapons systems. One of the F-14's managed to get close enough that the copilot could make out that it had a saucer shape with a dome.
U.S. DIA analysts wrote up the case and found it so remarkable they forwarded their report to the White House, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, the NSA, military intelligence heads, etc. (Remember, this was 7 years after the whitewash Condon Report claimed there was nothing to UFOs, the USAF using this as an excuse to close down the public Project Blue Book, and the U.S. government then taking the public position that UFOs posed no threat to national security and the government no longer studied them in any capacity. Yet we have known instances like this later DIA UFO report being distributed to the most important and influential branches of the government.)
The Iranian generals involved who were later interviewed all agreed the object was so beyond anything flying in speed and maneuveribility, plus its ability to deliberately jam electronics of the F-14's and the control tower, that it was almost certainly extraterrestrial in origin.
This is why saying that a UFO is simply something that wasn't identified is terribly misleading. You have to know WHY it wasn't identified. There can be the relatively mundane "unidentified," but there is also the truly remarkable "unidentified." Dr Fil 23:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, unidentified means unidentified. There is absolutely nothing "terribly misleading" about accurately stating that something is unidentified when it has not been identified. All the "almost certainly extraterrestrial in origin"s in the world can't make an iota of difference. If it is unidentified, it is unidentified. Moriori 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Dr. Fil is saying that "unidentified" is merely a label, and that it doesn't give us any information about the thing to which it is applied (the information is in the reports, not in the classification of the reports). I went ahead and answered the question in one of the citation talk sections, non-evasively. Best Wishes,--Michaelsayers 10:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

random question

Does anyone know how the idea that a ufo looks like a frisbee ever got started? N

It was soon after someone displayed a photo of a frisbee and claimed it was a UFO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs)
No, check out the Wiki Frisbees article. The original "frisbee" was developed in 1948 and called a "flying saucer". Remember, the term "flying saucer" didn't exist until late June 1947, inspired by Kenneth Arnold's sighting and description of June 24. Thus flying saucers inspired the invention of the toy "flying saucer." I remember my brother buying one in the mid-1950's and they were still called "flying saucers". The switch to "frisbee" occurred in 1958 after Whammo purchased the patent.Dr Fil 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, little digs fly right over the heads of some people (just like flying saucers). Moriori 23:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This happens in the press conference scene in the Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. - Zepheus 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the question is this: what incompetant boob (or group thereof) would agree to test "extremely advanced aircraft" around civilian and residential areas? If such is the case with the U.S. military, we need to begin another article detailing such ridiculousness. (Juliusdedekind - Wednesday, Aug 2, 2006 - 3.37 CST)

I don't think the "I USED TO..." paragraph originated with Juliusdedekind. If the I.P. address of the post can be obtained, the information would be useful.--Michaelsayers 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Physical evidence section

Horribly problematic. For example, the classification of the evidence is arbitrary and uncited as to when it was collected and what kind of verification it went through. What's more, some of the classification is arbitrary. Electromagnetic interference would not cause compass needles to swing freely, for example. --ScienceApologist 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Horribly problematic?" This section was written a year ago and has undergone only mild tweaking since then (generally adding more citations). Now you unilaterally decide it is "horribly problematic."
What do you want--an 800 page encyclopedia? It is literally impossible in an encyclopedia article to mention when all the evidence was collected or what verification it went through. (There are thousands of so-called physical evidence cases.) At best, all that can be done here is provide a thumbnail sketch of such evidence. The section already has several dozen citations for further reading if people want more details. The fact that much of this evidence was collected by various private or government studies during the past 50+ years, such as Project Blue Book, the Condon Report, or France's GEPAN/SEPRA, is already mentioned.
Also I'm not sure what you mean when you say the classification is "arbitrary." All classification systems are arbitrary. That's unavoidable. E.g., The Sturrock Panel reviewed various UFO physical evidence and arbitrarily divided it into the following categories in their summary report (see [1]): Photographic evidence, luminosity estimates, radar evidence, Hessdalen Project, vehicle interference, interference with aircraft equipment, apparent gravitational and/or inertial effects, ground traces, injuries to vegetation, physiological effects on witnesses, analysis of debris.
This wasn't an exhaustive review of the evidence (conference was only a few days long) and there are items in the Wiki section you won't find mentioned in the Sturrock report. E.g., the radiation spiking recorded around Los Alamos and Oak Ridge with the appearance of UFOs isn't mentioned by the Sturrock report, but discussed by Project Blue Book head Ruppelt and in FBI and CIA documents. Nonetheless, you'll notice many of these categories match up with ones already in the "physical evidence" section. Some are divided up. E.g., vehicle interference and interference to aircraft equipment are treated separately instead of being lumped together under "electromagnetic interference effects."
As to whether EM interference can affect compasses, I suppose it depends on how you define EM interference. There are various types of EM interference. There is currently a high power microwave weapon spoken of by the USAF capable of various EM interference effects such as stalling vehicles and jamming aircraft and ground electronics. Other microwave weapons being currently discussed as crowd control devices by the military cause physiological effects (such as burning). (However, the paragraph discussing this in the "physical evidence" section was deleted as being too "speculative" by a resident skeptic/censor when the similarity to the same effects associated with UFOs was brought up.)
Although microwaves won't cause compasses to deflect, there are EM fields that certainly CAN cause compasses to deflect. One natural example is compass deflections from magnetic storms generated by large solar flares. They create extra ionization and large high altitude currents in the atmosphere, resulting in compass deflections. Compasses will certainly deflect if you pass under high-voltage power lines (as well as generate "EM interference" static on your radio). A homely electric stove will cause a compass to deflect if brought near. Like the power lines, it is simply an AC electromagnet. Whether the compass deflects or not has to do with the strength and range of the magnetic field generated.
The article as currently written only speaks conservatively of compass "deflections." It doesn't say anything about "swinging freely," though such cases associated with UFOs are known. Of course, a static magnetic field from a refrigerator magnet will also cause simple compass deflection, but rotating the magnet (and magnetic field) will cause the compass needle to wobble, "swing freely," or spin. The same would be true for AC electromagnets if the field was rotated. The Brazilian military in the 1950s informed a Brazilian researcher that their information indicated that UFOs do utilize powerful rotating magnetic fields in some capacity, and observations of compass needle behavior during UFO encounters was probably the basis of that statement.
So I don't see what the big problem is in lumping compass deflections under the broad category of EM interference effects. At worst, it seems like a very minor semantics problem, slightly but not "horribly" problematic. E.g., a new "arbitrary" category of "magnetic effects" could be created, with "compass deflections" being given as an example. Dr Fil 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Fil, if we are going to include a section on "Physical evidence" we must rely on evaluations that are verified and accurate. Your ignorance of physical science makes your analysis of my critique of the section irrelevant and not worthy of response. If you have verified statements and direct citations that can verify the points listed, great. Otherwise, you're just engaging in pseudoscientific claptrap. --ScienceApologist 21:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I have a great deal of physical science background, probably more than you. The real reason you won't respond intelligently to my comments is because you don't know how to respond. Your points are spurious and you have no real counterarguments.
If you think "physical evidence" is only the stuff you can hold in your hand, you are truly ignorant of the physical sciences, which often rely almost exclusively on indirect physical evidence. Astronomy is but one example. Nobody demands a piece of a neutron star or the planet Pluto. Instead astronomers study spectrograms, radio emissions, photographs, etc. Radar, electromagnetic interference, radiation increases, photos, physiological effects on humans, animals, plants, landing traces, etc., are all examples of indirect physical evidence related to UFOs. These have been analyzed by scientists, both privately and in various governmental studies. The cited 1976 Tehran UFO Incident is but one high quality example of indirect physical evidence such as multiple radar contacts and EM interference events (also picked up in infrared by a U.S. spy satellite). The source isn't "UFO enthusiasts" but Iranian and U.S. military/government documents and witnesses.
As for "verifiable and accurate," I have already added many dozens of direct sources to the article, around 2 or 3 dozen just in the physical evidence section alone. I don't think you even bother to read them. You just keep demanding more and more sources. On the other hand, I can't think of a single accurate factual statement you have added to the article. Instead your "scientific" style seems to be to write skeptical opinion rants with zero facts and zero sources. The only "source" I think you've ever provided (after months of demanding one by me) was another opinion by Carl Sagan in one of his books to back up your opinion. You have never provided any citable data or study.
My favorite "verifiable source" of you pseudoskeptics was the true "pseudoscientific claptrap" that astronomer Phil Plaith wrote in his Net blog that amateur astronomers never have UFO sightings. As for your "scientific" "factual" "verifiable" approach, when I pointed out that the statement should be deleted from the Wiki UFO article because it was untrue and represented nothing but Plaith's opinion, you were one of the resident pseudoskeptics who refused, saying that the mere fact that Plaith wrote this made it "verifiable." When I then tried to present actual studies and polling data clearly refuting the claim (complete with multiple citations), your "scientific" approach was to censor the material, using every flimsy rationalization you could think of, such as the poll was too old for your personal tastes or that the polling data wasn't "verifiable" to your high personal standards. Yes, that's right, Plaith's mere anecdotal opinion was "verifiable" but actual hard data which contradicted your personal prejudices immediately became not "verifiable" and was deleted. So much for your repeated hypocritical claims that you want to make the article more factual and accurate using "verifiable" data.
(ScienceApologists secret definition of a "verifiable source": If the source supports his biases it is automatically "verifiable" even if not factual or a mere expression of opinion. If the source doesn't support his biases, it is automatically "unverifiable" even if based on actual hardcore data and scientific/intelligence studies.)
What's really going on here is that you very obviously have an extreme personal bias against the subject (along with no knowledge of the subject matter) and continue to look for ways to censor or neuter it. You've done that from day one on the physical evidence section and you are apparently back at it with more of your feeble rationalizations for what is supposedly "wrong" with it. Now admit it--what you really want to do is delete the entire section because it makes you itchy and uncomfortable. You don't really care how many good citations there are. Various forms of UFO physical evidence argue powerfully against debunker claims that UFOs are nothing but unreliable witness visual sightings. It's kind of hard to claim that there is nothing physical up there when it is also simultaneously being picked up on multiple radar and jamming electronics in a selective way in the air and on the ground, as in the 1976 Iranian case. There are many more truly verifiable physical evidence cases like that, not from "UFO enthusiasts" but acquired from various military and governmental source studies. Dr Fil 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
None of the previous ramblings address the real issue that many of the instances in the physical evidence section are not supported by sources.

--ScienceApologist 15:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Which ones aren't supported by sources? Lets get to the specifics. --Michaelsayers 07:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Any remarks within this article should be constrained to reports of compass needle gyration in the midst of a close encounter. When the actual writers begin to apply their own reasoning with respect to their understanding of electromagnetism, we get a biased article--whether the source of the reasoning is from a "skeptic" or otherwise. I would recommend that such commentary be placed within a background of statements made by the actual investigators of the time and remove all of the remarks applied to tilt the "neutrality" of this article. In addition, I believe that a number of highly respected sources exist that can provide better reporting besides the usual awkward internet site.

In addition, one should also not overlook the source files at http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ which should be referenced wherever possible for actual witness testimony (where applicable) instead of fishing around various ufological bric-a-brac sites. --Juliusdedekind 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - emphasized in the opening paragraphs of the U.F.O. article - is a statement that originated with David Hume.--Michaelsayers 03:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebellion

I have been all over the U.S. it's the same thing. IF there is alien contact, the whole planet just may revolt, some, for religious reasons, some out of revenge for being ridiculed, as persuant to protocol, such as the Robertson Panel protocol, some will revolt in reaction to the alien contact themselves, some will rebel to cause trouble. Some people have claimed that Martial Law will be implemented to ostensibly prevent violence. Martial Law 01:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you realize, Aliens have continued to try to contact us but something seems to be stopping them. ex: Roswell, Rendlesham Forest ect. --Mahogany 04:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (a very tired)
Ever hear about the real Men In Black ? Every time a UFO is seen and/or reported, these "enforcers" usually appear to silence and intimidate people. Same for aliens. There is also a alleged deal between aliens and the most powerful nations on Earth, part of it involves secrecy and ridicule of witnesses. Martial Law 19:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure if these aliens have the technology so superior to ours that is normally claimed they could contact us regardless of a governments inteference. And if anyone gets a visit from Men in Black after contributing to this article I'd be fascinated to know. And I'm also curious about what this deal is between aliens and 'the most powerful nations on Earth'. The most powerful nations on earth can't agree on anything, I doubt they could manage a conspiracy this big. Most UFO conspiracy theories are X-files inspired crap.137.138.46.155 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This article is going to need citations on nearly every sentence, I'm afraid. For such a controversial subject, which surely is subject to the maxim extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we should be very concerned not only about our sources, but even about the sources of our sources, as was Bede. I fully expect that true-believers will continuously add mentions of UFO events that are spurious. To counter this and to make sure only the best documented events and the best evidence is presented, I think there needs to be a tripling of our effort to document every mention of UFO evidence. I would start this effort by adding "citation needed" tags to every sentence in the article that introduces evidence. I would hope this would not just get the edit reverted; it is not an attack; it is an attempt to strengthen the article. Tempshill 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points all. It's nice to see another editor with the commitment to verifiability and accuracy here. --ScienceApologist 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


This article is going to need citations on nearly every sentence, I'm afraid.

Great! Let's start with the first few opening statements:

(1)Some people believe UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft, but most scientists and academics say there is no compelling evidence to support such a conclusion.

(2)As a result, claims that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft are generally dismissed through lack of evidence.

(3)Because of such beliefs, in pop culture, UFO is commonly used to refer to any hypothetical alien spacecraft, even ones that would be identified as such, despite the etymology.

Are these the articles of faith by the "skeptics" or do I need to start removing content because of lack of citation? --Juliusdedekind 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed problematic paragraph

The following paragraph was removed from the physical evidence section:

Attempts have been made to reverse engineer the possible physics behind UFOs through analysis of both eyewitness reports and the physical evidence. Examples are former NASA and nuclear engineer James McCampbell in his book Ufology [3] NACA/NASA engineer Paul R. Hill in his book Unconventional Flying Objects, and German rocketry pioneer Hermann Oberth. Among subjects tackled by McCampbell, Hill, and Oberth was the question of how UFOs can fly at supersonic speeds without creating a sonic boom. McCampbell's proposed solution of a microwave plasma parting the air in front of the craft is currently being researched by Leik Myrabo, Professor of Engineering Physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as a possible advance in hypersonic flight.[4]

First of all, this paragraph isn't "physical evidence" and it makes a number of claims that the sources don't back up. In particular, the "research" into "reverse engineering" doesn't seem to represent very rigorous attempts and border mostly on speculation. This section relies on novel physics explanations neither peer reviewed nor accepted in the engineering or scientific communicites. The RPI link is dubious as well as I cannot seem to find any indication that this research is collaborative nor producing any results. In any case, reporting on this topic, if it is to be done here at this page, will require considerably more research and nuance than the above paragraph. --ScienceApologist 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

GIANT UFO Over Phoenix, AZ.

