Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Hopefully helpful thoughts

I don't know if this will be helpful but I hope so.

The Rational Skepticism article in Wikipedia includes at the end of the 'Characteristics' section:

"By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise."

The link from that paragraph to the Wikipedia article on evidence includes at the end of the 'Evidence in science' section

"The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence: nonetheless even anecdotal evidence is enough to reject a theory incompatible with that evidence, if there are sufficient repeated examples."

QuietReader (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Revising UFO article

Here is my proposal for revising and rebuilding the article, UFO.

I. Introduction.

   Tell what UFO is and what its about.

II. History of UFO

   Blue Book, Grudge, the Hills other history. 

III. Theories on what UFO are.

    A. The Pro-UFO side
    B. The Skeptics Side
    C. Any other theories and ideals on what UFO may or may not be.
    D. Other Views on UFO
    E. The Religion Angle on UFO
    F. NASA Government Law Enforcement view on UFO

IV. Sightings

    A. Famous Sightings
    B. Citizens Sightings
    C. Astronomer, NASA, Government, Law Enforcement sighting
    D. Trucker, Ship Crew, Etc Sightings.
    E. Abductions
    F. Other

V. Conclusion.

VI Sources and Web links.

Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

History could be broken down as thus:

 A UFO History before 1800AD
 B UFO History 1800-1900 AD
   1. Era of the mysterious Airships.
   2. Aurora "Incident"
 C UFO History 1900-2000
 D. UFO History since 2000

Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your version gives proper weight to the fact that UFOs are not generally considered to be mysteries needing detailed explanation. In fact, your version is decidedly in violation of WP:FRINGE policies and I believe will not be able to conform to such policies as WP:REDFLAG. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just a simple outline. All views are represented. It is an 'OPINION' that UFOs are not considered mysterious. Need I remind you that this article is under review. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is mainstream opinion and therefore that opinion gets the most weight. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No its not. Who's opinion? Skeptics? Magnum Serpentine (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What is "The Pro-UFO side"? Why this rush to depict the investigation of unidentified flying objects as largely a debate between "pros" and "skeptics" with equal weight apparently to be given to both (arbitrarily divided) sets of opinion? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] SA is right. We go by mainstream opinion. Nothing has ever been demonstrated to be out of the ordinary with UFOs, so that's the tact we need to take. Of course, we also need to cover the cultural & historical side of things, but not to present the ETH as a reasonable possibility, any more than we present the Flat Earth hypothesis as a reasonable possibility. kwami (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If UFO were not a mystery, they would not be unidentified thus the Skeptics would be successful at removing them. Yet even Blue Book said there were cases that were unknown. It is not true that eventually every sighting would be classified as Identified. Unless you consider that we would discover that they are Alien in nature. Your argument is designed to remove the paranormal from UFO and claim that no one has seen an Unidentified object. I have checked and no where in the Public Mainstream have they stated that UFO is not a mystery. Only in the realm of the Skeptic are they not a mystery. We are at an impasse. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the outline on UFO as a good start to re-building the article. Yet the Skeptics say it is nothing close to "Their" View on UFO. The Article allowed for both Skeptic and Believer viewpoints as well as other viewpoints. I guess their rejection is because they feel that their Skeptical Viewpoint is the ONLY viewpoint permissible. Its funny that I proposed this outline and even it is attacked. The Outline is very broad and inclusive and does not favor sides. But because it allows the Paranormal side to state their opinion, the Skeptics attack it as Fringe. What do you want Skeptics? A clone article from the Skeptical Inquirer? Thats the way it looks to me. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what others are saying about your proposal, Magnum Serpentine.

The story your outline seems to be designed to tell is one of an unsettled controversy over whether or not unknown aerial phenomena are due to spacecraft from another world, transdimensional travel, time travel, or various hypothetical paranormal agencies, and the way it is designed to tell the story is to pit so-called "skeptical" opinion against those who believe in one or more of those hypotheses on an equal footing, irrespective of the strength of the evidence.

That story and that method of telling it is, I freely concede, a popular one in UFO circles--usually with a bit of conspiracy theory added. But that isn't the way we do things on Wikipedia.

The story we have to tell must cover the facts as they are, not as we would like them to be. In over six decades of investigation, for much of that time involving the efforts of government agencies, we have found no evidence to link any of the unidentified phenomena with the extraterrestrial hypothesis. There is no well attested evidence of contact with aliens, there are no physical remnants of alien technology, there are no alien skeletons or other biological evidence. Even when we look for photographic evidence, it's quite difficult to find anything that doesn't look like aircraft lights or (at worst) poor fakes made from hubcaps or photoshop.

In short, it's very easy to reach into the UFO files and pull out anything from blatant fakery to self-deception, but it seems rather difficult to demonstrate anything that seems likely to vindicate the hypothesis that whatever of these aerial events that cannot be fully explained must be due to the actions of alien craft, time travelers or what-have-you. Simultaneously we do know that there are aspects of radar refraction, atmospheric optics and the like of which we have imperfect knowledge. An example of this is the famous "earthquake lights" [1], once mysterious and elusive, now captured on film and acknowledged by the seismologists, even if a satisfactory explanation of the precise mechanism has not yet been found. But this shows that investigation of aerial phenomena has successfully procured well accepted evidence of earthquake lights, while any such evidence pointing to extraterrestrials is lacking. Needless to say there is no shortage of believers in the "people from somewhere else" hypotheses actively searching for concrete evidence; that no serious evidence has been found in six decades is quite remarkable, if not actually conclusive.

I know a lot of people are still attracted to the exteraterrestrial hypothesis and similar hypotheses, and certainly we should write about ufology and the popularity of flying saucer stories. However we should not give a false impression. We should not give the reader the impression that such belief is justified by supporting evidence, or that there remains a legitimate and ongoing debate over the strength of the evidence. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, AoaNLA, on a sober and well-worded assessment which I am happy to endorse. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nicely written. kwami (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets take a look at what I am saying in my outline.

I. Introduction. This tells what the UFO is, its an Unidentified device that seems to fly on its own power be that beating wings or Warp Drive. It is unidentified because we do not know what kind of machine or animal or energy source it is. Let alone where it comes from.

II. History. This is rather self explanatory. Would talk about the long history of Unknown flying Machines or Animals.

III Theory. There are a lot of ideals what the Unknown Flying Object is. The Skeptics say its Mass hysteria. The UFO Believers say they are from another planet. Others not related to Skeptics or Believers might say they are Natural occurring objects like Earthquake Lights, Or meteors falling into the atmosphere. Some Biologist might say they are an unknown natural life form like a bat or bird never seen before. The Military might say they are our black box projects, a new type of Fighter or even new type or space craft.

IV. The Sightings would just give first, famous sightings, then common everyday sightings with no explanation. More like a list or example. To get a good sample sightings from across the board would be listed

V. Conclusions would be just that a conclusion. As of now, not all Unknown Flying machines are identified. If the Air Force does indeed have an type of aircraft like Aurora they are not saying and thus if anyone actually saw this craft they would not know what it was because the Air Force refuses to say.