You have to see this one. The photog who shot the video has his website in this incident report: GIANT UFO seen over Phoenix, AZ.. Status: This is just now being investigated. Martial Law 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Three unexplained lights in the sky do not constitute a giant ufo, they constitute three unexplained lights. Jefffire 12:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Or they constitute UFO as in "unidentified flying object," not UFO as in "alien spacecraft." Unfortunately, the latter definition is more common. –Shoaler (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


It doesn't appear to me, based on the two dimensional screen vectors and changes in rate of motion, that the lights are in a fixed three dimensional relationship. Maybe a mathematician is available who can analyze the two dimensional vectoring and acceleration, who can see if there is a corresponding three dimensional model that would position the lights at constant three dimensional distances from one another? I get the feeling that the video is not being played in "real time". Not to be accusatory; rather, I am unpersuaded. Respectfully,--Michaelsayers 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone mind if cites are requested?

You better not. I am going to go through this article to insert tags asking for cites. If you can provide a reputable source, then please do it to make this article authoritative. If you can't, then don't bother trying. Moriori 06:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Passoria, New Jersey

I've never heard of such a place. Where is it? --ScienceApologist 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I never have either, and I grew up in New Jersey. (Of course, I wouldn't have heard of Mullica Hill either if my dad, a biology teacher, hadn't taken me there fossil hunting.) But Passoria evidently is a real place. See the lower left picture here: http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decadepage/1950s/18.htm --ChrisWinter 15:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh geez! Look at the other pictures and judge by continuity! "Passoria" is an obvious typo of Passaic, NJ, which does exist. Send a letter to the site in question and get them to fix the error. --Juliusdedekind 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Resources on UFO skepticism (sorely lacking in this article)

Here's one on the alleged Belgium incident: [2] Radar angel debunking: [3] Here's one from the BBC: [4].

I'm going to keep collecting them and we'll cross-reference and vet the article for errors as well as introduce the skeptical material.

--ScienceApologist 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Military and Intelligence Careers of Career Skeptics and Believers

I have ran into personnel who believe that the "skeptics" and Skeptical orgs. are fronts for the CIA, other intelligence services, such as the DIA, all to make sure the recomendations of the Robertson Panel, other govt. protocol are carried out, such as having people who see these forbidden matters declared mentally ill. I was in a small town in NM. at the time I heard this. One elderly guy claimed he was in a intelligence unit in the military, which I suspect was "G-2" or the "USAF OSI. Would this be permitted in the article ? Martial Law 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a verifiable source for this opinion by ufo-enthusiasts, you certainly can include it. We should have an entire secton on skepticism anyway. --ScienceApologist 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rear Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, who became director of central intelligence in 1947, served on the N.I.C.A.P. board from 1957 until 1962.

In the U.F.O. article, presently he is identified as the first C.I.A. director: the first director of central intelligence, Sydney Sours, acquired the position in 1946. He was followed in this capacity by Hoyt Vandenberg, and then by Hillenkoetter. --Michaelsayers 01:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the subtitle from, "Reasons People Dislike Skeptics", to, "The Military and Intelligence Careers of Career Skeptics and Believers". This is because the surface conclusions can follow from various philosophical presuppositions - a logical positivist may be skeptical, as well as an empiricist, or a Kantian - and I have no personal dislike of, or ill-will towards, anyone on the grounds of his philosophical presuppositions. Interestingly enough, empiricism is very much in vogue these days, and persons of opposite conclusions often begin with identical (or very similar) presuppositions. More on this later. Respectfully, with well-wishing towards everyone who contributes here, --Michaelsayers 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Weapons Use

Why is that some people don't accept the fact that there are people, especially in the U.S. who will shoot at these things ? There is one report on Wikipedia itself, the Kelly-Hopkinsville Incident, in which people have shot at a UFO and have shot at aliens. I am currently in Texas, and most people will shoot first, ask questions later, if the target is still alive. Martial Law 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Limited Geographic Scope

This article, as of July 2006, is very US-centric.

Other UFO anecdotes and histories need mentioning.

  • Western European interpretations
  • Interpretations from the Soviet Union
  • Older 'flying saucer' stories from cultures in Africa, India and China

A Citation Deadline

Since I added the Notes section some time back and requested references and citations there seems to have been some headway made. There is an increased mandate to cite everything because of the subject matter. While many articles can get away with having little to no citations, the controversial nature of the article warrants mass citation. For this reason I would propose a citation deadline for all the requested citations in the article that are currently standing (and if any more need to be made). If the deadline is not met then anything that was not cited simply gets removed and that way greater control over article content can be held in the future. Is a month from now too near, say 8th August 2006? The article is quite active. I am sure changes would press people to cite sooner rather than leaving it as it is.(Simonapro 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

8th of August is only 10 days away and counting... (Simonapro 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

Hard deadlines mass-deletions like this are often seen as uncivil. I'd highly suggest taking it slow to maintain peace and order. Remove one part a day (or every few days) and place it on the talk page. Doing it like that can often "inspire" effort. ---J.S (t|c) 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


That is not wikipolicy. Wikipolicy asks for WP:CITE. If contributors can't WP:CITE then it shouldn't be here because that violates WP:NOR. Sorry, policy dictates that there is a mandate to remove material that does not cite its sources. (Simonapro 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

At any rate, you can test the civility by checking other articles (s.v. "holocaust," "anti-semitism," "democracy," "anarchism," "scientific method," "philosophy," "religion," "christianity," "theology," etc) and see if there is perhaps just a little bit of hypocrisy on this "citation" issue. I agree on rigorous citation of material, especially when the noisy critics like to pick at every speck of dirt.--Juliusdedekind 05:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me like an attempt is being made to hijack control of the article content - after all, Simonapro wrote, "and that way greater control over article content can be held in the future". ScienceApologist wrote (in the talk section Resources on UFO skepticism), "we'll cross reference and vet the article for errors, as well as introduce the skeptical material". And the stated justification for this? It is that "while many articles can get away with having little to no citations, the controversial nature of the article warrants mass citation." I say that if these guys are going to play hard ball, then hard ball can be played back. No statements allowed without sources. No assumptions whatsoever. Period.

Absolutely no unsourced opinions (such as, "such skeptical attitudes adhere to a standard of research attributed to Carl Sagan"; "Skeptics say that most evidence is ultimately derived from notoriously unreliable eyewitness accounts" [which skeptics? what source, stochastic evidence is there for the unreliability of the eyewitness accounts? was it really necessary to use the word "notoriously"?]; "The remaining fraction have been labeled unidentified or unexplainable. Analyses of such cases have results that are usually ambiguous or inconclusive" [this is a totally inaccurate, unsourced position, and seems to have been written by someone who has not read Project Blue Book Special Report #14]).

The full substitution of neutral words for terminology premised on skeptical philosophical biases (such as, "some people believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft" [rather than "some people assert that", which would be neutral; and, by the way, it is majority per centage these days, not only "some people"]; "some cases have alleged associated physical evidence" [the evidence is not merely alleged, nor is it merely alleged that the evidence is associated with U.F.O.s]).

And, also, the inclusion of a full section on Statements by Living Government Witnesses.

Some of us have professions, and the 10-day deadline is patently unreasonable. It might only take three days of reviewing sources with a little time each day to arrive at (say) an accurate statement about the Robertson Panel - but what if everyone else is also focused on that one item for three days?

If you want the sources cited, than an organized approach, meant to be accessible for people with professional occupations, is necessary - such as the one J.Smith advised, perhaps with an item to be edited and sourced every Wednesday. If all you want to do is eliminate content you don't like, in order to "hold greater control over article content", followed by introducing the skeptical material, then you have found an excellent means to do so.

But don't expect zero resistance, or zero counter-action and zero penalties.

--Michaelsayers 11:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE and WP:NOR mean exactly what they mean. This is across the board, for all content, be it skeptical or persuasive. The 'us' or 'them' ideology is not what this is about. This is about greater control over article content so that someone can not say absolutely anything they feel like (as they have been doing) without backing it up with WP:CITE. Frankly I don't care if it is skeptical or persuasive. If it doesn't WP:CITE it goes, and that is Wikipolicy. And this is not just a 10 day deadline. It has been asked for since the previous Achieve , half a year ago. If this stirs the pot then it doesn't matter. WP:CITE is inevitable. I am gald this is inspiring some to actually WP:CITE. That is exactly what wikipedia is about. And as for debating if something that doesn't have a WP:CITE should stay. Sorry but WP:CITE. It is just pushing the people to do the work they should have been doing all along but didn't.(Simonapro 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC))


There are other policies aside from WP:CITE that need to be addressed. Such as it is, this extremely pedantic "mandate" applied to this article--a mandate, as you can see for yourself, not enforced to the same degree in other more controversial subjects--seems insincere and hypocritical. This aside from the fact that some vultures like to criticize the citation alone once it is placed. The removal of important content is inevitable when individuals do not like the content posted--regardless of the endless rationale and doctrine referenced by these noisy critics.

No need to apologize concerning the actions of content raiders who would like nothing more than to remove relevant material under the guise of "NPOV"--a doctrine misunderstood at best when taken as the "most popular view held by government officials and scientists" even if that view is radically false.

One should also examine the citation of Encyclopedia Britannica 2003 CD-ROM s.v. "unidentified flying objects" and print set--you'll find ample neutrality whereas not one single statement is cited--no references either.

I have said before that I believe in rigorous citation, but what I find in this article are lazy researchers trying to quickly invalidate content based on their inability to find the content in the source--a skill that any first-year college student would know. If there are statements that need citation, then most certainly they should be found and the comments without support should be removed. But if I find out (I keep a mirror record) that content is removed out of laziness (of either the critics or the "ufology maniacs") it will eventually find its place back into the article with ample citation and cross references for all to see--I will make sure of that.--[Juliusdedekind] 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Simonapro -

This encyclopaedia is a community effort, and everything posted is community property. I, too, would prefer that all things in the article have cited sources - what is being questioned isn't your preference in this regard, but rather the implementation thereof. Your position is one of an assumption of power, not community service, and of engaging in rigmarole and the planned deletion of historical facts from the article, rather than constructive participation.

You say the "us or them ideology isn't what this is about" - and yet you also say this is about "pushing the people to do the work they should have been doing all along". I should have been providing citations all these months, when I have been a community member for only a few days? "Should", according to whose authority? You have had all these months to implement a 'one item every Wednesday' requirement for rewriting the article to accurately represent the data in the sources, and also to research the sources. Instead of doing this, you place your neglect to implement (or even suggest) a community plan on everyone's shoulders, with a 10 day deadline instead (which is patently ridiculous for research and authorship about a subject with as many complexities and subtleties as the U.F.O. reports).

While certainly the U.F.O. subject is controversial, in the case of The Robertson Panel - as one example - we are dealing with a historical fact. The description in the article could benefit from editing, but well-considered editing appropriate to an encyclopaedia - and the research involved - takes time and finesse. Unless the encyclopaedia is going to pay contributors a professional fee, the work must be done as time permits - and, the work will not be of professional quality, in absolutely perfect King's English, et cetera. As a new member of the community, I feel I deserve an appropriate amount of time to work with what, too, now is my property - and to not have it destroyed and obliterated, regardless of how you have handled this matter during the last several months: you have had several months to handle it responsibly, and yet did not do so. To simply eliminate facts from the article, as you are going to do, certainly is suppression of information, is reminiscent of the encyclopaedias of Stalinist Russia, and is not an equitable solution.

It is not clear to me in what sense you are assuming this role - whether it is, or is not, a de facto assumption of power - but I will look into this to see what my true relationship to you is in this matter. You certainly seem to feel an unbridled sense of power, and to be acting as a potentate, rather than a community leader who is responsive to the needs of a community.

Compromise, and give and take, are necessary for the democratic operation of a community, and your unwillingness to compromise shows that you are acting out of your own - rather than the community's - interests.

We do not need - or want - a dictator, who feels that policies are more important than the people whom the policies are meant to serve. As a recent encyclopaedia member, I feel I deserve the same respect and consideration you gave other members for months or years, which requires that I not be the recipient of ultimatums and edicts. What have I done to you or the article, to deserve this strong-arming, brute-force treatment? Where in the policies that you love to link, does it say that implementing the policies in a disrespectful and inconsiderate manner, couched in ultimatums and brazen assumptions of power, is okay?

As I said, don't expect zero resistance to your agend for "holding greater control over article content". All these things are subject to community inspection and observation, and I really don't think your initiation of a power struggle over article content is going to be tolerated for very long. I don't think this is how any of the "idols" of skepticism (such as Carl Sagan, Paul Kurtz, or Philip Klass) would go about this, and they would have the suave, tenacity and elegance to advance the skeptical hypothesis without needing the resort to demagoguery.

Why don't you set up your own website? There, you can be absolute dictator and ruler (up to a point). At this encyclopaedia, though, I am sure their are penalties that one can invoke for mean-spirited, coup attempts to seize control of article content.

The first rule of life is to value others. If you don't understand this, then linking to all the encyclopaedia policies you can, won't justify what you are doing. It is hard to say where this will end - but probably with the non-satisfaction of all parties, rather than a civil and harmonious result of mutual compromise and community involvement.--Michaelsayers 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael, how do you reconcile your following statements -- (1) ' "Wikipaedia" and "Encyclopaedia" are correct uage ..... "Wikipedia" and "Encyclopedia" are anarchical' , and (2) "Compromise, and give and take, are necessary for the democratic operation of a community". Moriori 23:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Moriori - How does one reconcile the statement in the first paragraph of this article (such skeptical attitudes adhere to a standard of research attributed to Carl Sagan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence") with the fact that the quote originated with David Hume (who was not a scientist), and also with the fact that a class of U.F.O. reports - in the stochastic analysis of Project Blue Book Special Report #14 - have been shown to represent a class of definite "unknowns"? Unidentified yes; but extraordinary (according to Hume's delineation, and that of the enumerative induction section in John Stuart Mill's logic treatise), not at all. "Unidentified means unidentified", as you say, but "unknowns" have been analysed out as a separate class of "unidentified" object from those classified by "insufficient evidence". Indeed - and, perhaps to your chagrin - as the level of evidence increases, the per centage of "unknowns" increases as compared with "airplanes", "balloons", "insufficient evidence", et cetera. You condescendingly addressed J.Smith about "logic" in a post, but it seems that you are under informed in the subject.--Michaelsayers 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked you a question about something you said. Please answer it. Moriori 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Juliusdedekind. (1)You didn't bring up any of the other policies you wanted to discuss. (2)Anyone reserves to the right to critic a WP:CITE but the cite must be given first. (3)Wikipedia isn't Encyclopedia Britannica 2003. (4)If stuff removed finds its way back into the article with citation then fine. If not, then keep it out by enforcing WP:CITE.

Michaelsayers, (1)You are empowered by wikipedia wikipolicy to remove content that does not WP:CITE. So I am. (2)WP:CITE was asked for since spring of this year. See Previous Archieves. (3)You have all the time in the world to WP:CITE content that is removed because it violates WP:NOR. There is no rush there. (4)I don't dictate wikipolicy.

Like I said before. WP:CITE is inevitable. Once the article has only WP:CITE in it then it can be kept that way by everybody. Week by week evaluation of one line doesn't allow for contributors who keep adding stuff without WP:CITE. WP:CITE and WP:NOR are not my policies. There are wikipedia policies.(Simonapro 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC))


Moriori - I did answer your question.