Thats a general summary of what I was trying to do. I am sure that even this will be attacked. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I quote: " its an Unidentified device that seems to fly on its own power be that beating wings or Warp Drive. It is unidentified because we do not know what kind of machine or animal or energy source it is. Let alone where it comes from." Far too many assumptions here. No wonder you are confused. Skeptic2 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. I have a few problems with your proposal, Magnum:

1. You have a very biased view of what a skeptic is. Most of your explanations are common among UFO skeptics: military craft, natural phenomena like earthquake lights, meteors, as well as mass hysteria (the Commies are poisoning our drinking water kind of stuff) and, let's not forget, a large number of pranks and demonstrable hoaxes. That's all skeptical. The one exception is new animals: If we can't tell whether a blurry image is a spacecraft or a bat, how in the world are we going to ascertain that it's a species of bat that's new to science?
2. We're never going to identify all UFOs any more than we're ever going to find all of our lost socks. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to things (or people, for that matter) which they cannot identify, and the photos are all so blurry they're almost useless. To take that to mean they might really be ET is no more founded on logical deduction from the evidence than it is to claim that my socks are falling through a dimensional rift in my drier, simply because, no matter how many socks I eventually find under the drier, or behind the drier, or caught in the hamper, or in the back seat of my car, there are always those few others that remain *unexplained*.
3. And finally, as Anticipation so elegantly put it, crackpot vs. reasonable simply do not get equal time in an encyclopedia. kwami (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I am being rail roaded. I cannot put this any plainer than I have. I get the feeling you all ignored my references and explanations. I realize the skeptics want to white wash UFO and call it Crackpot etc. But I will make sure this becomes a neutral article neither influenced by Skeptics or Believers but by all people. Thinking we were getting somewhere with a more detailed explanation, I now see we are back at an immovable ImpasseMagnum Serpentine (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you have put it plainly. Thank you for that. The problem is that it simply isn't encyclopedic. It's like the ID debate. An article on Creationism is fine. But contrasting Intelligent Design and natural selection as if they were equally valid is not, at least not until someone falsifies natural selection or demonstrates ID. It's the same thing here: If we ever get any real evidence for UFOs, our approach to this article will change completely. (And there are a lot of skeptics who would love to meet beings from another world!) But until that happens, it no more deserves equal footing with commonplace explanations than any number of other undemonstrable beliefs. kwami (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, I think you're missing the main point here. the concept of UFOs is only notable because of speculations about unknown objects and other-worldly entities. if everyone's response to seeing an unknown object in the sky was "must be some bird or something", then there wouldn't even be a need for a wikipedia page on the subject, because nobody would care. this isn't the same as trying to compare IntDes to evolution; it's more like trying to fill an article about the Greek Gods with expert opinions that they never really existed - what's the point in that? Since the "crackpot" opinion is the only opinion that makes this article notable, it would seem that this article ought to give the crackpot opinion a decent amount of play. Magnum's outline seems fine for a start, though of course it will need balancing as its filled out. what specifically in it are you objecting to?

please keep in mind that it is not wikipedia's purpose to accept or refute the actual existence of UFO's; it's not even wikipedia's place to have an opinion on the matter. right? --Ludwigs2 07:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We do, however, need to reflect the knowledge of the field. We present quarks as fundamental building blocks of nature not because it's our job to prove it (I myself don't buy it; I think the evidence for them is lousy), but because they're the state of the field. Magnum's outline could lead to a very nice article. What I worry about, from his wording and presentation, is that it will be an attempt to present ETH etc. as an "equally valid" hypotheses. No-one bothers to refute the Greek gods because no-one believes in them, and no Aesopian fundamentalist editor is attempting to present Mount Olympus as a serious hypothesis for the nature of the universe. People do believe in UFOs, however, and some do try to present them as a serious hypothesis, rather than as an interesting cultural phenomenon. "Not taking sides", "giving equal time", etc. *is* taking sides: It's arguing that ETH (or whatever) is as serious a contender for the nature of our world as any of the mainstream scientific approaches. It's not, and it's not our job to try to make it one. kwami (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"equally valid" to what? to the theories of eternal skeptics who attribute everything to swamp gas and the planet venus? you're forgetting that the mainstream scientific community looks at those few valid cases where flying objects cannot effectively be identified and say they are - hey - unidentified! they have no theory about such objects, because they have insufficient grounds to make a theory either way. this isn't a case ETH is opposed to some determinate scientific theory that says UFOs are demonstrably this. remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I feel like there's a confusion here, as though you think a Wikipedia article giving a neutral discussion about the fact that some people believe in extra-terrestrials is tantamount to a public endorsement of the theory that ETs exist, and that you have to fight against that. no. an encyclopedia has to assume that its readers are sophisticated enough to distinguish fact from fantasy on their own; it's job, then, is to provide them with unbiased information on which they can make such distinctions. if some editor gets out of hand and starts over-presenting the ETH theory, it's easy enough to correct (there are plenty of sources out there arguing against it on logical grounds). but it's much much harder to correct an imbalance that's caused by over-restricting the concept to begin with. treat it like a bonzai tree - give it a change, let it grow, and then trim it as you need to pull it into shape. --Ludwigs2 09:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying we shouldn't point out that UFOs are associated with the belief in ET visitations. What people are saying is that the mainstream explanations for these beliefs including mass hysteria, conspiracy theory fanaticism, and wishful thinking should be explained as the primary explanations. Since no one in the academic community takes seriously the idea that we're being visited by ETs, Wikipedia shouldn't either. That's the best way to write an unbiased article. The article has been given free reign for years now. It's time to prune. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By saying this SA, you ignore the comments made by mediator below. Wikipedia is not a Scientific Journal. It is a Experience that can be edited by all citizens on this planet. Please take time to study the mediators comments below. They are very enlightening. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to your claim that no one in Academia takes seriously various ideals including visitation by Aliens etc. You do not know this. A Majority might but not all. Some Astronomers are trying to listen for Signals of unknown origin through SETI. This research, if such a signal were discovered, would clearly state that those who are working on SETI, when such signal were found, would believe in Aliens and the Ideal that signals are artificial also leads to the statement that Aliens might be out there. This clearly goes against your statement that No one in the Academic community takes seriously this issue. Some may say there is strong evidence that aliens did not visit but they do not out right say it never happened. I know a few professors who are willing to listen to people and make good faith efforts to figure out what is going on. A few Psychologist believe people are experiencing something when they are so-called abducted, This includes from actually being abducted to experiencing a medical condition. No Scientist I know would out right call anything rubbish until they examine it. Because to make a judgment on an issue before even researching the case is indeed Rubbish.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnum, SETI has nothing to do with UFOs. Sure, plenty of scientists think (or hope) that our galaxy may have other civilizations. But that doesn't mean that an unexplained light in the sky is a visitor from one of those civilizations, absent all evidence. And psychopaths thinking they've been abducted again doesn't mean we're being visited. Most of us believe in dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean an unexplained object moving in a lake is a dinosaur. And some of us experience hot flashes, but that doesn't mean spontaneous combustion is real. The evidence needs to support the hypothesis at hand, not some tangential subject. kwami (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SA: the problem with your comment is that the explanations you point out - mass hysteria, conspiracy theory fanaticism, and wishful thinking - are themselves dangerously fringe theories. there are few if any psychological approaches that give cogent explanations of "mass hysteria" - it is clearly a pseudoscientific construct - and fanaticism and wishful thinking don't even rise to the level of scientific statements; they are merely attempts to dismiss the question without thought or comment. I don't think you can justify them as mainstream scientific explanations. --Ludwigs2 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwig that many non-ETH hypotheses raised to explain UFOs are themselves pretty far-fetched. It's for this reason in part that I wrote a section somewhere above this one about the "hypotheses" section. We do need to be very cautious about presenting possible explanations for UFOs. Many readers may well come to this article with the idea that somehow there is a debate of the form "UFOs are X, therefore they can't be aliens", which isn't really a true representation at all. It's more like:

UFOs are diverse phenomena about which little is known. While most reports contain insufficient information to make any determination, and most of the well documented reports are eventually resolved satisfactorily (see Identified Flying Object), a small number of well documented cases remain unsolved. Various hypotheses have been raised, of varying plausibility. No one hypothesis can possibly apply to such a diverse range of reported phenomena.

I think the use of the term "mass hysteria" is unhelpful in the context. It seems to be more about wishful thinking and ignorance. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, UFO mass hysteria was more a product of the Red Scare years of the 1950s. I do recall a more recent incident of mass hysteria, though in a different context: When it finally became acceptable to discuss child sexual abuse in the US, after decades of denial, people did get hysterical, and the McMartin preschool case, with its hundreds of parents who believed their children were abducted en masse into Satanic rituals in secret tunnels under the city, was just that--mass hysteria. (And the woman who started it all was a diagnosed schizophrenic who'd been molested by Jesus.) That kind of thing isn't going on any longer with UFOs, except maybe for the occasional schizophrenic. However, there are still a huge number of hoaxes and pranks. kwami (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, I am Atyndall and I have volunteered to help mediate the case that Magnum Serpentine (talk · contribs) opened at 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC) here. I have had a fairly good look at your discussion above and would like to make a few things clearer, WP:FRINGE states that all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominenceand that Therefore other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims . Meaning that if UFO sightings are discussed in reliable sources, then we can mention them. This also means that you can talk about UFO sightings, but because theories must contain representation in proportion to their prominence and prominence is determined by reliable sources, the focus of the article should focus on the theory that is covered by the most reliable sources, which I think is the "we can't explain them, but we're pretty sure they're not alien space-ships". Also, whoever is striking out people's comments should read WP:TALK, in italic text it says, very specifically Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission., so don't do it, it just annoys other editors.

Hi Atyndall. I thought striking out comments was polite, but I can delete them if you prefer. kwami (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do they need to be deleted/struck through in the first place?  Atyndall93 | talk  10:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They were sockpuppets of a user who's been banned for disruptive editing. kwami (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise that you were meant to strike sock comments? Isn't {{SPA}} more appropriate?  Atyndall93 | talk  02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about that template, but it wouldn't be appropriate to repeat it a dozen times. I wanted something to remove the clutter of the sockpuppetry, so that we could read the legitimate opposing views, without actually deleting the material. kwami (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To Magnum Serpentine: Would you be happy with a compromise on your structure, perhaps placing it under another heading like

Alternate theories

Extra-terrestrial origin

Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here

or

Popular theories

Extra-terrestrial origin

Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here

or perhaps branching your information into a new article covering the theory (its a very well known theory, so I think it could warrant its own article).

Also, could other users please express their opinions on this?  Atyndall93 | talk  11:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I sure would be very happy with your suggestions Atyndall. Thank you for helping with this. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed you were giving me a choice so I would go with popular theory because the public is very interested in UFO and in many polls they found that the Public thinks they are unknown. UFO is a valid topic in the Popular field so Popular would probably be best here. Alternately I would say use both and under Alternate theory put what some Scientist Law Enforcement, Government or Religious leaders views on UFO and under Popular Theory what the public thinks including Popular beliefs of those who believe in UFO.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I would agree to that. Really the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is a valid and respectable scientific hypothesis, although the evidence to support it isn't good. I think the popular perceptions of UFOs as being of extraterrestrial origin, which probably go back to the Arnold sighting and beyond, should be treated with separately from extraterrestrials as a scientific hypothesis to explain the otherwise unexplained sightings. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has seriously considered it on a scientific basis since the 50s, have they, since no evidence ever surfaced? And "Popular theories" implies it's a theory, which it is not. ETH is a hypothesis which was never substantiated, and which AFAIK has been abandoned as a working scientific model. (If it ever was that. It seems it was more a national security precaution than anything else.) "Popular conceptions", perhaps. kwami (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Kwamikagami has it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to this. You all need to watch Discovery Channel or History channel more often. (Better still, do like I did today and talk to your former professors. They say they are all for opening investigations but they fear for their jobs.) What I see here, is people using what knowledge we know at the moment to judge weather or not advanced civilizations (if any) could make it to Earth. What is not mentioned is that Advanced civilizations just might have a way of traveling across vast distances. We just do not understand how they do it or do we comprehend how they do it. Its like a Solider from the 1500's seeing a Modern Day Solider take a bullet and then stand back up as if nothing happened. He does not understand Bullet proof vest Or how such a thin material could save a life. When I saw this statement up above, "And psychopaths thinking they've been abducted again doesn't mean we're being visited" I became rather angry. Now it seems anyone who feels they have seen aliens are insane. I can assure you that normal working people feel they saw aliens and they are not insane. They honestly feel they saw Aliens and were abducted. Remember some Psychologist are willing to help and work with them to understand what happened. Calling honest people who feel they were abducted insane is not right. This is just about the last straw. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The day Wikipedia sources its science from The Discovery Channel, there will be considerable demand for snow hats with holes for horns to poke through. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to make fun of the situation. I just used the channel as one example. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnum, you aren't understanding the point of Wikipedia. It's a mainstream publication. It parrots back the mainstream understanding of stuff. It's stuffy, boring, unimaginative, and stifles free-thought. It's arrogant and thinks that it has all the answers. We all know the problems with such publications, but nevertheless, that's what Wikipedia is. Our job is to write an article that explains what experts in the field think of a subject. For our intents and purposes, the experts in this field are those intellectuals like Sagan or Plait who have both the credentials and the imprimatur of their respective communities to discuss whether these ideas have any practical merit or not. I'm not going to debate whether those intellectuals are right or wrong. That's immaterial (see WP:V). The fact is that we are going to write an article that explains to people why most intellectuals don't believe in UFOs, who the people are who do believe in UFOs, and what possible reasons there are for this. That's that. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are totally ignoring the mediator. We are going to write a neutral article that covers all view per what the mediator said. You cannot ignore the mediator. Go back up and read what the mediator said. As of now we are at an impasse. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the mediator would not want to force a compromise for which no consensus could be found. Let's continue to discuss the situation and not accuse one another of bad faith. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Magnum Srepentime 1000% due to its brilliant comments. I really feel that certain frontier scientific view are not being adequately represented this in thia artice and that the the best way to improve this article will be to adequately reference the mainstream scientific view as well as and in orer to in conjunction with the popular view as well as the views of research and design. Smith Jones (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnum, I'm not saying anyone who claims to have seen aliens is insane. However, some of them have turned out to be insane. The same with child abuse: I'd hardly claim that anyone who said they were abused is insane. It's easy enough to verify that many many children have been sexually abused, enough for the Catholic church to finally apologize. However, the woman who started the McMartin mass hysteria was insane, a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic. (I would not be at all surprised to learn that she had been badly abused, but I do doubt it was Jesus that did it.) Also, recovered memories, which have been used in many abuse as well as abduction claims, have been demonstrated to be completely unreliable. Unlike child abuse, what we are missing in alien abductions is any evidence that they ever took place. Absent evidence it would be irresponsible of us to present them here as potentially factual. As for the Discovery and History channels, they're infotainment, not science or history. They can't get basic uncontroversial information correct, and we should rely on them to analyze anything that is controversial? We need to rely on people like Sagan who actually have some standing in the field. If those people are wrong, and there really are aliens among us, hopefully some day we'll have the evidence to demonstrate it. Meanwhile, we're stuck with ignorance. kwami (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, we're talking in circles. We have two philosophical approaches here: All views should be given their due, and views should be given the relative weight that the sources support. As democratic as the former may sound, that's how a blog works; as an encyclopedia, it is the latter that forms the basis for Wikipedia. kwami (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, can you give a few examples of the "frontier scientific view" which you say is not adequately represented. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just discovered this discussion, so bare with me because I don't know all it's ins and outs just yet. However, I feel that the balance of non-scientific views is far to much as it is. Yes Wikipedia says we should represent as many views as possible, but it says that the amount of article time we devote to them should be proportional to its prominence. See WP:UNDUE. It also says on WP:PSCI that "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." It also says, "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I think we can agree that the UFOs as extraterrestrial is held by few (if any) scientists. It is therefore a minority view and can be termed pseudoscience. It follows the description given to astrology in that it is popular among those who aren't scientists but isn't in any way among scientists. These theories should get no more space at least on this page. In fact they get too much as can be seen by the size of sections based on sightings and conspiracies etc. The scientific viewpoint (apart from one sentence in the 1st paragraph) is consigned to the middle, where these scientists are denoted "skeptics". That to me is almost POV. Also, these "skeptics" theories aren't given any space to be talked about except on separate pages: that section has a list of extraterrestrial explanations and a list of "skeptics" explanations, which basically gives them equal time which as I have said, they do not deserve. Deamon138 (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a moderator helping work this article out. This is why we are discussing it. I have come up with a neutral outline which a few skeptics have attacked. I do not understand their attacks. Each section of the outline gives equal weight to all views. Take section III under the term Skeptical viewpoint, I do not limit them to how much info they can cram into that section or what they will say. I also give time for the Military to explain what they found out UFO is and also to general scientist and yes to even the believer. I believe, in sightings section, I give room for those in the Government to say what they say, law Enforcement, etc. I believe we maybe on a good article here. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "each section of the outline gives equal weight to all views" is exactly the point where we part company. It's not compatible with the neutral point of view (particularly the section known as WP:UNDUE). Among informed commentators, the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is in the minority. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnum, your "skeptical viewpoint" is the mainstream/scientific viewpoint, whereas your "pro-UFO viewpoint" is the fringe viewpoint. If you don't understand why a fringe POV should not be given precedence over the mainstream accepted POV, then you evidently don't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, or at least you don't understand this encyclopedia. kwami (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