Bollocks. You deliberately evaded the point. However, given the subject of this article, then .........Moriori 08:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright. Statement one says a certain word usage is anarchical (not-democratic), and endorses the correct (democratic, not-anarchical) usage. Statement two supports democratic (not-anarchical) societal interaction. The statements deal with such different spheres, that I am not sure if the one can be reconciled or dis-reconciled with the other. But here is a tenuous attempt at harmonization of the statements. That is a wonderful picture of a sunset at your user page, by the way.--Michaelsayers 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Simonapro - I am for editing of the article, and the 100% accurate derivation of every word of it from cited sources. But the deletion of historical facts, rather than simply rewriting the type so that it is accurate, and rather than researching through all available sources for the citation list, is Stalinistic, to put it mildly. For instance, there might be (say) 900 published references, of varying orders, to the Robertson Panel. One can obtain copies of all of them (for a fee) through remote libraries, government outlets, et c., and after a thorough reading, can have an accurate write up, each sentence of which is referred to the appropriate source. But research takes time, and it seems that what you want is research in 10 days - an impossibility. Most citations here seem to be for internet websites - and there is little academic control over internet content.

So, what will happen once you do the preliminary deletion based on your demands for research, is the rest of the article will have to be deleted too since it is not up to research standards, and replaced with a header that reads "article deleted pending academic research". Thorough research for an article like this - by a dedicated researcher - probably will take 4-8 years minimum (I am sure you are aware how long some Ph.D. theses take).

Rather than having a blank page (and, I assure you that if references to historical facts such as the Robertson Panel have to go, I and others aren't go to simply look the other way in regard to the humiliating sentences, not up to research standard, in almost every paragraph about non-skeptics - as if there are no "non-skeptical" scientists, or the "non-skeptical" scientists are unfamiliar with Hume; what an insult to so many people that paragraph is!), I suggest a compromised approach of going through the article one item per week (some items require considerable nuance to write with 100% finesses and accuracy, and may take longer), to provide a tentative, more-or-less accurate rewrite based on "home research" - not something up to Ph.D. thesis standard, in terms of research or writing, but something functional, and devoid of any philosophical biases (i.e., which says what this source over here says this, and that source over here says, et c., in a 100% literal and coherently structured way). Each of us can add his own findings, as a community - community research for a community encyclopaedia. A week of home research for each item, by dozens or hundreds of people, can resolve this in a year's time (maximum).

But if you can't compromise, then catastrophe is inevitable. Merely being legally - or otherwise - able to do something, doesn't mean that the action is meritorious.

I may go to the encyclopaedia establishment (this encyclopaedia should have a board of directors), who I suspect can prevent you from initiating a power struggle over the content of this article (masqued by you as a struggle over article quality). I don't know much about how this encyclopaedia works, and whether your ultimate powers as editor are de facto or otherwise, but I do know that the board of directors usually has considerable strength over an organization, and when I contact an organization it is always at the top (a music director, or a board of directors), and this seems to be the most effective way of getting things squarely accomplished.

Surely, going into an article, and doing mass deletions, is considered to not be constructive behaviour, and is highly frowned upon.

I am not going to tolerate your abuse of (presumably) de facto editorial powers, so lets try to find a more satisfying approach to the article.--Michaelsayers 18:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

All that "non-skepticism" implies, at the most, is acceptance of philosphical presuppostions contrary to the philosophical presuppostions in which the "skeptics" believe - this is at the core of the bias in the article as it presently stands. Skeptics, believe as much in their own philosphical presuppositions, as do the non-skeptics - and are, as much, "believers". Of course, it is possible to get beyond philosophical presuppositions (as intimated in some sections of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, the work of U.C. Berkley philosphy professor Stephen C. Pepper, and elsewhere), which is what I endeavor to do.--Michaelsayers 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply, WP:CITE is wikipolicy. Wikipolicy dictates that article content needs to cite its sources. We will be dealing with the citations after we deal with the content that is blantantly violating WP:NOR. (Simonapro 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC))


Tell us a) which content doesn't have a reliable source, and b) the source for stating that the questioned source/content is not reliable. I asked something similar to this before, and received no reply. This "we" proves yet again that you are acting in collusion with others, as I alleged: evidently, I was right.

Your notions of reliable vs. unreliable source, are conditioned by your own personal inclinations in relation to this subject matter. Why hide and suppress content and sources - as the encyclopaedias of Stalinist Russia did - unless you are pursuing an ideological agenda [which is what I have been alleging about you and your cohorts all along]? If nothing is being suppressed, then give everyone the specifics to mull over, and don't go through with your planned deletion of data. You (and your cohorts) want an essentially one-man U.F.O. article - I suppose with you as the mouthpiece. YOU ALL ARE NOT GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT.

There are at least 10 Ph.D. theses related to U.F.O.s that I know of, by the way, loaded with "reliable" sources. They need to be added to the list of citations/bibliography for the article. But I suppose that you are not interested in Ph.D. level research, aren't you?

Your historical viewpoint on the U.F.O. subject is reminiscent of one who is living before the advent of the Freedom Of Information Act.

Go ahead, delete away, rewrite U.S. cold war history so that there was no 1953 Robertson Panel, do whatever you want without restraint, ethics or compunction towards anyone, simply because you can, be the living embodiment of "might makes right". At the least, I don't think you'll be well-appreciated or much admired for this suppression of history, and since you are adamant, I guess we'll have to see what happens at the most.--Michaelsayers 02:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE is the mandate. As you are new I will overlook your accusations and point you in the direction of WP:CIV (Simonapro 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

I apologize if I tend to be 'over-the-top' [a pianist must be capable of powerful emotions, right?]. Wherever our goals are in agreement, there will be harmony. My goals are:
I) to let the fact speak for themselves
II) achieve an article free of bias, and of a neutral presentation
III) thorough historical documentation, to include all manner of sources as befits an interdisciplinary subject, with accurate representation of the provenance of the sources
i) government documents obtained through F.O.I.A. requests
ii) periodicals and books
iii) scientific (or, enumerative/stochastic) analyses
iv) photographs
v) interviews (published in hard copy, or in accessible audio-video archives)
vi) Ph.D. theses
I am going to pursue operations on many fronts at once, to achieve these goals. This may include the probing of formal channels, and the deployment of a team to monitor, edit and manage the U.F.O. article through peaceful engagements in informal channels (such as this forum, the U.F.O. article page, and other locations within the encyclopaedia).
With Sincere Best Wishes to Everyone Here,--Michaelsayers 10:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Flying Saucers made by Military Programs

I turned on the chanal today when I saw a program on flying saucers was in my TV Guide. Sure enough, they had real footage of a disk shaped hovercraft made by the US military(and similar designs made Nazi German Engineers)

I wouldn't bother to post this here because really, these Saucers have nothing to do with UFOs(as they were made by the US military, making them IFOs) but searching the words 'Flying Saucer' redirects here.

I suggest adding a section on attempts to make Flying Saucers to this article(or an otherwise appropriate one). Wikipedia seems to lack this information entirely. I would do it myself but I don't know much about history, military engineering, flying saucer projects or anything relevant to the subject for that matter. I just watch a lot of educational TV...


Seen it as well. That was a poor attempt to explain away UFOs. That thing never got out of ground effect. Excuse the sig. A bug is preventing me from logging in. Martial Law 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the article Military flying saucers to read about known Earth built aircraft, either saucer or disc shaped. The Avro Avrocar (aircraft) was a Canda/USA hovercraft that was scrapped, while a similar looking vehicle was built by the British; the SR-N1, with a rubber skirt around the edges. The SR-N1 was the first practical air-cushioned, hovercraft. Without the rubber skirt around the edges, the Avrocar was unstable and useless.204.80.61.10 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

There were witness testimonies in the DisclosureProject who said that the US developed real-UFO-looking craft modeled after the real things, called "Alien Reproduction Vehicles" (ARV) in the late 1960s. It is believed that e.g. the "red UFO" photographed by a pilot @ 10,000ft alt. in 1967 was an early ARV (an opinion I tend to agree with, as its photo was crisp-clear, whereas real UFOs appear "fuzzy" in photos and also self-luminous). Same witness said that by the 1980s the US had at least 3 discs (witness reported them to hover above ground without any apparent support, e.g. a rope from the ceiling). All those guys offered to testify under oath before US Congress. Dhatz 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

time travellers?

i think that ufos might not be aliens but time travellers, maybe in the future we have this kind of technology and a time machine so people travel back in time.

This place is to talk about how to make the article better. ---J.S (t|c) 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

exactly this is my new theorey on ufos and maybe it should be put into the article.

It's not new... There's a TV show (7th day?) that has made reference to it in more then one episode. I wish I had sources for you to peruse, but I simply can't recall the interviewee's I've heard on Coast to Coast to who talked about it. ---J.S (t|c) 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do UFOs come from Outer Space?

If UFOs come from outer space then...

  1. Why are we not detecting any intelligent signals from Outer Space?
  2. Why are we not picking them up with all the technology we use to monitor space debris? (Simonapro 21:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC))
First of all, to be clear, this talk page is to talk about how to make the article better, not about UFO theory. However, you bring up common questions. 1: First of all, some people say we are and it's being "covered up". Or, another option is they are trying to communicate with us in a way we don't understand. Or they are trying to hide there presence from us. 2.) Our highest technology has enabled us to track about 10% of the medium-sized objects in orbit. Our tracking doesnt even tell us what they are other then approximate size and velocity. In addition, if UFOs are intelligent aliens from outer-space then is it such a stretch to assume they could hide from our telescopes? This is ofcourse all speculation. ---J.S (t|c) 06:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I may want to include something like this in the article so I am asking about it here. Since it is UFO theory there might be a place for it. You answer to #1 contains a conspiracy suggestions (okay) but you also say that they are "trying to communicate with us in a way we don't understand." This second part is problematic because scientists tells us that the laws of physics should be same across the cosmos. It is the same stuff everywhere (atoms and molecules) so advanced life, if using signals, would be sending and receiving signals on some bandwidth. That is why SETI monitors space signals. More importantly, could you WP:CITE the 10% figure you gave in #2. Thanks (Simonapro 07:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
Indenting is your friend! :) Simonapro, you were asking for theoretical possibilities so I gave the ones I've heard. Re: "ways we don't understand" One very possible scenario I've heard (on Coast to Coast AM) is that they could use laser-communication beams and we don't have sensitive enough equipment pointed at the right tiny dot in the sky to pick it up over the background radiation. Alternatively, they could be sending timed waves of sub-atomic particles and we simply, again, don't know what to look for to pick it out of the background radiation. It is also a potential that they use some kind of telepathy to communicate. *Shrug* Your asking questions that are highly speculative and none of the answers have any more evidence then the others.
This paper suggests that out of the estimated 150,000 objects in orbit around earth, NASA is only able to track about 15,000 of them at an accuracy of over 10m. That tracking is being carried out by radar. If an object was built by intelligent life it wouldn't be to hard to imagine the use of radar-avoidance technologies. (Stealth bomber can hide from radar...)
Then again...the last possibility is there's nothing there to detect. *shrug* ---J.S (t|c) 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's look at that paper which says "This appears to present a very significant challenge. However with appropriate technology extensions, laser ranging can meet this requirement." So it appears if they can monitor all of that if the appropriate equipment. I am going ask some questions over on another wikipedia discussion board to see where this is at today. (Simonapro 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
That's not really the point. Even if we had 100% tracking for every object over 1mm in orbit, it still wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that an object directed by intelligence could avoid it. We, now, have the technology to develop satelites that can avoid radar. (The same technology used on the stealth bomber could be used in space).
And... besides, you asked for speculation, so I gave it to you. :) Since this is an article -about- the subject of UFOs it is not our job to prove/disprove it. This whole discussion boarders on irrelevant unless we can find a good secondary source who brings up the arguments. ---J.S (t|c) 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Warping space or stealth technology would probably be the only reasonable arguements for how intelligent life from outer space could enter the Earth's atmosphere without being detected by our current space monitoring systems. I didn't ask for speculation I asked for citations WP:CITE. I guess I do not have a WP:CITE for it yet so yes it is WP:NOR which brings up a good point. The whole article is going to go through a mass edit very shortly for stuff that doesn't include WP:CITE or violates WP:NOR. Thanks anyway. (Simonapro 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC))
"Our" current understanding of science does not allow the possibility that aliens may be using technologies that is incomprhensible to "us". Not too long ago, science could not comprehend how it is possible to travel @ Mach 5 or better in the early part of the 20th Century, when the fastest speeds were @ or nearly 100 mph, seen in early cars and planes. The aliens may be using a method of propulsion that is beyond the capability of current scientific understanding, to get here, and return to their point of origin. Martial Law 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Science doesn't deal only with knowns, and discount unknowns. Moriori 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss my point? If we wanted to we could avoid the tracking systems... expecialy since currently we can only track 10% of the INANIMATE objects. How can you call questions not asking for speculation? When you ask a question for witch the anwser is unknown you get speculation. ---J.S (t|c) 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't replying to you, but to Martial Law who for some reason thinks that "our" (make that his) understanding of science does not not allow the possibility that aliens may be using technologies that is incomprhensible to "us" (make that him). Works for him, but not for science. Moriori 07:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't replying to you... but anyway, science does have "gaps" and in those gaps the awnsers may lie. I think thats the point ML was getting at. (See God of the Gaps) ---J.S (t|c) 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course science has gaps. That's why scientists continually seek knowledge to fill those gaps. But it is laughable for anyone to say that science rejects the possibility that aliens might be using technology unknown to us. It is particularly laughable coming from someone who compiled a list of "Known Facts" about Bigfoot, including the statement "...it absolutely cannot die, and will not give up until you are dead, it cannot be reasoned with, it doesn't feel compassion, it doesn't feel remorse, and it cannot be stopped...". And the source he gave for that? "The Terminator", starring Arnold Schwarezenneger. Moriori 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
While assissting in the renovation of what appeared to be a old book store, I had found old science texts that had some unusual claims, such as "Docs say that going over 60 mph will make you deaf" or that you'll fall apart. "We" now know that is in error. Some of these texts are from the late 1800s and early 1900s. Martial Law 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
These old texts discribe what "our" (Society's) science comprehension was like at that time. Martial Law 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Basically the question was asked in relation to the current monitoring of space debris and why it is not picking up UFOs. It actually turns out that the monitoring is get better all the time and soon we will be monitoring micro-sized debris movements in space. The suggestion was that UFOs have stealth capability to get past all of that but apparently something happens to that stealth while on Earth and they are then seen. It doesn't make a whole pile of sense but it isn't a bad suggestion either. The problem is why would they bother to go to all the stealth trouble and then suddenly appear to so that people could see them. Do they travel here for the ""Surprise!"" or something? (Simonapro 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
Tis a good question. Hard to tell. I had anouther thought... Perhapse we do pick them up on the debre scans. I'm not sure the radar scan can tell us anything more then "Object this size traveling in this drection at this speed". *shrug*
Ummm I was sugusting that if they had a similar technology level as ours they could easaly hide from laser/radar in the same ways we can. Even tho the stealth bomber can't be tracked with radar it can still be seen. And it can even be occasionaly picked up on radar given the right circumstances. In alot of UFO reports the UFOs are seen but not tracked on radar. In many cases aircraft controllers will see strange "blips" on the radar.
I don't think super-tech is needed to explain the ability to hide from radar/laser tracking since we (well, the US millitary) can do it. (That makes the assumption that they have more advanced/equal technology compared to us)
Things like long-distance space travel seem to be a much bigger stumbling block to me. ---J.S (t|c) 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we not detecting any intelligent signals from Outer Space?