by frontier scientific view i mean the possiblity that these UFO phenomena are cause d by either extraterrerstrial aircraft rather than nodnsiclised goverment operaitons tor other assorted posisbilities. REgardless of the truth value of thise, many people do believe in extatetrisestrial tehcnology and intervention in our world and to ignore or devalue these populist views misses the point of WP:V as well as WP:NPA and WP:FACT, founding principles of WIkipedia. Smith Jones (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But that is precisely what those principles say! Fringe views get marginal treatment. They may be covered as social phenomena, but they should not be treated as equivalent to mainstream views. kwami (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RTHATS ALL I ASK that popular views be treated as if they exist in large numbers tarher than coughed on and suppressed as if this was some kind ofradical political viewpoint!!! Smith Jones (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But these views aren't popular in large numbers as you put it among the scientific community and shouldn't therefore be given equal weight. It is the scientists views that matter most on scientific issues as I mentioned above, see WP:PSCI. You're right they shouldn't be suppressed, but I don't think anyone here wants that. They should be mentioned but in no way should they get equal footing or equal space on this page. Deamon138 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as if Smith is asking for equal weight. Smith, of course we need to cover UFOlogist views. That's the only reason this subject deserves an article at all. People will come here asking what's up with all this UFO stuff, and we need to address those issues. But unlike what Magnum proposes, we need to address them from mainstream understanding. kwami (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) ok, I have to confess that I'm a little shocked by this conversation. let me point out something obvious: the word 'skepticism' has two very distinct meanings:

1. the popular sense, which rejects anything which cannot be confirmed.
2. the scientific sense, which prefers not to make assertions of any sort in the absence of evidence.

a scientist may not believe in the existence of earth-visiting ET's, but he is not going to reject the theory on scientific grounds because that would violate scientific skepticism. it is a GROSS misrepresentation to equate scientific skepticism with popular skepticism.

as I see it, this is a battle between two fringe groups - UFO believers on one hand, and hard-core skeptics on the other, with the scientific community cautiously averting its eyes and trying not to get involved in the squabble. therefore, equal weight should be given the the believers and the anti-believers, and scientific opinion should only enter into the matter as one side or the other uses or misuses scientific statements. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your contention that "hard-core skeptics" are "fringe" is simply an example of a common tactic for people to argue for equal time and bypass WP:WEIGHT. It has zero support from the community except for various editors who have obvious agendas in opposition to My lead statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to SA's comments, Ludwig, a scientist WILL reject an "earth-visiting ETs" theory because there is TOO MUCH evidence to the contrary. Rejecting it does not violate scientific scepticism. Do you seriously believe that there is no scientific evidence either way to determine whether there are "earth-visiting ETs" or not? However, I still am against the use of the word "skepticism" on this page for a different reason. That word can be fine when associated with more controversial scientific discussions, but there is nothing controversial about this in the scientific community, so it puts a POV spin on the scientific view thus demoting it. Deamon138 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NO my views are being once again unintentionally misrepsrenested. I DO NOT believe that this article should make the case that UFOs are of alien origain. my only desire is that the SOCIAL PHENOMENON that elieves in UFOs being aliens should be covereed in detail since it its the most common aspect of UFOs and the o nly reason why they aere even releveant in the popular mainstream culture. Science is also an improtant part but it should not be presented as the ONLY viewpoint regarding UFO phenomena even though it should be presented as the MOST WELL-SUPPORTED view. Also, scientific evidence that presents the alien UFO theory must also be admitted if it exists. Smith Jones (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

also, User:Deamon you mispelled the word 'scientific' so I altered it for you. please forgive me. Smith Jones (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You misspelled "misspelled" "mispelled". (No, I don't use LOL). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

i am very sory about that. Smith Jones (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Smith, are you the same person as Ludwig? kwami (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

stop being silly. of course im not, and if you dispute that you can get a checkuser done. i resent the implciations that i am a meatpuppet or a sockpoopet of any other user and I defy anyone who continues to make such wild accuasions regarding me. Smith Jones (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so. No, I'm not going to bother checking, I just wondered why you kept presenting yourself as that editor. When someone critiqued him, you got upset that you were being misrepresented. It didn't make much sense to me. kwami (talk)

User:Kwami you might be new here, but in wikiepdia we are all one community. an attack against one of our members is a attack aginst the integrity of the project and the purpose of our being as wel as the wellbeing of civility, human grace, and dignity as fellow editors on this project. i am glad that you have come to appreciate this and i understand your coenrns and why you were confused so that is why i have taaken so much of my work time to assist you in udnrstanding my motivations here. thank you for taking an interest and for understnaidng this. Smith Jones (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is getting more difficult to sit on the sidelines. Smith Jones, you are correct that scientific evidence of these alternative ideas must be included. However, by policy (quoted by the mediator), these sources must be reliable sources. These would include peer reviewed journals in the sciences. I can say with fair confidence, that you will spend a lifetime searching these journals and find nothing to support alternative viewpoints beyond the mainstream science. Please make sure that you consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources in regards to this because this is crucial to what the mediator is saying. Make sure that you understand this policy.