This question assumes (1) that the communication technologies developed by ETs are comparable to ours and/or (2) that ETs would actually want to open communication with the "Earthlings" (3) what we call "intelligence" as an established fact for the rest of the universe.

Why are we not picking them up with all the technology we use to monitor space debris?

Again, you have assumed that (1) that with the condition that ETV debris is "picked up," the general "NPOV" public would be notified. (2) In addition, you may have confused the technological ability to monitor our own space debris with that which is not our own.

These are just some minor points I thought needed to be addressed (certainly not exhaustive) before such questions are even asked. --Juliusdedekind 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This question assumes (1) that the communication technologies developed by ETs are comparable to ours and/or..

If you look at the question again it tells you that scientists teach that it is the same stuff everywhere, that stuff being molecules, and the laws of physics should apply across the cosmos. If something is using bandwidth in this solar system, or possibly outside of the solar system, we should be detecting it. Someone suggested that laser technology would be the work-around for this problem but we don't appear to picking up any binary data in terms of flicking light either. It is hard to imagine intelligent life not using the binary system for their laser communication. It has nothing to do with them contacting us. It has everything to do with us at least picking up something. (Simonapro 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC))


If you look at the question again it tells you that scientists teach that it is the same stuff everywhere, that stuff being molecules, and the laws of physics should apply across the cosmos.

The laws of physics are not the same as the INTENT of other beings to utilize those laws accordingly. You can easily assume homogeneity in physical laws (as you understand them) but DO NOT ASSUME homogeneity in other being's use of those laws--to do so is simply narrow and absurd.

If something is using bandwidth in this solar system, or possibly outside of the solar system, we should be detecting it.

Well, that's a big "if" ("but" really) that you will need to prove.

Someone suggested that laser technology would be the work-around for this problem but we don't appear to picking up any binary data in terms of flicking light either. It is hard to imagine intelligent life not using the binary system for their laser communication. It has nothing to do with them contacting us. It has everything to do with us at least picking up something.

Hard to imagine trying to fit your head inside a hypothetical being of which you have no knowledge. -- Juliusdedekind 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Speed of light if they have been brodcasting out into space like us then we then it is posible the signals havn't gotten here yet. (It takes 80,000 years for light to travel from one side of the galaxy to the other.)
(If we do ever pick up a signal from an alian race it may have become extict... odd thought, 'eh?)
Signal fade Radio signals and laser-beems lose power as they travel. (colliding with space dust, etc). If "they" are far enough away then the signals they are brodcasting may be weekend enough that it is indistingushable from the background noise. Who knows. ---J.S (t|c) 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Some rewording

I'm doing some rewording of selected sentences from the "Ancient accounts" section through "Hynek system". I'll also be switching the positions of two pairs of paragraphs. If anyone wishes, I can post the before and after versions here, sentence by sentence. --ChrisWinter 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. If you break anything it can be fixed:) ---J.S (t|c) 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

UFOlogy

A while back I wanted to remove the ufology related whatnots to it's article. When I started I quickly found that it was beyond me.

Before we start doing a mass-deletion of WP:V violations I think the article split should be finished. Anyone willing to take this task on? ---J.S (t|c) 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Common usage of UFO

I've added the common usage of "UFO", which basically refers to any alien spacecraft, even if it's identified as such. Voortle 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that but it looks like you got reverted. That revert was inappropriate. ---J.S (t|c) 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the article, for a very good reason. The word unidentified means something that is not identified. It does not mean alien spaceship. Furthermore, the common usage of the English language is to use words that mean what they say. If anyone wants to do an Alien spaceship article then they can click here and start typing. Moriori 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
UFO meaning "alien spaceship" is common usage, regardless of what the "U" stands for. In fact, one could say that UFO is a word on its own in this case, rather than an acronym for "Unidentified flying object", even though it originated as such. The common usage should appear in this article. Voortle 02:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We are compiling an encyclopedia, not a fancruft blog. The article defines the subject in the intro, as every other article in Wikipedia should and does. The first sentence of the third paragraph acknowledges that some people associate UFO with spaceships. Fine, that is is a logical progression from the intro, as it should be. Moriori 02:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No. It says that some people believe that "UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft, but most scientists and academics say there is no compelling evidence to support such a conclusion". It says nothing about how the word "UFO" is actually used in general speech. The third sentence discusses the concept, not the term. I'm discussing the common usage of the term, not what people thing the unidentified space objects are. Voortle 02:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh my. This article is about UFO. If you believe we need to say "how the word "UFO" is actually used in general speech" then create a section about it, or do an article on it. Don't insert it into the general introduction to the article. Moriori 03:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, all I have to say is that the word "UFO" is commonly used to refer to alien spacecraft, even by people who don't believe in alien spacecraft or don't believe that any alien spacecraft are near us. Voortle 03:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the best solution here is to have a short mention and a link to the actual article on the subject. The best place for that is at the end of the introduction. Those who wanted to find out about alien craft may have searched for "UFO" and a link to the more appropriate article is... appropriate. ---J.S (t|c) 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added information about the common usage of term "UFO" at the end of the third paragraph. I guess that might be better than having it in the first paragraph. Voortle 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Deadline is looming

There is a deadline looming to remove contributions to the article that violate WP:NOR by not citing sources as per WP:CITE. If you contributed something that did not WP:CITE then you would want to WP:CITE to make sure it stays there. This is part of a requested article clean-up. See above and previous archive. Thanks. (Simonapro 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure why your making a new section for this. Anyway...
(Quoted from above...) That is not wikipolicy. Wikipolicy asks for WP:CITE. If contributors can't WP:CITE then it shouldn't be here because that violates WP:NOR. Sorry, policy dictates that there is a mandate to remove material that does not cite its sources. (Simonapro 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
Civility and courtesy are important. This threating tone your taking has me on edge. If your goal is to hack and slash, feel free to wikilawer. However, if your goal is to encourage others to make the article better then remove one thing at a time and go slow.
There is no need to immediately remove the poorly sourced info... in-fact, if you cut out 3/4 of the article all at once I can see edit waring, RFC, and arbcoms. Don't take this as me threatening... I don't plan on reverting anything you do, It just seems possible that someone else will. Especially with a red-name next to a mass-blanking diff. ---J.S (t|c) 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is not a threat. It is wiki policy. WP:CITE is not a threat, it is wiki policy. If you have a problem with the policy being Hack and slash then take it up with the policy makers on the policy articles. There is no policy for one thing at a time or the go slow. The go slow has already been implemented. It was called "everyone cite your sources please" and follow wikipolicy. The policy is WP:NOR and WP:CITE. They have had months to cite their sources. (Simonapro 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

First of all, I don't think the policy is hack and slash but YOUR intended use of it. My reference was to your plans and not to the policy in general. (This is a matter of WP:V not WP:NOR)
It actually took me LESS effort to find citations for every {{Fact}} tag placed in the article then you have spent posting your warnings and threats.
If anything else needs citation, first look yourself. If you can't find it then {{fact}} is a great idea.
On a separate note... did you know there is a {{or}} tag? ---J.S (t|c) 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just basic standard wikipolicy of citing sources if you want something in the article. There shouldn't even be a debate on this issue. If it doesn't cite, it goes. I see you have been prompted to cite. Good. That is all anyone is asking. (Simonapro 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

I Don't understand how you STILL miss my point. Is this intentional? ---J.S (t|c) 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is just that you decided to answer the tag queries because this has been brought to your attention. Anybody can add anything to the article and have a fact tag sit around (as they have been) until someone does the work (which was only done when this was brought to your attention, not the tag). What is better is to WP:CITE and do the work so that others do not have to do it. (Simonapro 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro - I vow that you shall not succed in your effort to (in your words) "control article content", while masquerading as improving the article quailty (as premised on "WP:" links). I don't know if your ultimate editorial powers are de facto, or are based on a structured proviso integrated into "WP", but I am certain that the board of directors of "WP" - or SOMEONE - will be able to stop your attempt to control article content. I am quite new to "WP", and am extremely busy with non-"WP" matters - but I do know that the president or board of directors has considerable ability to curb abuses within an organization, and usually are the most efficient points of contact for getting things squarely and firmly done.

You seem to have a history of doing this with other articles, without caring about the dissatisfaction of others, or whether or not such radical actions are fully sanctioned by "WP" provisos. "WP" doesn't exist solely to serve for the satisfaction of one person - it is a community effort, based on dialogue and discussion.

Notice how I have mentioned many things in the talk section that need refinement and more suave handling - but that I did not spontaneously implement the changes. That is the civil and scholarly approach, based on discussion and compilation of sources.

J.Smith - please email me through my home page (linked at my user page), if you have the time to do so. I am seeking a briefing on the "WP" subject matter, so that I can attempt to restrain Simonapro from his content-control agenda, but perhaps with more polish and elegance than that to which I may presently be self-availed, if it becomes necessary that I contact "WP" through formal channels. I feel this is the most important subject of modern times, and as prominent as "WP" is with search engines, it is imperative to do everything possible to achieve unbiased presentation of the subject matter - and simply let the facts speak for themselves - and to prevent any person or party of persons from conspiring, or working individually, to control, hijack or steer the content in any direction whatsoever ("skeptical" or "nonskeptical", to use the modern 'Cartesian' terminology), through any position of editorial power whatsoever (whether de facto, or dervied through "WP" provisos).--Michaelsayers 20:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Careful attention is being made to the claims in the article and the claims in these discussions. I was asked to come here to help solve disputes. The first way of doing that is by enforcing wikipolicy. We will be dealing with citations after removing wikipedia article violations to see if they actually meet WP:CITE. You can debate WP:CITE on WP:CITE. Also see WP:NOT (Simonapro 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

Everyone PLEASE start useing indents. Also, Simonapro, please review WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Your behavor here at the least can be called agressive and provocitive. If you wish to discuss your behavor further contact me on my talk page, otherwise I consiter this discussion closed. ---J.S (t|c) 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about the no indents. I am quite new to WP, and am still in the process of getting up to speed. Simonapro, I fully understand your frustration, and - furthermore - while not ultimately agreeing with the skeptical analysis in various key points, I greatly value the skeptics. The U.F.O. subject has picked up a tremendous amount of "cultural baggage" in recent years - especially with the increasing access to, and usability of, the internet. Skeptics have done an excellent job of exposing hoaxes, con-men, et c. [but I don't want to publicly take sides in any of these cases; lets just say that I am more of a skeptic than are 99.99% of all non-skeptics, yet am convinced that certain key things can't be skeptically analysed away]. I just don't see why you want to force a "skeptical" U.F.O. article on each of us, vs. one that for every aspect has a neutral statement of the sources that all sides would agree with, and a list of sources/bibliography as a starting point for individual research.
In teamwork, everyone must yield concessions to get the job done. If a pianist plays with a conductor, usually the conductor decides some things, and the pianist decides some things. This is the way things are. I don't see why we can't all work together to make the article well-written and well-structured, neutral and unbiased, with a wide range of sources offered? A non team work approach to this, sounds rather maladaptive. Certainly, Simonapro, if you can't make any concessions, then people like me are going to stiffen up and stand a firm ground, too, rather than just look the other way.
I share your skepticism a great deal, while at the same time in the final analysis being a non-skeptic. But ultimately, I enjoy letting others think for themselves, and presenting all available data. The trick, as Emerson said, is to neither dogmatize, nor accept the dogmatism of another.
I am going to submit a plan for community approval, to rewrite the article by the community, but I need a few days to check on some things. I can do all the work myself, if necessary.
For now, I would like to correct the listing of the 1st C.I.A. director in the article, as it at best is misleading or inaccurate (Rear Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter was the 3rd director of central intelligence; the 1st was Sydney Sours). I would also like to add his years of serving on the N.I.C.A.P. board. I am still waiting for some sort of community approval before I act.
Lets forget about everything that has happened in this talk section, and proceed forward in a positive, constructive light....with an emphasis on industrious and enthusiastic team work. I understand your feelings about certain things not being reliable sources. But, please take it from me - Govt. documents, books, recorded interviews (in court, typed, audio-video, or otherwise), letters, extant diaries, photographs, forensic analyses, are all viable sources for examination and analysis, in this field.
Every field has its own standards of evidence and data. The U.F.O. material is highly multi-disciplinary, and requires the adducing of a great many different types of evidence and data. The intellectual challenge is immense.
But if the article can't be the result of teamwork, I will do what I can to make it function democratically. I am new to WP, and not up to speed on all the provisos and structures thereof, so, in speaking of the board, I am saying that I will do what I am accustomed to doing, which is to approach an organization at the uppermost levels - there may be a lower level to address, but I have not been able to determine this, and - I must say - the frequent use of adjectives as qualifiers for nouns, in the WP documents, I have found to be highly confusing at times. I don't wish to be overly assertive, but I can't identify any channels other than the ones I am accustomed to, for the arrangement of a debriefing on this issue. I want to make it clear to everyone, that I don't wish to be threatening - but that I am simply desperate, and gravely concerned over the fate of this article, and I don't know where else (or to whom else) to turn to effect a resolution.
I think Hemingway said that a writer should only use an adjective, when he can't come up with the correct noun.
With Sincere Best Wishes to Everyone,--Michaelsayers 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

JC, watch out for WP:CIV. All I have done is quote wikipolicy to the letter WP:CITE. Wikipedia content needs to be cited. That is the mandate by wiki policy makers. (Simonapro 08:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

It has been brought to my attention by JC that apparently WP:CITE is not a policy but a style. Unfortunately it is the only answer to WP:NOR that is policy. So I will be applying WP:NOR shortly as the deadline is almost here. I hope you all have respect for the fact that the mandate wasn't just applied right away as it should have been from day#1 but people where given 1/2 a year to cite sources. (Simonapro 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

I wasn't given 1/2 a year to cite anything, and I can't find any mention from 1/2 year ago by you of a 1/2 year deadline. The only deadline you have mentioned is the 10 day deadline.--Michaelsayers 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You claim to be a new member so you probably (1)where not here for it and (2)don't know how to read the archieve feature which is in the top right had corner. (Simonapro 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

If you wish to be dismissive of me, then go ahead. It doesn't change the facts that
1) I have repeatedly asked for the list of items that have 'unreliable' sources, which you feel obligated to delete, and yet no list or explanation is given. Why are you being non-cooperative in this regard?
2) an ultimatum such as a deadline, which doesn't take into account recent members, or which treats recent members at a lower standard than previous members, might be viewed as uncivil or inequitable
2a) I wasn't given a 1/2 year deadline, but only a 10 day deadline
3) there is no 'original research' anywhere in the article. Everything is backed up by sources - but it takes more than 10 days to collate all possible sources, and achieve an appropriate, and neutral writeup.--Michaelsayers 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this issue has been resolved. Most of the debate now realy needs to be on user-talk pages. There is no longer any unsourced statements (well, none with the {{fact}} tag...) and no sources are being questioned. Can we move on now? If anyone has a problem with any sources, make a new topic and we'll deal with it from there. ---J.S (t|c) 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&diff=68288727&oldid=68018907 <-- Here they are. (Simonapro 23:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. I am no longer frenetic; sometimes I get that way. I'll try to remain calm going forward. Presently, heavily pre-occupied with non-WP matters,--Michaelsayers 07:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the source of Simonapro's fetish concerning the material of this article. Why should anyone spend so much effort and time, when others can just point to the past articles (of which I plan on doing right here) in the history list? Any respectable researcher will look not only at the content of the current page, but examine the past modifications and reasoning for such. I decided upon reviewing the past "revisions" that it would be far easier to just accept these individual pedants as part of the social and psychological phenomenon concerning these "UFOs." At any rate, anyone who dares show a marked obsession concerning these so-called "revisions" of content must know that their own actions go on record--and as such may end up as a specimen of ridicule in a forthcoming book on the subject.--Juliusdedekind 16:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

naive fakes....

can i create w/photoshop a fake picture and includes it in this article as an evidence? the pictures used in this articles are all big fat fakes including the pseudo FBI/CIA pictures... this is pathetic. people... for J's sake... EnthusiastFR 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No. See WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. ---J.S (t|c) 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


How do I know that your comments aren't fake, Enthusiast? --Juliusdedekind 05:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

conspiracy theory section

I removed the following from the conspiracy theory section.