The contention now will be what constitutes a reliable source. The answer to this may not be to your liking.

Further, the weight given to each idea, as mentioned by the mediator, is not based on the gross number of people who believe in each idea. It is based on the content found in reliable sources. Again, this points to "What constitutes a reliable source."

User:Magnum Serpentine stated above Each section of the outline gives equal weight to all views. That is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and in what the mediator is suggesting. As I am reading more and more of the posts, I am more and more getting the impression that some of the editors here with a particular point of view are not very familiar with Wikipedia policy, and tend to get upset when others try and point out these policies. I tried to point this out earlier in this long conversation, and got nothing but complaints about not liking the name of the guidelines.

I may be guilty of WP:Crystal, but I would predict that there will be fairly reliable sources that report the observations of people who have made sightings, abductees, etc, however I am also guessing that there will be a lack of such sources that provide evidence in support of their causes. I am also going to predict that perusing any peer reviewed works in the sciences will show "no evidence", "likely conventional causes", or will poke holes in other explanations.

Further, I could not agree with User:Deamon138 more. A scientist may believe that there exist ETLs, however, in the absence of observation and evidence, they would never drape their opinions and personal ideas in scientific garb. It is one thing for a scientist to say "I believe X", and another to say "I believe that X is scientifically supportable in the absence of observation. To think otherwise is to have a misconception of how science works.

BTW .... someone might want to think about archiving part of this page soon .... LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138: it is an established principle of logic and scientific methodology that it is impossible to prove a negative statement. one cannot prove that alien beings have never visited the Earth, period, end of sentence. instead, one would have to examine the evidence of the positive theory (in this case, that alien beings have visited the Earth), refute that evidence, and then make the claim that there is insufficient reason to believe the positive theory because its evidence doesn't hold up. a scientist should never (logically speaking) say that there is sufficient reason to disbelieve... the problem in this case is that there is practically no evidence offered for the ETH by which to refute it, so as far as scientists are concerned it falls into the nebulous realm of (currently) unfalsifiable hypotheses. any scientist who goes so far as to say that ETH (or any other unfalsifiable hypothesis) is actually refuted has stepped so far outside the purview of scientific methodology that calling him or her a fringe theorist would be a kindness.

let's keep this argument in perspective. I'm not trying to claim that ETH is a valid scientific hypothesis (as I've said, it is currently unfalsifiable, which doesn't bode well for a theory). I am trying to point out that the only valid perspective on ETH that could be held by mainstream science is that it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and thus not correctly a scientific question, but rather a matter of personal belief. therefore the assertion that mainstream science rejects ETH is patently false. most scientist probably do reject ETH as a matter of personal belief, yes, but that's a different issue. what we have is (on one side) ETH people offering a positive theory with no evidence (which is unfalsifiable), and on the other side skeptics who make the claim that aliens have never visited the earth (which is impossible to prove). if this isn't a battle of fringe positions, I don't know what is. and all of this ignores the point that Smith Jones keeps making, which is that our only purpose is to discuss these issues, not validate or refute them.

SA: My contention that "hard-core skeptics" are "fringe" is logical inference based on a decent understanding of scientific methodology. your remaining assertions have no basis in evidence (or even in reality, as far as I can tell), and thus can only be interpreted as weak attempts at character attacks. I mean really... if your purpose is to insult me, please make an effort to do it correctly. ;-) --Ludwigs2 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

kwami: grow up. sheesh...

Hey, I'm not claiming you are the same person. But twice when someone argued with you, Smith got upset that he was being misrepresented. I thought that bizarre: Either he's confused, or he's implying that he's you.

I don't think that anyone is claiming ETH has been disproven. We can't prove that the Moon isn't made out of green cheese either—maybe we just haven't dug deep enough. Would you call someone editing the Moon article a "hard-core skeptic" for refusing to accept a section proposing the GCT (Green Cheese Theory) as a viable model? kwami (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - nice analogy. and the answer is no, because there is not a notable contingent of people in the world who actually believe the GCT (if there were, the Apollo astronauts would probably have packed fondue pots...). however, I would call someone a hard-core skeptic - or worse - if they argued that we can't mention the GCT as a culture-specific children's story (which is what it is) because it conflicts with current scientific theories about the composition of the moon. that's just ever-expanding, bottomless silliness. next thing you know we'd be slapping 'pseudoscience' tags on the story of Santa and his reindeer, and pushing scientific critiques of the efficacy of prayer into articles about religion, and eventually wikipedia itself would implode into a black hole of critical annihilation, sucking us all in behind it.

errr... pardon my hyperbole. :-) --Ludwigs2 06:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

LonelyBeacon: while I don't disagree with your comments entirely, I think it's a bizarre move to insist that 'peer reviewed journals in the sciences' are the only reliable sources here. as I've been trying to show, casting this as a scientific issue drastically misrepresents science. I'll go back to the basic points:

1. UFOs as a topic are only notable or interesting because of the public connotations of ETs
2. this article is about UFOs
3. therefore this article must in large part deal with the public connotations of ETs

this is not specifically a scientific issue, but rather a cultural one. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that people aren't portraying this as a cultural phenomenon. I agree with you completely that that's what it is. Where I object is when people start weasling the wording to suggest that it is a scientifically credible idea, by casting reasonable views as "hard-core skepticism". If this were just the green-cheese theory, then we wouldn't bother, because no-one would be confused by it. But people will come here who honestly don't know, and we need to address that side of things too. kwami (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

hey, I agree with you. I don't want this article to become a celebration of little green men any more than I want it to be a festival of shadowy men in black. I would be happy to have this article say that this is not a generally accepted scientific theory, or that it's a theory without evidence, so long as the criticisms are handled in a tasteful, non-overbearing manner. this is what neutrality means to me: represent the idea faithfully, point out the critiques and disagreements, and do your best not to let either side get the upper hand. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually said that there are reliable sources that can be used to support that people have made sightings, have made claims .... I think this is what you are calling "cultural phenomenon". All I claimed was that when it comes to presenting the "causes" ... that is are they ETs? Extradimensional? Secret Conventional aircraft?, etc, the scientific explanations (or statements of "there is no scientific evidence to support this") will have to come from reliable journals (that is: peer reviewed). I think it will be relatively easy to find sources which meet Wikipedia's reliability standards to come up with this (I could be wrong .... but I really think I am not). I think when it comes to searching for support in Wikipedia-defined reliable sources for any of these other viewpoints will be far more difficult. I acknowledge that there is a call from some editors to have "all viewpoints expressed". I am saying that it may be difficult to find reliable sources that can support anything beyond that there are people who hold these beliefs. I am pretty sure that in each case, there will be some scientific journals (or some such) that will permit adding the statement "There is no scientific evidence to support this". I am further concerned because, from where I am standing, there are some editors who interpret adding these statements as attacks, when they are not.

To address your misconception of the scientific method that you addressed to Deamon138: you are only partially right: If you asked me "prove aliens have never visited Earth". I could not. Properly, I would start with the proposition: "Aliens have visited Earth", and then go find evidence to support that. What SA et.al. have been saying: there will be no evidence found to support this. Sources that might support it very well may not meet WP:RS.

To counter, read Kwami's statements about the moon and green cheese. There is a Flat Earth Society -- people who genuinely believe that the Earth is flat. Check out Earth. I cannot prove that the isn't flat. Yet, that idea is rejected by science. There seems to be an attempt that in order for science to reject an idea, there must be evidence against it. That is not true. A lack of evidence, after attempts to search for it, also leads scientists to reject ideas. I urge you to read about Albert Abraham Michaelson and the Michelson–Morley experiment. This was an example of a scientist who thought as you did: his experiment kept failing (no evidence), but he would not reject his idea. He died before realizing that the reason there was no evidence was because his idea was wrong ... he should have rejected it. Ludwig said a scientist should never (logically speaking) say that there is sufficient reason to disbelieve... That is patently not true! That is in fact exactly how science works, and history is replete with examples. Let me go back to Kwami's green cheese example. I am understanding Ludwig that he is saying that it is wrong for scientists to disbelieve this?

There is another problem that Ludwig brings up: one would have to examine the evidence of the positive theory (in this case, that alien beings have visited the Earth), refute that evidence. What many of us are saying is that there is no evidence to refute -- no peer reviewed scientific journals have published any evidence to support this. I suggest that any sources that list evidence in support of this may not meet WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

which is exactly the point that I've been trying to raise! since there is no evidence, the topic can not really be judged to be a scientific question, and so using scientific sources as the only sources is highly suspect.

also, I have no problem with the Flat Earth people being excluded from the article about Earth. I would have a serious problem, however, with the Flat Earth people being excluded from the article about Flat Earth Theory. in the first case, they are a minor fringe opinion that can be safely excluded; in the second case they are the subject of the article. Please, if you want, keep the ETH out of pages about meteors, NASA, swamp gas, and astronomy, but ETH is very close to synonymous with UFOs, and can hardly be excluded or minimized in the article. --Ludwigs2 07:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

exactly. It baffles me tha people refuse to include even a discussion of UFO scientists. I mean, what ELSE could this article even cover? The scientific view should be the majority, I agree, but the phenomenon should be at least discussed form a cultural perspetive aor else there is no point!?!? Smith Jones (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What's a "UFO scientist"? Do you mean an actual scientist who's looked into UFO claims, or someone pretending to be scientific when presenting unscientific beliefs about UFOs? If the former, why do you think anyone would refuse? If the latter, it should be obvious. kwami (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

i mean what it looks like i mean. I mean persons with a SCINETIFIC BACKGROUND who study UFO PHEONomena from a SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE. I dont care what they say, as long as it is backed up by relialbles ources as approved of by the community conesnus and the policy as WP:RS. That is ALL. Smith Jones (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think anyone would object to that? Can you give an example of someone who has? kwami (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who says anyone objects? I wa wmerely laying out my position for the record. Smith Jones (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There seems to be many different ideas being suggested here, so to get a clear picture on everyone's ideas, could they swing by Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-16 Unidentified flying object/Proposals and place their proposal there, being very careful not to sign their posts and to follow the instructions carefully. After that, I would like to get people to say which of the proposals they would agree with, and I will try and help everyone compromise (still following the policy of course).  Atyndall93 | talk  11:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

i strongly fgavor proposal numero 1. The remaining proposals seem to be random and off-topic and they violate the rules of WP:STYLE for using another language (Spanish?) and using colored text that could be hard for some users. to read. Smith Jones (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2 seems fine. I do believe, however, that the important thing here is not the outline for the article, but agreeing on 'weight'. While policy, common sense, etc. etc. all dictate that the consensus, scientific view be given the lion's share, Smith Jones does have a point that people coming to the article will be looking for information re., well, little green/grey men and that whole bag of ideas.

I think the scientific view (90%+ are explained with reference to known phenomena, lets assumed they are all likewise explainable) should be given prevalance as the editorial viewpoint, being prevalent in the heading and given its says whenever relevant. The 'alien-view' should, however, be given its fair amount of space - there is little to UFO besides the culturally interesting beliefs in ETs; this does not mean that every ad hoc theory or claim that 'science guys are, like, suppressing our truth' should be included in any serious discussion (only referenced as part of a denial tactic).

(Atyndall - I can write this up as a proposal if you want, but it would not be exclusive with regards to any proposal re. structure/outline...) Lundse (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer, I agree with Lundse. Tempshill (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm... that does clear your viewpoint up for me. I am not, however convinced that equal weight to pro-alien vs. pro-IFO is the way to go - the latter has scientific consensus behind it. That said, the former is the culturally important one. I say it should be given a lot of weight (as in a lot of bytes in the article) and the scientific view should be given 'editorial weight' (as defining the viewpoint from which the article is written). Lundse (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with treating the UFO phenomenon as primarily cultural, and laying out the background of serious scientific work (or lack of the same). However I think we ought to take into account the fact that there already exist articles on the subject that tackle it from much the same viewpoint (Flying saucer is one good example). If we take this tack, it may make sense to merge this article and flying saucer into a single article primarily about the cultural phenomenon. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

i must say all this squabling on wikipedia is childish. you must treat every report, every piece of evidence, as an actual stated fact and decipher it from there. you may think what you want but i must say that very high officers and well respected people have told about their sightings on ufos. are those fake too? id beg to differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.185.26 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beam me up Paddy?

It is recorded in the Annals of Ulster, that in 749ad, “Ships with their crews were seen in the air above Cluain Moccu Nóis.” Clonmacnoise, County Offaly, Ireland. As stated in the plural, is this the first sighting of; “multiple UFO’s (space-ships)”, and especially the first sighting of; “multiple extra-terrestrial crews,” of these space-ships?Stephen2nd (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

UFO definition

I may have missed this in the article; but. The term UFO is usually misused, as many people equate the term with Alien spacecraft. This common mistake should be added. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, the term is misused here on the talk page, which suggests that it's particularly important to make this change. Tparameter (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Its because of the Ufologists. Talk of Hybrids and what not. Watch the History Channel's UFO hunters if you want some good laughs. Its a common misconception, I agree. The leap is made by if its unidentified, it can't be from this world (Because we've built everything on it). So if we, the great inventors on this planet don't know what it is, it can't be ours. 99% of the time though, I have to go with the swamp gas reflecting of Jupiter's moon. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk)

Lets just say you have to see this:

• http://www.dailygrail.com/features/jacques-vallee-messengers-of-deception —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.104.138 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

UFO hypotheses:

This section contrasts Proponents' with Skeptics' hypotheses. But I don't understand what they are "proponents" or "skeptics" of exactly. It seems like it's just someone's lists of "explanations I find reasonable" versus "explanations that seem like foil hatter territory to me".
Look at the two lists. The thing that they are proponents or skeptics of cannot be:

1. That some UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors (since the Proponents list includes the secret military technology hypothesis)
2. That it's an external, objective phenomenon (since both lists include many explanations that suggest this)
3. That they are physical vehicles (since the Proponents list includes the supernatural hypothesis)
4. That the phenomenon requires new science. (both lists include hypotheses that require new science)

So what justifies the division into the two lists?
In fact, the whole idea of the lists is flawed. Virtually everyone would agree that there are multiple explanations for the phenomenon (e.g. Even someone who believes aliens are among us would concede that many UFO sightings are of planets, stars or aircraft).--77.44.77.44 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation has become stale

Is mediation on this topic still required? as the mediation cabal template has been removed. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Human-made flying saucers

I came to this article by typing "flying saucers", hoping to find an article on the (completely identifiable) flying saucers that are currently being developed. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm referring to an actual experimental transportation machine being developed by a private company. Now, as "flying saucer" refers to this sort of machine specifically, and not necessarily to an "unidentified flying object", does this not warrant a separate Flying Saucer article? Sorry if there already is an article for this, and I just missed it; please disregard this, if that is the case. --Dark Green (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Daniela Giordano

In the "History" section I read "Art historian Daniela Giordano...". But Daniela Giordano is not an art historian. She is a journalist who writes about UFO and paranormal, as stated in the short biography accompanying the article about UFO and art: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/16589 She was the director of "UFO express" magazine and received a journalist prize from the "Found for UFO Research". In another biography I read the same things, and also that she began her career as a model and actress: http://www.fromnorthtosouth.com/aboutherIt/aboutIt.htm For this reason, I think it is necessary to correct the page in this way: "Journalist Daniela Giordano..." . It is important to say also that her web article about UFO and Art cited in the note is simply a collection of news found in various other books and web sites. The most known writer about Art&UFO is Matthew Hurley, who wrote The Alien Chronicles, and the two pictures in Daniela Giordano article come from the Hurley web site: http://www.ufoartwork.com/ (see Ufo Artwork A.D. page 3) --Milo Temesvar (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A UFO or AN UFO?