Probably most Ufologists believe the basic premise that various national governments are covering up UFO information. In the U.S., opinion polls again indicate that a strong majority of people believe the U.S. government is withholding such information. Various notables have also expressed such views. Some examples are astronauts Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell, Senator Barry Goldwater, Vice Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (the first CIA director), Lord Hill-Norton (former British Chief of Defense Staff and NATO head), the 1999 high-level French COMETA report by various French generals and aerospace experts, and Yves Sillard (former director of the French space agency CNES, new director of French UFO research organization GEIPAN).
There is also speculation that UFO phenomena are tests of experimental aircraft or advanced weapons. In this case UFOs are viewed as failures to retain secrecy, or deliberate attempts at disinformation: to deride the phenomenon so that it can be pursued unhindered. This explanation may or may not feed back into the previous one, where current advanced military technology is considered to be adapted alien technology. (See also: skunk works and Area 51)
It has also been suggested by a few fringe authors that all or most human technology and culture is based on extraterrestrial contact. See also ancient astronauts.

I did it because this was highly redundent to the CS article. Theres still a bunch there... but if anyone disagrees with me feel free to put it back. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the trouble is that we call people like Hynek, Friedman, Valle, et al., "ufologists" and keep the term far away from the other "ufologists" who put a lot of effort in studying UFO reports (i.e. in order to debunk them), like Menzel, Klass, etc. --Juliusdedekind 05:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out Klass under this site: www.ufowatchdog.com It says Klass has NOT done ANYTHING except snooze and smoke butts, yet can tell YOU what YOU have seen. On there, go to the "Hall of Shame 1", 7th place on it reveals it all about Klass and CISCOP. The UFO Watchdog also goes after allegedly fraudulent UFO proponents as well. Martial Law 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved here from article

We are inhabitants of planet Earth. From you?

Are we human beings alone in this vast universe that does not know its boundaries so far? Could there be intelligent beings living on planets other living? If found. Are the more advanced of us, or did not report what we have achieved progress and technological civilization? These and other questions occur to astronomers. They are trying to answer for decades, before they ascend to the human Moon on 20 July 1969. It has increased the desire and determination to search for other forms of life outside Earth.

At the end of last January announced the American Space Agency "NASA" NASA scientists were able to get in the harsh environment Mokhtbrathm similar to those characteristic of the environment of outer space is very deep, and developed what they called primitive cell, It is a film-like structures completely coated board internal cells in living organisms.

Scientists believe that the materials or structures necessary to form an antigen molecules cells, which shows the importance of the origin of life, They exist in all parts vast deep outer space. The American world "Lewis pain Ndola" The new discovery could lead to the conclusion that life exists somewhere in the vast universe with life on Earth.

Dr. "Durkin Jason" from the search for beings in outer space and the California-based life as we know it on Earth uses membrane structures to isolate the chemical processes and protection, required by the life of the factors and external conditions, namely that this is similar to the home of condoms anything outside These materials are membrane-like building materials are immense, allowing chemicals which are the origin of life required for the growth of household formation and evolution of life in other worlds.

It has enabled scientists in laboratories and NASA to provide conditions similar to those existing conditions of outer space, the vacuum is cold, It succeeded in promoting a simple mixture using UV. It is noteworthy in this connection that consists of ice cosmic chemical ordinary vehicles available daily, such as : water, methanol, or wood alcohol, ammonia, carbon dioxide, which are frozen with each other, After a period of such material collectively other materials solid strength if plunged into the water begins to form internal membrane structures in the cells of living organisms. This is true to say-God-almighty God in the Holy Quran : "We have made from water every living thing."

Radio waves

There is also a space center in the United States called the "telescope City," began broadcasting on the life outside the Earth since 1960, About one hundred completed research for 40 years, did not tire Dr. "Frank Drake," and not dictated. attempts to monitor any signs of coming from outer space, perhaps inhabitants of the other planets in the universe.

The project had been originally published as a result of research "Jeosbi Kokoni", "Philip Morrison" a world of physics, Cornell University, In this research found that radio waves might be the best way to communicate between celestial bodies; Thus monitoring the presence of any intelligent life outside Earth.

The German Alveziaian had asked at the outset of the official telescope "Jodrel weep" in London picking up any strange signals coming from abroad. The proposal was rejected, but Dr. Frank Drake gathered idea, and executed, through a telescope City in the state of West Virginia of the United States of America. Now this is a new world to explore life elsewhere in the universe; with the current possibilities which he describes as more than a hundred trillion times possibilities and fixtures which started since 40 years.

Drake says : may be residents of other worlds in our sophisticated technologies thousands of millions of years to say that everything is meaningless; Therefore, we will do what we will be in a form just what Arciolojia future.

The observatory "Jodrel Bank" London has started thereafter to monitor signals coming from outer space. Not only that, there is Mersidan doing the same work for decades, one in Portriko. and the other in Ecuador in South America. Not only is this observatories attempts to capture signals, but broadcast messages saying : We inhabitants of the earth. From you? It is multilingual, perhaps up to the intelligent beings in this vast universe.

Koran and life in the universe

It is not possible to provide conditions conducive to the emergence of life is the only reason to believe that there are other forms of life beyond the planet Earth, But there are other reasons in the forefront of which is that this vast universe contains at least 100 billion galaxies. Within each galaxy there are millions of stellar clusters, such as the solar system, which is located Planet Earth It is a part of the galaxy "path Way" which includes the range between 150 to 200 billion star, and stars revolved around these millions of planets, such as planets, which revolve around the sun. It is incomprehensible that these billions of planets with life at least in some of them.

The discovery of planets outside the solar system one of the reasons for supporting the possible existence of life in space, but in the galaxy; where scientists discovered planet larger than Jupiter orbits the star every 35 years in orbit similar to the buyer orbit around the Sun. This star in the Great Bear. As the world discovered "Alexander and Lskz" The presence of a planet similar to Earth revolves around the neutron star.

Nevertheless, the scientists did not hold physical evidence confirmed the presence of living organisms, whether reasonable or not reasonable in this vast universe, But the Koran - eternal miracle - had told a fact of life the universe and the heavens for more than 14 centuries; almighty God says : "Only God Isadjadua depart Khaba in the heavens and earth" (Al-Naml, a 25) The Khaba : plant, because grains hide in the ground, then planted out, namely, that God cleared vegetation on the ground, as well as ousted it in the sky. The meaning of this life of a plant, It is what the Dr. " Ali Hussein Abdullah "transferred from his book" Are we alone in the universe, "Dr." Muhammad Abduh Ayyash "in an article.

There is evidence Qarani another, but the existence of numbers in the sky, where the height of view : "The creation of yourselves heaven and earth and laying them from the hegemony and is assembled if he likes Kadeer" (Shura no 29) which affirms the existence of God decent numbers in the sky, and not in the land only.

Life on Mars

But there are discoveries astronomers refer to the possibility of the existence of primitive forms of life on other planets; where scientists recently discovered the existence of channels and valleys constructed water on Mars, which is called the Red Planet. The scientists also analysed the meteoroid found at the South Pole 1996, and found that the mass of rock that fell from Mars. with chemical and organic vehicles belonging to more than 3.5 billion years. It also confirms scientists that life originated first on the planet for three billion years.

In 1969 and 1971 found meteorites in Australia, Siberia and the Russian and American scientists studied and discovered there were nine acidification Amineh quality is different from those in the fingerprints, or any components, or outputs Article living on the land. Scientists still hope to find bacteria. or any primitive living cells on the surface of Mars or to the depth of several metres from the sea; and trips through the red planet with advanced equipment during this year, 2003 and 2005.

Other phenomena

Since the 1950s and 1960s to the present century, and with the intensification of a wave of research on the life outside the Earth, Many believed that the land placed under constant surveillance by intelligent beings in space, This is due to a phenomenon called "dishes plane," It is a strange objects luminous elliptical form appeared in the sky, and it has been reported that some fell on the ground. Having first emerged in 1947, and increased interest in the confidentiality added by the American agencies.

The American institutions to study lasted for twenty years. launched the project "Blue Book" to discuss the phenomenon of dishes plane. A team from the University of Colorado report ultimately concluded that the objects to the fact that this phenomenon is not voluntary, and the manufacture of imagination, Continued research is not only a waste of time.

It has been said in some quarters that these scientific objects is only satellites spy, It was in the context of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States of America.

There are also beliefs that the continent is a continent called "shuttle" mired beneath the Atlantic Ocean, It was inhabited in the past deep space robots, hallucinations up to say that the inhabitants of this continent are those who know how to build a former Egyptian pyramids.

Some researchers also believe in the strange phenomena that incidents crash over the triangle "Bermuda" is a famous base Lmkhlokat space abduct these aircraft, The research, and the passengers.

Ultimately, the fact remains that there life elsewhere in this vast universe real Quranic uncertain. The search continues for astronomers to find physical evidence of its existence.


Information is being collected for a 'research project'; it would be useful to obtain an I.P. address for this post.--Michaelsayers 08:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

UFOS from time immemorial

In the Republic of Peru in the city of the sun, which contains many of the mountains. And most of these mountains are flat, there are modern airports tracks drop-wheels - Mgrozh plane to land solid and these effects has been in existence since 50000 years so far.


In the area of claims (nation) on the borders of Libya and Algeria mountainous area contains many caves called (Tassili) and contains caves inscriptions on the astronauts and women wearing the centuries on their heads, due to charges 30000 year so far

And also contains a gate to the Sun City (Taiwatako) in Bolivia inscriptions astronauts for thousands of years

And not evidence of the existence of a plane dishes inscriptions and drawings only. It has been mentioned in the books of ancient civilizations as described dishes aircraft and space creatures such as the civilization of India, China and Tibet, Peru and Persians

What the fudge is all this? I can't even understnad what is being said here. ---J.S (t|c) 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a hypothesis about these things, and am presently collecting information for a 'research project'; it would be useful to obtain the I.P. address for the post.--Michaelsayers 08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

removed content

A lot of content has been removed. (this edit) I'm ok with most of it, except for one thing.... the Christopher Columbus quote did not require a citation. The text provided the source for the info. Because of that no other citation is required. WP:V is satisfied. A ref with a link to where someone can look it up would be nice... and it would be a great idea... but it's not required. I'll see if I can find an online copy of CC's journal, but I'd appreciate it if you replaced that portion. ---J.S (t|c) 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If noone objects, I'll replace it tommorow. ---J.S (t|c) 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully, it might be good to see what the journal says word for word, since no source of authorship is given for the paraphrase of Christopher Columbus' journal. Out of 45 books here on the subject that is called "U.F.O.s", skeptical or non-skeptical, none of them mentions Christopher Columbus (even in one dark ages-medieval-renaissance section).
This website reads in part that he, "wrote of seeing 'a great flame of fire' that crashed into the ocean---probably a meteor. He saw lights in the sky again on October 11...".
http://www.parascope.com/en/bermuda1.htm
--Michaelsayers 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Presently working on The Robertson Panel. The section that was in the article, is not informative or accurate. There is no listing given of the panel members (which included Goudsmit, who is credited with discovery of electron spin; Ruppelt; a C.I.A.-O./S.I. Deputy Assistant Director; the [then] Chief of the Operations Staff for the C.I.A.-O./S.I.; Hynek). There is no history given of the documentation declassification. I will include statements about the panel, from panel member and participant sources, with accurate sourcing.--Michaelsayers 23:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

After this, I can go through some indexes, and attempt neutral and accurate write-ups of the numerous and multifarious cases that were excised. One of the indexes is a 190 page, line by line compilation of global landing cases 1868-1968, with full citations - it includes 200 "major" press references. Somewhere in these talk pages, it was mentioned that the article is overly U.S. oriented - the references for this index are in English, Spanish, German, French, Russian, et cetera.
I'll add references to sources arguing that most of these (and some in particular) are small-town publicity stunts [Aurora 1897 (not precisely a "landing"), et c.].
Second priority though, after The Robertson Panel (where so many threads of the U.F.O. subject having historical value seem to be intertwined), will be accurate mention of Project Blue Book Special Report #14, for reason of its scientific value. The Battelle Memorial Institute study, listed in the article, was published (with added prefaces, et c.) in 1955 as Project Blue Book Special Report #14. The findings need to be accurately listed in the article - as does the factual discrepancy between statistics announced publicly by the Air Force, and the statistcs documented internally [in 'confidential' and above classifications of document].
A fourth priority may be to put forward for discussion, minute changes to the article to remove characterizations of those who file U.F.O. reports as "believers", because it is a matter of opinion and of philosophical presupposition as to whether or not enough data has been gathered to remove the subject that is called "U.F.O.'s" from the realm of the extraordinary, to that of the ordinary [in consonance with the Hume book chapter, and a noted - but definitely not summary - statement which was repeated by Carl Sagan]. Similarly, the reference to "notoriously unreliable eyewitnesses", seems quite judgemental.
The excised section on 'green fireballs' doesn't mention that, beginning with the transfer of the nuclear material from the base in New Mexico, to Fort Hood, Texas, there were also reports of green fireballs over the Fort Hood site. The geographic isolation of the reports to the two areas then of nuclear weapons significance, yielded a considerable amount of documentation [I would have been concerned by this focus of repeated reports, too]. It also doesn't mention that some green fireball reports include observed changes of trajectory.
The excised line on Meier doesn't mention Kal Korff's skeptical expose.
I won't implement any changes to the article at will (and, indeed, I am inept at use of the tools for direct WP article editing), but rather shall wait for others to agree to the suitability of any of these proposed "returns" to the U.F.O. article. Interestingly, Cpt. Ruppelt - who later was a Robertson Panel member - had, prior to the panel's inception in 1952, argued for the Air Force's decision to use the non-descriptive "U.F.O. reports" - rather than the descriptive "flying saucer reports". This history of the nomenclature isn't listed in the article.
I was intent on suggesting article changes and revisions very slowly, over a long period of time (1-2 years), and was totally unprepared for the sudden excision of content. I was hoping to have at least 3-4 weeks to mull over the article as it was prior to the excision of content, and to take things at a leisurely and careful pace, since the subject is so intellectually challenging. So I apologize again for having interpreted the action to be brusque and dismissive, and also for my having announced elaborate plans to re-achieve harmony (all such elaborate plans are now withdrawn). I am calmly proceeding now on the premiss that the editorial approach to content is one of fact-gathering - let the facts speak for themselves - neutrality.
I have no time table to announce, due to heavy non-WP preoccupations, and I am hoping that others will do what they can (or, desire) to restore the gaping holes, and ripped seams, of the article. I'll do the very best of which I am capable, and I am hoping that others can correct any mistakes I make, and that everyone here will come up with all manner of "returns" so that this will feel like a community endeavor.
I am planning to include data from significant "skeptical" sources in relation to all of the above, in addition to the [historically considered, neutral] raw data sources, and the "non-skeptical" historical and cultural artifacts that originated hencefrom.
I likely will not access WP, or this page, for the next seven days - at which time, the Robertson Panel write up will be ready for upload to the talk page. I intend to let others decide what to include of all this in the article, and how much of it, or not. I am hoping to inspire effort by everyone.
Best Wishes to Everyone Here,--Michaelsayers 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Re. Christopher Columbus, I didn't mean to discourage the re-adding.--Michaelsayers 09:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually found a website with that sections of his journals... it looks like some websites are assuming too much. Then again, I can't tell for sure if that website is real. For now, lets leave it out until we can verify the primary source. ---J.S (t|c) 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[5] [6] - 2 sources... they said they saw a light. They thought it was something on the land. They never identified it... *shrug* Point is the origional inclusion was a bit wrong. ---J.S (t|c) 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The number and scope of the data sources in relation to the Robertson Panel, including biographies and papers related to each panel member, is simply amazing. I am sorry about the delay in arriving at the write up.--Michaelsayers 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(URGENT) Citation improvement

As the article is currently conforming to wikipolicy the WP:CITE style is helping to prevent WP:NOR violations. The next step should be to check (YES YOU!) that the citations actually use standards set by WP:CITE. A very high percentage of the citations use web site citations, many of which do not meet the criteria set by WP:CITE. It would be best to cross-reference these citations with citations that are more in line with the quality sought after in WP:CITE. If it is the WP:CITE policy you want to debate, then now is the time to do so. If you have added citations to the article that use web sites as your source then you may want to find another published cite adhering to the criteria in WP:CITE. (Simonapro 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

Cite is not a policy and it's recommendations are not binding. WP:V has been satisfied and I see no evidence that WP:NOR has been violated. Websites ARE acceptable sources. If you have problems with individual sources or citations then post a list of them here... otherwise... we can't read your mind. ---J.S (t|c) 17:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not say that websites are acceptable sources. What wikipolicy teaches with regards to using the WP:CITE style is that you must cite RELIABLE sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:RS. (Simonapro 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
Please review WP:TALK. Indents are important in making a conversation readable.
Also, there is no need link every time you use "WP:CITE." 1 link is enough.
You use policy inappropriately. You use it like a sword to force other editors into doing what you want. I find that unacceptable. I'm not even sure you understand the point of the policies. Every time you reference policy wrong you make me think you haven't even read it. Have you? You don't like something in the article? Then fix it. It took me 30 min to find the sources that you demanded. You could have found them yourself. It would have been easy. Why didn't you do it? ---J.S (t|c) 19:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I did't invent WP:RS. Wikipedia policy makers did. I can't just go and say whatever I want by citing any web page that says whatever I want it to say, then claim that my article submission complies fully with WP:V. That is not what wikipedia is for and WP:RS tells you that as plain as day. I don't have a problem with this method because it works. (Simonapro 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
Thanks for indenting. Now lets see if we can work on getting you to look at WP:CIVIL? I personally enjoy the WP:DICK article too. ---J.S (t|c) 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well since you haven't refuted Wikipedia:Reliable sources (and to be honest I don't think you can because it is policy) then the policy can be enforced by whoever wants to enforce it. Since we use and promote the WP:CITE style in the article to prevent WP:NOR from continuing, the next step is to actually comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This means the web page sources will have to comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources or else they simply do not comply with wikipolicy and that means that the related article content can be removed because the content still violates WP:NOR .(Simonapro 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC))
WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy. There is a difference. If you have a problem with specific sources, please note them in the new section I created. Then we can talk about them one at a time and reach a consenus. Untill you do that there is nothing I can do to improve them. ---J.S (t|c) 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can't do anything then leave it alone. WP:NOR is the policy and WP:CITE is the style used with Wikipedia:Reliable sources to ensure that an article contribution meets wikipedia guidelines WP:NOT (Simonapro 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

The WP policy sheets do not provide a catalogue of links that are deemed unreliable. While one is certainly allowed to be of a personal opinion, based on original research, that a link is unreliable, original research can not be included in WP articles in any fashion. I am sorry, but this is WP policy.

To quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability -

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit, or [who] wish an edit to remain."

If you do these edits, Simonapro, the edits might be reversed, in which case if you are adamant about your edits being preserved, the "burden of evidence" will be put on you as to why you "wish" for each "edit to remain". Sincerely,--Michaelsayers 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm realy ok with reviewing the sources... but there are so many I can't review them all. If Simonapro gives me a list, we can go though them together. Perhapse diffrent ones can be found... perhapse we'll find a few that are so lacking they must be removed. *Shrug* But we need to start with a list... ---J.S (t|c) 08:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
So many days have passed since this review was first suggested, without any list having been provided, that I am led to wonder just how much interest there is in proceeding. Perhaps, if there is a review, for the sake of neutrality the decisions can be free from dogmatic and political bias [based on critical thinking, rather than on dogmatism or skepticism]. If the prior statement needs more clarity, please let me know.--Michaelsayers 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources...

Please list any unreliable sources here. Until that is done I'll assume everything is fine. ---J.S (t|c) 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A non-reliable source is one designated as such by the military,govt., people following "The Party Line". They do a UFO, other type of storyline, they get quashed, the reporter will often get disciplined, even fired. This is under the media catagory of the Robertson Panel, related protocol. Martial Law 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, were talking about non-reliable under the standards of wikipedia. Unless we have government agents here everything should be fair. ---J.S (t|c) 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This debate is closed... the result of the debate was 7 Oppose, 1 Support - a nearly unanimous consensus against the move. Like always, the subject can be re-opened, but should be done in a new poll. ---J.S (t|c) 23:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object → Alien Spacecraft – By DEFINITION, UFO means "Unidentified flying object." That's the DEFINITION of the word. Connecting to to alien spaceships not only contradicts the "unidentified" part of the word, but it's creating confusion. For the people that want to think that all "UFO's" are alien technology, they should find a better word, one that's more suiting, such as ALIEN SPACECRAFT. This article should be moved on "Alien spacecraft" for that very reason. UFO is nothing more than a word and should be defined on the Wikitionary. It's just plain ignorant to call all alien spacecrafts "UFO's", so why let the ignorance spread to Wikipedia? Anonymouses 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose, big time. If you move this article to Alien Spacecraft or whatever, we will still need an article called Unidentified Flying Object. The obvious thing to do is to remove irrelevancy from the article so that it fits the title. Moriori 21:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Perhaps part the article can be split out into a separate article about Alien spacecraft, but there's sufficient content that is strictly about UFO's. --Usgnus 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly the primary topic of this article is objects that can't/haven't been identified... but also, it would be foolhardy to not acknowledge the common mis-use of the word. We don't need to explore that topic any further than to provide a link to the right article however. See, this is what you do when you're trying to build a useful encyclopedia. (Yeah yeah, they are two different topics and belong in two different articles, but they should be linked for those who are confused.) ---J.S (t|c) 23:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let the aliens write their own article if they want one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Usgnus and Moriori. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Moriori. –Shoaler (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • HYPERSTRONG OPPOSE: Not all UFOs are alien constructs. Some may be demons, angels, Time Travellers, other extra-dimensionals, US and other nations' Black Ops craft, craft from what survived from Atlantis, what survived from previous civilizations that were on this planet. Seen a pix of a model airplane found in a Mayan tomb. Some may be alien craft. Not all are. Martial Law 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the phenomenon of UFOs may well have nothing to do with alien spacecraft. There are many theories. Metamagician3000 10:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. UFO in popular usage actually does refer to any hypothetic alien spacecraft. Voortle 03:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Comment: what is the point of this? People use the initials "UFO" to refer to two things. This article covers the primary and more correct of those two things. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it in the opening paragraph and provide a link to the right place. ---J.S (t|c) 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. It's the more wrong of the two. Like I said before, once you see a flying saucer and announce there's an alien in it, are you not identifying said object, thus contradicting the definition of the acronym? Yes, it means the same as "alien spacecraft" now but only because ignorant people are unaware of the definition, or are just overlooking it. There doesn't need to be a page under UFO, like I said above, because it's an acronym. It needs to be in the WIKITIONARY. Wikipedia should not support such ignorance on the level of calling "alien spacecraft" UFO's. Everything past the FIRST LINE is about "alien spacecraft" and is irrelevent to the information of UFO. But the first line is something that should be in the Wikitionary. --Anonymouses 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhapse you should re-read the article. It talks about the theories. That is important when discussing the subject of UFOs. If you'd look closer you'd notice more then one theory is talked about and criticisms are given for each. It's even mentioned that people use the acronym wrong. ---J.S (t|c) 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You cannot have theories about what is already defined! "I have a theory that all unidentified flying objects are alien craft." That makes no sense! Like I said before, the theories about the Alien Spacecraft should be in their own article, named Alien Spacecraft. There is no point in listing the "theories" about what is in the air. It could be a plane, a tennis ball, a space shuttle, a sattelite, etc. --Anonymouses 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
UFO's haven't actually been defined... that's why there still unidentified. When there is a mystery, you can have a theory about what that might be. I'm realy not sure what your goal is here. ---J.S (t|c) 05:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
A theory about aliens is a theory about aliens. A theory about something unidentifiable in the sky is something else. Theories of aliens (saucers, spacecraft and the like) should stay within those Wiki pages. The alien theories have no relevance in explaining what the acronym "UFO" means and thus it's pointless to have both in the same article. --Anonymouses 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a theory about UFOs. 1 theory is delusions. 1 theory is hoaxes. 1 theory is craft from another world. 1 theory is experimental terrestrial craft. People have conflicting theories about UFOs. They have theories because of the U. You make theories about things we don't know yet. That's called hypothesising. This whole debate about what UFOs might be is very big. Alot of important people have wondered. Bill Clinton asked his staffers to find out. Jimmy Carter claims to have seen a craft he couldn't identify. The goverments of USA, Russia, UK, Australia and others have openly conducted studies to try to find out. I don't understand how this isn't obviously a topic that should have an article. ---J.S (t|c) 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a theory about aliens, not UFO's. "I saw a UFO, and I think it's an alien." There is no "I think I saw a UFO." Either you identify the object or not, there is no doubt here. If someone says "I think I saw a UFO" they are misusing the word! Misuse on such a major scale (a whole article focusing around something that is misusing the word) is not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for facts. Theories, too, have their place on Wikipedia, but in theory places. Like I said, a theory about an alien spacecraft is a theory on aliens, not on UFO's. A theory on UFO's is generalizing and is saying that ALL UFO's are this item, which is simply impossible, as anything can be a UFO if you define it correctly. --Anonymouses 20:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: My main two points:

1. Once you identify an "unidentified flying object" as an alien craft, it's no longer an "unidentified flying object." 2. How much sense does it make to classify all "UFO's" as "alien crafts?" (Some people believe UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft,) This line is saying "Some people believe unidentified flying objects are alien spacecraft. Well, what if I can't identify an object in the sky that actually is an airplane, for instance? Wow, no sense made in that line there. --Anonymouses 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it's worth arguing with you... but I'll try one last time. People don't know what these things are. Some people have made suggestions about what they could be. That's what this article is about. You know why we have an article about it? Because it's a huge mystery and tons of people have talked about it. If you don't think wikipedia should explore the topic of UFOs, then feel free to nominate the article for deletion. (See: WP:AFD). I'd really love to see that nomination. And how about this... I won't even make an argument for keeping the article. ---J.S (t|c) 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymouses - first of all what you are asking is pretty advanced stuff for the quality of this article to date. We are still trying to get contributors to actually cite verifiable sources first. As for your suggestion... what we have is a historical record for the use of the phrase UFO to sometimes imply Alien Spacecraft. Obviously a direct contradiction of terms but used none-the-less. IMO, this article should identify the contradiction in the terminology. However your approach would be better suited to creating an article called Alien Spacecraft and on completition suggest linkage or even a merger if that may be the case. (Simonapro 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

I think there already is an article that covers the topic... "Extraterrestrial hypothesis". ---J.S (t|c) 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Because of such beliefs, in pop culture, UFO is commonly used to refer to any hypothetical alien spacecraft, even ones that would be identified as such, despite the etymology. - In the opening of the article. ---J.S (t|c) 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Then all alien spacecraft references should be moved to alien spacecraft, to use completely correct terminology here. If Wikipedia is trying to go for accuracy, then the correct etymology should be respected and thus all discussion of "alien spacecraft" should be moved into a seperate wiki, with a note in this wiki stating that. --Anonymouses 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people think that some UFOs might be aliens. You might not like it, but it's true. Some people have gained quite a bit of notability for studying (or debunking) those (and other) theories. Here's how the article is: "People see UFOs. Some people think there X, some people think there Y and these people over here think they might be Z." What is wrong with that? ---J.S (t|c) 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I see an unidentified object on the ground. Tom thinks it's a rake, I think it's a shovel. Does that mean we should both add our theories on a wikipedia page? Look, your "alien theories" have no place in this wikipedia entry. The page on UFO's needs to explain what a UFO is (any unidentifiable flying object) and not alien theories. You think you saw an alien spacecraft? Great, add it to the alien spacecraft section. The UFO page is not for what you see and have made theories about, because a UFO is any object, not just aliens. Aliens do not belong in the UFO page! --Anonymouses 20:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:

If my evil brother throws something at me, it is a UFO until I can identify it. Is it an alien spacecraft? Probably not! I would call that sort of misinterpretation biased and pointy.
This caption here (from the article) is confusing: "Photo of an alleged UFO taken in New Hampshire in 1870". It could be identified as a flying stick, or it could be unidentified... but I don't know if that's the point. Maybe the writer is actually saying "alleged" UFO as in it's either an unidentified flying object or it's a UFO... or as in it's either a flying stick or an alien spacecraft?
Quite confusing. A move and a rewrite would be a good thing. Alien Spacecraft, however, is not the appropriate title for a new article as it is also very much about one's point of view; perhaps simply the UFO Phenomenon or some such, since these are cases of unidentified perhaps flying objects. It just doesn't feel orderly to put them into the same article as what should be telling people, plain and simple, that UFO is an abbreviation for something flying that has not been identified. Identifying the term UFO with something identifiable is redundant. --Anonymouses 12:14, 16 August 2006 (PDT) [False signiture, I did not write that. But I do agree with it! --Anonymouses 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)]

Have you sat down and read though the article line by line? The first quarter of the article is the history of UFO sightings. I hope that's obviously acceptable in a UFO article. The very first mention of Aliens is in the pop-culture section describing the "UFO-Cults" that have sprung up and what they believe in. I'm not sure why that isn't acceptable when your dealing with an article on UFOs. Then next mention of extraterrestrial craft is in a paragraph dealing with a number of polls that asked what people thought UFOs were. Again, that seems obviously acceptable to me. The next mention is "No national government has ever publicly suggested that UFOs represent any form of alien intelligence." That seems reasonable to mention. The next mention is almost a quarter of the page further down in "Popular ideas for explaining UFOs" Seems a logical place to me, right? Again, the article isn't taking a point of view here, just presenting facts. I could go thought the entire article like this. Alien spacecrafts is NOT the theme of this article. Everything in the article is about flying objects that have remained unidentified. I challenge you to find one sentence that doesn't relate to the subject in some way. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, J.smith, they are not UFO sightings, they are alleged ALIEN SIGHTINGS. It's the misuse of the word that you're turning this on me. Yes, people are calling them "UFO" sightings, but are they UFO sightings? No, they're theories about aliens. Infact, you know what? I just saw something in the sky. I didn't know what it was. It was unidenfied, it was flying and it was an object. Now, since I saw a UFO, am I allowed to put this recent sighting into the article? I hope by this example you will see how pointless it is to call the "alien theories" something more along the lines of "UFO theories." --Anonymouses 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, these are theories about UFOs. When you group a list of things together you use the common element to categorize them. There are 5-6 theories listed and only 1 is about aliens. Please, I beg of you, read the actual article.
As for your question... In a general sense, If you could satisfy the requirements of inclusion... that means we would need to find verification other then yourself published in a reliable secondary source. That means media outlets typically. It would also need to be an important sighting... otherwise it would be better in the List of UFO sightings.
There is a clear oppose consensus in this "debate". I'll be closing this debate when I get home from the baseball game I'm going to go watch. It will be in about... 7-8 hours. ---J.S (t|c) 22:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ufology cruft...