In the History of this page there is a debate about "a" or "an" before UFO. I made a google search and in "WordReference.com Language Forums" I found : "You don't use "a" before "hour" because the "h" is "hour" is always silent and so the word begins with a vowel sound (rather than just a vowel). Also, acronyms that begin with the letter U should be preceeded by "a" and not "an". This is because "u" is pronounced as "yu", so it's a consonant sound rather than a vowel sound. Examples: A UFO (OK) An UFO (NO) - A university (OK) An university (NO) - A unique person (OK) An unique person (NO) - " (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=270734)

Also: We say we saw a UFO because, although the abbreviation begins with a 'U," we pronounce the "U" as if it were spelled "yoo." http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm--Milo Temesvar (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is basically like we say "a yueffoh". If we pronounced the acronym as if it began with a "U", then it would be "an". Deamon138 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Here's one of those strange acronym cases...

"He saw a UFO last night."

"He saw an unidentified flying object last night."

(Newspaper) "He said that he 'saw [an unidentified flying object] last night' as he was working."

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{20:47, 5 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Agreed. It's only difficult when you get onto words like "hôtel" :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As english continues to evolve we won't have school teachers (like one I had ) who say we called into an hotel for a hot breakfast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.80.166 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection

Two things:

• Identified flying object should be merged here (now that the UFOlogist POV-pushers have been subdued).
• This form for the article should be undertaken:

I have tagged the article with appropriate tags and begun the task of thinking about how to best reorganize this article. I think the following organization scheme might be good:

1. History
2. Evidence (or lack thereof)
3. Explanations
   1. IFOs
   2. ETH/other hypotheses
   3. Of Truth and Theories (extraordinary claims, etc.)
4. Government reports
   1. US
   2. UK
   3. France
   4. Others
5. Ufology
   1. Prominent believers
   2. UFO categorization
   3. Fringe physics/reverse engineering
   4. Conspiracy theories
6. List of UFO sightings
7. Popular culture

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree that IFO should be merged here. The entry is already long enough and, as I noted some time ago, the IFO content would swamp the UFO content. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The swamping of content is a good thing. Most supposed UFOs are in fact what is discussed on the IFO page.

I support the merging of Identified flying object into this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also support a merger. When reading through the IFO article, I only get the idea that I am reading about UFOs with confirmed identities, vs. those whose identities which have not been confirmed yet. It seems that keeping them separate implies two separate types of objects (terrestrial and extraterrestrial) instead of terrestrial objects which are either identified or not yet identified. The article on Ufology can deal with the extraterrestrial or other such hypotheses in greater detail. Otherwise, this article and Ufology become virtually the same artice. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I now see that there is considerable overlap between the UFOlogy entry and the UFO entry, which I hadn't previously noticed. If the UFO entry becomes more like a potted version of Allan Hendry's excellent UFO Handbook I would be happy. Skeptic2 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping IFOs out of the article does give fringe ideas undue weight, IMO. I'd say either merge this article with the ET hypothesis, so that it's unabashedly about flying saucers, or include ex-UFOs, so that it's truly about UFOs and not some POV subset of them. It's proper for the majority of the cases in the article to be solved, because that gives a fair representation of reality. kwami (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2 things:

I object to the merge because there are quite a few books talking about IFO and not even mentioning UFO [2].

I oppose proposed structure of the article. More sense would make first having UFO section, and than IFO -- examples of UFO's that have become IFO's -- it matches more the reality -- UFO becomes IFO, not the opposite.

216.80.119.92 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial cases

What is the point of this section? Every UFO sighting is either deliberate attempt to spread hoax or misidentification of known objects. Is it possible to rename this section to "Special cases" or simply "Hoaxes" or something like that. What exactly the definition of controversy? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "Famous cases"? I think "Hoaxes" should be its own section. kwami (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it may also be renamed to "Well-known cases", but the use of the title "Controversial cases" is questionable since there is no definition of what a controversy is and why those particular incidents are "controversial". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If I believed in UFO's, hoaxes would be controversial, because at one time they would have supported my stance, and then appeared to not support my stance. You could include them in a section on "hoaxes", if that is what they have been confirmed to be, or they could be termed under a broader "famous cases" section ... of which there can be cases that were later identified, cases still to be identified, and cases that were hoaxes. Calling them "controversial" is POV. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will support renaming the section "famous cases", "well-known cases", "well-publicized cases" or something like that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone here read our article Controversy? Or the Wiktionary definition of controversial here? UFO reports clearly fit the Controversial definition as evidenced by the widely opposing opinions about them in Wiki's articles. Also, what do Famous cases or Special cases or Well-known cases suggest? The word "cases" suggests that reports actually exist, when they don't because they were hoaxed. Why not change the Controversial cases to Controversy, and remove the next subhead, Hoaxes?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

?Kaiwhakahaere, please consider carefully your words on this page, as noted by the gentle warning at the top. Suggesting that some people here do not know the definition of "controversey" is not the nicest way to enter a cnoversation. Second: the issue of controversey depends on your POV. Certainly, I think everyone agree that UFOs, as a topic, is controversial, because there are areas that are not universally agreed upon, but that would put the entire subject under that heading. AS it stands, the label "controversial" is currently being applied to hoaxes. That is not a neutral stance, as it implies hoaxes, aside from being lies, muddy the water of the acceptance of UFOs as extraterrestiral or some other non-supernatural phenomenon. I have simply advocated that there are notable cases that have come up historically that fit into one of three potential categories: objects which have been adequately exlpained (call these IFOs), objects which are not yet adequately exlpained, and hoaxes, which are lies perpetrated by people. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

?Wow.LonelyBeacon, you don't decide what words can be printed on this page. Read the question asked by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus in the first paragraph of this thread. It was "What exactly the definition of controversy?" That's what I answered. The issue of controversy does not depend on my POV, or yours. Did you not read Controversy or this Wiktionary definition? They determine what the word controversy means, and if you argue with them you demonstrate astonishing POV. Please consider your words carefully on this page. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, the theories associated with the subject like extraterrestrial hypothesis or supernatural phenomenon are rejected by mainstream scientists. It is generally accepted that UFOs are misidentification of knows objects/unknown natural phenomenon, there is nothing extraterrestrial etc. If there remains a separate section with the title "controversy", it will suggest hypothesis like extraterrestrials are behind UFO sightings are scientific phenomenon except these specific cases. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Objective?