I've merged some of the Ufology cruft over to the Ufology article. If anyone objects let me know and I'll put it back here... ---J.S (t|c) 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete re-write.

This article needs one, and bad. Due to the definition of "Unidentified flying object" it is pointless and meaningless to add every "sighting" of said unidentified flying object. I saw a thing shining in the sky, and I could not identify it. Should I add it into the wikipedia page? Also, under each picture, it says either "claimed," "alleged," or something similar. How can you have an alleged unidentified flying object? Either it's identified, or it's not. The article focuses too much on a specific craft or appearence than the fact that "UFO" can mean anything that is unidentified and flying and is an object. Almost the entire article revolves around the misuse of the word "UFO" as stated in the first paragraph. "To account for hardcore unsolved cases, a number of explanations have been proposed by both proponents and skeptics. " Skeptics? Skeptics of WHAT, exactly? People who are skeptic that it is sometimes impossible to indentify a flying object in the sky, or skeptic of "special unidentifiable craft" that is borrowing on the name UFO and have nothing to do with this article? This article is using the terminology wrong so many times that it seriously needs a major rewrite, and fast. UFO is not a term to describe this stuff. (Yes, it's a UFO by definition, but so is that thing in the air that I can't identify. And hey, it happens to just be a stick.) A really strong example of my case is the See Also section. Almost EVERY LINK in there has to do with "aliens" or "alien-related" sections. This article needs NOTHING TO DO WITH ALIENS! A UFO is, by definition, an unidentified flying object. Not all unidentified flying object are aliens. Not all unidentified flying objects are crafts. The article needs the definition, and nothing else. The article does not need talk about certain objects being UFOs (see above, how a stick can be a UFO), the article does not need UFO sightings (the stick) and the article does not need to talk about how people are skeptic that UFO's exist (see: the stick). All references use the term incorrectly. Although so does the majority of the population, wikipedia should NOT. The people who are using this term incorrectly need to go and find a correct term to use, because UFO is not a good term for you. UFO is a general term for anything unidentified and SHOULD NOT be used to describe an object. (Similiarly, you should not talk about "circular object sightings" and "circular objects" under circle) I really hope you people can see that the article is on bad terms and should be completely rewritten to remove all things even slightly referencing aliens, crafts, or anything besides the definition and the common misuse of the word. For example, here's a good replacement (A UFO or unidentified flying object is any real or apparent flying object which remains unidentified after investigation.

In pop culture, UFO is commonly used to refer to any hypothetical alien spacecraft, even ones that would be identified as such, despite the etymology.) --Anonymouses 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Note: A name you could use to describe these "alleged UFO sightings" could easily be "Sightings of paranormal craft" instead of UFO. --Anonymouses 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The topics of "UFO" and "aliens" can't be separated, and since this isn't a dictionary, we need to explore the topic of unidentified objects and what people think they might be. How could we explore what people think they might be without mentioning the extraterrestrial hypothesis? ---J.S (t|c) 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
J.Smith, UFO is a label to describe ANYTHING THAT IS UNIDENTIFIED. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT EVERYTHING WITHIN THAT LABEL IS ONE PARTICULAR THING. You are using the acronym incorrectly here! If I throw a rock in the air and my neighbor sees it but does not know what it is, it's a UFO to him! You cannot say that "I believe that all UFO's are [insert object here]." because that is completely ignorant and disregarding the example mentioned above with the rock. Wikipedia is not a place for ignorance. UFO's are unidentified flying objects and have NOTHING TO DO WITH ALIENS. Here, I've even thought of a better article to put those "theories" in: unexplained paranormal events. Oh, and by the way: the ETH uses the term incorrectly there, too. Thanks. I'll get on their case about it soon. --Anonymouses 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the word UFO has nothing to do with aliens, and that people are using it sounds a bit pedantic to me. That's how the majority of the population uses it, and saying that they're wrong is just pedantic. Voortle 03:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the difference between "UFOs are BLAH" and "This person thinks UFOS might be BLAH." If the first statement was what in the article you'd be right. However, the article makes the second statement so your utterly and absolutely wrong.
Why are you ok with the 5 other hypothesis mentioned in the article and not with the extraterrestrial hypothesis? To remove one notable theory from an article would be to present a lopsided view of the subject. Policy won't stand for that kind of thing. ---J.S (t|c) 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately Anonymouses, many dictionary defintions say that the term UFO is used also in reference to a UFO considered to have extraterrestrial origins. Personally I think that is a terrible definition but that is just the way it has panned out. (Simonapro 08:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC))
This article does not need any rewrite at all. There are a lot of theories as to what these things are, incl. alien craft. Martial Law 05:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymouses, the most effective way to advocate the dual proposition you stated that "[1]UFO's are unidentified flying objects and [2] have NOTHING TO DO WITH ALIENS"), would be to add content and references for the work of Klass, Menzel, Korff, et al. I don't think there would be any resistance to this. I'll attempt this eventually, if no one else does it first.

For the ratio of words typed, to effective results, I think what I have suggested would be the best path for you to follow.

Contrary to your examples, I can't think of even a single Project Blue Book report that was determined to have been either a stick, or a rock, that had been thrown into the air.--Michaelsayers 10:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Seen some of Klass's work. Found out on UFO Watchdog that he has not done any investigative work at all, yet can tell YOU what YOU have seen. The site is www.ufowatchdog.com. Martial Law 20:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Look under "Hall of Shame 1", 7th on this list. Martial Law 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read two of Klass' books, and am acquainted with his methods of demystification. Contrary to what you state, he has done investigative work; unless I am misinformed, he travelled to Iran to speak with various parties in relation to the Tehran 1976 reports. --Michaelsayers 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The site says all he did was smoke butts and snooze, worse. CISCOP was also implicated. Martial Law 06:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"Implicated" in Klass' smoking and drinking?--Michaelsayers 11:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What I am saying is that I don't understand precisely what the website accuses. It doesn't offer much in the way of sources or references.--Michaelsayers 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Robertson Panel

Did you know that the Robertson Panel does:

  1. Ridicule people who see/encounter UFOs/aliens by having them declared mentally unfit, destroying any social, other standing that they may have had ? It uses shrinks to do this.
  2. Use all media to ridicule the UFO and/or alien mystery ? That is why people laugh at people who have seen/encounter these things. I've seen old animation, humorous articles showing aliens shaking hands with gasoline hoses, electric wires, people popping pills and drinking booze and then having "alien encounters". The intent was to ridicule people who have had these encounters.
  3. Spy on UFO orgs and groups, personnel?
This was initiated in 1953 after Washington DC was involved in a major UFO incident, to ostensibly prevent a panic that a unfriendly power, such as the (now defunct) USSR could use to great advantage in a war. Martial Law 05:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It was initated by the CIA Martial Law 05:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That protocol is still being followed today. Martial Law 05:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Two points. First, why are you here with this instead of at Talk:Robertson Panel? There's only a single line in the article about them. Second, please follow policy and keep the talk page about how to edit the article itself, not general discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Will comply. Martial Law 22:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I realize that it is quiet at Talk:Robertson Panel but still... -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Can a copy of this discussion be placed on the Robertson Panel's Talk Page ? Martial Law 05:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Since the rewrite matter has been decided, can the appropriate templates be removed from the article ? Martial Law 06:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think so. It can be put back on if there is any further need. ---J.S (t|c) 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

UFO Watchdog Org

This org claims to expose anyone, BOTH UFO proponents and UFO Skeptics AS alleged frauds. Among those claimed to be frauds is Klass and CISCOP. Website is www.ufowatchdog.com. Seen this in their "Hall of Shame 1", 7th on their list. Martial Law 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Needs more fiber in his diet...an anal probe from the aliens wouldn't hurt either." Yeah, that sure looks like a legitimate reliable peer-reviewed website to me. Oh yeah, he never said he was a fraud... just a "pain in the ass." What exactly are you talking about? ---J.S (t|c) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of clarity here. C.I.S.C.O.P. (which is not a person), deals with all manner of subjects (not only U.F.O.s).--Michaelsayers 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They claim to be a investigative body that allegedly exposes fraudulent personnel, orgs, both UFO proponents and skeptics. I've examined the site myself. Martial Law 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
CISCOP is mentioned under the Klass entry as well. Martial Law 06:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
They also have a "Hall of Fame" as well. Martial Law 06:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Malevolent Alien Abduction Research org

This site claims that aliens, incl. the Greys are hostile to the human race. Site is www.maar.us. Martial Law 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio

These two radio shows often discuss aliens, UFOs in general. They are Coast To Coast AM and Jeff Rense's radio show. Martial Law 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sites are www.coasttocoastam.com and www.rense.com. Martial Law 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Every Fri. NIGHT, usually, they have "Open Lines, incl. a SPECIAL Line". Main request is that one does NOT use profanity while on the air. Jeff's radio show may have a similar request. BOTH talk about UFOs, aliens from time to time. Martial Law 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to link to every radio program in the world that deals with aliens. And it's especially not ok when they have articles on wikipedia. Unless the website is directly being referenced as a source, link to the article, not their homepage. ---J.S (t|c) 20:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Links have been cited as sources only. Martial Law 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mysteries Megasite:UFOs

This site links to several UFO websites and data sites. Site is www.mysteries-megasite.com Clicking on UFOs will take the reader to several UFO websites and data sites. Martial Law 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the sites mentioned here in the article may be from this collection. Martial Law 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics

Website is www.popularmechanics.com I have two copies which have UFO/Alien matter in them. One has a UFO on the cover, another has what appears to be a naked Grey female alien on the cover. This magazine normally specializes in machinery, home and automotive matters, some military tech matters. Is that useful in the article ? The one with the UFO lists some UFO cases, bits of the Robertson Panel protocol, such as if the witness is a kid, the incident report is to be ignored outright, while the one with the naked alien discribed what and how alien life will look like. Martial Law 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

UFOBs (extraterrestrial craft) descriptions and pics (from Maj12 1954 docs)

For what it's worth (I'm not copying this over into the main page, because I don't know the situation wrt copyright issues, or authenticity, let alone supposed prior top-secret status), descriptions of UFOBs (extraterrestrial craft) from the Majestic-12 Special Operations Manual, April 1954 (source: http://www.majesticdocuments.com/) 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Description of Craft Documented extraterrestrial craft (UFOBs) are classified in one of four categories based on general shape, as follows:

a. Elliptical, or disc shape. This type of craft is of metallic construction and dull aluminium in color. They have the appearance of two pie-pans or shallow dishes pressed together and may have a raised dome on the top or bottom. No seams or joints are visible on the surface, giving the impression of one-piece construction. Discs are estimated from 50-300 feet in diameter and the thickness is approximately 15 per cent of the diameter, not including the dome, which is 30 per cent of the disc diameter and extends another 4-6 feet above the main body of the disc. The dome may or may not include windows or ports, and ports are present around the lower rim of the disc in some instances. Most disc-shaped craft are equipped with lights on the top and bottom, and also around the rim. These lights are not visible when the craft is at rest or not functioning. There are generally no visible antenna or projections. Landing gear consists of three extendible legs ending in circular landing pads. When fully extended this landing gear supports the main body 2-3 feet above the surface at the lowest point. A rectangular hatch is located along the equator or on the lower surface of the disc.
b. Fuselage or cigar shape. Documented reports of this type of craft are extremely rare. Air Force radar reports indicate they are approximately 2 thousand feet long and 95 feet thick, and apparently they do not operate in the lower atmosphere. Very little information is available on the performance of these craft, but radar reports have indicated speeds in excess of 7,000 miles per hour. They do not appear to engage in the violent and erratic maneuvers associated with the smaller types.
c. Ovoid or circular shape. This type of craft is desribed as being shaped like an ice cream cone, being rounded at the large end and tapering to a near-point at the other end. They are approximately 30-40 feet long and the thick end diameter is approximately 20 per cent of the length. There is an extremely bright light at the pointed end, and this craft usually travels point down. They can appear to be any shape from round to cylindrical, depending upon the angle of observation. Often sightings of this type of craft are elliptical craft seen at an inclined angle or edge-on.
d. Airfoil or triangular shape. This craft is believed to be new technology due to the rarity and recency of the observations. Radar indicates an isosceles triangle profile, the longest side being nearly 300 feet in length. Little is known about the performance of these craft due to the rarity of good sightings, but they are believed capable of high speeds and abrupt maneuvers similar to or exceeding the performance attributed to types "a" and "c".

Image:UFOBs - extraterrestrial craft chart (maj12).gif Dhatz 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't copy it to the main page. The Maj12 doucments are known to be forgeries, and hence fictional, and unlikely to be allowable as fair use. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on the "known to be forgeries" comment? I obviously have no opinion on MAJ12 docs authenticity, other than having read their site's page on authenticity and the fact that the types of craft shown above seem to correspond to sighting reports over the years. Dhatz 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can personally testify that the documents in their published book do not conform to the format for "codeword" secret documents from that time or since. I suppose it's possible that the format for higher-clearance documents than I have ever had access to would be different, but it seems very unlikely.
The date format on the documents do not resemble those at the time, or since, but the format was used up to WWII.
I've read, but have not verified from the original documents, that the list of the dozen or so people who had original classification authority during that time has been declassified, and the names quoted do not appear. (And the individuals quotes, now conviently dead, never had a security clearance or were stationed elsewhere than specified in the documents.)
My source for dozens of other authenticity errors is from the Skeptical Inquirer, although I can't provide he exact URL at the moment. If you're interested, I can research it... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Found it. [7] from the 2000 Skeptical Inquirer, and [8] for a list of articles in volumes 12-14, and 24 (index entry MJ-12) and 25 (index entry Majestic 12). The volume number + 1976 is the year of publication. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thx for feedback. Basically in MAJ12 SOM I was trying to find and cite a sortof "authoritative" categorisation of UFO descriptions. I had in mind something like this fellow's UFO sighting categorisation (http://www.uforth.com/index.htm) with photos and stories (but preferrably condensed into fewer than his 20+ categories) Dhatz 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say that the formatting doesn't look right to me either, for similar and higher classification codeword documents. But then, I have seen various different formats depending on where I worked and when, so the formats shown aren't totally implausible. Also, it's not unheard of for a government employee to write a document as a joke. On the other hand, an agency may deliberately make a document nonconforming to standards so that it wouldn't be considered legitimate if leaked.... who knows? -Amatulic 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

"A UFO or unidentified flying object is any real or apparent flying object which remains unidentified after investigation."

Why only after investigation? This sounds wrong, and it's not my understand of the term, or how I would use it. If (hypothetically) I saw something in the sky that I could not identify, does it only become a UFO after it's been investigated? (And by who? In what way?) What am I supposed to call it in the meantime? Suggest this should say: "A UFO or unidentified flying object is any real or apparent flying object which has not been identified and classified as a known phenomena."

I think "investigation" in this setting is using the widest possible definition. I'd have no problem with a re-phrase to your definition however. ---J.S (t|c) 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Consider another intro-definition phrasing:
A UFO or unidentified flying object is any object or light, reportedly sighted in the sky, that cannot be immediately explained by the observer.
as a layman's version of Britannica's definition
also called flying saucer any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily explainable to the observer
This proposed definition is used in both MS Encarta and Britannica encyclopedias
The best scientifically accepted definition of a UFO is probably that provided by the late astronomer J. Allen Hynek, who said that the UFO is simply "the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior 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 UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.) Dhatz 23:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Einstein's theory of special relativity, and the problem's it shows for interstellar travel."

I know that you are not going to like the idea but, this article needs a paragraph on physics, in particular how it would be problematic for a UFO to get here. Even from Alpha Centauri, (the nearest star system), light takes 4.39 years to get here. Einstein's theory of special relativity states that to propel any object with mass, at the speed of light would require infinite energy. Ic0lh1b00 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your making a common mistake. UFOs are not necessarily Alien Spacecraft. (all that have been eventually identified wernt so far) This would need to go into the sub-article called Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. That article deals directly with the theory that some UFOs are Aliens. Whenever you see the phrase "UFO" in this article, replace it with "could be anything" in your head, and you'll get as better perspective on what this article is about.
Einstein's theory does pose problems for these hypothetical beings... but these problems aren't necessarily insurmountable under our own understanding of physics. Even if travel takes 1000 years, that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Concepts like hibernation, etc could make it possible. We won't know untill we ask them. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Try FTL Drives. I've heard this from military sources. I'm a military brat after all. I've also seen this on some UFO sites as well. Long ago, it was the accepted paradigm that travelling FASTER than SOUND will kill "you" and destroy the plane. Martial Law 07:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a UFO book that says that Gene Roddenberry got the idea for Star Trek from attending UFO conferences. Incl. in that are FTL engines, and of course, the famous Prime Directive. Martial Law 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
1) UFOs means that 'we don't know what they are' not that they are aliens in space ships (they might be Russia or American jets, hoaxes, or misunderstood natural lights) 2) Einstein might be wrong. He wouldn't be the first physisist to make a mistake about the fundamental nature of the universe. Hawkings is smarter, and he made a mistake about the preservation of material paterns entering a black hole a while back.
perfectblue 17:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did you repeat my point? Did you simply not read the entire thread you respond to? ---J.S (t|c) 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What, you'd rather have people think that you're the only person in the world with this opinion? perfectblue 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

UFO sites/Link Compliance

www.breakingufonews.com:Latest UFO/Alien News, and www.alienadvice.com: Advisory and Support group for people who had seen a UFO/Alien. Martial Law 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Image caption

The image caption says "This is an alleged 1952 UFO over". Alleged? Either it's unidentified and then it's a UFO, or it's identified and then it's an IFO. I don't get the "alleged" part. // Liftarn

It's allegedly a photo of a UFO. You can correct the caption if you wish. Moriori 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Non Sightings?

I don't think this section belongs here, but I think it should be discussed first. Perhaps it belongs in the "Scientic Skepticism" article under "See Also" or section. Mapetite526 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

UFO's falsely labled aircraft or weather balloons

The following statement from the intro is problematic:

"Once a UFO is identified as a known object (for example an aircraft or weather balloon), it ceases to be a UFO and becomes an identified object. In such cases it is inaccurate to continue to use the acronym UFO to describe the object."

What about a hypothetical situation where the government intentionally misidentified a UFO/Flying saucer as a aircraft or weather balloon as part of the a coverup of aliens? If an incident like Roswell did indeed involve an alien spacecraft whose existence was later covered-up by the U.S. goverment then it would be wrong to say that the object in such a case has been identified since the identification would be false. --Cab88 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers factual to hypothetical. If anyone says (as many are wont to do) that the govt covered up an alien spacecraft at Roswell then they have clearly identified the object as an alien spacecraft, in which case it is not an UnidentifiedFO. Moriori 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

removed section - requesting reasoning.

*The army of [[Alexander the Great]] in 329 BC, as they were crossing a river into India, saw “two silver shields” in the sky that dove repeatedly on their military columns causing panic. When Alexander was besieging [[Tyre]] in [[Phoenicia]], another “flying shield” moving in triangular formation with smaller “shields” approached. Supposedly the larger object shot beams of light at the city shattering its walls and other defenses.<ref>Frank Edwards, ‘Stranger than Science’, Pan, London 1963, p. 198 (1st US edition: 1959) - See also [http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case491.htm]</ref><ref>Alberto Fenoglio, “Cronistoria su oggetti volanti del passato - Appunti per una clipeostoria”, ‘Clypeus’ #9, 1st Semester 1966, p. 7 - See also:[http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case491.htm]</ref> Alexander's army quickly took advantage of the situation and seized the city. The objects then departed.

That section was removed. I'd relay like to know why. It has three sources. You (whoever it was) called these three sources unreliable without actually providing reasoning. Please do so here. I'll put it back in the article in a few days otherwise. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It was User:Jefffire. It would probably be a good idea to actually ask him on his talk page. Moriori 21:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Bah... I guess so. ---J.S (t|c)
The sources are clearly unreliable. If this is a historical fact, then it should be easy to collect a reliable source, such as an authoritative website on Alexander. Websites such as "UFO evidence" as quite clearly not reliable sources. Jefffire 08:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
While I agree about the "UFO evidence" website, it wasn't the only source used. It's infact one of 3. What about "Frank Edwards, ‘Stranger than Science’, Pan, London 1963, p. 198 (1st US edition: 1959)"? Or "Cronistoria su oggetti volanti del passato - Appunti per una clipeostoria" I don't actualy speak the language so I can't realy judge it.
When Jefffire first deleted it, I tried to verify it. It turns out that the Frank Edwards book was not the original source. Everything in 'Stranger than Science' was reprinted from Fate magazine. I cannot locate the Fate magazine article to further research it, to see if it is indeed verifiable. Mapetite526 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That would make Stranger than Science’ an unaceptable source then. "Fate" would need to be the source... if we can somehow verify it realy exists. ---J.S (t|c) 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Fate magazine does exist. But I would not necessarily call it a reliable source. To make their article a reliable source for this instance, would they not have to refer to an ancient text?Mapetite526 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This is where we get into the diffrence between reliable secondary and reliable primary sources... and consiter the context of what were talking about... ---J.S (t|c) 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
True enough, if the first reference we can find to the event comes from a source several hundred years after the event, how can we know that they are not making it up? If it were an actual event, there should be older sources than Fate magazine. Mapetite526 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the Alexander the Great section (again?) There are several things wrong with this paragraph. First, the sources it sites are not primary and are grossly unreliable. "Stranger than Science", as was pointed out, cited an unknown "Fate" Magazine, which in turn has no reference. (Indeed, it may not even exist.) This critique applies to all the "historical instances" that cite "Stranger than Science." In addition to the poor citation, however, the Alexander paragraph has a further flaw in that none of the primary sources from ancient accounts on the seige of Tyre speak anything of flying objects that destroyed Tyre's walls with beams of light. In fact, this historical event is well documented, with the means and type of seige engine used by Alexander explained in great detail.
For further reading on the seige, I refer you to the only real primary source on the subject by Flavius Arrianus. Further reading can be done at http://cedarland.org/tyre.html

Djma12 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cross population

Anybody who believes that they are up to the task is invited to expand the Alien/UFO section on the Cattle mutilation page (about people who believe that one causes the other), as it is far too short and contains very little information. Beware, one of the users is really cranky about citation being WP:RS and will probably object to anything that mentions Linda Moulton Howe or laser surgery on cows.

perfectblue 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture Captions and Weasel Words

It seems to me the captions on several of these photos are kind of wishy-washy and weasely. For instance, the UFO picture from the 1870s; the caption describes it as an "alledged UFO", but that's incorrect - the picture is of a UFO. However, UFO is Unidentified Flying Object, NOT alien spacecraft. Unless there is some identification of the object, then it is definitely a picture of a UFO. It could be an alleged picture of a UFO, i.e. the veracity of the question is in question, or it could be a picture of an alleged alien spacecraft, but if the picture is known to be authentic then it should be labelled as a picture of a UFO, as a UFO is by definition an unidentified flying object. Sticking alledged on everything is silly; it should only be used where appropriate and I'd argue this is just weaseling. I'm as skeptical as the next person, but all the allegedlys are silly and pointless. Out of curiousity, ARE there any explanations for that 1870s picture? That's something I've never seen before and would like to know more about, as it obviously isn't a weather baloon and predates aircraft by 30 years. Titanium Dragon 14:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you about the "alleged UFO" phrasing. As such, I have removed the word "alleged" in all cases except for the one about messages from aliens. They are UFOs by definition until they are identified as something else (including fraud). Mapetite526 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is no proof that those are photographs of any kind of flying object, identified or otherwise. They are alledgedly photographs of flying objects but they may be photographs of something else or created in a darkroom. –Shoaler (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm for leaving "alleged". Why? Because the fact that these items are unidentified is "alleged". If the photos are faked then they are not unidientified. *shrug* You could take it out and it wouldn't be much of a loss to call it a UFO (since we don't know what it is, in one sense even if it's a fake it's still unidentified as such.) ---J.S (t|c) 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, what I am saying is that they are UFOs by definition until they are identified as something, until they are either identified or proven as fake. Mapetite526 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I kinda convinced myself of both sides of the argument. ---J.S (t|c) 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is a weasel word, so maybe that is enough reason to avoid it? Mapetite526 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, but it's not truly a "weasel word" under the examples given in the "Avoid weasel words" guidelines. That aside, I think I'm OK with it being left in or taken out. Due to recent media usage of the word "alleged" it tends to have extra emotional weight attached to it. ---J.S (t|c) 19:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Does "alleged" add any value to the sentence? ---J.S (t|c) 05:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it confirms the integrity of Wikipedia. If you want to leave out "alleged" then you must provide evidence that (1) it is a genuine photograph, and (2) the photo was not faked. Blogs and pro-paranormal websites are not really good sources. Moriori 07:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Suddenly "the integrity of Wikipedia." hangs in the balance? Does that also imply that opposing the including of the word "alleged" is tantamount to an assault on wikipedia? I'd appreciate it if you didn't bring melodrama into a discussions like this.
I dislike the word "alleged" and I think the same meaning can be imparted using different language. "A photo of a purported UFO" - it means the same thing without the extra baggage. ---J.S (t|c) 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It went right over your head JS. "Alleged" v. "purported'" is not an issue, but as you like '"purported" that's fine. The issue is whether it is a purported photograph or a photograph of a purported X. There is no evidence cited to establish they are actually authentic photographs. Photos have always easily been faked in the darkroom or using models, the Cottingley Fairies for example. We know the Cottingley were authentic photos, but their subjects a hoax which fooled many intelligent people. In our article, we don't know whether the images are authentic photos, so they are purported to be such. Therefore they are purported photographs of X, rather than photos of purported X. See the distinction? I have altered the captions to reflect it. Moriori 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request that you don't talk down to me. "It went right over your head JS." is fairly incivil and is boardering on insulting. ---J.S (t|c) 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Interpretation, JS. You think I talked down to you. I didn't mean to, and don't. "You missed the point JS" would have been better so I gladly strike out the words which upset you. Cheers. Moriori 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New England Skeptical Society Link: "UFO's: The Psychocultural Hypothesis"

Is this this link good? Its a pretty good skeptical article from a well known skeptic. This would make a nice addition to the external links list.--131.104.138.61 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Who removes links? UFO.ORG has been deleted Why?

I think its pretty poor that my external link to www.ufo.org can be removed with any reference back to myself.

Obviously people are trying to increase their search rankings by deleting other peoples domains.

both www.ufo.org and www.ufo.net should be on the external links, both have chat boards specially for UFO.

Chat boards don't make the link "worthy" of inclusion in the article. Read for WP:EL for guidelines on what websites should/shouldn't be included.
ufo.org looks a little thin for content. Looks like a dozen articles and that's it. Oh, and that forum has 30 members and 60 posts. Not really an important contribution to UFO research (yet).
ufo.net looks like 8 articles and a forum with 116 posts.
Both sites to me look basically like personal websites with very little content. I may have missed something... and I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong, but as I see it now they don't really add much to the article for being included. ---J.S (t|c) 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


WTF... Why would you delete a link based on your opinion, you must discuss it first because millions of people will look at this article! Mostly alien freaks. anyways. --[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, but they look like they add nothing to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: not a link directory. ---J.S (t|c) 01:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Better Schmetter!

That one guy needs to stop disapproving of people with UFO theories they want to share here.He's just jealous beause we have brains.We are only expanding the amount of info wikipedia holds.Stop ranting about making the artical better,because some of the ideas you discourage could make this artical much better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

better???? This kind of "Information" just adds to dispensable content of lunatic fringe! In fact, the whole article is way off the real McCoy and bristles with POV.

whatever

whatever,it's obvious to me you're just some idiot with no real POV of this artical.


Calm down people...and remember the rules of wikipedia. Your own personal stories can't be included because of the no original research rules. ---J.S (t|c) 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

UFO or "alien airplane"?

Someone please tell me the difference between UFOs. UFOs must mean you see something flying in the air that you don't know what it is. But why am i so confused about UFOs being an "alien airplane"? someone help me not get confused please.

--[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

UFO's Real or Not?

i have made an article that the admin here says its similar to this one. i just would like to ask for u guys to read it and if u agree with him, i'll let him delete it. if you think not ro that there needs changes to the article feel free to ask and i will allow the changes Tu-49 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Article in question is here: User:Tu-49/UFOs real or not? ---J.S (t|c) 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

UFOs are real there is huge evedence to support it, first of all they are not made by the USA government but are sometimes test flighted in area 51. Proofe of UFOS exist with old paintings made hundred years ago. The most accurte painting of a UFO space craft that i have seen is "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino painting, painted in 15 centuary before the evention of flight craft. The website of this picture is on http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art.shtml --Marbus2 5 11:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)