What is the objective of this article? Will it make people who have seen these things, aliens look like kooks, nuts, assholes, crazy, full of shit? What will it take? Can't say "A UFO lands on the White House lawn" because that nearly happened in 1952. People have seen them and they are sick and tired of other people trying to make them out to be kooks, assholes, crazy - and some are arming themselves for possible rebellion should there be alien contact in any shape, form, etc. at all. Damn near had one in 1997. I am not being abusive at all. I am not a troll either. I have seen these people and some are police officers and military personnel. 65.173.105.133 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed here, I think... Skeptic2 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

UFO means Alien Space Craft to most people, not Unidentified Flying Object ?

When I first visited this wiki page, it was for the purpose of seeing what the mainstream view was on UFOs. I mean alien space craft not unidentified flying objects. While UFO may mean unidentified flying object to someone in the air line industry, to most people UFO means alien space craft. Maybe this page should just have two links on it, one to unidentified flying objects and another to alien space craft. Systemsplanet (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask skeptics of the ETH to consider the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation and then read this book http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf-flying-saucers-science. It amazes me that in a criminal trial the testimony of a police office can be used to put to someone to death without any physical evidence. But, when it comes to UFOs, it's not credible evidence. The absence of evidence (no UFO the White House lawn) is not evidence of absence. It's completely incorrect to state that there is no evidence. There is a mountain of physical evidence to support the ETH and one day it will be accepted as common knowledge. There is a disinformation campaign in the US because the gov't can't admit it cant defend against alien space craft.

Spend some time, researching these links before you decide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Disclosure_Project http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk

France Cometa Report http://www.ufocasebook.com/cometamain.html http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/

Brazil "By doing this very important step, Brazilian Air Force (FAB) has placed Brazil in a very short list of countries whose militaries acknowledge the Ufology as a serious activity and significative effort to fully understand the nature and origin of UFOs." http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_aj_gevaerd.htm

Please sign your statements. Powerzilla (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a Admin to find out who posted this material?! Powerzilla (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did not see your sig. I do apologise for the error. These things happen. Thanks. Powerzilla (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning

Is the beginning of the article OK? Right now it starts "Reports of unidentified aerial phenomena date back to ancient times, but modern reports and the first official investigations began during World War II with sightings of so-called foo fighters by Allied airplane crews..." I think it should start with a definition of UFO. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There was one but someone accidentally deleted it at the end of August. I have reinstated it. Thanks for the spot.Skeptic2 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is mediation still required?

The discussion here is not as active as it once once was, while I agree that the page could probably still use more work, does the discussion need a mediator to oversee it?

 Cdmajavatalk  21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob White and a thought

Hi, editors. Just reading this article. 1st - the reference to Bob White goes to nowhere - I would remove it but I don't want to get shot at ;<} Not to mention he has a piece of aluminum slag. 2nd, this article is twice too long, IMO, and reads like it's trying to convince people of the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft. I would think it should read, "This is what it means, these are some famous examples, out the door." Instead it's "Here's another example, and another, and another, how bout this one? With us yet? Believer?" I won't touch it, I'm no expert, but it's pretty bad.. IMO there's not a whole lot more to say than UFO means Unid. Flying Objects and some history. This is a chapter out of a UFO book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdon (talk • contribs)

Sig your statement. Helps us monitor a variety of things.Powerzilla (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict and damn ISP went down)What "UFO Book"? Powerzilla (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a figure of speech meaning that the article reads like a chapter from a book. I'm sure it's not an allegation of copyright violation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC) yes, a figure of speech only Jjdon (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case

Just in case someone thinks they can improve this article by selectively taking info from today's BBC story about documents released by the National Archives, make sure you consider this except from the BBC item as well, namely

'UFO expert and journalism lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, Dr David Clarke, said the documents would shed new light on relatively little-known sightings. He said some conspiracy theorists would already have decided that the release of the papers was a "whitewash". He added: "Because the subject is bedevilled by charlatans and lunatics, it is career suicide to have your name associated with UFOs, which is a real pity. "The National Archives are doing a fantastic job here. Everyone brings their own interpretation. "Now you can look at the actual primary material - the stuff coming into the MoD every day - and make your own mind up." '. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And of course someone calling themselves Smartse has tried just that, choosing a case which sounds remarkably like so many other misidentifications of bright fireballs. But maybe Smartse was trying to emphasize how easy it is to pick holes in even "official" UFO reports. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Discoidal"

The link from the word, "discoidal," goes to an article about the formation of eggs. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.52.58 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychology

Can the psychology quote be moved to the "skeptical section", since it calls what people have seen and experienced as being "mythological" and possibly offensive and insulting? I'm referring to the Jung quote. Powerzilla (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, damn fine job with the article. Powerzilla (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Related topic up for deletion

Would anyone care to comment on the AfD discussion regarding this related topic: List of alleged UFO-related entities ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MOD UFO investigations released.

Something few people here might be interested in reading and possibly including in this article, I don't have the time to go through all this information but thought people here might be interested.

Files released on UFO sightings (BBC News report)

MoD releases UFO sighting files (BBC News report)

Actual files released by MoD

PatrickC (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

UFO spotted in Sacremento, California

Does this warrant a article? This is similar to what happened in Chicago, only there are pixes of this thing available. See video link on the link shown here. Powerzilla (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just Sayin'

When it says ,"All studies agree that only a tiny percentage of reported UFOs are actual hoaxes." that can be somewhat misleading since it can be misinterpreted as that only a small percent were not 'real'.

Also, the history and the incidents maybe should be put in a seperate article since, say, some casual browser comes in and he's just pounded with information, if you know what I mean. So maybe there should be one article for looking and another for research. Just a suggestion. I know a splitting of a somewhat major article like 'Unidentified Flying Object' could be disastrous but it's just a suggestion.

And I hope "Another reason why people see UFO's is beacause they smoke weed and see stuff" is a joke ('cause that would be really sad..). Either way, someone should try to find a verification for it. It was most probally made by someone who didn't have much expierence with Wikipedia, you can tell, since whoever made it internal linked the whole thing. Maybe vandalism. 7h3 3L173 (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There will be a percentage of people who have experienced nothing and invent a story. There are others who really experience a UFO. This does not mean that there is a real object out there that corresponds to it. People experience ghosts but that does not mean an object outside of their head causes it. Hallucinations play a part in these "sightings" and I have often wondered if some people who report abduction problems have suffered childhood violation. Isnotwen (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

list of UFO sightings

I've been doing some work adding sources to the List of UFO sightings article and could use some help.Anarwan (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get why anyone could entertain the idea that aliens have visited us. In the first place, a distant civilisation would have to know we are here and since we have only been putting out radio waves for 100 years it's unlikely they've reached such a race. Second, even if this race had received our signals they would need extremely advanced technology to reach us. Would their environment sustain a race for sufficient time to reach that level? For example, on Earth, one day a meteorite will ensure we don't get too far advanced. They would also need generations of travel time - would they really be willing to travel such vast distances? Isnotwen (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Our scientists recently found distant planets in our galaxy that have water, a sign of our life forms. Aliens don't need radio waves to detect carbon life forms. Our technology is only 100 years old. There are planets in our galaxy that are 1 billion years older than us. Consider our technology in 1 billion years from now. We will likely be able to travel to distant galaxies, faster than light (eg by bending space to form a worm hole), and detect the presence of life on other worlds using billions of robotic probes we send out. Systemsplanet (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.108.150 (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)